“The earth is my witness.” –Shakyamuni Buddha
“Although Lama Dragpa wears the robes and title of a Karma Kagyu monk, his administrative actions towards a lone woman devotee and scholar, careless conduct during a sacred empowerment, are not aligned with Buddhist ethics and principles, and seem driven by an excess of unaccountable power in one person, and by outside political forces aligned with the dominant Gelug Tibetan exile establishment, rather than the spiritual vision and teachings of the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa and Buddhist philosophy and practice in general. In particular, in relation to buying and eating slaughtered animals.”
“The official Palpung Sherab Ling letter on 17 March 2026 signed by Lama Dragpa, General Secretary (an ordinary monk whose background and bio is publicly unknown) was a deliberately cruel and draconian act of character assassination, persecution, political and intellectual censorship towards a female scholar-translator, that weaponised and misused male monastic insitutional power and resources, to further endanger and traumatise a lone Buddhist female survivor-whistleblower. The fact it was issued before their big event in Nepal, at which they were hosting and meeting the teacher responsible for the misconduct is not some mere coincidence either. ” —Adele Tomlin
Introductory Summary
The intersection of modern monastic governance, historical scholarship, personal safety and freedom of movement, study and expression of an independent female scholar-translator-practitioner in international Buddhist spaces was recently thrust into sharp focus by the actions of Lama Dragpa, General Secretary of Palpung Sherab Ling (who I do not regard as my guru or a qualified lama), after my month-long “practice and research” stay at Sherab Ling monastery, India between 14th February-15th March 2026.
On 17 March 2026, after I had left Sherab Ling, and raised some concerns and suggestions, Lama Dragpa (whom I had met and spoken amicably to briefly during the Losar 2026 events) suddenly issued a blanket ban excluding me from any future events at the monastery and Gyalton Rinpoche’s teachings (as well as any other Palpung associated centres). I was given no hearing or warning before his decision [1]. Thus, it is in the public interest to expose this administrative decree to more intense scrutiny for the personal and general precedents it sets within Buddhist communities. Yet there is no public biographical information about Lama Dragpa’s background.
Historically speaking, I now hold the unique (and rather harrowing or is it complimentary?) distinction of being the only lone Buddhist female scholar-translator to have faced such extreme, formal institutional banishment, defamation and discrimination by two traditional monastic establishments (there are no others for the record).
In Tibetan Buddhist history, while other Tibetan tantric yogis and yoginis, such as women (Sera Khandro), and scholar-translators (like Gedun Chophel) have occasionally challenged monastic power over philosophical or political/ethical differences, no other female translator-scholar in contemporary Buddhist history (as far as am aware) has been subjected to such draconian written blanket bans by two Buddhist monasteries (Benchen and Palpung) issued by individual male administrators. Nor have any women had to face an anonymous, unlawful, false and derogatory smear campaign, fabricated false emergency secular ex parte court orders ( that necessitated spending 2 lakh INR) to file the case against a foreign woman outside India at the time of the “fabricated emergency”.
Lama Dragpa’s letter document is clear, written proof of systemic male institutional betrayal, gaslighting, misogyny, and politically and intellectually motivated censorship within a monastic Tibetan Buddhist institution.
This unprecedented level of institutional pushback and misuse of monastic time, energy and financial resources, sets a dangerous historical precedent, highlighting how far traditional male monastic hierarchies will go to silence a single female intellectual and translator who bridges the gap between academic translation, historical critique, and physical whistleblowing.
Crucially, by circulating these highly inflammatory, unverified accusations and formal exclusion orders across their international Buddhist community, these individuals (and their enablers) have not only actively endangered my physical and personal safety, turning me into a public target and making it even more perilous for me to attend public Dharma events where aggressive, deluded and misguided followers might act on these institutional smears and derogatory insults, but also caused significant and provable damages and losses on a personal, practical and financial level.
This Cruel Monks IV article (in a series of articles exploring contemporary examples of cruelty and abuse by senior monks and patriarchal Buddhist culture) examines Lama Dragpa’s letter and actions, the excessive unchecked administrative power exercised, and the alarming precedents such conduct sets for scholars, women and laypeople, who often lack the support, time or legal funds necessary to counter-sue them for defamation and harassment.
