Dear Dharma Treasure Sangha,

It was recently brought to the attention of Dharma Treasure Board members that John Yates (Upasaka Culadasa) has engaged in ongoing conduct unbecoming of a Spiritual Director and Dharma teacher. He has not followed the upasaka (layperson) precepts of sexual harmlessness, right speech, and taking what is not freely given.

We thoroughly reviewed a substantial body of evidence, contemplated its significance, and sought confidential counsel from senior Western Dharma teachers, who urged transparency. We also sought legal advice and spoke with various non-profit consultants to draw on their expertise and objectivity in handling this matter. As a result of our process, the Board has voted to remove Mr. Yates from all positions with Dharma Treasure.

In a series of Board meetings as well as written correspondences with Mr. Yates, he admitted to being involved in a pattern of sexual misconduct in the form of adultery. There is no evidence that this adultery involved improper interactions with students or any form of unwanted sexual advances. Rather, adultery with multiple women, some of whom are sex workers, took place over the past four years. The outcome was extended relationships with a group of about ten women. Relationships with some continue to the present day.

He has provided significant financial support to some of these women, a portion of which was given without the prior knowledge or consent of his wife. Mr. Yates also said he engaged in false speech by responding to his wife’s questions with admissions, partial truths, and lies during these years.

After we brought this misconduct to the attention of Mr. Yates, he agreed to write a letter to the Sangha disclosing his behavior, which would give students informed consent to decide for themselves whether to continue studying with him. However, after weeks of negotiations, we were unable to come to an agreement about the content and degree of transparency of his letter.

At the end of this entire process, we are sadly forced to conclude that Mr. Yates should not be teaching Dharma at this time. Likewise, we are clear that keeping the upasaka (layperson) vows is an absolutely essential foundation for serving as the Spiritual Director of Dharma Treasure. With heavy hearts, the Board has voted to remove him from this role, from the Board, and from all other positions associated with Dharma Treasure.

We also acknowledge the benefit of Mr. Yates’ scholarship, meditation instructions, and the personal guidance he has provided for so many earnest seekers, including ourselves. People from all over the world have been deeply impacted by the Dharma he has presented, and we do not wish to minimize the good he has done. We are forever grateful for the study and practice we have all undertaken together with Mr. Yates.

We know people may feel disbelief and dismay upon learning about this pattern of behavior. However, it is our strong wish that we all use this time as an opportunity to practice patient inquiry, compassion, and discernment. Our goal in sharing this information with the Sangha is to provide each of you with enough information to make your own informed decision about whether or how to work with Mr. Yates as a teacher. We hope this transparency about Mr. Yates’ behavior can help us all move toward a place where we honor teachers for their gifts while acknowledging they are complex human beings who make mistakes.

You can imagine this has been a long, methodical, and distressing process. Moving forward, we feel it is in the best interest of the organization to form a new Board that brings fresh perspectives and energy. The current Board will resign after vetting and electing new qualified Board members to carry on the mission of Dharma Treasure.

Finally, we hope this disclosure about Mr. Yates’ conduct does not shake your confidence in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. The transformative strength of refuge in the triple treasure can sustain us through this challenging time. Many other communities have walked this difficult path and emerged wiser and stronger. The ancient and modern history of Buddhism is filled with examples of the Dharma’s liberating individual and social power and compassion. Let us never forget that.

In service,

The Dharma Treasure Board of Directors
Blake Barton
Jeremy Graves
Matthew Immergut
Eve Smith
Nancy Yates

He has provided significant financial support to some of these women, a portion of which was given without the prior knowledge or consent of his wife.

People have different standards of big deal, but this seems like a big deal to me.

Also, "some of whom were sex workers". Not all. (According to this letter).


https://www.patreon.com/culadasa

Well-meaning people give money to Culadasa to support his cancer recovery, his new book, etc. Not to, frankly, financially support hookers. When I looked at that patron count yesterday it was 342.

Based on these statements it doesn't sound as big as it seems. He had sex with professionals, didn't abuse his students, apparently lied to his wife, broke his vows and that's why he was forced to leave?

