There is no business like religion business.

[Malcolm]

Something very controversial, and I don't expect much (or any really) agreement. But: if a teacher is not ordained, then why not contribute to their own livelihood via paid labour like everyone else? There are many precedents for this in the Vajrayana too.

I know I'll be slammed for this!

I get the refrain: because they need 100% of the time in retreat, practice etc. But the issue is that we end up setting up a Brahmin caste. Maybe some can be Brahmins, dispensing this or that for a fee. But some can be outcasts, and some can be workers.

The idea that all should be Brahmins seems inconsistent with the range of possibilities heralded by the Vajrayana tradition.

The idea that it’s actually anyone’s business…is misplaced.

[tobes]

Something very controversial, and I don't expect much (or any really) agreement. But: if a teacher is not ordained, then why not contribute to their own livelihood via paid labour like everyone else? There are many precedents for this in the Vajrayana too.

I know I'll be slammed for this!

I get the refrain: because they need 100% of the time in retreat, practice etc. But the issue is that we end up setting up a Brahmin caste. Maybe some can be Brahmins, dispensing this or that for a fee. But some can be outcasts, and some can be workers.

The idea that all should be Brahmins seems inconsistent with the range of possibilities heralded by the Vajrayana tradition.

The idea that it’s actually anyone’s business…is misplaced.

It is your business, if and only if, you are (for example), contributing to a cocaine budget as was the case with one well known Vajrayana master.

[PadmaVonSamba]

In the case of e.g. Christian religious events, in countries where the Christian church is rich and powerful, the church can easily pay for everything. This is really completely different to the situation with Dharma teachers and centers in most countries of the world.

…western world.

[PadmaVonSamba]

The argument in this conversation is basically the criticism that gurus whose teachings cost money are not genuine gurus.

The irony of this is that since a genuine guru will undoubtedly insist that the student devotes time to practice, the student also needs the financial stability to do this. A person needs a place to live and practice, and food to eat.

Even if, to use an extreme example, the student lives naked in a cave and has no financial obligations and no need for a job, and perhaps can spend all day meditating, they still need to eat. Someone still has to provide them with food.

In a less extreme example, if a student intends on doing a three year retreat at an established lineage retreat center, someone will have to pay to support that student. Even young monks at monasteries in India and Nepal have sponsors.

And even the casual student of Vajrayana who never intends on doing a retreat still has to have money to survive so that they can devote time to practice, even if it’s only an three bows and a half hour of meditation each day.

So, if the critical person is going to point the finger at a teacher and say that their needing money means they can’t be regarded as a genuine teacher, then by the very same reasons in that critical person’s very own reasoning, if they need money to live so they can practice, how can they be regarded as a genuine student?

The entire criticism is hypocritical to begin with.

[Malcolm]

Something very controversial, and I don't expect much (or any really) agreement. But: if a teacher is not ordained, then why not contribute to their own livelihood via paid labour like everyone else? There are many precedents for this in the Vajrayana too.

I know I'll be slammed for this!

I get the refrain: because they need 100% of the time in retreat, practice etc. But the issue is that we end up setting up a Brahmin caste. Maybe some can be Brahmins, dispensing this or that for a fee. But some can be outcasts, and some can be workers.

The idea that all should be Brahmins seems inconsistent with the range of possibilities heralded by the Vajrayana tradition.

The idea that it’s actually anyone’s business…is misplaced.

It is your business, if and only if, you are (for example), contributing to a cocaine budget as was the case with one well known Vajrayana master.

People were spilling all over each other to keep that guy’s nose full of coke. None of that money came from the organization. They had good tax lawyers. Personal donations are personal donations, whether used for this or that. It’s not a question of approve or disapprove, it’s a question of people’s right to waste their money however they see fit, whether it winds up as gold leaf on a statue or cocaine in someone’s nose.

