There is no business like religion business.

[Virgo]

Yes, and as is the case with Tara Mandala, many who are employed there get to practice and grow in a comfortable environment where Dharma is thriving. This literally changes lives. How meritorious! An individual is not just what they have, but also their environment.

And, obviously, that is to say nothing of the people who benefit that are not employed there.

Virgo

[pemachophel]

I like the fact thaty Tara Mandala is vbery upfront about the charge for their courses and that those charges are solely to cover their operating the costs. Then they "suggest" a certin amount of dana/offering to be given directly to the Teacher in gratitude for Their teaching. Separating these two things I think makes it clearer and cleaner.

[tobes]

I think this is one of the core issues we need to think more carefully about; here we have a culture-tradition of intellectual property, in which words and ideas are indeed owned. This notion is so ingrained that it is basically naturalised. But can we establish such a thing from the perspective of Dharma (as opposed to liberalism)? I'm willing to hear someone try......

I think we can get very selective when it comes to what is a western import and what is not.

Copyright issues are already pretty clear and well established. There are some grey areas. But I don’t think there is anything new with regards to translated works, etc.
The words of the buddha can’t be owned, but translations of sutras can be. The images on centuries old Tibetan thangkas or Buddhist cave walls can’t be copyrighted, but photos of them can be.

The original topic is about teachers who charge for teachings not being genuine. This is an unsubstantiated accusation. And anyway, these days with so much dharma information available free or inexpensively, good luck to the few that charge big bucks to support their little empires.

They are clear and well established. Here. In a liberal system, with liberal laws, based on liberal assumptions. I'm not convinced that the Buddha, Nagarjuna or Kongtrul were playing by those rules. The sense of ownership is very much connected to the OP, and I am suggesting that we're too quick to univeralise our own conditions (without even realising that is what we're doing), and be highly selective in what we consider a Tibetan or Indian cultural secretion and what we consider an indispensable part of tradition.

I just want us to think about these issues more carefully. Maybe for the Dharma to flourish in highly capitalistic settings, it needs to manifest in such a way - to appear as a desirable commodity, to be marketed as having value that translates to price etc. I am not necessarily opposed to this, but I am wanting to gently interrogate it.

The same thing is happening on the level of secularity, and some are big fans, others see a fundamental distortion.

One thing that I see immediately is that when Dharma becomes a commodity that translates to price, everyone will pay for glossy exotic empowerments, no one will pay for teachings on sufferings of the lower realms. Demand and desire are the same. If you're running a bigger thing, you will need to cater to what is desirable. Maybe this is good. Maybe it is a problem.

[Norwegian]

everyone will pay for glossy exotic empowerments, no one will pay for teachings on sufferings of the lower realms.

In Vajrayana, receiving the glossy exotic empowerments gives the practitioner every tool necessary to avoid the sufferings of the lower realms.

[Malcolm]

I think this is one of the core issues we need to think more carefully about; here we have a culture-tradition of intellectual property, in which words and ideas are indeed owned. This notion is so ingrained that it is basically naturalised. But can we establish such a thing from the perspective of Dharma (as opposed to liberalism)? I'm willing to hear someone try......

I think we can get very selective when it comes to what is a western import and what is not.

Copyright issues are already pretty clear and well established. There are some grey areas. But I don’t think there is anything new with regards to translated works, etc.
The words of the buddha can’t be owned, but translations of sutras can be. The images on centuries old Tibetan thangkas or Buddhist cave walls can’t be copyrighted, but photos of them can be.

The original topic is about teachers who charge for teachings not being genuine. This is an unsubstantiated accusation. And anyway, these days with so much dharma information available free or inexpensively, good luck to the few that charge big bucks to support their little empires.

They are clear and well established. Here. In a liberal system, with liberal laws, based on liberal assumptions. I'm not convinced that the Buddha, Nagarjuna or Kongtrul were playing by those rules. The sense of ownership is very much connected to the OP, and I am suggesting that we're too quick to univeralise our own conditions (without even realising that is what we're doing), and be highly selective in what we consider a Tibetan or Indian cultural secretion and what we consider an indispensable part of tradition.

Scarcity was always a selling point of Vajrayana and still is.

It’s just a different approach to dealing with intellectual property, to put it in modern terms, it’s vertical marketing.