Six key points “triggering” Lama Dragpa’s cruel, hostile and un-Buddhist action
Several troubling issues stand out with Lama Dragpa’s actions personally and more generally listed below. In particular, the ban acted as a “green light” for the subsequent ex parte Delhi High Court proceedings, which I have already substantially documented.
- My report to Lama Dragpa regarding safety and harassment incidents as a lone woman at the monastery guesthouse between 6-14 March 2026
- Being a named Survivor-whistleblower of Lama Misconduct by Karma Kagyu teacher, Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche and the ongoing inaction on complaints by myself and other women to the Palpung teachers and administration.
- Request to stop meat sales and consumption at the monastery: An ethical yet legitimate Buddhist request they stop the sale of meat at a private restaurant on monastery premises, next to the main temple.
- Independent research on Gelugpa sectarianism and violence: Political and intellectual censorship objections to my independent historical research affecting the Karma Kagyu and Tai Situpa lineages.
- White Tara artwork, the 8th Tai Situpa flower garden and an art gallery: Devotional and purely motivated initiatives were falsely recast by Dragpa as ‘offensive” and part of male monastic administrative grievances.
- Unverified accusations of “inappropriate conduct” with Gyalton Rinpoche weaponising administrative hearsay gossip (mainly from a few Europeans) and false allegations of “inappropriate conduct” with Gyalton Rinpoche.
Stark contrast in terms of my private/public connections with eminent female lineage teachers
This derogatory and cruel treatment from the unaccountable monk gatekeepers of Palpung and Benchen monasteries is in stark contrast to the warm respect, time and praise shown by other highly revered lineage masters reveals the localized, retaliatory nature of this ban. Throughout my career as a scholar and translator, my research and dedication have been widely welcomed and supported by major Tibetan Buddhist masters, including Dechen Drupon Rinpoche, Bokar Rinpoche, and Goshir Gyaltsab Rinpoche and have never faced such exclusion, defamation, bullying and harassment before (with the exception of Benchen monastery in 2020) attending teachings and empowerments during twenty years between 2006 – 2025.
Moreover, I hav been praised and supported by some of most eminent female figures in contemporary Buddhism. For instance, Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo granted me a 90 minute podcast interview and a generous, two-hour private audience in Bhutan, recognizing and encouraging my work for the Dharma. Chagdud Khandro sent me an email and donation a few year ago, praising my work and efforts, as having “broken her addiction to the New York Times, which seems grey and paltry in comparison.”
Furthermore, during our very first meeting in Bhutan 2025, Dorje Phagmo Rinpoche—Bhutan’s most eminent contemporary female tulku—spontaneously gifted me her own personal Vajravarahi thangka artwork and suggested we take a photo with her doing so.
This deep, genuine respect and mutual validation from Buddhist teachers and scholars—especially pioneering female teachers—also exposes the profound disrespect, petty administrative gossip, and deep-seated misogyny running through those two specific Karma Kagyu administrations that engineered my ban and character assassination, Benchen and Palpung.
Today, is Dharma Protector Day, and the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa, Ogyen Trinley remains outside India and has not returned there since 2017. It is easy to blame external, malevolent forces for what has happened to him since he left Tibet in 2000. However, my own experience (as I have documented) points not only to Gelugpa (and Sakya) sectarian and worldly protector interference, but also to sinister and cruel forces within Karma Kagyu senior lineage teachers itself. In which senior (in age) but no lineage sought to surpass and control (and even compete with) the 17th Karmapa out of jealousy, pride and aversion.
As I documented in my autobiographical excerpt: “CONTRADICTION ON THE BUDDHIST PLATE: When Care and Compassion Ends where Appetite Begins and the glaring gap between Buddhist view, vows, ethics and practice) the blatant Vinaya breaking eating of slaughtered animals by monastics at Sherab Ling monastery is clear proof that the 17th Karmapa’s advice and teachings are being ignored at senior levels. In addition, Sangye Nyenpa’s open hostility in private messages towards the 17th Karmapa as being untrustworthy, together with his absence at any Kagyu Monlam in Bodh Gaya until 2019 (the year I also attended during my time “with him”), is also a testament to a deeper betrayal and bad advice/lack of wisdom that has led the 17th Karmapa into the current isolatory situation he has been facing the past ten years or so.
