Selling the dharma

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
User avatar
Könchok Thrinley
Former staff member
Posts: 3275
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:18 am
Location: He/Him from EU

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by Könchok Thrinley »

Paying for dharma teachings makes sense. I mean, even just symbolically. We get the know-how when it comes to samsara and liberation and in exchange we give what rules our lives.

If money doesn't matter and teachings should be for free then you should be willing to live as a beggar. If money matters then it also matters to pay for the teachings. Just because they matter.

16th Karmapa offered a golden coin when requesting teachings from masters. If it is good enough for Karmapa, then offering money is good enough for me. Ofcourse I cannot offer golden coins at the moment, but there are other comodities.
“Observing samaya involves to remain inseparable from the union of wisdom and compassion at all times, to sustain mindfulness, and to put into practice the guru’s instructions”. Garchen Rinpoche

For those who do virtuous actions,
goodness is what comes to pass.
For those who do non-virtuous actions,
that becomes suffering indeed.

- Arya Sanghata Sutra
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9443
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

tobes wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 9:31 am
The most precious of all things, are precious precisely because they are given freely.
Air might be the most precious thing.
It is free, but not given by anyone.
Dog shit is given away free but nobody wants it.
Dharma neither increases nor lessens in value
regardless of whether it costs money to acquire or not.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by tkp67 »

tobes wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:14 am Peter C, I think you're conflating economics with karma.

Obviously these two intertwine in various ways. However, they are not the same thing, as you surely know.

How much benefit person x receives from Dharma, depends upon their previous karma, the karma of the receiving (i.e. how diligent, attentive etc), and most especially, the karma of their subsequent study and practice.

It has nothing (or very little) to do with how much they offer.

Someone with an awesome amount of merit may not have many material resources - such as many monks and nuns - and yet, receive far more benefit from a Dharma transmission than someone with an awesome amount of wealth who 'invests' in the teaching with a big offering.
In my very limited mind and perpsective I see it this way.

We know this teachings because the original teacher was compassionate enough to share for free and wise enough to do so that we collectively seek to perpetuate our own share. Now of course this does not negate the fair compensation for this most difficult and demanding work which requires a very amazing level of savy/integirty.

With this said, altruism should still be revered and transmitted. This is not to say give it away for free but the statement free is less valuable seems counter intuitive.

From a marketing standpoint, especially with intellectual property, giving some measure away for free typically increases market share. So it would seem altruism hold up across "realms". Perhaps that last word is better placed with another.

Of course no disrespect to any of the many gifted minds helping preserve the dharma through translation. Thank You :heart:
User avatar
tkp67
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 5:42 am

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by tkp67 »

Könchok Thrinley wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 12:08 am Paying for dharma teachings makes sense. I mean, even just symbolically. We get the know-how when it comes to samsara and liberation and in exchange we give what rules our lives.

If money doesn't matter and teachings should be for free then you should be willing to live as a beggar. If money matters then it also matters to pay for the teachings. Just because they matter.

16th Karmapa offered a golden coin when requesting teachings from masters. If it is good enough for Karmapa, then offering money is good enough for me. Ofcourse I cannot offer golden coins at the moment, but there are other comodities.
I think there are two dynamics that might not be included in that line of reasoning.

In this age all arenas of knowledge (philosophy, science, religion etc) are so in depth and so diverse that it can be overwhelming trying to understand them. It mimics the consumer market which is over immersed with offerings. People seek truth in their life that has a level of purity they understand in regards to consciousness. Many times they seek something that steps outside the trappings of ever day consumerist choice. They want something authentic whose value can't be so easily translated to a dollar amount. This makes the initial introduction prohibitive and keeps promot persion of these teachings limited to those who are already interested.

The second is many people already have suffering as a cause and that suffering is marked by great lack in regards to money. Now I do understand the dynamic of attaching desire to value but some people see it as a luxury they could never afford.

Free materials are what sold me on practice personally because I was able to qualify that these where the teachings I needed. Once I understood them and the efforts it changed my perspective on supporting them.

Just my .02
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by Nemo »

I don't think there is a clear winner here. Under some circumstances paying for teachings is good and in others they should be free. Some sentient being are dumb. They will walk by the river every day but they won't take drink till someone sets up a stand and starts selling it.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by tobes »

I'm going to be slightly provocative here:

Google, Facebook, Wikipedia.

Spot the difference.

Also, for the record - I donate to the latter, the first two steal from me.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by PeterC »

tobes wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:14 am Peter C, I think you're conflating economics with karma.

Obviously these two intertwine in various ways. However, they are not the same thing, as you surely know.

How much benefit person x receives from Dharma, depends upon their previous karma, the karma of the receiving (i.e. how diligent, attentive etc), and most especially, the karma of their subsequent study and practice.

