Another money rant

Ryguy913 just sent me a link to a Theravada Buddhist man ranting on Youtube about the "pimps" and "whores" who "dare" to "charge for the dhamma." Here is the link, and below, my response to Ryan:



Hi Ryan,

Thanks for sharing the link. I watched the entire video with interest. I am somewhat sympathetic to that point of view, having been trained in the Theravada tradition. I can see that this fellow is sincere and is genuinely hurt by what he perceives as an assault on his values.

For better or worse, though, we don't always get to enforce our values on others and the attempt to do so often results in intolerance and violence. This is the dark side of religion: "do it my way or else" (and I can justify my violence because my way is the One True Way, blah, blah, blah.) For me, this discussion was more alive a couple of years ago when we had a thread about it on KFD; by now, the experiment of alternate ways of funding teaching has enough momentum and enough success stories to convince me that we are on the right track. I say let people use whatever funding method they want to use, be it dana or capitalism. My only interest is in helping folks to awaken, and that is certainly happening within our community using both dana and fee-for-services models.

(cnt'd)

(cnt'd from above)

As for the moralistic, religious aspect of the question, I find it tedious... an unfortunate vestige of a world whose time is long past. I understand that there will always be those who cling to ideas and are willing to criticize and in some cases even harm others who disagree with them. Such people are called fundamentalists. I don't know how to "change" them or whether they even need to be changed. And I feel no need to justify my choices to such folks.

I don't feel compelled to engage this gentleman in discussion. Frankly, for most Westerners this is a non-issue, as well it should be; people want to learn how to develop along the continuum of awakening and they are happy to pay if paying allows them reliable access to high quality instruction and guidance.

Affectionately yours,

Kenneth

While his point is valid, it is also very forceful and a bit violent indeed (whores and pimps?

No one is forcing anyone to pay for anything, 99.99% seems to be available for free, and there are many teachers who would discuss your practice with you for free. For those who are willing to pay, I see no harm in them doing so. 70$ is about the same price (or a bit lower) than what a psychotherapist here costs for 45mins in Israel.

On a related note, the guy who started up ruthlesstruth is charging 1000 pounds per 'Liberation', or 500 pounds per hour

If donations mean you have more free time to spend teaching, then this can only be a good thing.
Also i know of a Buddhist centre which would close down if it wasn't for donations and it is very strict Tibetan school. So how can that be any different? Its time to get real.

Always an interesting topic. One thing is that not everyone who studies the dharma in the west belongs to a specific institution. If one is studying solely with a specific guru or at a certain center, attending regularly and completely involved in that, I'd expect a great deal of contributing to be going on. In Christian churches it's typically 10% of the annual salary that's given to support the church building and functions, administration and charity to the less fortunate. If you are dabbling around, going to this talk and that center, not really sticking to one particular teacher or method, then there's not going to be that kind of consistent focused donating - it's going to get spread around. Nothing wrong with that either way. The one huge weakness in the dana system I have witnessed and had colleagues tell me about is that a lot of people think they can chuck a dollar in a basket and that counts. I saw a lama give a three hour teaching to four people. I saw one of them put a dollar in the basket, another walk out without donating. Three hours of a professionals time? With rent to pay? I know several people who stopped teaching on donation basis because it came to that - a lot of people are not particularly generous. In Asia it may be that the support of the institutions of Buddhism is built in. A friend said in China corporations have departments that handle the regular temple donations, for example. If there's no social pressure or societal expectation here for how it works, then it doesn't work very well.

If my memory of college history courses is any good, Protestant Christianiy has been the dominant religious form in our culture. And the dana model that I think has shaped up here, with Kenneth and KFD community, I think is very much like the way it works in Protestant churches. At least my understanding from several family members and friends who are protestant ministers, and growing up with my parents as Protestant ministers (spouse often included in the package deal).

The community ideal for Protestants has been to get together enough members to support a meeting place, the church, and a full time resident pastor and his family. (Protestant ministers are expected to be married with a family.) The minister is paid a contractually agreed salary, which in practice is often relatively modest. But a church that is regarded as "successful" has enough tithing members to support the church, the minister and outreach and mission programs.

Pastors of start up churches usually have a day job if and until their leadership results in a community large enough to support them. A new church always aims at being able to achieve a full time pastor who will be free to focus all of his/her attention on the spiritual needs of the community. Because this ideal is often not fully met, being a minister tends to be a financial leap of faith. In practice, members who are committed to the work of the pastor regulary step up to the plate with informal gifts and support.

