mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.013722.1106@nas.nasa.gov> johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) writes: >In article: 193 of soc.religion.eastern, Mr. Tye writes: > [An accusation against a particular teacher/organization:] >>>If the person wants to continue attend Satsang they must pay $100 >>>per month for a six month trial period. After that discipleship >>>costs $200 per month. The organization, Society of Abidance in Truth >>>(SAT), is very rigid on these rules... > >Etc., etc... Come, come Mr. Tye! Yes, there is an organization of those >interested in supporting the teaching of Master Nome. What of it? How >else do you expect people to find out about it? To go hijack an auditorium >somewhere then advertise "It's all free!"? Please do enter the real >world, Sir!... >...By the way, if you have a better, more >efficient or economical plan for running a non-profit group, speak up. A >lot of struggling churches and non-profit groups could use a hand. Since you asked... :-) Without contributing to the heat of this discussion, I would like to point out that there are in fact many spiritual teachers and organizations which charge no dues, relying on truly voluntary contributions to support all of their activities - and this is in "the real world". Few if any "struggling churches" actually resort to dues. You may say that it is easier for the dominant religion of a culture to function this way, but the phenomenon is also found among small struggling minorities. The tradition I know best which maintains this kind of practice in nearly pure form is Theravada Buddhism, where it is known as "dana" or "giving". By tradition there is no charge for teaching, for attending temples, or even for food and accommodations for lay people at retreat centers. I have seen this first hand in Thailand, where I stayed briefly at a forest monastery. Not only did they supply my needs freely without even asking anything in return, the head monk, who I had written to in advance, contacted some generous English speaking lay people who welcomed me into their home, showed me around Chaing Mai, drove me out to the monastery (about 2 hours away), and stayed to translate for my first meeting with the head monk and to see that I was settled in. Family could not have treated me better. In America some centers, such as Insight Meditation Society in Barre, MA charge a modest daily rate for residential retreats, but not even enough to cover all their expenses. And "scholarships" are available for those unable to afford even the modest charge for food and shelter. At least one place, the Bhavana Society meditation center in West Virginia, is actually able to carry on the tradition of not charging at all. Anyone who wants to is welcome to go there to practice, staying in a private hut and receiving meals and teaching without charge. Donations are of course welcome, but there is no pressure. They don't pass the collection plate or even bring up the subject with guests. Some have stayed for extended retreats without making any substantial financial contribution, and they are as welcome as anybody. I have less intimate knowledge of several other teachers and groups which are similarly generous with teaching and manage to make it on free will offerings. The Hare Krishna movement's offering of free food (which many people do take advantage of) comes to mind. They once got a bad reputation for aggressively soliciting donations from the public, but I haven't seen that for years. I am not saying that it is never right to charge fees to cover expenses. Some have had to compromise the pure dana tradition. Most have tried to stay as close to it as possible. Compromises are no reason to throw it out entirely. You are far too cynical, Mr. Wheeler. Those who have tried to maintain the tradition of freely sharing teaching, even without a large and affluent group of followers, have been able to succeed without charging $200 per month dues. Bill Mayne
johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) (06/28/91)
In article 198 of soc.religion.eastern Mr. Mayne writes: >>Without contributing to the heat of this discussion, I would like to >>point out that there are in fact many spiritual teachers and organizations >>which charge no dues, relying on truly voluntary contributions to support >>all of their activities - and this is in "the real world". First of all, I appreciate your thoughts and experiences about the "economic" side of the spiritual path. However, I think a few comments are in order to clarify the matter. >>The tradition I know best which maintains this kind of practice in nearly >>pure form is Theravada Buddhism, where it is known as "dana" or "giving". >>By tradition there is no charge for teaching, for attending temples, or >>even for food and accommodations for lay people at retreat centers. I believe you have the concept of "dana" (or giving) inverted. Dana does not, in my view, have anything to do with whether a spiritual institution offers "free" instruction, food, or what have you. Dana is the selfless contribution of financial (or some other form of) support by *you* to help the flourishing of the spiritual teaching. In other words, it is not a question of whether or not you get free rice and lodging in a meditation hut, it is a question of what you can do and give to support the teaching, and those who offer it. >>I have seen this first hand in Thailand, where I stayed briefly at a >>forest monastery. Not only did they supply my needs freely without even >>asking anything in return, the head monk, who I had written to in advance, >>contacted some generous English speaking lay people who welcomed me into ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>their home, showed me around Chaing Mai, drove me out to the monastery >>(about 2 hours away), and stayed to translate for my first meeting with >>the head monk and to see that I was settled in. Family could not have >>treated me better. As the highlighted test indicates, your experience was not "free" at all. Someone who valued that particular teaching gave of their time and financial resources to make your stay possible. This is dana. >>At least one place, the Bhavana Society meditation center in West >>Virginia, is actually able to carry on the tradition of not charging >>at all. Anyone who wants to is welcome to go there to practice, staying >>in a private hut and