“Crazy Wisdom” and the Risk of Abuse in Buddhist Groups and Yoga Schools
By Malcolm Johnson and Sue Jackson
A few days ago, the Telegraph reported on a religious group “Rigpa”, which promotes Tibetan Buddhist beliefs across a number of centres in various countries. The organisation is facing allegations of physical, emotional and sexual abuse by its founder and former spiritual leader, Sogyal Lakar or Sogyal Rinpoche as he is known in the Buddhist community. “Rinpoche” is an honorary title used in the Tibetan language and its literal meaning is "precious one". Rigpa means “knowledge”. Sogyal Rinpoche is also the author of the ‘best-selling’ book “The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying” which has been used as a reference within healthcare and care settings.
Rigpa commissioned a report, undertaken by a firm of solicitors, which records multiple allegations of abuse. It runs into some 50 page, and a full copy can be found at:-
The report contains various allegations of abuse, including the allegation that Sogyal Lakar physically abused various complainants by slapping them, punching them, kicking them and pulling their ears. One student was knocked unconscious, whilst monks and nuns were left bloodied and scarred.
In relation to sexual abuse, it has also been alleged that Sogyal Lakar used his role to gain access to young women and to coerce, intimidate and manipulate them into giving him sexual favours. The author of the report comments:-
“It was….striking how many similar accounts were provided by different witnesses spanning a considerable time period – it supports a conclusion that Sogyal Lakar has a particular modus operandi when it comes to securing sexual relationships with his students; particularly young women.”
The Rigpa report concluded that it was clear that a number of senior individuals within the management had been aware of serious concerns about the behaviour of Sogyal Lakar, at least since the mid-1990’s.
At the end of the report, there are a number of recommendations, the last of which is that Rigpa’s leadership should consider the extent to which it is obliged to report any of the matters set out in this report to law enforcement authorities (i.e. the police) or relevant regulators in each applicable jurisdiction. The Charity Commission is also involved.
Can adults be victims of religious organisations?
In a word – yes, of course. Modern legislation, namely the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 is aimed at protecting children and vulnerable persons, who are sometimes taken to be adults who are disabled in mind or body. However, experience shows that victims in this context, can include people without any kind of disability, who are well educated and perfectly cognisant of their legal rights.
Much has been written about the power of certain religious groups and what are popularly known as “cults” as well as their alleged “brainwashing” activities and “spiritual abuse”. Somehow or other, they and their charismatic elders are able to suspend a person’s rational thought processes as well as their ability to question what is happening. One way is to institute a campaign of emotional violence (although it can be physical and sexual as well), which takes away a person’s sense of their own self and their ability to protect themselves. There is a promised reward, which might be supernatural power or sometimes, simply power over others. The belief system is used as a cover or “reason” and in time the victim is wide open to abuse, often in plain sight of others, which then in turn reinforces the impression that this is “normal”. Everyone in the organisation is expected to turn a blind eye to the abuse, facilitate it and anyone who refuses or who speaks up, is instantly ejected.
Such groups can be very highly organised. They draw in a steady stream of income, use the free labour of their students and they can provide those at the top with a luxurious lifestyle, as well as an acute sense of power. Many are perfectly respectable in all their outward appearances. They have lawyers, accountants, insurers and above all, charitable status, which means taxation exemptions and thus more income.
Enlightenment can come at a very heavy price, which is not just financial. Typically absolute devotion to the “way” is required, and the penalty for disobedience is consignment to a teacher’s own version of hell. The Rigpa report mentions a recording of a “teaching” delivered by Sogyal Lakar to a witness. During this teaching, Sogyal can be clearly heard to state:
“It’s like each time I hit you, I want you also to remember that you’re closer to me, closer to me. And the harder I hit you, the deeper the connection. And if this breaks it means that all the barriers of communication are gone. But, however, frankly speaking I don’t want to resort to that”.
This kind of teaching is described in the report as “crazy wisdom” but to many survivors of abuse in a religious setting, it is horribly familiar. The Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and other Christian denominations are all able to offer up their own appalling examples of the way in which a belief system can be used to abuse and damage their own adherents.
The other weakness often found in religious organisations is their chronic inability to listen to and act on allegations. Effective safeguarding at its core means reporting justifiable concerns to the authorities. All too often, religious organisations will go to extreme lengths to conceal information from the authorities or they find a reason for silence conveniently based on their own belief system. One avoidance strategy is the “investigation” on the spot. This conveniently finds there is nothing to be done and nothing to report to the authorities. Another stratagem is simple “forgiveness”. This is why the calls for mandatory reporting of abuse are growing every greater, particularly in light of the findings in the Institutional Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and the writers believe that the argument for introducing the necessary legislation is now effectively won.