There are implied judgements and criticisms about polyamory or prostitution

I couldn't disagree more. As far as I understand, Culadasa was in a monogamous marriage, and the allegation is that he was lying to his wife and spending shared finances on sex workers without his wife's consent. If true, those are behaviours that are considered unacceptable in the polyamorous community and the sex workers communities too. Actually, I would say that those communities are even more sensitive to these topics, because of the strong culture of awareness of the risks of STDs and the emphasis on obtaining the consent of all the parties involved.

But the rather pious dharmic condemnation in the letter doesn't sit well with me.

There are worse things in the Suttas.

But let's not cloak it in the dharma.

With deep respect to you Neko (and I do mean that)

This is interesting. Maybe actually this is the opportunity to share the details? If you weren't planning on starting a new thread, of course.

It's his wife.

...Culadasa was focussing a lot of his teaching on ethics and behaviour, mostly in the form of the five
hindrances and ten fetters, to the point where I would actually say that he spent much more time talking about actions, emotions, philosophy, and psychology than about actual meditation practice...

Now put all of this together. His alleged behaviour explicitly contradicts his upasaka vows, his teachings, and his claims to attainment, which is what makes this a big deal in context. If he hadn't taken upasaka vows, hadn't been letting it on that he was a ten-fetter arahant, hadn't been teaching that you cannot get into jhana unless you banish the hindrances first; If he had been talking more about practice and less about his psychology-based models of enlightenment... if his teaching were different, his behaviour would be taken differently.

...As far as I understand, Culadasa was in a monogamous marriage, and the allegation is that he was lying to his
wife and spending shared finances on sex workers without his wife's consent.

How long did you study with him?

... psychological perfection.

Presumably everyone here knows what the term buddhahood alludes to.

Presumably everyone here knows what the term buddhahood alludes to.

Everyone knows what it alludes to, though I expect most have (1) different ideas of where buddhood begins. IMHO, expecting anyone who appears to inhabit a human body to (2) behave impeccably (according to YOUR standards) is simply folly, regardless of your aspersions about their attainment. (3) Some of the greatest teachers have seemingly had very human failings. What is more important, from my perpective, is what these apparent failings show us about our OWN characters, not about theirs. We are always surrounded by dharma.

-

General Question: (4) Was the dharma from Culadasa good enough for you BEFORE these allegations?

I am a little surprised there seems to be many people on this thread who seem to think that what is legal and what is ethical are the same thing.

Curious that some people might think that harming your wife through an affair is not unethical, or does not violate a precept to do no harm through sexual heedlessness and deceit (two precepts).

I find it surprising and unsurprising at the same time that people are more worried about financial shenanigans, though I would agree financial shenanigans are a more serious issue than non-traditional sexual lifestyles. This does not just sound to me like some people are being prudes. Even if monogamy is not the right or preferred lifestyle by some people who conscientiously live differently, that doesn't just excuse arbitrary behavior and harmful actions in arbitrary marriages. Even in polyamorous contexts I think explicit and implicit boundaries grounded in the consent of multiple people beyond those involved in a particular sex act are pretty common (how many polyamorous people but the most idealistic would be comfortable with their primary partner sleeping also with the first partner's siblings or their boss or coworkers, or engaging in very risky behaviors)?

It is also curious that some people here think that violating Culadasa's privacy in this way is egregious and that a legally rigorous standard of proof should be required for any discussion. I might avoid plenty of people for bad juju and bad reputations (such as their wife and former colleagues dismissing them for ethical misconduct from a religious organization) without legally admissable evidence.

As far as I have seen, I’m one of the very few posters that explicitly said that polyamory per se is not a problem, and I did that only because some of the formulations both in the letter and in this thread seemed to say it is immoral regardless of circumstances to have more than one intimate (romantic and/or sexual) relationship. I did NOT say that betrayal of confidence was okay. On the contrary, I explicitly said that it’s not. And to add to the nuances, many polyamorous people do not have a primary partner. In my community, that term is often frowned upon as ethically problematic. I haven’t got the faintest idea as to whether or not Culadasa is polyamorous or as to what happened here. I neither defend him nor accuse him, have only said a few words about my own boundaries.

