Articles Duncan's Blog: capitalism enlightenment Karl Marx Shinzen Young teaching
by Duncan
37 comments
Selling Enlightenment
How do you ‘sell’ enlightenment?
I was discussing this with someone recently, who made the point that the only way to sell enlightenment is to make an appeal to the ego. ‘Get yourself enlightened,’ we should be saying, ‘because then you’ll be happy beyond your wildest dreams, you’ll realise everything you desire and (if the person happens to be approaching enlightenment from the tradition of western magick) your magical powers will increase to an awesome new level!’
In support of his argument my disputant pointed to an example in the venerable Shinzen Young. In a video entitled ‘After Enlightenment, What’s Left? What’s the Point?’, Shinzen ‘sells’ enlightenment as follows:
As time goes on [after enlightenment], more and more of what’s left is the effortless flow of Emptiness, which doesn’t sound that appealing, until you actually experience it, and then it’s like – well, if you had a choice of living one day that way or living your whole life not that way you’d say: ‘well, I’ll take that one day and you can kill me at the end of the day’. That’s how good the effortless flow of Emptiness is.
It seems Shinzen is presenting enlightenment here as something so damned good he’d rather be dead than not have it. Just look at him in the video! The guy’s sixty-five (oh, he drops that in so incidentally), and he’s sitting there grinning and happy, looking like he’s in his mid forties. If this were an advertisement for cheesecake he’d take a big bite, smile into the camera and say: ‘Mmmmm. You just won’t believe how good this is,’ and we’d all be out buying cheesecake tomorrow.
But it left me feeling uncomfortable, because the more I thought about it the more I realised I wouldn’t trade one day of enlightenment for a lifetime without it. Every time I think about it and weigh it up the answer is the same: No, I choose unenlightenment. Enlightenment for one day is simply not equivalent to a lifetime’s experience of non-enlightenment. So you can stick your cheesecake, Shinzen!
My reaction, I realised, is because like most advertisements this one actually creates the desire it offers to satisfy.
We’re human beings and enlightenment is a natural development of our nature. It’s our birthright. Consequently, there is no lifetime lived without the possibility of enlightenment. The idea that you or anyone could possibly live a life without a chance of getting enlightened is an anxiety-provoking fiction. The potential for enlightenment is with you at every second and only you can realise that potential. There’s no need for you to buy ‘cheesecake’ because you and your life are complete right now without it.
Now don’t get me wrong. Of course, this isn’t to say there’s nothing that needs to be done. (If only that were true…) There may be work to realise our goal; there may even be work to realise that we have a goal in the first place. But what’s certainly the case is that buying cheesecake won’t help, because it’s our effort that will win the day, not some product that someone wants to sell us on the basis of a lie – the lie that we are ever without the possibility of enlightenment.
Honestly, though, I don’t believe Shinzen is selling or intending to sell enlightenment in his video. But advertising and selling are so deeply engrained in our culture that we’re prone to interpret him in this way. Capitalism, in order to sell stuff, is constantly engaged in a process of making commodities out of things, whether they’re material objects, ideas or experiences, and seeking to persuade us of their value. This process of reification runs precisely contrary to the type of insight that leads to enlightenment. I stumbled across a vivid illustration of this a few months ago: an account of a Tibetan Buddhist monk who had his first awakening when his teacher held up a hundred rupee banknote and enabled him to see that its ‘value’ was a completely imputed quality (Rabten 1989: 48). The ‘value’ of the note is in the mind of the beholder, but nowhere in the paper and ink of the object itself. So if awakening is attained by seeing through the imputed value of things, we hit a problem as soon as we try to sell awakening because this involves not only (i) imputing a value to it, but also: (ii) turning it into a commodity or thing; and then (iii) creating a desire in the potential customer for it.
I never imagined it would happen, but for the first time since my student days I feel drawn again to the insights of Karl Marx. One day, Marx had an ‘awakening’: he looked around and realised that there are no ‘things’. With retrospect, a lot of Marx’s ideas seem not to have panned out, but that basic insight is just as true today. There are no computers, fridges, cars, buildings, bridges or roads: there is just stuff that human beings have put together. There are no ‘things’ apart from the effects of the labour of putting stuff together.
Of course, there are profound differences between the Buddha and Marx’s ideas. The Buddha’s concept of ‘dependent origination’ applies irrespectively to all phenomena, whereas Marx’s insights singled out the labour of the working class as the origin of value and the source of all commodities. Labour, for Marx, was reality’s bedrock. But Marx’s ideas are still useful to enable us to understand that if we commodify enlightenment then we are doing the dirty work of capitalism: we are making the fruit of effort seem like a ‘thing’ that someone can ‘have’. If enlightenment is sold on the basis it will solve all problems, then it becomes a kind of dream that in itself may indeed supply comfort – but only to prevent us from seriously examining our lives. Or it may be sold as something ‘exotic’, in which case people may well show up in droves for a weekend of chanting, incense, and a nice sit-down in silence on a cushion – but will return to their working lives too refreshed to actually engage with the reality of their experience.
No buyer ever likes to admit they’ve been swindled or conned. But in the case of enlightenment, unless the buyer realises there’s no value in the hundred rupee note, no commodity they ever needed in the first place, then they’re not getting the real deal. ‘Selling’ enlightenment must somehow allow us to step entirely outside the roles of buyer and seller.