[Aryjna]

Something very controversial, and I don't expect much (or any really) agreement. But: if a teacher is not ordained, then why not contribute to their own livelihood via paid labour like everyone else? There are many precedents for this in the Vajrayana too.

I know I'll be slammed for this!

I get the refrain: because they need 100% of the time in retreat, practice etc. But the issue is that we end up setting up a Brahmin caste. Maybe some can be Brahmins, dispensing this or that for a fee. But some can be outcasts, and some can be workers.

The idea that all should be Brahmins seems inconsistent with the range of possibilities heralded by the Vajrayana tradition.

The cost involved is not for the teacher's daily expenses necessarily. Unless we are only talking about teachings given completely online, with the teacher sitting at their desk at home and broadcasting this way.

[Aryjna]

In the case of e.g. Christian religious events, in countries where the Christian church is rich and powerful, the church can easily pay for everything. This is really completely different to the situation with Dharma teachers and centers in most countries of the world.

…western world.

Maybe. I don't really know what things are like in India, but from the little I've heard I don't have the impression that buddhist monasteries there are really well off financially. But I could be wrong, and also things are probably a lot different in Thailand and other similarly "buddhist" countries.

[tobes]

The argument in this conversation is basically the criticism that gurus whose teachings cost money are not genuine gurus.

The irony of this is that since a genuine guru will undoubtedly insist that the student devotes time to practice, the student also needs the financial stability to do this. A person needs a place to live and practice, and food to eat.

Even if, to use an extreme example, the student lives naked in a cave and has no financial obligations and no need for a job, and perhaps can spend all day meditating, they still need to eat. Someone still has to provide them with food.

In a less extreme example, if a student intends on doing a three year retreat at an established lineage retreat center, someone will have to pay to support that student. Even young monks at monasteries in India and Nepal have sponsors.

And even the casual student of Vajrayana who never intends on doing a retreat still has to have money to survive so that they can devote time to practice, even if it’s only an three bows and a half hour of meditation each day.

So, if the critical person is going to point the finger at a teacher and say that their needing money means they can’t be regarded as a genuine teacher, then by the very same reasons in that critical person’s very own reasoning, if they need money to live so they can practice, how can they be regarded as a genuine student?

The entire criticism is hypocritical to begin with.

Is it hypocritical?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Dharma teachers don't need material conditions such as food, shelter etc, and for that reason, material support, perhaps benefactors etc.

The criticism is that teachers who set a high price for Dharma teachings are turning in an a-dharmic direction.....because outside of the Vajrayana, this is indeed pretty a-dharmic.

[tobes]

The idea that it’s actually anyone’s business…is misplaced.

It is your business, if and only if, you are (for example), contributing to a cocaine budget as was the case with one well known Vajrayana master.

People were spilling all over each other to keep that guy’s nose full of coke. None of that money came from the organization. They had good tax lawyers. Personal donations are personal donations, whether used for this or that. It’s not a question of approve or disapprove, it’s a question of people’s right to waste their money however they see fit, whether it winds up as gold leaf on a statue or cocaine in someone’s nose.

It is their right. And it's our right to think - maybe not necessarily conclude, but to think at least - that the corruption inherent in the tulku system has ownership, private property etc at its core. The more we untie this the better. What is left is what everybody agrees with: enough material support for the wheel of Dharma to be turned.

[tobes]

Something very controversial, and I don't expect much (or any really) agreement. But: if a teacher is not ordained, then why not contribute to their own livelihood via paid labour like everyone else? There are many precedents for this in the Vajrayana too.

I know I'll be slammed for this!

I get the refrain: because they need 100% of the time in retreat, practice etc. But the issue is that we end up setting up a Brahmin caste. Maybe some can be Brahmins, dispensing this or that for a fee. But some can be outcasts, and some can be workers.

The idea that all should be Brahmins seems inconsistent with the range of possibilities heralded by the Vajrayana tradition.

The cost involved is not for the teacher's daily expenses necessarily. Unless we are only talking about teachings given completely online, with the teacher sitting at their desk at home and broadcasting this way.