It’s equally clear that we have a very imperfect idea of how instrumental market forces/potlach expenditures actually were in spreading Buddhism, even during the lifetime of the Buddha. What I am suggesting is that we have really very little insight into the economic climate of Buddhism until quote a late period.

Kongtrul lived in a fully developed market economy, and expresses regret at one point that he was involved in doing religious activities for money in order to further his projects.

I have never, not even once in my life, complained about a fee for a teaching. I think it is incredibly lazy for people to complain about having to pay for Dharma, any Dharma, lazy as well as selfish.

[tobes]

everyone will pay for glossy exotic empowerments, no one will pay for teachings on sufferings of the lower realms.

In Vajrayana, receiving the glossy exotic empowerments gives the practitioner every tool necessary to avoid the sufferings of the lower realms.

They do, but utilized without sufficient understanding that very tool will cause a direct march to such places of woe.

[Malcolm]

everyone will pay for glossy exotic empowerments, no one will pay for teachings on sufferings of the lower realms.

In Vajrayana, receiving the glossy exotic empowerments gives the practitioner every tool necessary to avoid the sufferings of the lower realms.

They do, but utilized without sufficient understanding that very tool will cause a direct march to such places of woe.

It creates a positive cause, at the very least.

[tobes]

Copyright issues are already pretty clear and well established. There are some grey areas. But I don’t think there is anything new with regards to translated works, etc.
The words of the buddha can’t be owned, but translations of sutras can be. The images on centuries old Tibetan thangkas or Buddhist cave walls can’t be copyrighted, but photos of them can be.

The original topic is about teachers who charge for teachings not being genuine. This is an unsubstantiated accusation. And anyway, these days with so much dharma information available free or inexpensively, good luck to the few that charge big bucks to support their little empires.

They are clear and well established. Here. In a liberal system, with liberal laws, based on liberal assumptions. I'm not convinced that the Buddha, Nagarjuna or Kongtrul were playing by those rules. The sense of ownership is very much connected to the OP, and I am suggesting that we're too quick to univeralise our own conditions (without even realising that is what we're doing), and be highly selective in what we consider a Tibetan or Indian cultural secretion and what we consider an indispensable part of tradition.

Scarcity was always a selling point of Vajrayana and still is.

It’s just a different approach to dealing with intellectual property, to put it in modern terms, it’s vertical marketing.

It’s equally clear that we have a very imperfect idea of how instrumental market forces/potlach expenditures actually were in spreading Buddhism, even during the lifetime of the Buddha. What I am suggesting is that we have really very little insight into the economic climate of Buddhism until quote a late period.

Kongtrul lived in a fully developed market economy, and expresses regret at one point that he was involved in doing religious activities for money in order to further his projects.

People also complain about how expensive books are…well, if they understood the reality of publishing they would understand that the translators make nothing at all off if a $120 box set that they spent three years working on.

I've actually been thinking of Kongtrul a lot in the context of this thread. One of the hallmarks of his bio is just how corrupt he felt his conditions to be, more politically than economically, but the two obviously co-emerge....and they are fully institutionalised. For me, this isn't a point to conclude: oh well, such is the practice of Dharma in samsara, we should do it this way too. It is more to think: what might prevent such things from arising, in places where the Dharma is new?

He also lamented that drawing a livelihood from polluted offerings caused significant impairment in dream yoga etc.

I don't begrudge scholars, translators, teachers etc their livelihood. But as much as we can acknowledge necessary costs for Dharma activities, we can also acknowledge forms of excess, corruption, worldly motivations etc. In all honesty, how do you feel when you flip through an issue of Tricycle?

[tobes]

In Vajrayana, receiving the glossy exotic empowerments gives the practitioner every tool necessary to avoid the sufferings of the lower realms.

They do, but utilized without sufficient understanding that very tool will cause a direct march to such places of woe.

It creates a positive cause, at the very least.

Do you really think this is the best way to go: Vajrayana without any foundations?

[Malcolm]

I don't begrudge scholars, translators, teachers etc their livelihood. But as much as we can acknowledge necessary costs for Dharma activities, we can also acknowledge forms of excess, corruption, worldly motivations etc. In all honesty, how do you feel when you flip through an issue of Tricycle?

