Unfiltered evidence of plagiarism, distortion, and abuse of Vajrayana teachings; conclusively affirmed through desperate deletions by the abuser of Buddhadharma and public trust itself.
♣
| Published | Platform | Removed | Reason | Archived Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-08-18 | wordpress | 2025-08-30 | no notice | blog 2 |
No legal notice, court order, or statutory basis was provided to us at the time of removal. Now restored from available backups for public reference and transparency.
If there is anyone (a commenter on YouTube) who objects to our exposing her persistent patterns of distortions in the Vajrayana Buddhist circles and thinks Adele Tomlin should be left alone as she will end up reflecting on her own mistakes somewhat, this dissection will open your eyes.
On August 16, 2025, Dakini Translations and Publications posted a rant on Facebook. Let’s compare the two most recent edits of the same rant to find out more of her mentality. (View Edit History > See All Edits > Pick the most recent two edits.)
Version 1: Banned, “bad” and ‘”dangerous” is this an insult or a compliment? Depends on who thinks it. These are impure and faulty perceptions too ultimately. Not everyone thinks the same way about the same person or situation…. conduct is important but so is the view. Love and compassion is the samaya root. Some nameless and unknown “administrators” are doing a great disservice to Buddha Dharma, the Buddha and noble Arya Sangha, and to their teachers. The truth and who they are will be exposed and they will be held accountable in one way or another for bullying and harassing a lone woman, who also is a Dharma translator-scholar and practitioner on the Bodhisattva path. Karma will itself ensure that anyway. Compassion for the harm they continue to do to themselves and others.
Version 2: Banned, “bad” and ‘”dangerous” is this an insult or a compliment? Depends on who says it. These are impure and faulty perceptions too ultimately. Not everyone thinks the same way about the same person or situation…. conduct is important but so is the view. Love and compassion is the samaya root. Some nameless and unknown “administrators” of Dharma centres are doing a gross disservice to Buddha Dharma, the Buddha and noble Arya Sangha, and to their gurus. The truth and who they are will be exposed and they will be held accountable in one way or another for bullying and harassing a lone woman, who also is a Dharma translator-scholar and practitioner on the Bodhisattva path. Karma will itself ensure that anyway. Compassion for the harm they continue to do to themselves and others.
1. “Depends on who thinks it” → “Depends on who says it.”
From internal thought → external speech. She is moving the blame outward. In V1, it’s about subjective perception (“thinks”). In V2, it’s about naming, labeling, accusing (“says”). She’s framing herself more as a victim of external aggression, not just misperception.
2. “Nameless and unknown ‘administrators’” → “Nameless and unknown ‘administrators’ of Dharma centres.”
From General enemies → specific Dharma institutions. She escalates the accusation. Now it’s not just faceless bullies, but institutions (which adds weight). She’s hinting at betrayal from within the Dharma community. It dramatizes the narrative: she’s not being bullied by randoms, but by the “establishment.”
3. “Disservice to Buddha Dharma, the Buddha and noble Arya Sangha, and to their teachers” → “Gross disservice to Buddha Dharma, the Buddha and noble Arya Sangha, and to their gurus.”
“Teachers” → “gurus,” and adds the adjective “gross.” Sharper language. By using “guru,” she appeals to the Vajrayāna weight of samaya. The word “gross” injects stronger emotional charge, intensifying outrage.
4. “…accountable … for bullying and harassing a lone woman, who also is a Dharma translator-scholar and practitioner on the Bodhisattva path.”
This part stays, but notice the repeated self-framing:
Lone woman = vulnerable victim.
Translator-scholar-practitioner = authority, legitimacy, noble role.
Bodhisattva path = ultimate virtue.
She’s stabilizing her identity as both martyr and heroine — persecuted yet divinely aligned.
* Escalation of Conflict: The second draft shows she wanted the post to sound less like casual venting, more like a formal grievance against Dharma centres and their authority figures.
* Positioning: She sharpens her own authority by emphasizing “gurus” (higher stakes) and framing herself as carrying samaya virtue, while painting “administrators” as betrayers of the Dharma.
* Martyr Complex: Both drafts highlight her being a “lone woman” under attack, but in V2, she strengthens the narrative of righteous persecution.
* Strategic Wording: The word choices evolve from personal opinion (thinks/teachers) → collective indictment (says/gurus). This shows a shift from personal hurt → political accusation.
Her first rant felt too casual and weak, too much like subjective whining. So, after editing, she turned victimhood into a righteous crusade, essentially framing herself as a persecuted Bodhisattva battling corrupt Dharma administrators.
1. Narcissistic Injury & Ego Defense
Being “banned” or called “dangerous” triggered what psychologists call narcissistic injury, a blow to self-image. Instead of processing it as personal feedback, she reframed it as a cosmic injustice. The edits shift from casual deflection (“depends on who thinks it”) to externalizing blame (“depends on who says it”). This reduces cognitive dissonance: “I’m not flawed – others are malicious.”