1. What do you mean with "different ideas of where buddhahood begins"? I'm not a scholar but out from the top of my head I can't think of any differing views about this within mahayana schools.
2. No, I don't think it is foolish to expect perfect behaviour from buddhas, incl. those who inhabit physical body. However, it's a completely different question who are buddhas and who are samsaric beings. Even a drop of poison spoils a tank of clear water.
3. Do you mean "greatest teachers" who were attained buddhas or just people who were great teachers? Who do you mean specifically?
4. I have his book which I've read a bit and watched a bunch of his lectures online. I always liked him and his style of teaching. I even applied for his teacher training, though was rejected.

There are more basic and universal laws than the dharma, one is if you talk the talk the talk, you've gotta walk the walk. This is a principle of dignity, virtue, and personal responsibility that applies to all domains of life and human interaction. Since Culadasa makes it all about 5 hindrances, 10 upasaka vows, and 10 fetters, he has to stand up to his own standards.

Kim,

3. I think you could say it was either. Even the Buddha lost his temper, if we are to believe some accounts. I consider both Sogyal Rinpoche (who I have seen teach) and Chogyam Trungpa to be some of the greatest teachers (as an example) and yet many would agree that both had their flaws from a human behavioral perspective.  

Impossible to discuss Shakyamuni because none of us here has firsthand knowledge or experience of who he was, what he did and whether he had fits. Also, the notion of someone being a fully liberated buddha is a complex question because there is no way (other than OHBM, afaik) that people could agree on that. But considering Soggy and Trungpa... Well, I'm just going to have to strongly disagree on either of them being great teachers. Sure, they taught dharma, among all the nasty things, but I do not consider either of them "great" in any way.

An interesting contrast would be Drukpa Kunley's Flaming Thunderbolt of Wisdom - he talked the talk and walked the walk. Of course it was a rather different regularly intoxicated and extremely polyamorous talk, but he was at least consistent ...  I am surprised he doesn't get more discussion in western buddhism.  

Poem about happiness

I am happy that I am a free Yogi.
So I grow more and more into my inner happiness.
I can have sex with many women,
because I help them to go the path of enlightenment.
Outwardly I'm a fool
and inwardly I live with a clear spiritual system.
Outwardly, I enjoy wine, women and song.
And inwardly I work for the benefit of all beings.
Outwardly, I live for my pleasure
and inwardly I do everything in the right moment.
Outwardly I am a ragged beggar
and inwardly a blissful Buddha.

Drukpa Kunley

$325 for a 45 minute consultation:
https://dharmatreasure.org/private-consultations/

Oddly there doesn't seem to be any word of the revelations on the Dharma Treasure site or forum. It's all over Reddit of course.  

neko wrote:
Those are actually standard fees, particularly in San Francisco and Los Angeles. I know several not-so-big names who charge similar fees. If a famous or not-so-famous teacher does not publish his or her hourly rate on his or her website, chances are they charge similar amounts. The only reason you've never heard of similar fees is that mostly people keep quiet about it, for fear of the backlash.

Oh, absolutely: If someone publicly presented himself thusly, it'd be totes kosher AFAIC. Let consenting adults do consenting adult stuff.

Dear Dharma Friends,

I’m writing to say I’m sorry. I’m sorry for the harm and suffering I have caused my wife and family. I engaged in adultery and wrong speech, and failed to honor my commitment to my marriage. I’m also sorry for the pain I have caused the members of the Dharma Treasure Board, who have all been supportive friends for many years. And I’m sorry for the hurt, disappointment, and confusion this revelation has caused you who are learning about it now. (To be clear, I engaged in consensual relationships with adult women, none of whom were my students.)

Please bear with me as I take time to understand what led me to my choices and address all that’s happened. I intend to enter therapy, and I look forward to hearing and reflecting upon your responses to this letter as a part of my process of cleaning up and growing up. As part of that process I have also begun to work with dharma peers. Please be patient with me as I begin to understand the full impact of what I’ve done. More information to follow, I’ll communicate with you as I’m able.

I seen this posted on Reddit but I figured it was worth a cross-post here for discussion purposes.