It has nothing (or very little) to do with how much they offer.

Someone with an awesome amount of merit may not have many material resources - such as many monks and nuns - and yet, receive far more benefit from a Dharma transmission than someone with an awesome amount of wealth who 'invests' in the teaching with a big offering.
Of course we can easily just say that everything is karma, karma is unknowable, so really there's nothing to discuss.

But if you believe that there are no incentive effects on the agent of paying for something, then I think you're willfully ignoring something for which there is evidence everywhere. Why should we ignore the basics of how human motivation works?
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by PeterC »

tobes wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:58 am I'm going to be slightly provocative here:

Google, Facebook, Wikipedia.

Spot the difference.

Also, for the record - I donate to the latter, the first two steal from me.
No, you're entering into a commercial relationship with the first two. You probably aren't fully aware of the full implications of that relationship, but that's because you haven't read the small print. You can choose with Google to terminate that relationship altogether and cease to use their services. You can't (yet) do the same with FB, though I maintain that their actions in this regard are illegal in many of the countries in which they operate, but you can limit the extent of the relationship - for instance, I have all FB products and tracking technology blocked on every device I use. But neither of them are stealing from you. You're acquiescing to their conduct.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by tobes »

PeterC wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:53 am
tobes wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 11:14 am Peter C, I think you're conflating economics with karma.

Obviously these two intertwine in various ways. However, they are not the same thing, as you surely know.

How much benefit person x receives from Dharma, depends upon their previous karma, the karma of the receiving (i.e. how diligent, attentive etc), and most especially, the karma of their subsequent study and practice.

It has nothing (or very little) to do with how much they offer.

Someone with an awesome amount of merit may not have many material resources - such as many monks and nuns - and yet, receive far more benefit from a Dharma transmission than someone with an awesome amount of wealth who 'invests' in the teaching with a big offering.
Of course we can easily just say that everything is karma, karma is unknowable, so really there's nothing to discuss.

But if you believe that there are no incentive effects on the agent of paying for something, then I think you're willfully ignoring something for which there is evidence everywhere. Why should we ignore the basics of how human motivation works?
We should ignore it because these "basics" are predicated on grasping to 'I' and 'mine' and are therefore nothing more than political-social conventions deeply contrary to Buddhadharma.

Aren't we trying to rupture samsara at its root? Isn't that precisely what danaparamita is?

We all trying to give up owning things, possessing things; and the languages and practices that build up around this. That's why monks shave their heads and bodhisattvas give their very bodies to hungry tigress's. If there is narrative hyperbole around these themes, it is because this stuff is important - we're not trying to prop up the 'basics of how human motivation works.' We're trying to destroy it!
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by tobes »

PeterC wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:58 am
tobes wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:58 am I'm going to be slightly provocative here:

Google, Facebook, Wikipedia.

Spot the difference.

Also, for the record - I donate to the latter, the first two steal from me.
No, you're entering into a commercial relationship with the first two. You probably aren't fully aware of the full implications of that relationship, but that's because you haven't read the small print. You can choose with Google to terminate that relationship altogether and cease to use their services. You can't (yet) do the same with FB, though I maintain that their actions in this regard are illegal in many of the countries in which they operate, but you can limit the extent of the relationship - for instance, I have all FB products and tracking technology blocked on every device I use. But neither of them are stealing from you. You're acquiescing to their conduct.
Fair points. What I'm trying to get at is: look at how noble Wikipedia is in comparison. Look at the model - for getting good things done in the world.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by PeterC »

tobes wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:05 am
We should ignore it because these "basics" are predicated on grasping to 'I' and 'mine' and are therefore nothing more than political-social conventions deeply contrary to Buddhadharma.

Aren't we trying to rupture samsara at its root? Isn't that precisely what danaparamita is?

We all trying to give up owning things, possessing things; and the languages and practices that build up around this. That's why monks shave their heads and bodhisattvas give their very bodies to hungry tigress's. If there is narrative hyperbole around these themes, it is because this stuff is important - we're not trying to prop up the 'basics of how human motivation works.' We're trying to destroy it!
Until it is destroyed, it can still be used.
PeterC
Posts: 5192
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by PeterC »

tobes wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:07 am
PeterC wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:58 am
tobes wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:58 am I'm going to be slightly provocative here:

Google, Facebook, Wikipedia.

Spot the difference.

