There are three people I've talked to who have explicitly mentioned gaslighting as something they experienced from Soryu. It has happened to me as well. Here is the anecdote.

Context

There was a creative tension within the community between people who wanted more of Soryu's characteristically aggressive approach to teaching and those who wanted a more "balanced" way of practicing — one that wasn't only about spiritual realization, but also emotional and psychological development and building relational skills. A member of the community (let’s call him “Jared”) had developed a framework for human development that reflected this more balanced orientation, and Jared was acting as something of an ideological counterbalance to Soryu. The two were publicly praising yet privately distrusting of each other, and seemed to multiple people to be caught in something of a power struggle.

In late 2021, Soryu and Jared held a "fishbowl" forum in front of the community with the explicit intent of speaking to their ideological differences. Throughout that roughly two-hour forum, Soryu continually minimized the differences and made it seem there were no substantive disagreements between them.

The 1:1 with Soryu

In January 2022, Soryu had 1:1 meetings with every resident in the training to solicit what they thought would be the best direction for the organization to move in. His assistant was also present, transcribing in the corner. I proposed a solution to the creative tension I'd been observing: MAPLE could emphasize the Soryu-style approach, while OAK — the California branch I was tasked with reviving after its collapse a year prior as its new executive director — could become the center that leaned on the more balanced style. I suggested that the other member's framework could be a good basis for its curriculum.

He asked if I saw that as fundamentally compatible with the training at MAPLE — whether people could train at one and then transfer to the other. I said yes.

His response was, "You really believe that?"

Yes.

"Don't you see that it contains Wrong View?" (Wrong View is the Buddhist term for that which isn't in alignment with right understanding of reality.)

I said potentially, but with some tweaks it could work.

He said, "No, I'm talking about the fundamental worldview out of which it emerges."

Over the five minutes discussing this he made clear that the two frameworks were incompatible, and that even with adjustments it wouldn't work.

I asked why he hadn't brought this up in the fishbowl. I can't remember his exact words, but a recording exists. He seemed evasive, and said something to the effect of, "We just didn't have the opportunity to surface it in that conversation," which was clearly incorrect to me. The whole point of the workshop was to surface disagreements, and everything he had shared in that fishbowl made it seem there were no substantive differences.

The next day

The next day, I asked the ED if I could talk with Soryu for just five minutes. I told them, "He mentioned in a conversation that [the model developed by Jared] contains Wrong View. I'd like to ask what specific ways that is the case."

They were confused, and immediately asked me, "Why wouldn't he have brought this up in the fishbowl?"

I responded, "He basically said he didn't have the chance."

So they went straight to Soryu to ask him about this. I was sitting in the main hall when he came out fifteen minutes later, walked straight to me (with his assistant alongside him), and said in an accusatory tone: "I didn't say that the [model developed by Jared] is Wrong View!"