Reference
Geshe Rabten (1989). Song of the Profound View. London: Wisdom Publications.
Duncan,
i’ve never imagined that someone would put up Shinzen’s concept of enlightenment against Karl Marx’s idea of “no thing” in a single post. but there, you just did it. nice 
i’m not sure if your post is just a parody or you’re really serious about your critique of Shinzen’s “selling” of enlightenment. but for the purpose of this conversation i’ll assume that you’re serious about your “cheescake” comment.
first off, correct me if i’m wrong, but you seem to have a negative attitude towards “selling” in general, and “capitalism” in particular. i can appreciate your reasoning regarding this. there are lots of people out there who sell enlightenment like lemon juice. as the old saying goes, “selling enlightenment is like selling water by the river.”
however, the issue i have with your post is not your friendly critique of Shinzen but your overall attitude towards “selling.” what is wrong with selling? if what you mean by “selling” as a transaction with exchange of *big* amounts of money, then yeah, i agree with you, selling enlightenment like that is ethically inappropriate, in my view. but if you’re talking about “selling” as promoting, advertising, then therein i find error in your reasoning.
the moment we engage in any teaching endeavor, the moment we try to pursuade anyone, the moment we express our political opinions, the moment we start a blog about a topic (like enlightenment), we’re essentially *selling* concepts and ideas. for example, the idea of “open enlightenment” has two selling points — 1) selling enlightenment to the masses (i.e. that awakening is possible in this lifetime), 2) selling enlightenment as an “open” concept (i.e. that it should be openly talked about).
so yes, my friend, imho, whether you like it or not, you are selling enlightenment in your own way. and i’m one of those who are happily buying your “cheescake”
that said, i’d like to point out that the greatest salesman in the world when it comes to enlightenment is none other than the historical Buddha himself. why? well, isn’t it that he systematized the path to enlightenment and wrapped it in a box called the “4 Noble Truths”? and as far as i know, that formula worked like a charm across generations and we continue to benefit from Buddhas cheesecake.
as my teacher is fond of saying, “we have to learn to use illusion to fight illusion.”
my two cents,
~C
P.S. speaking of Karl Marx, you might want to check out this video of Shinzen wherein he talks about the *democratization* of enlightenment ~ http://bit.ly/3ogZWZ
Duncan, I totally agree with you. Within Buddhism there is a distinction between bad desire which leads to suffering (tanha) and good desire which leads to wholesome things like enlightenment (chanda), but it’s clear that in the West, enlightenment is marketed just as you describe, in the consumerist language of bliss, hedonism, living life to the fullest, etc., which the Buddha would no doubt consider a form of tanha.
Unfortunately, it seems that many Western teachers have watered down the more radical aspects of the Buddha’s teachings in order to appeal to a broader audience.
Really brilliant post, Duncan.
Left me pondering. I have gone around on this many time. I’m still going around on it. I agree with what you write. But then I consider the examples of enlightenment being insulated or isolated from the other features of reality, and I don’t see it being necessarily preferable. Capitalism is one of the things arising. I don’t feel it’s viable or advisable to copy and paste “pure” forms of Buddhism into this culture, if they ever existed in the first place. When you really look into, for example in the tradition of Zen, the way the economics of practice worked in the past, I honeslty don’t see it being any better than now. Meaning, there were major compromises, politics, and indulgences of (Catholics don’t have a monopoly on that) made at every turn. Again, I agree with what you say, but I’m not sure what the functional viability of any non-commodified enlightenment is.
Yes, I agree with what you say about imputing value. But then I think every signifier, as soon as it signifies, is inextricably part and parcel of some assigned “value”. That goes for every word we typed.
Anyway, I really appreciated what you wrote, and thought it was exceptionally clear and proked me beyond even thought.
thanks,
s
My immediate feeling based on the post, and the comments above, is that Duncan’s unease would be based on the reification involved in the “productisation” (I’m sorry, but I’ve heard it used by a product manager) and “selling” of enlightenment in this case. On the other hand, I guess that might well just be one aspect of what’s implied by “Expansion and Contraction”, as Shinzen might put it.
On (another) other hand, sometimes you have to put the teachings into a degenerate form for degenerates like myself to understand them; or “Skillful means”, as the Buddhists like to say.
@MrTeacup: “Unfortunately, it seems that many Western teachers have watered down the more radical aspects of the Buddha’s teachings in order to appeal to a broader audience.”
exactly. and, for me, the first indicator that the Buddha’s teaching is being “watered down” is when teachers avoid talking about enlightenment. there are a lot of those teachers out there. the intention may be good, they may look at it as being skillful but to me, it stand in direct contrast to the original kick ass teachings. but that’s just me. because i want my teachings to be hard to the core
my two cents.
~C
‘How do you sell enlightenment?’
There follows a hostile critique of the concept of selling, based on the obvious abuses committed within our cultures.
But when did selling become evil?
At this point perhaps a discussion of the conditions of justifiable versus unjustifiable selling activity might help. I offer here a positive view of selling. You offer to others something which adds value to their lives. If they accept it, they add value to yours in return. In selling, this takes the form of cash or equivalent. Before cash, people used other strategies such as barter or mutual gifting, and these options remain open in some exchanges. In this view of selling, not only does a sense of fairness manifest, but also social bonding, a kind of replacement for the horrid business of picking fleas off each other 
I believe that commentators of this sort of behaviour use the word ‘reciprocity’ in this context and they consider it extremely useful for a gregarious species like ours.