Sadly, this is not the only story about abuse in the Buddhist community to appear in the media. Earlier this year, the leader of the Shambhala Buddhist community, Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche announced that he was going to “step back from his administrative and teaching responsibilities” pending the investigation of allegations of sexual assault.
We also have the recent allegations emanating from former students of the Agama Yoga organisation. Once again this is an international organisation, with yoga schools in several countries. One of these centres is located on the Thai island of Koh Phangan, and was run by a guru, Swami Vivekananda Saraswati. Sixteen former pupils and staff reported recently to the Guardian newspaper that this school facilitated sexual assault, rape and misogynistic teachings. The school has now launched an independent inquiry and its reports on its website that it is co-operating fully with the police. That announcement can be found at:-
What will the authorities do?
In relation to criminal prosecution, there may well be a case to be prosecuted, depending on the jurisdiction where the abuse took place.
Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 allows the Crown Prosecution Service in to prosecute a UK national for committing abuse outside the UK, where that abuse would constitute an offence in the UK. In certain circumstances, this can be extended to someone who becomes resident in or a citizen of the UK after committing the offence.
However, criminal prosecutions in cases of abuse require a great deal of resource, something that the police and the CPS do not have these days. They also require co-operative witnesses, who are prepared to stand up in court and face their abuser, a chilling prospect for anyone who has been had to go through the court process as a victim of crime. Finally, there is a defence available to a Defendant, in sexual abuse cases. That defence is consent, and in the context of a religious setting designed and intended for adults, it is likely to be raised.
The 2003 Act does give some additional protection to older children where there is an abuse of trust, as well as people with learning difficulties or a mental disorder. There are also other offences, which can be committed against adults such as voyeurism and exposure, which may more difficult to defend.
In relation to other regulatory authorities, the Charity Commission can remove an organisation’s charitable status, which would be a highly effective way of dramatically reducing its finances and in effect putting it out of business. The Commission has made it very clear in recent years that they will expect organisations with safeguarding problems to launch an investigation, co-operate with the authorities and put right what they can before they are allowed to move on.
The Disclosure and Barring Service protects both children and “vulnerable adults” under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. However “vulnerable adults” are not defined by that Act, and it only deals only with “regulated activities” in relation to those adults, which are quite closely defined, for instance adult health care.
There’s also a question as to whether the Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies. At first sight, this Act does not appear to have been specifically written with the kind of “brainwashing” and “spiritual abuse” of vulnerable people in mind. Nonetheless it was written to protect people with mental health problems, particularly in situations where decisions of a financial nature need to be made on their behalf or with their co-operation.
Section 2(1) of this Act states :-
“For the purposes of this Act, a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”
Section 44 of the Act provides for an offence of ill treatment of neglect of a person without capacity. It’s not unknown for people with serious mental health problems to join religious groups and suffer a deterioration in that mental health. Such people can be very vulnerable to financial exploitation, quite apart from the kind of treatment mentioned in Section 44. Moreover, Schedule 3 of the Act provides that the protection of those without mental capacity is international in nature.
Can victims sue the organisation in the civil courts?
The law relating to the responsibility of a religious organisation for abuse committed by its senior members is remarkably developed. Very briefly, it is highly likely that a court would hold such an organisation directly liable for abuse committed by a senior member, for instance, an “elder”.
There are potential problems in relation to jurisdiction. Much may depend on the jurisdiction in which the organisation is based. In addition, the organisation could raise the defence of consent, although in truth, it is never one of the most attractive arguments to go before a court and the existence of a publicly available report on what went wrong, can be a powerful aid to any civil claim. There may also be limitation problems. Very briefly, for an adult, the time limit for bringing a direct claim for abuse causing personal injury is three years from the date of the abuse, and for a child, three years from the child’s 18th birthday. Courts in England and Wales have extended this time limit, mainly in cases of children who sue many years after reaching adulthood. In cases involving the abuse of adult in religious settings, it’s not clear how generous a court would be.
In addition, it might be possible to recover monies paid over to the organisation. Some require adherents to make over large sums of money, and undertake large amounts of work for free. This could conceivably be done on contractual grounds, either on the grounds of what is known as “undue influence”, “misrepresentation” or possibly even lack of capacity.
Damage
It’s clear from the dreadful tales told by survivors of abuse in religious settings that the damage done to them is serious and often irreversible. Some survivors of the more extreme religious cults say that it is the “brainwashing” that does the most damage. It should never be imagined that in some way, physical and emotional abuse is less serious than sexual abuse. There is a huge breach of trust here – because the student or disciple will expose the very fibre of their being to the abuser. They are – without doubt – vulnerable to abuse.
Malcolm Johnson and Sue Jackson have both been involved in cases involving abuse in religious settings. Malcolm Johnson is one of the authors of “Child Abuse Compensation Claims” published by Jordans.
No comments:
Post a Comment