Also, for the record - I donate to the latter, the first two steal from me.
No, you're entering into a commercial relationship with the first two. You probably aren't fully aware of the full implications of that relationship, but that's because you haven't read the small print. You can choose with Google to terminate that relationship altogether and cease to use their services. You can't (yet) do the same with FB, though I maintain that their actions in this regard are illegal in many of the countries in which they operate, but you can limit the extent of the relationship - for instance, I have all FB products and tracking technology blocked on every device I use. But neither of them are stealing from you. You're acquiescing to their conduct.
Fair points. What I'm trying to get at is: look at how noble Wikipedia is in comparison. Look at the model - for getting good things done in the world.
Wikipedia is permanently on the brink of bankruptcy. Nobility does not always produce results
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by Malcolm »

PeterC wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:31 am
tobes wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:07 am
PeterC wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 9:58 am

No, you're entering into a commercial relationship with the first two. You probably aren't fully aware of the full implications of that relationship, but that's because you haven't read the small print. You can choose with Google to terminate that relationship altogether and cease to use their services. You can't (yet) do the same with FB, though I maintain that their actions in this regard are illegal in many of the countries in which they operate, but you can limit the extent of the relationship - for instance, I have all FB products and tracking technology blocked on every device I use. But neither of them are stealing from you. You're acquiescing to their conduct.
Fair points. What I'm trying to get at is: look at how noble Wikipedia is in comparison. Look at the model - for getting good things done in the world.
Wikipedia is permanently on the brink of bankruptcy. Nobility does not always produce results
Nor does it ensure accurate info.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by Malcolm »

tobes wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:05 am
We all trying to give up owning things, possessing things...
Only in Hinayana.
Norwegian
Posts: 2632
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 7:36 pm

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by Norwegian »

Malcolm wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:33 pm
tobes wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:05 am
We all trying to give up owning things, possessing things...
Only in Hinayana.
Indeed.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by Malcolm »

tobes wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 10:05 am
We should ignore it because these "basics" are predicated on grasping to 'I' and 'mine' and are therefore nothing more than political-social conventions deeply contrary to Buddhadharma.
What is contrary to Buddhadharma is not political and social convention. What is contrary to Buddhadharma is believing that any of it is more than dream or an illusion.
Aren't we trying to rupture samsara at its root? Isn't that precisely what danaparamita is?
Śāntideva poses the question: Since the Bodhisattva did not in fact relieve the world of all its poverty, how could he have perfected generosity? The answer given is that even though the Bodhisattva could not do this in fact, he wished to. Thus perfecting generosity is more connected to one's motivation than deed.
We all trying to give up owning things, possessing things; and the languages and practices that build up around this.
No, what we are trying to do is abandon the sense of having a self, a self that does not exist, because that sense of self is false. That has nothing to do with conventional possession of this thing and that thing.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by tobes »

I think the key to this has emerged in the last few posts: motivation, intention.

If there is a price, I cannot have the same intention to offer as if I arrive at the intention to offer though my own volition. It's really that simple. You can't give properly when there is an expectation that one must give - because this is a form of social contract or actual economic exchange; one is responding to necessity.

On not holding possessions as purely Hinayana: what absolute bunkum. In Lam Rim the standard is set very high - one should never really take possession of anything. Read Tsong Khapa or Gampopa on danaparamita please; refute them if you will, but do not assert that they are teaching Hinayana. Shantideva's point is that the mind should never possess things - and that is itself sufficient to perfect dana. Tsong Khapa also mentions that (esp for monastics), the attitude of giving is far more important than actual giving, and he advises not to engage in that too much because it leads to precisely the kinds of problems I am alluding to. So actually, this a point which assists my argument.

And on my own position: I think the most salient critique is simply pragmatic. It's actually just the easiest and simplest way to run events/centres etc. I totally accept this on pragmatic grounds. I'm just saying that it flies very close to being contrary to Dharma, and it generates problems that we need to think seriously about.
enlightenfact
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2020 2:29 pm

Re: Selling the dharma

Post by enlightenfact »

Remember the historical facts: Shkyamuni Buddha, and all of the true Bhikkus/ Bhikkunis' in his noble Sangha, did not charge anybody any money for his teachings.
To do so would directly violate these nissaggiyas monastic rules:
https://en.dhammadana.org/sangha/vinaya ... m#ch-----4
18. Not to accept money.
19. Not to use money.
Also, by forcing dharma to be explicitly tied to worldly money values, then equanimity and fairness cannot be achieved.
It would be exclusion against the vast majority poor and economically disadvantaged people of the world.

Also remember that humans DO NOT require money to survive, human societies DO NOT require money to function.
Consider the historical cases how humans lived before coinage was invented, or how bartering was done during currency hyper-inflation before the onslaught of word war 2 ....etc.

In fact, in the current monetary systems in a lot of developed & "wealthy" nations, there is a whole lot of monetary manipulations going on done by big governments and big banks. A lot of it is unaccountable and unfair. Example: recklessly money printing, monetary controls, heavy oppressive taxation & fines...etc.

There are a lot more downsides than the upsides for being obsessed money or selling in general.
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”