Paying for Spiritual Services
Following up yesterday's post on spiritual masochism -- another shocking bit of news to float out of the Arizona desert sweat lodge tragedy, which resulted in the deaths of three people, is that the participants had paid up to $10,000 to be tortured. Patti Wigington, the About.com Guide to Paganism/Wicca, blogs about this and asked the question, is it OK to charge for spiritual services?
This question comes up a lot in Buddhism. People are sometimes shocked and astonished when teachers and dharma centers require a payment for teachings and retreats. Shouldn't the dharma be free? Christian ministers don't expect fees for sermons, do they?
It's important to understand that many monasteries, temples and dharma centers in the West are entirely self-funded, with no financial ties to a bigger institution with endowments and investments to sustain it. In those cases the money raised from fees is necessary to keep the facility operating. I believe some temples in the West do get financial help from "parent" organizations in Asia, but all the dharma centers I know of personally are entirely on their own financially and barely squeaking by.
Further, in Asia it's a major part of lay practice to support the temples and monasteries with alms and donations. In some traditions laypeople give alms to receive merit, making almsgiving a privilege. Not being allowed to give alms is something like excommunication.
The spiritual world is full of flim-flam artists, no question. But if the fees are going to support a worthwhile institution, particularly one affiliated with an established school of Buddhism, I wouldn't be too concerned. I'd say there's a huge gulf between a dharma center collecting $30 at the door for a meditation workshop and some self-proclaimed master with no institutional affiliation collecting $10,000 a head to put people through a week of deprivation. And if the amount of money requested for a teaching would be a genuine hardship for you, let them know, and you might get a discount.
I acknowledge I've heard stories here and there about individual teachers, people with proper institutional "cred," who were more interested in money and possessions than was good for them (and their students). There is no guarantee that your donated money will be put to wise use. I also don't think lack of money should ever be a barrier to receiving the dharma. Has it ever been a barrier for you? If so, please share the experience.
This is a complex issue, and you’ve brought up very good points. Now that I’m in my 3rd year on the board of directors of our zen center, I’m fully steeped in questions of money and dharma. Our center has made great effort in recent years to be much more open and flexible about fees and membership pledges. I feel fortunate for that, given that I’m on the very low end of middle class financially. I also, given my board position, have contributed directly to some of the changes that have been made.
Yet, the experience I have had at my own center – I’m not sure this is what I see generally when I look around the North American convert dharma community. I’ve run across many advertisements for short meditation retreats that cost hundreds of dollars. I’ve seen single one hour dharma talks being given by well-known teachers with $50-100 entrance fees. Workshops and classes can also easily cost $300, $400 or more, depending upon how long they are.
Part of the confusion with all of this is trying to function in a capitalist society that has values very contrary to most of Buddhist teaching. We need money to keep the doors and pay employees fair wages and benefits. And yet, in the process, we often end up unconsciously creating barriers for poor people. This is done not only by publishing high flat fees for our classes and retreats, but also by the way in which some middle and upper class people equate generosity solely with financial contributions.
When I was making even less money, and our center was less flexible, I wouldn’t have approached the staff to ask for a discount. Partly, this was because there was an expectation that I “give” a weekly amount of “volunteer hours” in service to the community in exchange for a discount. Partly, though, I, too, had come to equate generosity with financial contributions and it was only after much reflection and a willingness to speak up about it, that I started to shed this limited idea, and the guilt attached to it.
There’s a strong double standard that can play out in all of this. Well off folks are considered generous, while those who can’t give a lot are viewed as less so. The volunteer work done in the sangha by well off folks is seen as virtuous, while that of us poorer folks is considered “repayment” for “lost” fees. And when people pay in full, they can be considered supporting the dharma, while those of us who can’t pay full price can be considered to be undermining the mission of the sangha.
I don’t think this double standard is at work in all of the convert Buddhist community, and I have seen plenty of evidence that communities across North America are looking at ways to address these issues. However, I think we have a long way to go.