I don’t generally flip through Trike, etc. there is v nothing in those periodicals of interest to me, abnd hasn’t been for years.

I am also not at all concerned about other peoples corruption, malfeasance, grift, etc. I just pay attention to my own conduct. I am pretty confident in karma and it’s result.

[Malcolm]

They do, but utilized without sufficient understanding that very tool will cause a direct march to such places of woe.

It creates a positive cause, at the very least.

Do you really think this is the best way to go: Vajrayana without any foundations?

Jetsun Drakpa Gyaltsen pushes back against the idea that it is necessary for people to enter Vajrayana gradually. Why? Some people have foundation from past lives.

In Dzogchen in particular, the idea of making a distinction between sharp and dull is rejected out right.

[PadmaVonSamba]

In all honesty, how do you feel when you flip through an issue of Tricycle?

How would the Buddha have felt? He got funded by the ‘ruling class’.
It was Jesus who threw the money lenders out of the temple.

Considering how terribly awful a Buddhist magazine catering to popular culture in the 1990s might have been (and there were a few, not to mention some awful yoga and new age mags) Tricycle did a very good job. Of course, there are many valid criticisms of it.

But the point with regard to its content (and the advertising which is a reflection of it) is what? That the Buddhism it presented was…
…commodified? commercialized? Bourgeois?
So what?

[tobes]

In all honesty, how do you feel when you flip through an issue of Tricycle?

How would the Buddha have felt? He got funded by the ‘ruling class’.
It was Jesus who threw the money lenders out of the temple.

Considering how terribly awful a Buddhist magazine catering to popular culture in the 1990s might have been (and there were a few, not to mention some awful yoga and new age mags) Tricycle did a very good job. Of course, there are many valid criticisms of it.

But the point with regard to its content (and the advertising which is a reflection of it) is what? That the Buddhism it presented was…
…commodified? commercialized? Bourgeois?
So what?

Well, the Buddha did impose a vinaya rule for monastics not to handle money, nor buy or sell things. And he gave up his life of wealth and comfort....so I don't think it is an unfair inference to think that he may not have been that keen on 21st century capitalism/commodification, especially of his own tradition.

I'm not sure why there is such a steadfast refusal to engage with this point. It is at the very least, a point of tension.

[Kai lord]

They do, but utilized without sufficient understanding that very tool will cause a direct march to such places of woe.

That is true for any Buddhist sects, even emptiness can be misused. We have already seen examples of Zen practitioners repackage Zen techniques for mental therapy usage, etc without the slightest need for its users to understand foundational stuffs like rebirth, etc.

Very much similar to modern day commercialized yoga...

[Aemilius]

Copyright issues are already pretty clear and well established. There are some grey areas. But I don’t think there is anything new with regards to translated works, etc.
The words of the buddha can’t be owned, but translations of sutras can be. The images on centuries old Tibetan thangkas or Buddhist cave walls can’t be copyrighted, but photos of them can be.

The original topic is about teachers who charge for teachings not being genuine. This is an unsubstantiated accusation. And anyway, these days with so much dharma information available free or inexpensively, good luck to the few that charge big bucks to support their little empires.

They are clear and well established. Here. In a liberal system, with liberal laws, based on liberal assumptions. I'm not convinced that the Buddha, Nagarjuna or Kongtrul were playing by those rules. The sense of ownership is very much connected to the OP, and I am suggesting that we're too quick to univeralise our own conditions (without even realising that is what we're doing), and be highly selective in what we consider a Tibetan or Indian cultural secretion and what we consider an indispensable part of tradition.

Scarcity was always a selling point of Vajrayana and still is.

It’s just a different approach to dealing with intellectual property, to put it in modern terms, it’s vertical marketing.

It’s equally clear that we have a very imperfect idea of how instrumental market forces/potlach expenditures actually were in spreading Buddhism, even during the lifetime of the Buddha. What I am suggesting is that we have really very little insight into the economic climate of Buddhism until quote a late period.

Kongtrul lived in a fully developed market economy, and expresses regret at one point that he was involved in doing religious activities for money in order to further his projects.

I have never, not even once in my life, complained about a fee for a teaching. I think it is incredibly lazy for people to complain about having to pay for Dharma, any Dharma, lazy as well as selfish.