receiving meals and teaching without charge. Again, this is not an example dana. It is funny that you place the concept of giving on the wrong side of the equation, so to speak. By the way, I am curious: what do free food and meditation huts have to do with the Dharma, anyway? >>I am not saying that it is never right to charge fees to cover expenses. >>Some have had to compromise the pure dana tradition. It is actually quite joyful to give of one's services and financial support to a worthy cause. This is my experience. In my view, giving comes from a a place of "non-ego," and as such, tends to have a happy quality about it. Those who wail and complain about giving, or want the universe to give them everything "free" on a silver platter, are usually fairly solidly entrenched in an ego-oriented position, in my opinion. In your comments you have mentioned all that you have received for free or for a reduced price. I am curious what you have given in return? I thought I would offer you my two cents on the matter. :-) :-) :-)
radams@cerritos.edu (06/28/91)
mayne@sun16.scri.fsu.edu (Bill Mayne) writes: >Since you asked... :-) >Without contributing to the heat of this discussion, I would like to >point out that there are in fact many spiritual teachers and organizations >which charge no dues, relying on truly voluntary contributions to support >all of their activities - and this is in "the real world". Few if any >"struggling churches" actually resort to dues. You may say that it is >easier for the dominant religion of a culture to function this way, but >the phenomenon is also found among small struggling minorities. >You are far too cynical, Mr. Wheeler. Those who have tried to maintain >the tradition of freely sharing teaching, even without a large and >affluent group of followers, have been able to succeed without charging >$200 per month dues. >Bill Mayne I agree completely with the above though I don't see Mr. Wheeler as being cynical, just mistaken. Let me mention another non-profit organization that does not charge any dues (much less monthly dues): Self-Realization Fellowship. SRF depends on voluntary contributions and they do pass the plate around at Sunday services in the various temples or centers just as any church would do. Also there is a small fee to receive the SRF lessons which covers the cost of printing and mailing costs (something like $30 or $40 for the entire series of lessons which are mailed to you over a period of 2 or more years depending on the pace the student wants to take). I don't like the idea of an organization turning its members upside down and shaking $200 or whatever out of their pockets every month. SRF has centers all over the world and is a growing organization - never any pressuring or requiring its members to contribute financially. Roger Adams radams@cerritos.edu To those in whom love dwells, Cerritos College the whole world is one family. 11110 Alondra Blvd A Hindu Proverb Norwalk, California 90650 USA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pingali%gaia@cs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.233813.5336@nas.nasa.gov> johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) writes: > >>>The tradition I know best which maintains this kind of practice in nearly >>>pure form is Theravada Buddhism, where it is known as "dana" or "giving". >>>By tradition there is no charge for teaching, for attending temples, or >>>even for food and accommodations for lay people at retreat centers. > >I believe you have the concept of "dana" (or giving) inverted. Dana does >not, in my view, have anything to do with whether a spiritual institution >offers "free" instruction, food, or what have you. Dana is the selfless >contribution of financial (or some other form of) support by *you* to help the >flourishing of the spiritual teaching. In other words, it is not a question >of whether or not you get free rice and lodging in a meditation hut, >it is a question of what you can do and give to support the teaching, and >those who offer it. This is an incomplete view of dana. Dana has always been understood to be a two-way relationship. There is the generosity of the teachers in sharing the teaching, there is the generosity of the students in supporting it, and there is the dual generosity in the act of receiving. This philosophy lies at the heart of Buddhist monasticism and is what has made possible the 2500 year old history of the Dhamma. The dana paramita ("the perfection of giving") is considered the first of the paramis that an aspirant should *consciously* develop - all others will follow. Giving and renunciation (the act of letting go) spring from the same source within us and are what lead to panna (prajna - wisdom). Thus dana is present at both the beginning and the end (just as mindfulness is both the means and the end). The sage's presence itself is an act of dana. The traditional act of "sharing merit" is an act of dana. > It is funny that you place the concept >of giving on the wrong side of the equation, so to speak. By the way, I am >curious: what do free food and meditation huts have to do with the Dharma, >anyway? Actually, a considerable amount. Since the Dhamma is priceless, no price is put on it. >>>I am not saying that it is never right to charge fees to cover expenses. >>>Some have had to compromise the pure dana tradition. > >It is actually quite joyful to give of one's services and financial support >to a worthy cause. This is my experience. In my view, giving comes from a >a place of "non-ego," and as such, tends to have a happy quality about it. This is true - and that is why the relationship in the act of giving is mutual. Of course, in a pure act of dana, there is neither giving nor receiving. >Those who wail and complain about giving, or want the universe to give them >everything "free" on a silver platter, are usually fairly solidly entrenched >in an ego-oriented position, in my opinion. I think you are too harsh. Peace, Sridhar -- "If you knew the power of giving as I do, you would not let a single meal pass without sharing it in some way." - The Buddha
johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) (06/29/91)