‘Adding value’ then, does not necessarily equate to ‘conning people into seeking completeness by consuming a product.’ I think most of us here would disagree with such a notion as much as the Buddha obviously did and Shinzen clearly does too (poor chap: does he know that Duncan’s compared him to advertisers?).
As for ‘selling enlightenment’: does that constitute a fair description of the process of helping others to become aware of the possibility of enlightenment in their own lifetime and of the differences it makes? I don’t find it so and if OE applies such a description to itself it is, ironically, selling itself short. Let’s face it, if you have nothing genuine to offer then what the fuck are you doing here at all?
Which all suggests to me perfectly good reasons for Open Enlightenment to charge those who can afford to pay, and to claim openly (not simply use advertising spin) that Open Enlightnment actually does offer a benefit more than worthy of such a charge.
I think there should always be an option to contribute, and if the teacher is offering time/effort, well, in this day in age it’s understandable to ask for a charge. It would make more sense to me if a teacher made clear they weren’t “selling” enlightenment. Instead, what we are paying for is the practice and the upkeep. The “product” isn’t the spiritual teaching, it’s the service–talking, lecturing, instructing, retreats, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m always a bit wary when a speaker asks for hefty prices just to hear them talk. I feel that many of them tend to go over-board about that. It creates a boundary and often an illusion that the teacher’s particular style is more important than what it’s pointing to, which is often universal.
I don’t think Shinzen does this, actually– I like his style (Thanks for all the tweets on his material C4). I’d love to hear, however, Duncan and Alan’s thoughts on Genpo Roshi.
At any rate, great insights here, all around!
-shamansun
shamansun said: “It would make more sense to me if a teacher made clear they weren’t “selling” enlightenment. Instead, what we are paying for is the practice and the upkeep. The “product” isn’t the spiritual teaching, it’s the service–talking, lecturing, instructing, retreats, etc.”
i very much agree. this is the main reasons that attracted me to Shinzen in the first place. he doesn’t promise anyone instant enlightenment/awakening. he asks people to take up a practice and find a teacher (heck, even after one has the initial enlightenment experience). i haven’t seen him ask for any ridiculous amount of money for his retreats. his home-based retreat is very affordable (and they also offer special rates for those who really can’t afford it). the way i see it, for the most part, Shinzen’s model is a combination of the dana (donation) system and coaching (as service). that’s why when i saw this OE post, i just scratched my head and blurted, “huh?!”
i don’t think that Duncan has a malicious intent (i see his critique as playful). but i think the perspective where Duncan is coming is limited (ie. based on his limited exposure and familiarity with Shinzen’s teaching and right-livelihood model).
having said that, don’t take my word for it. here’s a video of Shinzen answering the question:
How does one Best Show Gratitude for the Teaching?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiKFM3MT5Tg
thanks for your time, and may happiness be,
~C
I think Duncan is not really talking about selling in the sense of charging money. Really, this is about how enlightenment is *marketed*, and that applies even to teachers who don’t charge money at all.
No matter who you are you are “marketing” something, in the sense you are proclaiming the value you find in a particular opinion, store, brand, way of living etc.. The Buddha is no exception. I mean what he said was something I could see Sally Struthers saying, “do you suffer? Sure we all do…..”
From a relative perspective we are all different and find value in certain ideas or concepts about enlightenment which motivate us in one direction or another. Some look at it through the lens of bliss, rapture, joy, peace etc. which are aspects that may appeal to some people, while others view it as purification, trial by fire, disintegration, etc that appeal to others. Who cares how you get there (here), as long as you get there (here).
I believe it’s been said before, but anytime we form an opinion we’ve already lost. Who cares how people come to practice? It’s the fact they practice that’s important. The process will work the other stuff out.
If enlightenment is a many faceted jewel, perhaps some aspects are just more expensive to look at.
(Expensive- involving high cost or sacrifice).
@MrTeacup:
I think you’re right. but I’m just covering the possible bases of Duncan’s arguments since he also brought up Capitalism and Karl Marx. I expounded on that on my first comment (see above). too bad there’s no response from Duncan yet.
~C
P.S. btw, my main point is this: if Duncan has an issue with how Shinzen *sells* enlightenment (or any other teacher who talks about enlightenment) then he has to take up this issue to the historical Buddha himself. 1st Noble Truth: the truth of suffering… 2nd Noble Truth: Suffering is caused by attachment… 3rd Noble Truth: There is a way out of suffering… 4th Noble Truth: 8-fold path… Shinzen talked about the 3rd Noble truth and just expounded on it. So what I want to ask from Duncan is: what’s the big deal? authentic teacher’s of enlightenment have been saying this since time immemorial.
Sharman Sun wrote: “I think there should always be an option to contribute, and if the teacher is offering time/effort, well, in this day in age it’s understandable to ask for a charge.”