Sure, temples, infrastructure etc. All traditions have to find ways to finance this.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Dharma teachers don't need material conditions such as food, shelter etc, and for that reason, material support, perhaps benefactors etc.

I’m referring to the original post starting this thread, and of what Devine’s a “genuine” guru. The impression I get from that argument is that genuine teachings don’t cost money.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I don't really know what things are like in India, but from the little I've heard I don't have the impression that buddhist monasteries there are really well off financially. But I could be wrong, and also things are probably a lot different in Thailand and other similarly "buddhist" countries.

In Taiwan there is incredible financial support for Buddhist institutions. I think this is also true in Singapore and Malaysia. It’s true in Korea and Japan as well. Of course, in Thailand support comes from the Royal government too.

[HePo]

I don't really know what things are like in India, but from the little I've heard I don't have the impression that buddhist monasteries there are really well off financially. But I could be wrong, and also things are probably a lot different in Thailand and other similarly "buddhist" countries.

In Taiwan there is incredible financial support for Buddhist institutions. I think this is also true in Singapore and Malaysia. It’s true in Korea and Japan as well. Of course, in Thailand support comes from the Royal government too.

I am curious what on what information your idea about "financial support for Buddhist institutions" in Japan is based?

According to information i read - about 30 to 40% of the 77.000 tempes in Japan are expected to close in the next 25-30 years.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I don't really know what things are like in India, but from the little I've heard I don't have the impression that buddhist monasteries there are really well off financially. But I could be wrong, and also things are probably a lot different in Thailand and other similarly "buddhist" countries.

In Taiwan there is incredible financial support for Buddhist institutions. I think this is also true in Singapore and Malaysia. It’s true in Korea and Japan as well. Of course, in Thailand support comes from the Royal government too.

I am curious what on what information your idea about "financial support for Buddhist institutions" in Japan is based?

According to information i read - about 30 to 40% of the 77.000 tempes in Japan are expected to close in the next 25-30 years.

My mistake then

[jmlee369]

I'm a bit with the OP on this. Not all the way.

I like HHDL's approach - there is a big cost to big events that he holds, and attendees pay a fee. But at the end, the organisers read out a painstakingly boring balance sheet, and if there is any leftover, it is donated.

Yes there is tendrel and this or that siddha giving gold. But there is also the Buddha Shakyamuni never charging a cent for anything that he taught, and look at the legacy. There is no doubt that charging for Dharma opens the door for all kinds of worldly concerns, institutional corruption et al.

i learned, in this very forum, that it's traditional to charge a fee for vajrayana teachings. that's ok also imo, it is correct.
but imo, it's definitely a horrible crime to charge for sutrayana teachings.

Sadaprarudita Bodhisattva from the 8000 line Prajnaparamita Sutra is often used as an example in commentaries. And Sadaprarudita is seeking only the prajnaparamita teachings, not tantric teachings from Dharmodgata. Dharmodgata lives in a jewelled palace enjoying the five desires with a retinue of 68,000 women, but in order to make offerings to him, the impoverished Sadaprarudita sells his body on the market, cutting off his flesh, extracting blood, and breaking his bones to get the marrow.

How many of us would be willing to donate even some mere possessions of ours for the sake of Mahayana teachings to a millionaire guru?

People talk about the example of Shakyamuni Buddha, but he had several royal patrons, and sponsors like Visakha and Anathapindika whose practice of generosity contributed to his decline in wealth but continued to give anyway. And the jataka tales tell of one lifetime in which the Buddha-to-be sacrificed his own body to hear just a half-verse of dharma.