Historians correct me where I'm wrong, but I believe that at least until recently that has been a predominant financial model for home-grown religious organizations in this country, in contrast to imported models. Edit: Kenneth's innovation of a virtual meeting place saves the community lot of money and upkeep! compared to supporting a church building.

It's amazing this is even an issue in today's world. Religions all over benefit from donations of all kinds and some have even managed to amass huge stores of wealth in the form or real estate, cash, investments in the markets, what have you. So a dharma teacher asking for a few dollars for a half hour session is a travesty? Gimme a break.

In a way there isn't any difference if an event or person says "suggested donation $40" vs. "tickets $40". What is left open with the idea of donation is that you can pay what you feel like paying, even if there is a suggested amount. If a teacher or institution can eventually build a way to collect funding and then pay the teachers salaries, to me that's great, but it's not making your teaching free. It's just moving the money in a circuitous way rather than handing it directly to the teacher. But I know a few people who teach/study with teachers for whom this makes the relationship much more comfortable. I also know a few who teach for free - usually in less formal relationships (mentoring), and it's not their full time job, and they don't want to teach as their main life, it's just something they do now and then on the side. That's cool. But it just doesn't bother me to give people money for their time, no matter what skill they are offering, from dentistry to meditation.

Maybe there's a connection between the belief that enlightenment is the province of remote and exalted beings, and the belief that they can live without reliable income. The hourly fee/skype business model is making enlightenment more widely available than ever. There's a lot of talk about using technology to spread the dharma. I think business and marketing are techniques already available that have not been fully harnessed for that purpose.

That said, anyone wanting shares in my Buddha Pyramid should PM me.

Everyone should have a right to charge for their services.

In my case, I'm at a low income which means every penny is for survival. So, many services are not available to me, dharma teachers included.

This means I make do without, and find a way to get free stuff whenever possible. I get my dharma from free downloadable pdf's and podcasts. I'm also taking the Audio Dharma six-week online meditation course for free which includes Skyping with a teacher for one-half hour a week.

Do I wish I could have access to a teacher more often? Yes, but without the money it's out of reach. I do the best I can with what's available to me.

"Do I wish I could have access to a teacher more often? Yes, but without the money it's out of reach. I do the best I can with what's available to me. - Tina"

Tina,

Why is it out of reach? There are some many skilled practitioners who haven't formally defined themselves as 'teachers', who can really help you with your practice, and are happy to have a Skype conversation or a chat. Even people like Daniel Ingram, who seems to be a very busy ER doctor, is glad to have a Skype video chat with someone who is serious about practice and needs some sort of steering in the right direction.
Obviously, there is a kind of difference between a Dharma friend who can help you out with advice, and a formal Teacher-Student relationship, but the benefits seem equal to me.

So, why not find a Dharma friend who is more advanced than yourself to give you some advice?

"So, why not find a Dharma friend who is more advanced than yourself to give you some advice?"

HI Yadid,

I agree that any more advanced practitioner could give me valuable guidance.

If you wouldn't mind, maybe you could drop a few names into my profile mailbox?

Thanks - Tina

Sure will, there's plenty around nowadays it seems.

Some people like myself, are on a low, fixed income, and unfortunately cannot afford to pay much for teachings. Teachers have to make a living too, and donations may not always be regular or dependable.

I'd rather see dharma teachers get paid to teach, and be able to dedicate their time to teaching, than being employed elsewhere... imho. Being of my generation, I do feel *digital* information / knowledge ( including dharma texts ) should be free, and that this is a major value that is more possible now with the internet and the lower cost of spreading information digitally.

But that is not necessarily the same as a teacher giving personal instruction. Due to my own personal circumstances, I rely on freely available teachings online, or ebooks that end up on the internet of books that are otherwise charged for. I am thankful for all of the time and effort many people have spent to put these teachings online freely, and I intend to contribute my time to continue this effort. I am also thankful that we have communities like kfd where we can all share our time and help guide one another freely.

metta!

Justin

Just another example of that which is good and pure being turned into a way to make money. Why should I help you, if I can make a living off of helping you? If you're drowning(in a sea of confusion and suffering) of course I will throw you a rope...if you can pay for my services.
Nothing is sacred, unless it can't be bought or sold. This is where things are heading, it is foolish to think just because dharma IS different that people in a consumerist society would treat it differently. Enlightened, and greedy. The two are not mutually exclusive, apparently.
As far as "intolerance and violence" where the hell did you get that from? Seriously, someone passionately disagrees with you and you insinuate there way of expression is in someway related to violent fundamentalist? I can only assume that was meant as a joke, because it is such a ridiculous staement!