I disagree. I reckon that someone who is enlightened should be able to make money in some creative way i.e. demonstrate their wisdom and activated/liberated potential. I don’t think someone who only sits on their bum talking about enlightenment for money is very enlightened. Surely enlightenment means manifesting potential efficiently, and surely that should result in good income. Also, telling a fellow human being that they are reality and that only reality is and that concepts are illusions (though often useful for manifesting your potential), doesn’t warrant a fee. I couldn’t imagine accepting money for saying the truth.
As for the subject of the thread, I think the issue more to the point is: “Can enlightenment be bought?” In other words, if you hand over a fee, does that mean you will receive enlightenment? If not, do you get a refund?
Thanks for the brilliant responses! And sorry for being away from the keyboard all weekend…
Just to be clear on my stance toward Shinzen Young: I don’t believe that he is ‘selling’ anything (not in the negative sense that I’ll define in a moment). I do think, however, that it’s very easy for us to interpret his words as a sales pitch – because of the culture we live in – and that it’s probably unhelpful to do so.
I’m interested at the moment in why things are so fucked up at the level of everyday life. Marxism seems to offer some useful insights on this. (Although I’m less convinced by the solutions it proposes.)
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with selling things per se. Money was invented to facilitate the exchange of goods. But the aim of capitalism is not the exchange of goods; its aim is to turn money into an even bigger pile of money. The ‘commodity’ is the means by which it achieves this transformation of capital into profit. The most important thing as far as capitalism is concerned is not that the commodity has value or use, but that it can be sold for far in excess of the money required for its production.
The fact that our material and economic well-being depends to such a large extent on the consumption of commodities that we do not need seems to me to account in no small measure for why things are so fucked up, whether we’re talking about global warming or anti-social behaviour.
If anyone thinks ‘selling’ in this capitalistic sense is a good idea, I’d be interested to hear why. It can’t be denied, however, that capitalism has proved fantastically successful as an economic system for creating wealth, and no one seems to have come up with anything to rival it. But the reason it seems to work so well in this respect is that it is so ‘samsaric’! Its motive is profit and its means is the commodity, so it taps right into our processes of greed and ignorance.
Enlightenment is not a commodity, because it’s not even a ‘thing’; it can’t be bought because we can’t even ‘have’ it; and ‘desiring’ enlightenment is guaranteed only to prevent us realising it. The realisation of enlightenment depends upon seeing through precisely the same illusions on which our capitalist culture thrives.
‘Using illusion to fight illusion’ sounds like a great tactic in theory: but how do we do that in practice?
I found this in a response from a Lakota Chief, in regards to recent “sweat lodge” disaster in Arizona. Thought it was an interesting take on mixing money and spirit/healing/enlightenment/whatever:
We deal with the pure sincere energy to create healing that comes from everyone in that circle of ceremony. The heart and mind must be connected. When you involve money, it changes the energy of healing. The person wants to get what they paid for; the Spirit Grandfathers will not be there, our way of life is now being exploited! You do more damage then good.
No” mention” of monetary energy should exist in healing, not even with a can of love donations. When that energy exists, they will not even come. Only `after’ the ceremony, between the person that is being healed and the Intercessor who has helped connect with the Great Spirit, the energy of money can be given out of appreciation. That exchange of energy is from the heart; it is private and does not involve the Grandfathers! Whatever gift of appreciation the person who received the help, can now give the Intercessor what ever they feel their healing is worth.
Duncan,
great to have you back on your keyboard thanks for clarifying your stance on “selling” and capitalism.
i agree with your critique of Capitalism. but i have no idea what to replace it with. no system is perfect but it’s so obvious that the Capitalistic system is so crash prone yet so ubiquitous. it’s like Windows. love or hate it, there’s no escape. well, at least for now. check out this article from the New Yorker.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/05/091005fa_fact_cassidy
(then again you’re from the U.K. so difference cultural worldviews play a great role here. we don’t even have universal health care here in the U.S. gah. but that’s a topic for another discussion).
you say: “Enlightenment is not a commodity, because it’s not even a ‘thing’; it can’t be bought because we can’t even ‘have’ it; and ‘desiring’ enlightenment is guaranteed only to prevent us realising it. The realisation of enlightenment depends upon seeing through precisely the same illusions on which our capitalist culture thrives.”
i agree. well, at least from an intellectual and rational perspective since i’d be the first one to tell you that i’m not enlightened (yet).
“Using illusion to fight illusion’ sounds like a great tactic in theory: but how do we do that in practice?”
it’s not theory. actually, this has been the rule rather than the exception. well, at least for the core of Buddhist practices. in my interpretation, from a liberation-oriented technology standpoint, “using illusion to fight illusion” is a strategy of *anchoring* and *releasing*. for example, in vipassana meditation, there are two modes (focusing and receptive). first, concentrating the mind on any object of concentration (e.g. breathing, flame, deity, or whatever) — that’s the “using illusion” part. and then when the mind is concentrated (e.g. in deep samadhi) then the object of meditation is *released* and the meditator shifts into a receptive mode (i.e. equanimity). i’ve described my practice in detail on my blog. see: http://www.c4chaos.com/2009/04/open-practice-algorithmic-approach-to-meditation/
similarly, from a neuroscientific perspective, James Austin (author of “Zen and the Brain”) was recently interviewed on Buddhist Geeks and he talked about the “egocentric processing” and “allocentric processing”. i think that’s equivalent to the anchor and release strategy i’ve mentioned above. see:
http://personallifemedia.com/podcasts/236-buddhist-geeks/episodes/52539-mechanisms
~C
Hi C!