2. Victim-Martyr Positioning
She emphasizes: “a lone woman … translator-scholar … Bodhisattva path.” This shows a martyr complex, elevating herself as both victim (helplessly attacked) and savior (guardian of Dharma). It grants her moral immunity: if she is both weak and holy, then criticism must be cruelty, not truth.
3. Projection of Aggression
She accuses “nameless administrators” of bullying and gross misconduct by projecting her own aggressive impulses (public ranting, shaming) onto an external “enemy.” By accusing them of “harm to Dharma,” she absolves herself of responsibility for discord.
4. Need for Cosmic Validation
The repeated invocation of karma, Buddha, Sangha, gurus is a way to call on cosmic authority to justify her position. Instead of personal accountability, she appeals to divine law: “karma will ensure justice.” This reflects a psychological need to anchor her self-image in something untouchable and larger-than-life.
5. Identity Inflation After Threat
When her authority is questioned (FB bans), she doubles down by inflating her identity:
“translator-scholar” → learned authority.
“practitioner” → spiritually pure.
“Bodhisattva path” → morally superior.
A classic overcompensation: the more her external status is threatened, the bigger her inner story must become.
External rejection (ban, critique).
Narcissistic wound → feels humiliation.
Ego-defense: project blame outward (admins, institutions).
Self-inflation: reframe as Bodhisattva/martyr.
Cosmic justification: “karma will expose them.”
Public rant → restores temporary self-coherence.
But because the wound isn’t healed, the cycle repeats with every ban, every critique.
“How can I spin this so I don’t look weak?” → shift blame from “bad perceptions” to “bad institutions.”
“How can I turn this insult into proof of my greatness?” → frame being banned as proof of being a righteous threat.
“How can I preserve my self-image?” → inflate identity as scholar, practitioner, Bodhisattva.
“How can I ensure justice?” → appeal to karma and cosmic law to restore balance.
Each time Adele faces public censure, a familiar cycle emerges. She begins by describing herself as a victim of cruelty – “a lone woman” under attack by nameless administrators. Yet within the same breath, she elevates her identity into that of a sacred authority: no longer merely a translator, but a scholar, practitioner, and even Bodhisattva on a noble path.
This inflation is not incidental; it is strategic. Every ban or reprimand is recast, not as the natural consequence of misconduct, but as proof of her own spiritual importance. In her logic, to be censured is to be “dangerous” and therefore significant. By wrapping her self-defense in the language of Dharma and karma, she shields herself from accountability while positioning herself as the righteous heroine of a cosmic struggle. The result is a closed loop. Criticism becomes persecution, bans become badges of honor, and karma is invoked as her ultimate personal advocate. Once this loop is recognized, the substance of her words loses much of its weight. What remains is not evidence of Dharma work under attack, but the repetitive pattern of a wounded self-image seeking repair through public performance.
A striking feature of Adele’s public rants is how quickly ordinary criticism is rebranded as persecution. An administrator enforcing rules, a Dharma centre choosing to disengage, or readers raising doubts; all are inflated into evidence of a coordinated campaign against her. What would be minor feedback for most becomes, in her telling, proof of a conspiracy. This mentality follows a familiar pattern. A fragile sense of self cannot absorb correction without feeling threatened. To protect itself, the mind reframes disagreement as hostility, turning critics into persecutors. Once recast in this way, the individual is free to adopt the opposite role – not merely the wounded victim, but also the noble hero standing against injustice. The effect is powerful but deceptive. By collapsing criticism into persecution, Adele sidesteps the responsibility to reflect and change. Instead of seeing bans or censure as consequences of conduct, she presents them as badges of honor that confirm her spiritual importance. What looks like persecution from her side, however, is more accurately the echo of a self-image too brittle to withstand honest feedback.
In Dharma, criticism is meant to function as a mirror, not a weapon. It reflects areas for growth, inviting humility and transformation. To turn that mirror into a sword – declaring every reflection an “attack” – is to miss the very heart of practice. Where the path calls for self-honesty, Adele offers only self-defense. In traditional Dharma communities, the measure of practice is restraint, humility, and the ability to endure criticism without retaliation. A practitioner is expected to examine themselves first, accept karmic ripening with equanimity, and respond with patience rather than grievance. Teachers across lineages have emphasized that true strength lies not in amplifying one’s wounded pride but in dissolving it. By this standard, Adele’s public rants fall into sharp contrast. Where the Dharma teaches silence, she insists on proclamation. Where the path points to humility, she leans on grandiosity. Where accountability is the ground of progress, she reframes consequences as persecution. The gap between principle and performance becomes impossible to ignore.
For readers and practitioners, the danger is subtle but real. By cloaking personal grievance in the language of Dharma, Adele blurs the line between authentic teaching and self-serving narrative. Those who take her words at face value risk inheriting not clarity but confusion, mistaking resentment for wisdom and grandiosity for devotion. The cost of engaging uncritically with such rhetoric is not just wasted attention, but a gradual distortion of one’s view – a step away from the Dharma’s path of humility, patience, and truth.