If we're talking about Mahayana teachings, the offerings we make are for the value of Dharma, not the teacher. And no material amount could possibly be enough to match that value. Isn't that why we offer the mandala - the entire universe, our bodies, all our possessions and merits of the three times? Yes, the teacher should practice generosity of dharma, but is there not a risk of the recipients falling into deep karmic debt by taking it for free, for granted? If we want easy access to the teachings in our own backyard, we need to set up and maintain institutions that can provide the teachings, and this will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Otherwise, it will be up to the individual to travel in search of the teachings, once again limiting the teachings to those who can afford it.

For the record, I run a dharma centre that offers all programmes free of charge, both in-person and streamed online. But we have several very generous donors to rely on. We could not depend solely on the day-to-day contributions of our event participants.

[tobes]

I'm a bit with the OP on this. Not all the way.

I like HHDL's approach - there is a big cost to big events that he holds, and attendees pay a fee. But at the end, the organisers read out a painstakingly boring balance sheet, and if there is any leftover, it is donated.

Yes there is tendrel and this or that siddha giving gold. But there is also the Buddha Shakyamuni never charging a cent for anything that he taught, and look at the legacy. There is no doubt that charging for Dharma opens the door for all kinds of worldly concerns, institutional corruption et al.

i learned, in this very forum, that it's traditional to charge a fee for vajrayana teachings. that's ok also imo, it is correct.
but imo, it's definitely a horrible crime to charge for sutrayana teachings.

Sadaprarudita Bodhisattva from the 8000 line Prajnaparamita Sutra is often used as an example in commentaries. And Sadaprarudita is seeking only the prajnaparamita teachings, not tantric teachings from Dharmodgata. Dharmodgata lives in a jewelled palace enjoying the five desires with a retinue of 68,000 women, but in order to make offerings to him, the impoverished Sadaprarudita sells his body on the market, cutting off his flesh, extracting blood, and breaking his bones to get the marrow.

How many of us would be willing to donate even some mere possessions of ours for the sake of Mahayana teachings to a millionaire guru?

People talk about the example of Shakyamuni Buddha, but he had several royal patrons, and sponsors like Visakha and Anathapindika whose practice of generosity contributed to his decline in wealth but continued to give anyway. And the jataka tales tell of one lifetime in which the Buddha-to-be sacrificed his own body to hear just a half-verse of dharma.

If we're talking about Mahayana teachings, the offerings we make are for the value of Dharma, not the teacher. And no material amount could possibly be enough to match that value. Isn't that why we offer the mandala - the entire universe, our bodies, all our possessions and merits of the three times? Yes, the teacher should practice generosity of dharma, but is there not a risk of the recipients falling into deep karmic debt by taking it for free, for granted? If we want easy access to the teachings in our own backyard, we need to set up and maintain institutions that can provide the teachings, and this will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Otherwise, it will be up to the individual to travel in search of the teachings, once again limiting the teachings to those who can afford it.

For the record, I run a dharma centre that offers all programmes free of charge, both in-person and streamed online. But we have several very generous donors to rely on. We could not depend solely on the day-to-day contributions of our event participants.

The point that I draw from this is: for aspirants who have the intent to offer and donate in the same manner of Sadaprarudita (or Marpa, for that matter), that is extremely auspicious and 100% worthy of rejoicing. **But this is different from 21st century aspirants paying a fee because a price has been set.**

The essential difference being: once a fee is set, the whole paradigm is in the domain of the market economy; one is thinking of supply and demand and opportunity cost etc. "I could go to this, but then I will have to put off buying that." In this sense, I don't think it really captures the true intent of dana....it is much more likely to be a consideration of utility.

Moreover, recipients who have the karma to meet with Dharma teachings, and do so with an open mind and intent to receive them purely, are doing something extremely meritorious, period. Karmic debt?? No, only if one equates Dharma with economy.

[jet.urgyen]

I'm a bit with the OP on this. Not all the way.

I like HHDL's approach - there is a big cost to big events that he holds, and attendees pay a fee. But at the end, the organisers read out a painstakingly boring balance sheet, and if there is any leftover, it is donated.