Your point on fighting illusion with illusion is well made, but I suppose I’m aiming my criticism more at the level of teaching rather than of practice. The key phrase in the article that Ian mentioned above seemed to me to be:
The person wants to get what they paid for
When enlightenment is treated as a commodity this is the consequence: a fresh cycle of illusion at the level that embraces and includes the student’s practice.
I wonder if a valid approach might be to declare up-front that enlightenment is a swindle, a con trick! I’m reminded of the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, who adopted a similar approach with respect to therapy. Sometimes Lacan would sit and count his money whilst the patient was speaking. Often he would end the session after a few minutes (but charge a full fee) if he sensed the patient was ‘too comfortable’ or getting too much of what they wanted.
Controversial, but maybe there is a use after all for a sort of ‘crazy wisdom’ in the style of U.G. Krishnamurthi!
“I wonder if a valid approach might be to declare up-front that enlightenment is a swindle, a con trick!”
I love that, carnival barker enlightenment.
Of course, as your story of Lacan points out, even making people want to get what they paid for can be helpful, if it can be used to bring them around to waking up a little bit more.
Zen is full of such tricksters, and often, in dokusan (a face to face interview held during meditation), a teacher will do that exact same thing, sending the student immediately away, if they feel a sense of complacency or pride.
Gurdjieff was another one, who a lot of people thought was just a huckster looking for money. Yet, as one of the people I follow posted on twitter today:
“Mr. G said that it would be necessary to develop oneself to such an extent that it would be possible to know and understand enough to be able to aid someone else in doing something necessary for himself, even when that person was not conscious of the need, and might work against you, that only in this sense was love properly responsible and worthy of the name of real love. He added that, even with the best of intentions, most people would be too afraid to love another person in an active sense, or even to attempt to do anything for them; and that one of the terrifying aspects of love was that while it was possible to help another person to a certain degree, it was not possible to actually “do” anything for them. If see another man fall down, when he must walk, you can pick him up. But, although to take one more step is more necessary for him even than air, he must take this step alone; impossible for another person to take it for him.”
THAT’s the kind of attitude a teacher has to have, if he’s going to employ the huckster method…
@C4: I’m loving all the Shinzen stuff, especially that algorithmic technique. Keep ‘em coming!
About the money issue, this is a difficult question. One can say that one cannot sell enlightenment, but, on the other side, there is nothing like a free lunch. As a student, I prefer to pay or make a donation than to gradually be expected to give my wife, my time or my soul to a spiritual teacher who might as well be a psychopath.
Yes, one cannot sell enlightenment. What one can do is only to provide techniques, strategies and support to allow his student (or customer) to become available to it. Some might do it for free; some might need money to cover various expenses. I don’t see anything wrong with it is long as stays reasonable and doesn’t become a business.
Great discussion folks. Duncan, I’m glad you finally mentioned Lacan. In the original post he came to mind when reading your statement “like most advertisements this one actually creates the desire it offers to satisfy” an idea which I first came across studying Lacan’s theories. He might have gone so far as saying that ALL desire is created from with out, with someone telling (read:selling) us what we need to complete us, fill our lack. His ideas on desire are worth investigating, and beyond my ability to explain. (At the very least, read his Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Lacan !) My favorite quote of his is “All speech is demand; all demand is a desire for love.” Look into the origin of your speech and see if it’s true.
People are already looking for relief, and have been ever since they recognized their own suffering. No need for Shinzen to create that desire, it’s already there. It was there for Siddhartha, it’s there for you and me. However, should I let my friend seek relief through drug abuse alone, or should I offer an alternative way? If compassion is foremost in my mind, then I want him to choose the way I believe leads to true relief, because from what I can observe, his way is leading nowhere good (not the right drugs?). This part of the discussion is more about evangelism and less about economics.
However, enlightenment itself doesn’t seem to pay very well. Maybe it’s what you do with your enlightenment that could bring in the dough. I actually don’t see a problem with a for-profit business model for teaching enlightenment. The problem is more in the people who are running the business; until the business owner’s greed is overcome, that model won’t work for the benefit of others. There is no economic remedy for suffering. If there is going to be money involved in the enlightenment business, it should be transparent in how that money is used. If I don’t agree with your yacht, I better find a different teacher.
Duncan said: “The key phrase in the article that I an mentioned above seemed to me to be: ‘The person wants to get what they paid for’”.
there’s a psychological basis for that. people seem to value and stick to what they pay for than what they got for free. i think this is the context where Shinzen is coming from whenever he uses the phrase “paid for”, or “best bang for your buck.” however, i want to avoid misrepresenting Shinzen’s view on this so i’ll just link to his conversation with Dr. Charles T. Tart (way back in 1990) about this similar topic.
see: Adapting Eastern Spiritual Teachings to our Western Culture: A discussion with Shinzen Young
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/ctt_articles2.cfm?id=11
here’s a relevant quote from Shinzen: (but i highly recommend reading the whole article for the full context.)
“Because people would be paying to see me on a regular basis, I figured I would give them their money’s worth. Traditionally a therapist works for 50 minutes, but I figured I would give my “clients” their money’s worth; I would stay with them for at least an hour and a half, and meticulously guide them in meditation.”
