"Right Bucks" by Ken Wilber

I thought gluehead was adequate and I was content to leave it at that. As for claiming the moral high ground, well piss on that, I don't lay claim to anything in this world, high or low and I wouldn't have it any other way as I'm plainly not interested. Sure I think that is a superior stance, it's unassailable, what can be taken away now, who is supposed to care? So, there is a noteworthy distinction. That's all, if someone wants the 'moral high ground' they can help themselves, I don't care. Suggest they watch their step, its a long ways down to nothing at all. I'll be there waiting, same as usual. In my case, I tell people, full awakening will cost you everything you have and everything you think you are and if that doesn't send them running I provide more details.

Let's bring another point of view into the mix. Here is an excerpt from an article about renowned Buddhist scholar Gregory Schopen:

"The Buddha was a businessman. But don't take anyone's word for it '” it's written in stone."

"Of all the iconic scenes found in the earliest Buddhist art from India, none are more striking than the sculpted representation of a title deed involving one of Buddhism's most venerable monasteries: The transaction, involving 10 million gold coins, clearly shows that, far from being an ascetic, other-worldly religious tradition, Buddhism was, in fact, 'deeply entangled with money '“ and a very great deal of it at that,' according to Gregory Schopen..."

You think Schopen is an uninformed lightweight? Think again:

"Gregory Schopen [is] chair of the Department of Asian Languages and Cultures [at UCLA] and an authority on ancient Indian Buddhism."

Read the full article here:

bit.ly/e053ot

It is so precious it is beyond value. It is holy. Being beyond value, holy, it cannot be subject to trade or exchange of any sort. Never mind all the tithing and taxing and living off the donations of the faithful that has gone on and will go on for eons before and after the Buddha, Jesus and Mohamed walked this earth. Money is not the only medium of exchange. Let's be realistic about what the faithful thought they might be getting in return for their generosity, be it denominated in currency, alms, food, clothing, or what have you. Merit? Redemption? A good feeling? I think we might be suffering from a very romantic version of what happens in the heads of people who support religious leaders.

Further, the medium being bought, traded, bartered or sold is not the knowledge or the realization itself but a more efficient or mediated means to achieve it. Please, someone, point me to an awakening that I can just purchase. Would that it were so! I'll be the first in line.

"In my case, I tell people, full awakening will cost you everything you have and everything you think you are and if that doesn't send them running I provide more details." -triplethink

Full awakening will cost you your ill will, resentment, bitterness, and envy.

More from article about Schopen...

BEGIN QUOTE:

Partly because of popular culture, it's hard to imagine the Buddha as anything other than a great sage, 'seated in what appears to be serene and deep meditation,' or surrounded by students craving enlightenment, said Schopen. Neither image suggests that the Buddha, who taught that 'all things are impermanent,' might, in fact, be 'pondering how to avoid paying custom duties and taxes' '” or that he might well be teaching his followers 'how to write a loan contract and not make unsecured loans.'

Indeed, Wall Street bankers would have benefited from being in the Buddha's audience, said Schopen '” a sobering reminder that, despite the world's progress, much of history remains repetitive.

Neither the language nor the organizational structure of the Buddha's monastic community suggests that it was a religious institution, said Schopen, who has been separating Buddhist fact from fiction for the past 30 years. Buddhist sources, he said, refer to their organization as a 'sangha,' a term used in early India to denote a commercial guild or economic enterprise that functioned in some ways like a modern bank.

These groups were led by a 'pramukha,' or chief, which is how the Buddha is repeatedly referred to, Schopen explained. As in modern unions, the status of the guild's members was determined by seniority '” not spiritual attainment '” and their training in the group was structured on a system of master and apprentices, the scholar added.