Ultimately, the public record surrounding Lama Dragpa’s letter and my response stands as a stark testament to the high stakes of independent scholarship-translation and accountability for misconduct in contemporary, male-dominated Buddhist spaces. His actions clearly expose the deep-seated political, cultural, and gendered tensions that continue to shape the modern Tibetan and Vajrayana Buddhist landscape.
The brave Tashi Tsering wrote about his abuse and gaslighting as a young man sexually abused by Gelugpa monks as part of their Dob Dob culture, in Struggle for a Modern Tibet. For me, and more generally, these issues speak to an ongoing struggle for structural accountability, and personal safety of women and children who follow the tradition, punished for critiquing or speaking out about the abuse and cruelty of an unaccountable institutional male elite.
In 2024, the 17th Karmapa gave one of his unique and original teachings on what the Buddha taught about the power of speech and true words. It is with that as a guide, that truth and love be my witness, and protection, that I write and publish this. I also share this quote from Gedun Chophel, similarly persecuted by those aligned with Gelugpa domination. How ironic and apt that my suggestion of a red-white flower garden was met with such hostility and disinterest!
May these words of truth be of benefit, may they lead to complete exposure and silencing of lies, bullying, malice, malevolent intent. May the Gyalwang Karmapa’s activities flourish and may he have a long-life. May animals be freed from torture and mass slaughter for meat.
Adele Tomlin, 9th October 2026, Dharma Protector Day.
KEY EVENTS AND DETAILS IN RELATION TO LAMA DRAGPA’S LETTER
12th Tai Situpa event, two weeks in Borobudur, Indonesia, January 2026
The first clear sign of Lama Dragpa’s questionable conduct was in January 2026, during a 12th Tai Situpa event in Borobudur, Indonesia.
At the very peak of the sacred Maitreya empowerment, when the whole assembly was immersed in quiet visualization, the General Secretary forced himself into my awareness through a display of casual (or intended?) disrespect. In the middle of the empowerment he walked directly over to the Indonesian comperes ( a man and woman laypeople) sitting right next to me, and began chatting rather loudly in English about what they intended to say once the event concluded, disrupting both my practice, the instructions of Tai Situpa and that of the surrounding students.
I was sufficiently disturbed by this inconsiderate act that I publicly documented it in an article about that event (without naming him directly). Little did I know then, as I watched this monk administrator (whom I had not met or spoken to) treat a high lineage lama’s empowerment as a casual meeting space, that this very same man would later weaponize his own “personal dislikes” and unchecked administration gossip to “punish me”.
After Borobudur, I also attended a small private event, that I had been invited to without objection and was welcomed by a Palpung monk who arrived with Tai Situpa, and who led me to sit at a table with some Indonesian sponsors. Lama Dragpa was there too and never spoke to me about any concerns about my conduct then or prior. I was able to ask 12th Tai Situpa to bless the Dorje Phagmo thanka I had received in Bhutan as a gift, which he did.
Report about personal safety and harassment concerns at Sherab Ling guesthouse
The immediate catalyst for my ban occurred against a backdrop of escalating personal safety and harassment concerns I reported during my residence at the Sherab Ling monastery guesthouse in the final week of my month-long stay there from 6-15 March 2026.
As I wrote in the survivor testimony I published online, I filed a formal report on March 15 to Lama Dragpa, detailing three separate incidents of unprovoked verbal harassment, aggressive confrontation and derogatory insults, directed at me by an individual staying in a nearby guesthouse, Ma Tara Palmo (real name unknown). Ironically, the woman is also a survivor of Sangye Nyenpa misconduct and reported that to Tai Situpa, Lama Tenam and Mingyur Rinpoche in 2020, who chose to stay silent about it rather than face similar expulsion or shunning.
16 March 2026 email — Suggestions for improvements at Sherab Ling
Critically, the day before the ban was issued, I also sought to engage the monastery administration in a constructive dialogue regarding the monastery’s operations. On March 16, 2026, I sent an official letter to Lama Dragpa suggesting improvements at the monastery, including:
- A small art gallery, providing a space for displaying the calligraphy artworks of the 12th Tai Situpa that were currently lost on the dirty public canteen walls.