"Ideal" (n): a concept designed to cause a maximal amount of pain

"Ideal" noun:an ultimate object or aim of endeavor, especially one of high or noble character.
Sounds like enlightenment, no?

empty0grace makes a lot of good points in the youtube video; I wouldn't feel comfortable writing him off as a fundamentalist per se.

It's kind of interesting that this topic would come up right now. I was recently in contact with a skilled teacher and I thinking of Kenneth charging for services, (and also since personally I don't have a problem with being charged), I offered the teacher the same $70 an hour rate that Kenneth charges, but to my surprise the teacher flat out refused to entertain the idea of being paid. Moreover, I know for a fact that this teacher is a lay person with a family to support & not well off. So yeah, I was quite surprised and it really had me thinking about this particular topic.

For the record though: I still have no problem with skilled teachers charging. Actually if I was really well off or won the lotto I've often thought I'd give Kenneth a good sized donation just so he'd have some elbow room to write and work on his book. It would be the best way I can think of to help everyone.

What they don't tell you is that in Asia, lay people like us do not meditate much and are therefore seldom charged for meditation courses or coaching. Lay people do however spend important amounts for funeral rituals and other ceremonies, not mentioning incense and other offerings. Temples also receive large amounts from government agencies and corporations, including from our Western governments.

As an example, the Dalai Lama received "donations" from the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Ref:

www.ned.org/events/democracy-service-med...ocracy-service-medal

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4332.htm

www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6530

"Nothing is sacred, unless it can't be bought or sold. This is where things are heading, it is foolish to think just because dharma IS different that people in a consumerist society would treat it differently. Enlightened, and greedy. The two are not mutually exclusive, apparently."

... because we all know that the ONLY reason a dharma teacher would charge a modest fee for services is not because they need to survive, not because it allows the dharma to continue to be fulfilled by people who really know it and can pass it along accurately and forthrightly, but because they're greedy bastards

I think it may be helpful to move away from the term dharma as well as other loaded buddhist terms.

"I think it may be helpful to move away from the term dharma as well as other loaded buddhist terms. "

Helpful for what purpose, and to whom?

Dharma listen (help·info) (Sanskrit: धर्म dhárma, Pali: धम्म dhamma; lit. that which upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe[1]) means Law or Natural Law and is a concept of central importance in Indian philosophy and religion. As well as referring to Law in the universal or abstract sense dharma designates those behaviours considered necessary for the maintenance of the natural order of things.[2] Therefore dharma may encompass ideas such as duty,[3] vocation, religion and everything that is considered correct, proper or decent behaviour. The idea of dharma as duty or propriety derives from an idea found in India's ancient legal and religious texts that there is a divinely instituted natural order of things (rta) and justice, social harmony and human happiness require that human beings discern and live in a manner appropriate to the requirements of that order. According to the various Indian religions, such as Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Sikhism, beings that live in accordance with dharma proceed more quickly toward dharma yukam, moksha or nirvana (personal liberation). The antonym of dharma is adharma, meaning unnatural or immoral.

Wikipedia

Yes I'm aware of the various definitions of the word 'Dharma' or in Pali 'Dhamma', but I was more specifically curious as to how do you think moving away from Buddhist terms would be helpful, and to whom do you think it would be helpful?

Also, a rose by any other name would smell the same - that is, Dharma / Dhamma is actually used to refer to the Buddha's teachings on dukkha, the cause of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha, and the path leading to that.
And so, Kenneth, having received these teachings and techniques down from Buddhist monks, went on to then teach them, and so trying to dissociate his current work from his training would be a bit inaccurate in my view, as he did not re-invent the wheel (pun intended)

Gotta agree with that, Yadid. Changing the terminology is just rearranging the deck chairs. I think the issue that Mumuwu is pointing to, however, has merit, too. See, the dharma is and always will be free, especially nowadays. We can download it, access people online who know it, go to the library and read books on it, and so on, all for the investment of our time alone. But... to access certain people (who also have time constraints) who call themselves "dharma teachers" may require investing some money. We are paying for their TIME and for them to coach us what they know outside of what is freely available so that we spend our time in practice more effectively. This is entirely voluntary.