According to T. W. Rhys-Davids we have some knowledge about the economic and societal system in ancient India. In his book Buddhist India we find:

BUDDHIST INDIA, p. 88

"When the King of Magadha, the famous (and
infamous) Ajatasattu, made his only call upon
the Buddha, he is said '
to have put a puzzle to the
teacher to test him a puzzle characteristic of the
King's state of mind. It is this:
' What in the world is the good of your renunciation,
of joining an Order like yours ? Other people (and
here he gives a list), by following ordinary crafts, get
something out of them. They can make themselves
comfortable in this world, and keep their families in
comfort. Can you, Sir, declare to me any such imme-
diate fruit, visible in this world, of the life of a recluse ?'

In the view of the King the best examples of such crafts were the
following:

1. Elephant-riders. 17. Bath-attendants.
2. Cavalry. 18. Confectioners.
3. Charioteers. 19. Garland-makers.
4. Archers. 20. Washermen.
5-13. Nine different grades of army folk 21. Weavers.
22. Basket-makers.
14. Slaves. 23. Potters.
15. Cooks. 24. Clerks.
16. Barbers. 25. Accountants.

These are just the sort of people employed about
a camp or a palace. King-like, the King considers
chiefly those who minister to a king, and are depend-
ent upon him. In the answer he is most politely
reminded of the peasant, of the tax-payer, on whom
both he and his governance depended."

(Digha Nikaya. i. 51.)

Buddha is quite clearly taking a political stance here, -we could say. Already this list of crafts has quite a lot of information in it.

Buddhist India http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documen ... Davids.pdf

[gelukman]

I feel if you paid, then you are customer like any where else.
And if you are not satisfied.
Pay always with paypal-> goods -> always provide your address. You have
up to six months to open a paypal dispute.

[Malcolm]

According to T. W. Rhys-Davids we have some knowledge about the economic and societal system in ancient India. In his book Buddhist India we find:

Buddha is quite clearly taking a political stance here, -we could say. Already this list of crafts has quite a lot of information in it.

Buddhist India http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documen ... Davids.pdf

This certainly tells us very little about the point I was making: "It’s equally clear that we have a very imperfect idea of how instrumental market forces/potlach expenditures actually were in spreading Buddhism, even during the lifetime of the Buddha."

And we actually do not have much insight into how the economic climate of ancient India. We know that Buddha encouraged prosperity among the laity and so on. We know that it was common for śrāvakas to be supported on alms. We know that there was currency of some form since bhikṣus were forbidden from individually handling gold and silver, etc., through in all vinayas there is a position for a Sangha treasurer, meaning that Sanghas held wealth, even from the earliest days. We generally assume that Buddhism was most popular among the merchant class, and seems to have spread mainly along trade routes into Bactria, Central Asia, etc., and later along sea routes to China etc. But these insight are very external. We do not have much in the way of actual reports from the period of 500 -- 400 BCE of the economic life of India. And most of what we know of the ancient Indian economy is post-Alexander.

[PadmaVonSamba]

There are already more than a few dharma books publishers in the world who print Buddhist texts to be distributed free of charge.

And there are plenty of places where one can go to receive live dharma teachings without having to pay for it.
And there’s all the free stuff on the internet.

I would recommend that anyone who suggests that it is wrong to charge for the wisdom of the Buddha should try and open a temple or start a group based on ‘free dharma’ as its main principle, never accept any money that isn’t simply a donation, survive it on that, find a teacher willing to teach, and take it from there. And all the best to you.

That is better than condemning others.

Instead of wasting words telling others what you think is wrong, take actions to do what you think is right.

[justsit]

Should dharma texts also be free?

[Kim O'Hara]

Should dharma texts also be free?

If there is any consistent message in the 80+ posts already in this topic it is that what worked elsewhere a long time ago needs to be adapted to the very different conditions of the modern western world.
In an ideal world, all dharma teachings and books would be free to anyone interested. Giving them to enquirers is the compassionate thing to do, surely, just as giving food to the hungry is the compassionate thing to do.
But the person with the knowledge or the texts has to be able to afford to give what they have, rather than ask for money.
If that person, or that printing enterprise, is supported by donors or the whole of their community, fine. If not ... $$.
I think.


Kim