- A red and white flower garden beside the relic stupa of the 8th Tai Situpa, based on a “pure vision” honouring his memory and enhancing the surroundings of the sacred monument, which had become derelict with weeds and untended and dry grass areas.
- Stopping the sale of meat for consumption on Sherab Ling premises next to the main temple by a private shop/restaurant, consistent with Buddhist Vinaya rules for monastics, and with the advice of the supreme head of Karma Kagyu, 17th Karmapa and his advocacy of vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.
Chief among my concerns was a request to stop the meat-eating restaurant operating within the monastery premises. I argued that allowing a commercial restaurant to sell meat to monks and the general public inside a sacred Kagyu institution directly contradicted fundamental Buddhist principles of compassion, life-saving vows, and the head of lineage’s public stances on vegetarianism. In addition, it directly breached monastic Vinaya rules, and the 17th Karmapa’s many teachings on this topic, in which he forbid any meat-eating or cooking meat on Karma Kagyu monastic premises by monastics.
Lama Dragpa’s gaslighting, cruel and punitive response
Rather than initiating dialogue about my positive suggestions for the monastery, or a transparent internal investigation into the harassment of a guest staying on their premises, or offering protective measures to a lone foreign woman residing within their facilities, Lama Dragpa, responded forty-eight hours later with an absolute, final institutional exclusion order, listing the following as the main issues:
- my new White Tara artwork with red Tai Situpa hat that arose out of a “pure vision” there
- my suggestion for a red and white flower garden around the golden relic stupa of 8th Tai Situpa, as the grounds had become neglected and my wish to privately fundraise for it as a private project
- —unspecified “inappropriate conduct” with Gyalton Rinpoche based on what he called “multiple reports”, which were unproven, verified administrative hearsay and gossip by a few European administrators who had actively defamed, spread lies and sabotaged by attendance at his teachings.
- –my writing and research on Gelugpa sectarianism and violence and how that impacted on Karma Kagyu and the Tai Situpa lineage.
Rather than welcoming my wish to beautify and honor an important Karma Kagyu lineage master’s relic site, the administration chose to ignore the private initiative and later twisted and desecrated it into some kind of gross disciplinary offense. This “judge and jury” letter effectively flipped the narrative, converting my plea for physical safety into an indictment of my character, my artistic expression, my interpersonal conduct, and my historical scholarship, see excerpt from letter here:
A “pure vision” White Tara artwork, meating-eating and personal safety concerns
The immediate catalyst for my ban occurred against a backdrop of escalating personal safety and harassment concerns I reported during my residence at the Sherab Ling monastery guesthouse in the final week of my month-long stay there from 6-15 March 2026.
As I wrote in the survivor testimony I published online, I filed a formal report on March 15 to Lama Dragpa, detailing three separate incidents of unprovoked verbal harassment, aggressive confrontation and derogatory insults, directed at me by an individual staying in a nearby guesthouse, Ma Tara Palmo (real name unknown). Ironically, the woman is also a survivor of Sangye Nyenpa misconduct and reported that to Tai Situpa, Lama Tenam and Mingyur Rinpoche in 2020, who chose to stay silent about it rather than face similar expulsion or shunning.
16 March 2026 email — Suggestions for improvements at Sherab Ling
Critically, on 16 March 2026, the day before Lama Dragpa’s discriminatory ban was issued, I had sought to engage the monastery administration in a constructive dialogue regarding the monastery’s operations. On March 16, 2026, I sent an official letter to Lama Dragpa suggesting improvements at the monastery, including:
- A small art gallery, providing a space for displaying the calligraphy artworks of the 12th Tai Situpa that were currently lost on the dirty public canteen walls.
- A red and white flower garden beside the relic stupa of the 8th Tai Situpa, based on a “pure vision” honouring his memory and enhancing the surroundings of the sacred monument, which had become derelict with weeds and untended and dry grass areas.