What's more, Buddhist guilds used seals to mark their goods, which were subject to taxes. 'The Buddha, according to some sources, devised a number of clever strategies to evade them' and even admitted that they weren't always successful, said Schopen. END QUOTE

Excerpted from "The Buddha as astute businessman, economist, lawyer," by Ajay Singh, in UCLA Today. bit.ly/e053ot

This video of a lecture by Gregory Schopen is especially disillusioning to the part of us that would like to romanticize Buddhist culture:



Why am I sharing these links? Because I believe it's time for all of us to grow up, with regard to money and with regard to all of our cherished ideas. Hero worship of ancient dead guys, however brilliant, will not help us. As my teacher, Bill Hamilton, once said to me, "the Buddha's enlightenment solved his problem; it didn't do anything for you."

Each of us has to figure this out for himself or herself. We do that by paying attention to what is going on now, in our own minds and bodies, not by fantasizing about what may have happened in days of yore. Every moment you spend making love to ideas is a moment you could be paying attention.

If, as you read this, you find yourself cringing that anyone has the effrontery to denigrate the Buddha, that should be a red flag to you. This forum and this community are for people who sincerely want to wake up... and clinging to ideas is the opposite of waking up.

Religion and waking up are at odds one with the other. Religion is concerned with believing what you have been told; waking up comes from finding out what is going on now. You will have to choose.

I don't know that "grow up" is quite the right way to think about it. I'd prefer describing it as being time to "examine our deeply held beliefs." As in, if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him."

But yeah, I agree with the overall sentiment Kenneth is expressing.

So... grow up!

After making a few address changes about a decade ago, I was relieved to be off of what I've started to think of as "the list"--the marketing database for the commercial New Age, Buddhist-meditator sector of the U.S. economy.
Back in the day, every time I went to my mailbox I found mailings from The Shambhala Sun, Tricycle, Dharma Crafts, and all manner of schlocky, Asian-themed catalogs hawking tea sets, Buddha statues, kung fu uniforms, you name it. These things embarrassed the hell out of me sometimes.

Well, a few months ago I made the mistake of ordering a zafu and zabuton. I also paid for a download from Sounds True. I am back on "the list" in a major way. This week alone I've received mailings from Shambhala Mountain Center and The Shambhala Sun, and the cheesy catalogs are hitting my mailbox again. If you flip through the SMC catalog, there isn't a single free program. Everything in there costs at least $100 if not many times that. And of course, we're all accustomed to the idea of paying for books, magazines, DVDs, CDs and even spending thousands for lengthly retreats. On the one hand, I think shadow issues about money are still around--I certainly have some of these issues myself, and we've seen the objections aired in this thread--but on the other, I wonder if the need for Wilber's "Right Bucks" argument, the exasperation that he expressed, is really so acute? I refuse to pay $300 for a Genpo Big Mind DVD set--yep, that's what it costs--but I don't argue with the idea that I should pay for it; I just don't think it's worth $300. I dunno...maybe we've grown up on this issue more than we realize? Don't most of us, deep down, know full well that the Buddha exists only as an ideal, a source of inspiration? Hmmm...

"Don't most of us, deep down, know full well that the Buddha exists only as an ideal, a source of inspiration?"

So is the Buddha merely a figment of the 5th century BC imagination of the homeless caste on the indian subcontinent or was he akin to a Wall Street broker simply because of the brief emergence of a couple of very large monastic communities several centuries later and because of some related additions in the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya?

Most people don't seem to know much at all about the Buddha or what he taught and misdirection by those with some knowledge of the existing records we do have seem to prefer pandering to Wall street businessmen or depicting the lay supporters of Theravada Ajhans and Bhikkhus past and present as derelict in their responsibilities. What I am suggesting is that if people are going to make these kinds of allegations, considerable verifiable evidence should accompany the charges. Same thing with the suggestion that there never was an actual Buddha and that he did not give the numerous brilliant discourses meticulously maintained by his disciples for the last 2.5 millennia, without which no one would even have the capacity for now providing completely de-contextualized instructions for how to practice vipassana or on the basis of having done so claim to be the equals of arahants on the basis of any other definition than the one provided by the Buddha within those discourses. None of which seems particularly grown up to me but rather quite juvenile. Growing up as I've known it means getting a real job even if that means pushing a broom or getting real qualifications if one chooses to do something more significant as opposed to re-writing history or already well defined professional qualifications to suit one's whims.