“I would give them a focusing technique and after a little while have them report what had happened. Then I would access my own past experience in meditation, what I had done when phenomena like that had come up. Several possible strategies would present themselves. I would pick the one that I thought suitable for that person and suggest that they try it. After a few minutes I would get feedback and see whether to reinforce that procedure or try a different one.
“So I started to relate to meditators as though I were a therapist, and I discovered that I had keyed into an important archetype of the culture.”
speaking of U.G. Krishnamurti, i consider him as one of my kick ass teachers. i read his “Mystique of Enlightement” early on and i think it helped me to become more balanced and skeptical when it comes to people’s claim on what enlightenment is all about. that said, even if U.G. was an anti-guru some people still looked at him as a guru and became his followers. this is also the same as what’s happening with contemporary teachers like Eckhart Tolle and Adyashanti. i believe that they are both authentic enlightened beings and they are clear about their anti-guru stance. but people still treat them like gurus. well, i guess it says more about human nature than the nature of enlightened teachers
~C
Duncan, regarding making a profit in an exchange: you do it with a difference of perceptions of value. at least in a fair trade. I believe that the widget I’ve just bought is worth more to me than the money I paid for it. Meanwhile, the seller believes that difference between what it costs them to get the widget and what they got from me is a worthwhile profit. Barter and swaps work similarly: I swap something for which I have less value for something for which I have more value. The other guy does the same.
I respect your critique of rampant capitalism, where some peolple commit outrageous exploitative behaviour in search of equally outrageous profit, far in excess of a fair deal. However, I don’t believe that Marx had the answers, as to my mind he, like the capitalist hyaenas, treated people as an abstract economic unit instead of as people.
I wanted to say that I think the guy who told you that selling enlightenment must involve appealing to the ego has got it wrong. But on reflection, I reckon it likely that most of us started from that sort of error. Like the guy lost in Ireland, pulls over and asks a farmer,’Oi Paddy, which way to Dublin?’ And the farmer thinks a moment and says, ‘Well if I were you I wouldn’t be starting from here.’ I guess if our starting point was free of delusion we wouldn’t need such services
Great article and discussion of this important topic, especially in the light of James Arthur Ray’s “Spiritual Warrior Training” that cost participants nearly $10,000, and that killed 3 and injured 18 others.
I think it could be useful to posit a spectrum of the selling of enlightenment. This spectrum doesn’t necessarily imply sainthood at one end or the other, just amount of money exchanged and emphasis on the sales pitch of enlightenment.
On the extreme end we have dangerous cult gurus like James Arthur Ray, charging extreme amounts of money and promising that spiritual practice will make you wealthy, while threatening your very life in the process.
Next we have expensive Life/Marketing coaches who charge hundreds of dollars an hour, teaching you how to be spiritual as the best way to make money doing what you love, which is to become a Life/Marketing coach charging hundreds of dollars an hour helping others to do the same.
Next we have people charging tons of money for decent practices that are way overhyped and at ritzy locations, often promising to wake you up in a weekend, like Genpo Roshi. Charging lots of money makes enlightenment a luxury good, only available for the upper classes.
Then there are retreats that charge just enough to cover costs and perhaps pay their teachers a middle-class living, held at modest locations, and with a few mild promises made about the end goal of enlightenment.
Next are retreats that don’t pay teachers, but instead ask for donations (dana) for teachings, and don’t really talk much about enlightenment, but more about ongoing compassion and insight.
Further are retreats given for free that ask for dana for future students (e.g. S.N. Goenka’s Vipassana courses) with no dana for teachers, and other free or low-cost teachings, with some very mild emphasis on enlightenment, and usually only when pressed. I’d put Shinzen Young about here.
Finally are low-priced books and free websites that either talk about enlightenment as nothing special, or avoid the issue altogether. Currently, Open Enlightenment is here.
To not commodify enlightenment at all is very difficult if you want to make a living in a capitalist society. But perhaps making a modest living while still keeping the dialogue open about the purported benefits of enlightenment can be an option. This website “sells” it’s readers on the idea that enlightenment is possible, as well as the idea that what enlightenment is should be something that is discussed openly and questioned fully! I personally find that a wonderfully open approach.
Quote: “The difficult issue then turns from, not whether Dharma and dollars should ever cross paths (of course they should), but rather, how do we make Dharma available to those who cannot afford it? And here the question reverts to the much more prosaic and ordinary question of, how do we do this in any domain and with any goods or services? There is absolutely nothing special about the Dharma in this regard. How do we reach equitable exchange in any event?”
I find this position convincing. See more here (in pdf format).
Anyone who’s in the role of a “teacher” experiments with their students, just as therapists experiment with clients. We give instructions, we give off our vibe, we share our view. Hopefully we pay close attention to the results and adjust what and how we’re sharing in ever more skillful ways.
Shinzen shares about the activity of teaching at http://bit.ly/3JuQJZ
and how he’s adjusted his teaching over the years through having put in place a system which includes constant real-time interactive feedback, which is one of his specialties as a teacher
http://bit.ly/2U4N8T
People experiment with teachers and approaches as well. Some fit, some don’t, and this also changes with time. Hopefully those of us who are seeking pay close attention to the results and adjust accordingly.