- Stopping the sale of meat for consumption on Sherab Ling premises next to the main temple by a private shop/restaurant, consistent with Buddhist Vinaya rules for monastics, and with the advice of the supreme head of Karma Kagyu, 17th Karmapa and his advocacy of vegetarianism and compassion towards animals.
Chief among my concerns was a request to stop the meat-eating restaurant operating within the monastery premises. I argued that allowing a commercial restaurant to sell meat to monks and the general public inside a sacred Kagyu institution directly contradicted fundamental Buddhist principles of compassion, life-saving vows, and the head of lineage’s public stances on vegetarianism. In addition, it directly breached monastic Vinaya rules, and the 17th Karmapa’s many teachings on this topic, in which he forbid any meat-eating or cooking meat on Karma Kagyu monastic premises by monastics.
Lama Dragpa’s gaslighting and punitive response
Rather than initiating dialogue about my positive suggestions, or a transparent internal investigation into the harassment of a guest staying on their premises, or offering protective measures to a lone foreign woman residing within their facilities, Lama Dragpa, responded forty-eight hours later with an absolute, final institutional exclusion order.
Rather than welcoming my wish to beautify and honor an important Karma Kagyu lineage master’s relic site, the administration chose to ignore the private initiative and later twisted and desecrated it into some kind of gross disciplinary offense. This “judge and jury” letter effectively flipped the narrative, converting my concerns about physical safety and privacy into an indictment of my character, my artistic expression, my interpersonal conduct, and my historical scholarship.
The retrospective degradation and weaponization of my new “pure vision” White Tārā artwork and landscaping ideas in his ban letter becomes even more absurd when looking at the direct interactions I had with Lama Dragpa prior to the decree. Before issuing the ban, Lama Dragpa had already personally read and seen my White Tara artwork, and he said absolutely nothing to object to its content, imagery, or style at the time. I had been permitted to get a blessing on them from the 12th Tai Situpa, and allowed to distribute them freely to attendees without objection, many of whom expressed delight on receiving them.
When we discussed my “pure vision” idea for the red and white flower garden for the 8th Tai Situpa relic stupa, his only actual stated objection was a warning that I should not suggest the monastery itself was raising funds for the project—something I had never done or implied at any point. Showing again that he did not understand what I had written, or was deliberately misrepresenting it to me and others.
Political and intellectual censorship related to Gelugpa history and narratives about the Tai Situpa lineage
The most substantive and politically charged segment of Lama Dragpa’s ban letter, however, was a protracted denunciation of my extensive historical research and critical essays regarding historical Gelugpa sectarian violence in Tibet and its enduring, destructive impact on the Karma Kagyu and Tai Situpa lineages.
Here is what Lama Dragpa wrote about that:
Again showing that he is responding to hearsay and gossip, as opposed to actual facts. To this day, Lama Dragpa has never stated exactly what is so objectionable or false about anything I wrote on this topic.
This intellectual censorship is worthy of note too. Over the past few years, I have written independently sourced historical critiques detailing how the 17th-century military-political alliance between the 5th Dalai Lama and the Mongolian ruler Güshi Khan resulted in the violent suppression, forced conversion, and systemic destruction of Karma Kagyu institutions across Tibet. As well as the severe and long-time bullying and persecution of lineage teachers, like the 10th Karmapa and 8th Tai Situpa. As documented in their autobiographies.
My work has frequently connected these historical traumas to modern Tibetan exile geopolitics, where I have suggested that contemporary Kagyu leaders—including the 17th Karmapa—remain subjected to intense, asymmetrical sectarian pressure by the dominant Gelug-led establishment and the Central Tibetan Administration (see Mongol-Gelug Shadow Over Tibet).
By addressing these unresolved historical injustices and criticizing what I described as a compromised, US-backed political apparatus designed to preserve Gelug hegemony at the expense of Kagyu autonomy, my writings struck a raw nerve within the Palpung administration.
The inclusion of this as a grievance in Lama Dragpa’s ban letter reveals an explicitly political and ideological motivation. So, although Lama Dragpa wears the robes of a Karma Kagyu monk, his administrative actions, and conduct during a sacred empowerment, appear worldly and heavily influenced by outside political forces aligned with the dominant Gelug establishment and historical narrative, rather than the spiritual vision of the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa and Buddhist philosophy and practice in general. To cite my independent research on this topic, without providing any specific quote or source, shows how much his decision was based on non-specific gossip and hearsay, rather than fact-checking and reliable, objectively substantiated evidence.