Yes there is tendrel and this or that siddha giving gold. But there is also the Buddha Shakyamuni never charging a cent for anything that he taught, and look at the legacy. There is no doubt that charging for Dharma opens the door for all kinds of worldly concerns, institutional corruption et al.

i learned, in this very forum, that it's traditional to charge a fee for vajrayana teachings. that's ok also imo, it is correct.
but imo, it's definitely a horrible crime to charge for sutrayana teachings.

Sadaprarudita Bodhisattva from the 8000 line Prajnaparamita Sutra is often used as an example in commentaries. And Sadaprarudita is seeking only the prajnaparamita teachings, not tantric teachings from Dharmodgata. Dharmodgata lives in a jewelled palace enjoying the five desires with a retinue of 68,000 women, but in order to make offerings to him, the impoverished Sadaprarudita sells his body on the market, cutting off his flesh, extracting blood, and breaking his bones to get the marrow.

How many of us would be willing to donate even some mere possessions of ours for the sake of Mahayana teachings to a millionaire guru?

People talk about the example of Shakyamuni Buddha, but he had several royal patrons, and sponsors like Visakha and Anathapindika whose practice of generosity contributed to his decline in wealth but continued to give anyway. And the jataka tales tell of one lifetime in which the Buddha-to-be sacrificed his own body to hear just a half-verse of dharma.

If we're talking about Mahayana teachings, the offerings we make are for the value of Dharma, not the teacher. And no material amount could possibly be enough to match that value. Isn't that why we offer the mandala - the entire universe, our bodies, all our possessions and merits of the three times? Yes, the teacher should practice generosity of dharma, but is there not a risk of the recipients falling into deep karmic debt by taking it for free, for granted? If we want easy access to the teachings in our own backyard, we need to set up and maintain institutions that can provide the teachings, and this will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Otherwise, it will be up to the individual to travel in search of the teachings, once again limiting the teachings to those who can afford it.

For the record, I run a dharma centre that offers all programmes free of charge, both in-person and streamed online. But we have several very generous donors to rely on. We could not depend solely on the day-to-day contributions of our event participants.

I condemn charging for sutra teachings, not condemning donations.

Bodhisattvas and Kings have the opportunity to be generous, and in that greatness they don't complain about it. Do they? In general we can't say it is the same for common people.

Now, if a person truly sees the value in the teaching, that person will arise the thought of retribute something, to donate even a little, that's a positive cause already. That person is already in the correct path. How could anyone be set on the path if the preceptor is charging for words that doesn't even are of his own? So i see charging for dharma is such a crime, because people looses faith, and whe they loose faith they turn their back to dharma, ant when they turn their backs to dharma the good roots of happiness are instantly severed. when they see a fee in the middle, how many beings...

Btw, what you do is of great benefit, what your patrons do is of great benefit. I do bow to you. It is a great effort.

[gelukman]

Usually there is not even discount for people who join teachings at the same group.
And what is a fixed donation? Donation amount used to be decided by the giver.

[Aryjna]

Usually there is not even discount for people who join teachings at the same group.
And what is a fixed donation? Donation amount used to be decided by the giver.

You still have not given specific examples or any kind of evidence to show that "usually" there is not even a discount. Just repeating things you said earlier does not give you any more credibility.

I don't think I can remember even one example of an event that did not offer an option to attend for free, or at least mentioned that anyone who has a financial problem should contact them.

[Aryjna]

Now, if a person truly sees the value in the teaching, that person will arise the thought of retribute something, to donate even a little, that's a positive cause already. That person is already in the correct path. How could anyone be set on the path if the preceptor is charging for words that doesn't even are of his own? So i see charging for dharma is such a crime, because people looses faith, and whe they loose faith they turn their back to dharma, ant when they turn their backs to dharma the good roots of happiness are instantly severed. when they see a fee in the middle, how many beings...

I'm not sure where you got this idea about owning and not owning words. Also, like gelukman, you have also failed to explain who will cover the necessary expenses if no one contributes financially.