The question of money and religion is always sticky. But as Nathan indicates, we live in a society in which religious institutions by and large pay their own way. Dharma centers here, unlike those in Asia, do not exist in the middle of the general cultural of donating that Barbara mentions. I used to be a congregational rabbi–if I had given away my services free to all, I and my family would have starved. My salary came from membership fees plus large donations, though admittedly any and all were welcome to worship with us. This is contrary to ancient Jewish tradition, in which the early rabbis were urged to survive through a worldly occupation and take no money to teach Torah–but we don’t live in that ancient world. The Zen center I go to sometimes has fees for retreats and classes, but they are on a sliding scale. I paid full for the Roshi’s basic meditation class, which amounted to $20 per one 90 minute class–highly reasonable. The full cost of retreats amounts to less than $100 a day, also reasonable, and scholarships are available. But $10,000 retreats–that is a highly different matter and should set off alarm bells at the get-go. The psychology might be that, if you pay a lot, you will ipso facto receive a lot. All I can say is, I hope this “sweat lodge” charlatan is driven out of business.
There have been articles wrote and distributed among us native americans. And we are all in the belief that our spirituality is not for sale!!!! And believe it has come around to the fact that our spirituality is sacred. And people need to realize that!!! Just a shame that two people had to die to figure it out.
Laura
This is not a complex problem. We make it complex by twisting and contorting it.
Did the Buddha charge for his teaching?
Did Jesus charge for his teaching?
Does John Bullit charge for the volumes of Buddhist teachings on his web site?
Do I charge for the advice and teaching I give to people (based on Christian and Buddhist philosophies)?
(Yes they are rhetorical questions so here comes the rhetoric.)
The answer to the above is no. Once the teaching moves from an individual to a group the gathering place (church, synagogue, sangha,etc) becomes a necessity. That is one of the many reasons that I have never joined a group (another is that I have not found a suitable teacher in the Philadelphia PA area). The charging of fees or dues is explained as a necessity of living in a capitalist society I disagree it is a function of having a group. Even the way the meeting places are mentioned impart a air of capitalism. There was mentioned Zen Centers as if they were a place to get something kind of like a spiritual Wal*mart. It seems to me to have a central meeting place is indeed contrary to the central teachings of Buddha and Jesus. Both of them teach you that the place you seek is within you. So, why do you need a center? No center, no problems of paying the bills. I myself teach in a tavern of all places. People there need the most teaching. Much more so than someone who pays dues and fees. I always have the feeling that charging for these teaching also cheapens them to a commodity
So I feel that spiritual teachings, including those of Native Americans, should not have any fee associated with them (BTW Laura I am of Native American decent but I haven’t maintained any tribal affiliation).
What makes most sense to me, what simply feels best, is for the teachings themselves to be offered, always, on a dana (donation-to-honor) basis. But in terms of various organizational expenses, including rental of a practice center, it would seem necessary, in most cases, to be in accord with existing social/political/economic systems. This could mean applying for non-profit status, and then receiving various grants, etc. to support the organization. Or it could mean needing to charge people who use the center some appropriate amount, to cover operating expenses.
“It seems to me to have a central meeting place is indeed contrary to the central teachings of Buddha and Jesus. Both of them teach you that the place you seek is within you. So, why do you need a center?”
In the time of the Buddha, the “meeting place” – as I understand it — was Jetta Grove, and similar places, i.e. either public forests, fields, mountains or the land of wealthy benefactors. This is where the sangha (one of the three jewels!) assembled. So I don’t see having a physical meeting place being contrary to Buddhist teachings.
The distinction between ground, path & fruition might be useful here, also. The fact that “the place you seek is within you” is what in the Tibetan tradition at least is called the “ground” – We all have Buddha-Nature, which is what gives rise to the longing to realize fully our potential (to be free from suffering). It’s also what makes it possible ultimately to “succeed” i.e. to arrive at our destination.
Yet somehow most of us are not consciously aware of this, so not yet benefiting from this hidden treasure — Hence the necessity for the “path” in order to give birth to the “fruition” of the wisdom, compassion & power of a fully-manifest Buddha.