Severing a sacred, profound Vajrayana connection with a teacher
Another cornerstone of Lama Dragpa’s letter was a collection of serious assertions accusing me of “inappropriate conduct” regarding my interactions with a resident teacher, Gyalton Rinpoche, alleging “multiple written and oral complaints”. These severe, character-damaging accusations were leveled against me arbitrarily, without a shred of due process or direct discussion or opportunity to counteract them with facts, locations and evidence. All intended to completely sever my connection to him, a “spiritual crime” of unfathomable depths.
In fact, despite there having been zero incidents while I was in Indonesia, Lama Dragpa was referring to admin gossip and hearsay, and bullying by a few individuals, such as Titi Dolma (Neneng Setiawati, Damien Jampa, Carlo Luycx, Palpung Vienna). A small “gossip gang” group who had weaponized trivial situations, caused by their bullying and exclusionary actions. to paint a false and nasty picture of behavioral misconduct.
Instead of suggesting we have a meeting with an independent Buddhist-oriented mediator to discuss and resolve any issues or misunderstanding, or to get my response or fact-checking, Lama Dragpa went straight to a “ban” with a threat of legal action for non-compliance.
The sudden elevation of unchecked guesthouse and administration hearsay gossip into the foundation for a permanent institutional ban demonstrates, how readily an unaccountable male monastic elite would codify rumors to justify the expulsion of a critical lone female voice.
A pattern of institutional conduct in senior places at Palpung centres
This is not a one-off though, there is a clear pattern. Crucial to understanding the comprehensive motive behind the draconian and cruel exclusion letter is a deeply entrenched history of enabling wrongdoing an supporting Gelugpa dominance of the Karma Kagyu an other lineages. In my investigative exposé, “Cruel Monks (Part I): A Pattern of Cowardice, Cruelty, Abuse, and Unaccountability in Palpung Buddhist Centres,” I document how the Palpung network, and senior teachers such as 12th Tai Situpa, Mingyur Rinpoche and now Gyalton Rinpoche have systematically shielded and enabled abusers in other prominent cases connected to Palpung centres (Lama Norlha) or Sangye Nyenpa.
Samaya-breaking and undermining of 17th Karmapa’s authority and teachings
Even more sinister is the ban may also have been part of a now clearly coordinated political (smear campaign) maneuver aimed at disrupting and undermining the 17th Karmapa’s activities and authority both within India and on the global stage.
Aside from ignoring his clear teachings on abandoning eating slaughtered animals, by executing a deliberate character assassination over a prominent Karma Kagyu researcher and translator, and devoted follower of the 17th Karmapa, who has published huge amounts of work and translations by and about the 17th Karmapa and Karmapa lineage, the monastery chose to publicly diregard and demean historical scholarship to signal compliance with the Sangye Nyenpa/Benchen faction and mainstream Tibetan Gelugpa political status quo. Choosing to suppress historical transparency rather than risk diplomatic friction or lose political favour with the dominant Gelug-US sponsored establishment and Benchen/Sangye Nyenpa.
This institutional coordination became undeniably apparent in the immediate aftermath of the administrative ban and the ex parte emergency court order. The precise timing of their Nepal trip—occurring right on the heels of the April court order—underscores what seems to have been a managed, cross-border effort by several senior monks (with administrative laypeople) to solidify their control, project an image of unshakeable and pure lineage harmony, while punishing, bullying, and validating and encouraging the discriminatory exclusion and silencing of a lone female scholar-translator and whistle-blower, while citing an anonymous, derogatory, misogynist and already banned smear campaign as their “evidence”. Frankly, their evidence could not get any clearer than that!
Questions to Consider
These events are historically unprecedented and thus leave the Buddhist community with critical, unanswered questions to ponder:
- Who is Lama Dragpa? What is the exact history, personal biography, and background of the man who signed such a hostile and extreme decree? How has his long-standing tenure as the General Secretary of Palpung Sherab Ling Monastery shaped the institution’s approach to administrative discipline, and does he act independently or strictly under lineage directives? Why does the monastery completely hide the background, origins, and start date of its top administrator from public view or scrutiny?