In article 205 of soc.religion.eastern, Sridhar writes: >>I believe you have the concept of "dana" (or giving) inverted. Dana does >>not, in my view, have anything to do with whether a spiritual institution >>offers "free" instruction, food, or what have you. Dana is the selfless >>contribution of financial (or some other form of) support by *you* to help >>the flourishing of the spiritual teaching. In other words, it is not a >>question of whether or not you get free rice and lodging in a meditation hut, >>it is a question of what you can do and give to support the teaching, and >>those who offer it. (johnw) > >This is an incomplete view of dana. Dana has always been >understood to be a two-way relationship. There is the >generosity of the teachers in sharing the teaching, there >is the generosity of the students in supporting it, and there >is the dual generosity in the act of receiving. This >philosophy lies at the heart of Buddhist monasticism and >is what has made possible the 2500 year old history of >the Dhamma. The dana paramita ("the perfection of giving") >is considered the first of the paramis that an aspirant >should *consciously* develop - all others will follow. >Giving and renunciation (the act of letting go) spring >from the same source within us and are what lead to >panna (prajna - wisdom). Thus dana is present at both >the beginning and the end (just as mindfulness is both >the means and the end). The sage's presence itself is >an act of dana. The traditional act of "sharing merit" >is an act of dana. Thank you for completing the thought. I feel this is a balanced and whole view of the matter. My main point was to emphasize that "dana" entails a response from the seeker as well. I agree that the sage's presence is an "act of dana," indeed it is the the supreme gift. What could be more valuable than receiving the Dharma from an enlightened one? Is there anything one would not give to receive such a treasure? >>It is funny that you place the concept >>of giving on the wrong side of the equation, so to speak. By the way, I am >>curious: what do free food and meditation huts have to do with the Dharma, >>anyway? (johnw) > >Actually, a considerable amount. Since the Dhamma is priceless, >no price is put on it. I think you misunderstood my question, Sridhar. I was asking what free food and mediation huts have to do with the Dharma? You are not equating rice and meditation huts with the Dharma, surely? The Dharma is something more than mere food and lodging? Please clarify. >>It is actually quite joyful to give of one's services and financial support >>to a worthy cause. This is my experience. In my view, giving comes from a >>a place of "non-ego," and as such, tends to have a happy quality about it. >> (johnw) > >This is true - and that is why the relationship in the act >of giving is mutual. Of course, in a pure act of dana, there >is neither giving nor receiving. > >>Those who wail and complain about giving, or want the universe to give them >>everything "free" on a silver platter, are usually fairly solidly entrenched >>in an ego-oriented position, in my opinion. (johnw) > >I think you are too harsh. Sorry if you take this as a harsh attitude; it is not meant to be. I believe it is a fair assessment of the matter, however. In my experience, those who voluntarily give of themselves and their resources and generously support something of value tend to be less "ego-oriented." Being less "ego-oriented," they are happier. I think there is a spirtual maxim in there somewhere. Take care.
pingali@.cs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) (06/29/91)
In article <1991Jun28.224658.10222@nas.nasa.gov> johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) writes: > >>>It is funny that you place the concept >>>of giving on the wrong side of the equation, so to speak. By the way, I am >>>curious: what do free food and meditation huts have to do with the Dharma, >>>anyway? (johnw) >> >>Actually, a considerable amount. Since the Dhamma is priceless, >>no price is put on it. > >I think you misunderstood my question, Sridhar. I was asking what free >food and mediation huts have to do with the Dharma? You are not >equating rice and meditation huts with the Dharma, surely? The Dharma is >something more than mere food and lodging? Please clarify. I think that this is an interesting question. What *is* the Dhamma anyway? There are as many understandings as there are moments. One understanding of "taking refuge in the Dhamma" - is to take refuge in the truth of the present moment. This is an act of radical and very clear faith - for *whatever* is happening now is the Dhamma and is the refuge. I think that there is a danger in placing the Dhamma as something high and above mundane existence. The Dhamma is to be found in relationship right here, right now. This requires attention and this can be understood to be the refuge of the Buddha (or the awakened mind). So, are rice and meditation huts the Dhamma? I can't answer that question directly - but let me take this as an excuse to tell some stories about the Buddha :-). The Buddha organized the original sangha (savaka sangha) in such a way that the monks and nuns were completely dependent on the laity for all their needs. He said that the only possible return for such generosity was a life of purity and careful practice. The practice of "pinda path" (the alms round) was to help develop among the bhikkus and bhikkunis a sense of humility and gratitude, and also provide the laity with opportunities to be generous and to come into contact with the teaching. There is an invitation here to ask ourselves where the Dhamma is to be found in the relationship between the sangha and the laity. On some occasion, a monk approached the Buddha and asked him, "What is happiness?" The Buddha asked, "Did you eat breakfast?" The monk replied that he had. The Buddha then asked, "Did you wash your bowl?" The monk said yes. The Buddha asked, "Did you do a good job?" Some 10 months before his maha parinibbana, the Buddha was approached by Ananda and was asked for some final teaching. The Buddha then said that he had no notion that it was he that had to lead the Sangha. He called upon all his disciples to hold fast to the Dhamma as the refuge and to have no other refuge. And how was a monk to abide having the Dhamma as the refuge and none other - being an island unto himself? The Buddha said that the way was to practice the four establishments of mindfulness on body, feelings, mind and mind objects. The monk was to be "ardent, clearly comprehending and mindful - having overcome grief and coveteousness regarding the world." Cheers, Sridhar