One can read a critique of Gregory Schopen, "The Ironic Assumptions of Gregory Schopen" at:
sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/the-iron...-of-gregory-schopen/

"Growing up as I've known it means getting a real job even if that means pushing a broom or getting real qualifications if one chooses to do something more significant as opposed to re-writing history or already well defined professional qualifications to suit one's whims."

Nathan, I'm left wondering why teaching meditation can't be a "real job." Was it not for the Buddha? Is that not how he made his way in the world? Yes, the prevailing medium of exchange 2,500 years ago in India was not currency, but his teaching allowed him to live and thus to propagate his message.

Just curious....

"Nathan, I'm left wondering why teaching meditation can't be a "real job."

Just curious...."

Teaching buddhist meditation has been one component of a real profession with real professional requirements since the Buddha established the teachings. For most of the history of all of this, becoming a teacher has automatically meant first of all becoming a bhikkhu and fifteen to twenty years of studying and practicing well as a bhikkhu. The training provides a comprehensive understanding of the Tipitaka teachings and training in and long experience with most all of the forms of meditation practice. The Bhikkhu's way of life includes the 'right livelihood' component of the eightfold path, as this was defined and intended by the Buddha, which is how training in and conformity to the vinaya/discipline of the bhikkhus way of life factors into the path. A life completely conforming to the path in all of these ways is a qualitatively different experience from the lifestyle of a lay follower of the path, even the lifestyle of a very devout lay follower.

Its like comparing a national guardsman to a full time special forces soldier, they may both be fine officers but the one who is highly trained and working full time naturally has the conditions for developing greater skillfulness and more opportunity to excel in the work. This analogy might go some way towards explaining why the disciplined conduct expected of the arahat might seem superhuman to laymen.

cont->

Those generally considered qualified to teach satipatthana, jhana and vipassana meditations and or provide others with thoughtful exegesis of the discourses have been those who have been recognized as accomplished, capable and so inclined by other long standing and respected bhikkhus from within the community of those who have been demonstrably happy to conform to the all of the instructions and requirements given by the Buddha. Generally in the east and in the past lay teachers have not been as common as here in the west. There are relatively few senior bhikkhus in the west and so almost all of them teach. Self appointed lay teachers who modify the teachings or the requisites or the requirements of the path are, as far as I can see, something completely unprecedented and novel. I'm just pointing this stuff out and surprised that there are such significant shortfalls of general knowledge and such widespread misconceptions in the 'pragmatic dharma scene' that something like this isn't commonly understood. Is the pragmatic dharma scene too pragmatic to become knowledgable and informed about the genuine and long established forms of study and training and about the qualifications for teaching that all of this engenders?

Just suggesting deepening your curiosity.

Nathan, I'm not in any kind of disagreement with your comments, like this...

"Self appointed lay teachers who modify the teachings or the requisites or the requirements of the path are, as far as I can see, something completely unprecedented and novel. I'm just pointing this stuff out and surprised that there are such significant shortfalls of general knowledge and such widespread misconceptions in the 'pragmatic dharma scene' that something like this isn't commonly understood. Is the pragmatic dharma scene too pragmatic to become knowledgable and informed about the genuine and long established forms of study and training and about the qualifications for teaching that all of this engenders?"

I think that's a very cogent and important set of issues for each of us to think through. I appreciate your continued patience and willingness to raise those issues, among others, especially here where they're not necessarily the prevailing view. You make me think. You challenge me. That is helpful, and needed.