- What are the limits of monastic authority over a secular individual, in particular a laywoman? Can a traditional, monastic hierarchy legitimately police the personal digital art, landscape suggestions, and independent historical research and opinions of a lay scholar who does not reside within their ecclesiastical or country jurisdiction? If yes, what precedents does that set for freedom of expression, and is it being applied fairly to all in their community or only to one person (the survivor they want to silence)?
- Why the sudden (and unncessary) escalation to secular non-Buddhist courts? If the primary concerns of Lama Dragpa, and Gyalton Rinpoche’s close associates were personal issues, why did they immediately deploy an aggressive, ex parte emergency court filing in New Delhi, engaging expensive lawyers, and forcing Tomlin to have to do so too, rather than engaging in informal in-person discussion, transparency or a community-led mediation?
- How does this affect the future of independent translation and scholarship in the Tibetan Buddhist community? If independent scholar-translators face total institutional persecution, banishment for translating texts or exploring sensitive historical truths (such as Gelugpa sectarian violence or lineage cover-ups), will a climate of self-censorship wash over the next generation of Western Buddhist researchers? Some may reasonably assert that the over-arching funding provided by Khyentse Foundation who were able to also defame and blacklist Tomlin based on an unverified false and defamatory email from a Benchen Europe administrator, is also threatening the independence of scholars from authentic research and freedom of expression due to its association with Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche.
- Where is the line between whistleblower protection and institutional self-preservation? Why did my report regarding safety and harassment on March 15 result in my immediate banishment forty-eight hours later, while the severe, long-standing allegations regarding Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche and Lama Norlha remain shielded by the administration?
Core Documentation and Case Timelines
2026 Timeline: immediate events leading up to and following Lama Dragpa’s banning letter against Tomlin
Based on my account and the chronology previously supplied. All dates are in 2026.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 2026 — Indonesia | Tomlin attended 12th Tai Situpa’s events in Indonesia, including a small private gathering where Tai Situpa personally blessed her Dorje Phagmo thangka, gifted by Dorje Phagmo Rinpoche. Tomlin subsequently wrote positive reports and transcripts about the events and Tai Situpa. No disruption or exclusion is recorded. She also described—but did not name—Lama Dragpa getting up at the peak of the Maitreya empowerment and crossing the room to speak to two Indonesian MCs beside her about unimportant matters in English. |
| Mid-February–15 March — Sherab Ling | Despite this unethical and harmful conduct, Tomlin then travelled a long distance at her own expense to stay at Palpung Sherab Ling guesthouse with administrative permission and attended three events, including Gutor and Losar in the presence of both Gyalton Rinpoche and 12th Tai Situpa. The administration extended her stay twice, until 15 March. Her registration for the Delhi “Buddha Within” teachings, scheduled for 11–17 April, was accepted by monk administrator Damien Jampa, who sent email confirmation. Proves they did not regard Tomlin as a “threat” or “danger”. |
| 6 and 14 March — harassment reports | Tomlin reported alleged verbal and physical harassment by Ma Tara Palmo, who had also been present in Indonesia, to the guesthouse’s monk staff. |
| 15 March — safety concerns reported | Tomlin checked out as planned and reported safety concerns to Lama Dragpa, including alleged death threats from a monk and threats involving black magic “to make her lose her mind.” |
| 16 March — suggestions for improvements | Tomlin emailed Lama Dragpa with suggestions concerning monastery operations and improvements. These included an art gallery, a red and white flower garden beside the relic stupa of the 8th Tai Situpa, and stopping the sale of meat for consumption on Sherab Ling premises. |
| 17 March — banning letter | Lama Dragpa issued a letter banning Tomlin from Sherab Ling and Gyalton Rinpoche’s teachings. He cited her White Tara artwork, flower-garden proposal, historical writing on Gelugpa and Tai Situpa lineage, and alleged “inappropriate conduct” with Gyalton Rinpoche , without specifying the exact nature of that conduct. Tomlin states that neither Lama Dragpa nor Gyalton Rinpoche had given her prior warning or an opportunity to respond. |