The experiment continues when monastic-based traditions meet up with a house-holders lifestyle, and when the dana-based system meets our western culture.
Alan I empathize with your questioning, and I’m curious to know what system you’ll put in place re. payment, view, vibe, teaching, taking feedback etc., how this may change over time, and how successful you’ll be in assisting people in the realization that they’re already enlightened.
I like to think that every approach has it’s place. We’re all in this together, no matter what altitude we’re flying at, regardless of our depth of realization, and no matter how we each find ourselves selling the dharma.
HPK
allow me to cite another quote on a compassionate way of “selling” enlightenment (*italics* mine):
“Compassion is the whole point of the first world-wide religion, Buddhism. We talk about and teach enlightenment because it is *the end suffering for the individual*; ergo, the entire human race. How are we supposed to exercise real compassion if we don’t tell people about enlightenment, what it really is, what benefits it has to offer, and how to go about experiencing it?”
- via Open Enlightenment: FAQ for Critics
http://openenlightenment.org/?page_id=140
~C
Integral Life is a great example of what’s wrong with spiritual marketing: we’re told to “live your life more freely, more fully, and more authentically”, the benefits are “fun, clarify & perspective”, we should “embrace the full richness of the human experience in ourselves and others” and that we can have “well-being in every moment”.
I don’t think anyone wants to claim that this is exactly what the Buddha taught; but, maybe this is just enlightenment in a romanticized, Oprahized package? And what’s wrong with that, if it works?
I don’t know if it works or not, but I suspect that spiritual hedonism is attractive because it lets us enjoy all the pleasures of consumer capitalism guilt-free. What matters most is that it nourishes your soul and opens you up to the richness of life — regardless of the system of domination and exploitation that produced it.
Of course, spiritual hedonists care about those things too! But not so much that they actually want to disrupt the status quo. We get to enjoy our lattes, but to feel a little better, we pay a little extra for the fair-trade organic coffee beans at a locally-owned business that exploits its workers slightly less than usual and call it a day. There’s nothing wrong with this, it’s better than nothing — the problem is that we’ve deluded ourselves into thinking that this is an adequate response to the problem, that we’re “making a difference”.
In the end, the packaging matters, not just what’s inside. When Buddhism became Zen in Japan, it may very well have led to authentic awakening, but that particular packaging also supported an oppressive, militaristic feudal regime. If Buddhism repackaged as consumer hedonism contributes more suffering to the world, we should fully oppose it.
Greetings…. I followed Duff over here from Twitter. Excellent discussion. So many things to comment on….
On the whole, in our western society that freely and obviously uses money as a means of exchanging value for value, as several commenters have said, it is quite simply a useful means to an end: providing a service to the student and a livable income to the teacher. I think if we try to read too much more into that simple fact we are just going to get into a pointless debate. In fact, is this really any different than a student showing up at the monastery and doing work in the vegetable garden so the senior monks have food on the table?
That said, something is inherently “off” about teachers who charge exorbitant sums for a week of teaching. I may be off myself, but almost every teacher I have encountered in the US who seems like the genuine article has the following characteristics:
1. Charges a moderate fee. For instance, Adyashanti’s retreats are $325 for 5 days, $75 for a 2 day weekend.
2. If you can’t afford the moderate fee, there are always scholarships, freebies, etc, simply for the asking. There is almost always a non-profit involved that takes donations to help folks who can’t afford.
3. Books, cds, all products are reasonably priced, ie, 6-7 hours of recordings for $70, and you can always ask for a freebie.
4. LOTS of freely available teachings online.
5. A reasonable income for the teacher.
6. Money has no allure for them, there is little in the way of outward grasping at more and more bucks.
That’s what I’ve observed, your mileage may vary.
However, I’m intrigued by a notion that arose as I read the above comments. What would it look like if you didn’t charge a single dime and just passed the hat around after? Obviously, you really couldn’t do that with books and cds (Amazon and B&N want their cut), unless you made the products free for download in addition.
I think the method would work. Actually, I do believe that’s how most churches function in the US. Although, many that I know in the more main stream denominations call each member into the head office and PUSH them to donate and tithe and pledge so much of their income each year. Hard sell salvation, I suppose.
However, I don’t see the above as necessary. I think a simple model of charging modest fees and allowing for generous freebies is a very clean, acceptable way to go. Many, many teachers do just that, and it doesn’t stink up the place.
As someone alluded to above, I think to some degree we take the world as it is. Enlightenment may clean out the vessel and bring Beingness more fully into the world of form, but the world of form is still what is experienced. Beingness moves within this world, our seemingly screwed up world, with all of its flaws and faults. It encounters those flaws and faults, and works within and through what it finds. Nothing is to be avoided. It is to be met with love and compassion.
That said, as for Genpo Roshi and his $50,000 to spend 5 days with him, well….
Finally, I would like to suggest that most people who are “anti-capitalist” have not read some of the better works on capitalism written by classical liberal economists or libertarian writers. Marx is not the sole source of information on the market economy! A great economist by the name of Murray Rothbard does a wonderful job of explaining free market economics. Also, the more you read on the subject, the more you realize that 9 times out of 10, the “bad capitalism” stuff people rail against is almost always some sort of corporate/government enmeshment that creates huge distortions in a market economy. Look no further than Goldman Sachs. They wouldn’t be paying $2 billion in bonuses without their privileged position. Sorry, didn’t mean to get all economic on you, but you can see one of my former passions. LOL
Great topic. Thanks. Be well…. Tom
This comment thread is turning into an excellent resource for anyone wanting to think over these issues!