What if we were to hold dharma teachers to the same moral standards we hold everyone?

Reading your post, I'm wondering then, what level of ethics shall we expect from a Dharma teacher, a teaching in which a part of the path is sila/ethics? The basic moral precepts include abstention from lying and from sexual misconduct. What if a teacher is involved long-term in breaking them? What are we to make of that?

I don't have easy answers. Obviously more and more we see how humans can screw up. But if someone is in a position of a teacher of a certain path, and he or she betrays aspects of that path big time, it seems normal that students will react in dismay. In any case, I think we could still appreciate whatever strength a teacher has and feel gratitude for it, even if he or she screws up in other ways. I havn't read TMI but it seems many are benifiting from it. 

Also, the amount of good that this man has done in his life is simply mind-boggling to me. Writing a book like that, spreading that kind of information, the impact he has had on his students and readers who will then go out into the world and do likewise...

If I wanted to learn morality, I would not want to learn it from someone who had a normal life and never makes mistakes. Instead, I would rather learn it from someone who had a completely screwed up childhood, has somehow managed to turn himself into a force for good, and is currently working on some unresolved intimacy issues.

I don't mean to defend him so vigorously, but this is a perspective that definitely shows up in my mind.

Yes, that's the heart of where the condemnations and anger and fear and doubt and disappointment come from. I had a teacher once who disappointed me in a very public way. Not the kind of thing that caused this incident but none-the-less very upsetting. It taught me, at least in regard to the dharma, that we can't put people, any people, on pedestals. They're people!

If I wanted to learn morality, I would not want to learn it from someone who had a normal life and never makes mistakes. 

I am disturbed by some of the condemnations of his behavior. To be clear, I'm not defending any of his behavior. However, I have to believe that if the offense caused the same amount of pain to his wife, but was non-sexual in nature, it wouldn't be seen as being such a big deal. I'm sure that the taboo nature of the topic made it unnecessarily difficult for him to deal with this situation before it got out of control. Of course, I don't know all the details, but I find it hard to see this as such a simple case of lying.

It seems pretty obvious to me that many people are upset about this because of the expectations they had of him. Those expectations are unrealistic, and should never have been there in the first place. Demanding an apology from him so that you can feel like "the world makes sense again" is, in my estimation, not the best way to learn and grow from this incident. I also can't help but wonder if his apology is not serving to reinforce those expectations in the future.

At the same time, I will admit that this whole thing is a little bit disorienting for me, as well. I had some of those expectations, too.

Your question, as simple and "no brainer" as it seems, got me thinking here, in a good way :

Holding teachers to the same standard as everyone else is actually a good way to keep teachers both feet planted on the ground. It counters rationalizations that some teachers may have such as "when you realize emptiness every actions is enlightened action, including having an affair with students' wives": which is not the case with Culadassa but many other eachers have thought along those lines. Students were told to focus on their own practices and use the opportunity to work on their attachments, while the teachers were doing harm. This won't happen so easily if the student holds the teachers to the same standards as everyone else. The student would be able to say, "hey, that's not right and I don't accept that."

Also, it would counter unfair pressure on teachers to act 24/7 like fictional-level saints. 

It would keep students both feet on the ground as well.

It would also help people be compassionate toward teachers when they screw up instead of blaming them for not acting up to their projections. 

What I would say also though is, teachers are probably better to be held to the same standard as everyone else on the path, but have certain additional rules appropriate to their position.

As a therapist, for example, my clients can express all sorts of feelings toward me (love, romance, anger, fear, etc). This actually helps their process if I respond properly, like helping them explore their projections behind such feelings and inner life in a way that leads to growth. However, it is not ok for me to express my own feelings toward them, as this would completely sabotage the therapy. It would in fact be a betrayal of them, and hence bad ethics.

So teachers need certain rules that are different from students in order to remain effective teachers, especially as it relates to relationship with students. This being said, I'm aware that in the case here the teacher was not misbehaving toward the students. It was outside of such relationship. 

In any case, I appreciate the reflection on ethics and student projection that this whole thread is doing.

What if we were to hold dharma teachers to the same moral standards we hold everyone?