| 18 March — departure from India | Tomlin left India for previously planned travel/holiday with a family member. |
| 25 March — written challenge | Tomlin replied to Lama Dragpa in writing, rejecting the allegations and challenging the letter’s legality and fairness. No response. |
| 1–6 April — further allegations and rebuttal | Sudden and unexpected formal stalking and harassment allegations followed in Gyalton Rinpoche’s name through lawyers and close associates, Titi Dolma and Thinley Topden. Tomlin denied and disputed them in writing on 6 April, providing an expanded chronology and stating that she did not intend to attend the Delhi teachings. |
| 15 April — lawyer’s legal notice | Tomlin’s pro bono Indian lawyer sent legal notice to Lama Dragpa and the Sherab Ling administration, challenging the letter’s legality, raising concerns about false accusations, discrimination and defamation, and requesting its retraction. No response. |
| 15 April — plaint sent to Tomlin | Gyalton Rinpoche’s representatives sent Tomlin a draft Delhi High Court plaint seeking an emergency court order for a 500m boundary (ten minute walk away), and demand to delete all Facebook posts about Gyalton Rinpoche, without any proven defamation. |
| 16 April — Tomlin’s written response | Tomlin responded in writing, stating that she was outside India and had no intention of attending the Delhi teachings and that none of her posts about Gyalton Rinpoche were defamatory. |
| 17 April — Delhi teachings concluded | The Delhi “Buddha Within” teachings finished. Tomlin did not attend and remained outside India. |
| 18 April — plaint filed in court | The plaint in Gyalton Rinpoche’s name seeking an emergency order was filed in court after the Delhi teachings had finished. |
| 20 April — ex parte interim order | The Delhi High Court, based on false, misleading and undisclosed key information, issued an emergency ex parte interim order as requested by Gyalton Rinpoche’s lawyers, while Tomlin was outside India and without her defence or response on the court record. The order was issued three days after the Delhi teachings had finished, and Tomlin had been outside India since 18 March. |
Neither Lama Dragpa nor Gyalton Rinpoche contacted her personally to discuss the allegations or provided any verbal or written warning before escalating to a ban and subsequent court proceedings. She describes the letter as a “green light to the Delhi court case” and characterises the subsequent application as based on a manufactured emergency, given that the teachings had concluded and she had already confirmed that she would not attend.
-
- The Master Case Timeline: For an extensive chronological overview of the dispute, you can access the Comprehensive Timeline in Gyalton Rinpoche Case (PDF) directly hosted on Dakini Translations. This text logs everything from the initial guesthouse friction in March to the subsequent legal notifications.
- The Primary Testimony Hub: To examine the full breakdown of internal administrative emails, bullying, harassment, and statements regarding institutional gaslighting, view the main repository at A Survivor’s Testimony: Abuse, Smear Campaign, and Harassment.
Focused Investigative Articles
-
- The Monastic Pattern Critique: In the commentary titled Cruel Monks (Part I), I trace the systemic connections between my recent ban and older institutional scandals across the Palpung network, detailing how the unresolved historical allegations surrounding Sangye Nyenpa Rinpoche act as a primary motive behind the current push to silence my work.
- Reflections on Betrayal: For a deeper look at the severe psychological and spiritual impact of the ban, including how an administrative order without a prior hearing affects a practitioner, read On Suicide and Betrayal by Buddhist Teachers and Communities.
- The Guesthouse Context: To see the initial positive intention and activitites before the ban letter—including the creation of the White Tara art, proposals for the golden stupa garden, and the first compilation and translation of the 8th Tai Situpa’s Collected Works—review the entry 8th Tai Situpa: New Research, Translations, and Sherab Ling Stay 2026.
Archival Context on Gyalton Rinpoche
- Translations and Background: To understand the volume of scholarly work I originally dedicated to the lineage prior to the legal escalation, you can view the archived collection at the Khyungpo Gyalton Rinpoche Research Hub.
- Initial Event Coverage: For a historical record of my early devotion to this specific teacher before a few administrators intervened, see articles such as Experiencing the Bliss-Empty Nature with Gyalton Rinpoche in Hanoi.