"Its like comparing a national guardsman to a full time special forces soldier, they may both be fine officers but the one who is highly trained and working full time naturally has the conditions for developing greater skillfulness and more opportunity to excel in the work. This analogy might go some way towards explaining why the disciplined conduct expected of the arahat might seem superhuman to laymen." -triplethink

I'm not buyin' it, Nathan; I've known too many monks. There is nothing special about them as far as humans go, and I would argue that their cloistered lifestyle makes it less likely that they would attain to high levels of awakening, not more. Their personal relationships are, if anything, even more dysfunctional than those of lay people and their often one-dimensional education tends to lead to tunnel vision.

Furthermore, with regard to pedagogy, I find most traditional-style teachers embarrassingly unaware of effective teaching methods. Education is a field that has probably advanced more in the last 50 years than it did during the entire period of human evolution before that. I can't think of a monk or nun who would not benefit from a course in modern methods of education.

"Is the pragmatic dharma scene too pragmatic to become knowledgable and informed about the genuine and long established forms of study and training and about the qualifications for teaching that all of this engenders?"

I don't think lack of informedness is the problem. Rather, once we dispense with monk-awe, we can evaluate the data dispassionately. Monks are not churning out enlightened students at a greater rate than lay teachers. In many cases, I believe the opposite to be true.

"I'm not buyin' it, Nathan; I've known too many monks. There is nothing special about them as far as humans go, and I would argue that their cloistered lifestyle makes it less likely that they would attain to high levels of awakening, not more. Their personal relationships are, if anything, even more dysfunctional than those of lay people and their often one-dimensional education tends to lead to tunnel vision.

Furthermore, with regard to pedagogy, I find most traditional-style teachers embarrassingly unaware of effective teaching methods. Education is a field that has probably advanced more in the last 50 years than it did during the entire period of human evolution before that. I can't think of a monk or nun who would not benefit from a course in modern methods of education.

I don't think lack of informedness is the problem. Rather, once we dispense with monk-awe, we can evaluate the data dispassionately. Monks are not churning out enlightened students at a greater rate than lay teachers. In many cases, I believe the opposite to be true."

I agree Kenneth which is why I'm fully supportive of what you're doing. Also I don't think the rare monk who does live up to the original standards set down by the Buddha is typically interested in teaching but would prefer to stay away from people as much as possible.

My general impression is of worldly wisdom and corruption creeping in and disfiguring the teachings of great teachers quite rapidly. Arnold Toynbee's studies of human institutions of all kinds led him to the conclusion that corruption thoroughly compromises the original intentions of human institutions within two hundred years. The only canonical comment by the Buddha has him declaring his dispensation would end in five hundred years.

I suffer from no monk awe and seen plenty of the same ugly sh-t, but I think the Tipitaka has immense and unparalleled value for all yogis.

Came upon an interesting book called BUDDHIST ECONOMICS
www.urbandharma.org/udharma5/buddhisteco.html

"Contrary to popular opinion, the Buddha never prohibited wealth -- but he did prohibit poverty. Happiness appropriate to a householder includes ownership, enjoyment, freedom from debt and blamelessness. Buddhism praises contentment and limited desires but not poverty. What is important as a Buddhist, however, in the economic process, whether one is earning, saving or using money, is that one should never compromise one's principles"

"* acquisition of wealth: While Western Economics recognizes acquisition as important, it gives virtually no guidelines for the ethical limits of scrupulous acquisition -- especially concerning livelihood. ...When the way people acquire their wealth is no more ethical than the way animals hunt their prey, that is the point where humans become prepared to kill each other for their wealth...where direct killing means setting about each other with weapons and indirect killing means pressurising, cheating and exploiting others by various means.

* conservation of wealth: Having acquired wealth surplus to one's needs, the remainder needs to be stored or shared. Animals will tend to hoard as much as they can without any consideration of ethical fairness...

* employment of wealth for benefit or to satisfy desires: When spending, Buddhist economics again diverges from Western Economics, because it advocates spending one's resources:

- in moderation -- Moderation in spending depends largely on a person's ability to distinguish between need and want. ...

- only in order to give the greatest possible amount of true happiness for all: Consider how much the world could be improved if all the money squandered worldwide on gambling, drugs and prostitution were redirected into feeding the hungry..."