Buddhist organizations and meeting-places, for many people, are very important aspects of the “path.” They are skillful organizational “selves” – if you will – which ultimately may be unnecessary, but for the time being are of great benefit to many.
hei barbara,
i’m from malaysia. i totally agree with you that collecting some entrance fees is necessary as you need funds to maintain the facility. here most of the temple had fumds from donation. we donated money to temple and also to our monk(sifu) whom we trusted very much.Our sifu will in turn use the funds to help orphanage and the poors. He will also use some of the funds to built new temple and send young monk to taiwan to study in buddhist temple.
if charging USD10000 for a retreat is a bit of taking advantage of the others but the question is why are they willing to pay?
Emr: To the contrary the meeting place was wherever the teacher happened to be not just the Jetta grove or the hill top. You don’t need a physical structure. A physical structure like a building is contrary to the teaching of Buddha and Jesus as they taught to divest oneself of physical things and attachments to those things. Buildings are one of the biggest and most expensive physical things that can be owned.
Early Christians and Buddhists did not have specific buildings for meeting. Today there are a number of Christian groups that have no building for meeting. Actually, my statement of their teachings “the place you seek is within you” is a paraphrase of Luke 17:21 as I am not as well versed in the Buddhists scriptures.
My point is/was not having a building, hence not charging for teaching, was not a necessity for Jesus or Buddha and so it shouldn’t be one now.
Bruce, I see what you’re saying, and agree that perhaps in an “ideal world” (whatever that is lol) the teachings would happen, spontaneously, just wherever the teacher & his/her flock happen to gather. Yet in terms of physical gatherings, the reality of “how things work” in most places today is that to congregate, with any significant number of people, even in an outdoor public place, requires, say, a permit — which usually (?) costs money.
Even with “virtual” gatherings, e.g. teleconferences and the like, there are fees associated with whatever technology that is being used.
The teaching in Buddhism with respect to “physical things” — as I understand it — emphasizes giving up our attachment to these things, which simply means not relying upon them for our ultimate happiness. It doesn’t mean not having them in our lives at all. Physical things of all sorts (including our physical body) can be important skillful means, along the path: a raft which allows us to cross the river of suffering.
Once we’ve reached the other shore, it is of course prudent to leave the raft behind. But abandoning the raft mid-stream, or refusing even to enter it in the first place, is probably not the best strategy — if you see what I mean?
So given the choice between, on the one hand, paying a moderate fee for rental of physical space, permits to gather outside, or use of virtual technology; and, on the other hand, not having the teachings available at all — I would choose the former
emr, I well understand the problems of living in a “modern” society. Maintenance of and attendance in a building for the purpose of achieving freedom from suffering forms an attachment to the building. You are relying on the building for your ultimate attainment of happiness if you feel that you must go there to attain the happiness. I am saying that is not so. By not having the building your are even more “unattached”. Since I cannot quote the Buddhists Suttras well enough as I am still studying them, I’ll once again quote from the New Testament. This is very familiar Matthew 19:24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
What is a rich man in this instance? It is a man that has attachments to the things in his life. Jesus is telling as is Buddha that attachments are deadly to your enlightenment. So attachment to the building is counter productive.
Just as an aside here is my way of handling this sort of attachment. I bought a little Buddha statue for my garden. It was green and plastic. After about a month the green started to come off! I was upset my little statue was deteriorating. Then I realized this was a lesson for me and I now take joy in watching it slowly turn from green to white. After all everything is impermanent so you make the maintenance of the building a lesson in how futile it is to work against change. Then the building becomes less of a hindrance. It becomes a learning aid.
I will back pedal a bit and say that I have less problem with a donation or fee so long as it is clear that the fee is for the maintenance of the building and NOT the teaching. The teaching of the Dharma must be given freely without any form of compensation. What I do dislike is the actual charging of fees for being taught the Dharma.
Bruce
Dear Barbara,
I can’t see why people keep picking on Buddhists, for charges. Paying for spiritual Services; is like any thing ells; it’s a service. If you go to a cabinet maker, to get cabinet, you pay for it. Spiritual Services, are the same; it’s your time you should be payed for it. I don’t know why people need to go to one those Dhamm camps, anyway Buddhism, is not that hard to understand. If people don’t want to pay tell them to get a book on Buddhism, and read it.