To be honest, though, I’m more interested in the striking similarities between Marx’s critique of value and the Buddha’s theory of dependent origination than the moral implications of students paying for teaching.
Reality (or ‘the means of manifestation’ as we magicians like to call it!) is limited; there are only so many possible kinds of economic relationships between students and teachers – and Duff seems to have kindly listed all of them!
Instead, I’m grabbed by this idea that awakening by definition involves the seeing-through of all commodities and values. (Which it *must*, it seems to me, if the meaning of dependent origination / emptiness is grasped.) Yet it’s difficult to see how this understanding itself can be presented in anything other than in terms of a commodity or value.
For instance, enlightenment is often presented as ‘the end of suffering’. But it’s not. ‘The end of suffering’ is a thing, an idea, a potential commodity. Enlightenment is the seeing-through of what suffering appears to be. There are still shitty days after enlightenment, but it’s ‘just shit’. Enlightenment is impossible to commodify because it isn’t a thing, or even an action or a ‘skill’.
There’s just nothing there ‘to sell’… And yet, what the heck else are we going to do with it!
@Har-prakash: ‘Alan I empathize with your questioning…’
Duncan wrote this article!
@Duncan: Its’ not enlightenment that is being sold, it’s the teacher’s time and effort in helping someone practice and develop right view and understanding.
Also, there are plenty of things you can say about enlightenment, as you have done above: ‘Enlightenment is the seeing-through of what suffering appears to be’. Sounds good to me! I’ll give you ten quid if you’ll tell me more about it…
Ay-up, Alan…
It’s not enlightenment that is being sold, it’s the teacher’s time and effort in helping someone practice and develop right view and understanding.
Agreed. But does the student know that? And can these things be taught? If these are valid questions then, in fact, it’s far from clear what’s being sold.
I’ll give you ten quid if you’ll tell me more about [enlightenment]…
I’ll happily talk about it for a tenner. But demonstrations cost twenty quid.
@Duncan: “Enlightenment is the seeing-through of what suffering appears to be. There are still shitty days after enlightenment, but it’s ‘just shit’.”
I like this. Well said. Almost all the “selling points” of enlightenment are the after effects of what enlightenment is. They are merely how enlightenment manifests in the world. But they are NOT enlightenment.
For instance, I’m quite certain as Nisargadatta or Ramana lie dying from cancer, the pain was quite nasty. Yet, you can almost hear Nisargadatta: “but the pain has nothing to do with ME! This body is experiencing pain, but I’m not!” Or how about Jesus hanging on the cross? That had to SUCK from a bodily, physical, limited point of view. But how would enlightenment see that? Ah, no suffering because what I am in beyond the suffering and yet is the suffering.
It’s all about identity as I see it. The only way “I” can suffer is if I’m an “I” a single, a body, the ego persona. But what am I? I’m more than simple that. I am that, but I am everything else, too. In effect, I have no identity. How can everything have an identity?
Lastly: “But demonstrations cost twenty quid.” Cool, a nice talk and a floor show, too. All for $35 (at today’s exchange rate). Although, how good is the floor show? Dancing girls? Or just a few parlor tricks?
Alan, I empathize with Duncan’s questioning too! Oopsy. Apologies for the mix-up.
Duncan said: “how this understanding itself can be presented in anything other than in terms of a commodity or value.”
so my understanding is that Duncan’s main concern here is whether enlightenment should be presented as a “commodity or value.”
my suggestion is to consider “enlightenment” *as if* it’s the *ultimate well-being* of a person (from an individual perspective that is). in this way we can consider teaching enlightenment as teaching people to “improve” their health/well-being. with this perspetive the teaching is then akin to “health care” service. wherein the goal (or product) is enlightenment (i.e. as if it’s the ultimate well-being).
with the above metaphor we can then make justifications for teachers charging reasonable amount of money for their services (like health care professionals). and we can also look at enlightenment as a “commodity” (note: i’m aware that this metaphor would cause some issues for people who don’t consider health care as commodity. but for the sake of this discussion, let’s refrain from opening that can of worms and just consider this as a metaphor ).
“Enlightenment is impossible to commodify because it isn’t a thing, or even an action or a ’skill’.”
in a sense i agree. but we have to consider different perspectives when we’re talking about enlightenment. from a first-person perspective, i think you are correct. there is nothing in there any more. no-self as thing. but from a second or third-person perspective, you are still Duncan to me (and to others who see you as an individual).
in the Buddhist doctrine there’s the two-truths doctrine: 1) the absolute truth; 2) the relative truth; people who abide in the absolute truth no longer sees distinction, but distinction always comes back even for the enlightened. i imagine enlightened people shifting between the absolute truth and relative truth (without preference). whereas most people spend all their waking awareness in the relative truth.
i imagine in the absolute truth there’s nothing really worth talking about. it’s just is. everything is perfect the way it is. but in the relative truth, i believe there’s no escaping “commodification” of any teaching. teachers has to communicate it with the language and rules of the relative world so that people will become aware of their own ignorance on this matter. since time immemorial enlightened masters presented this enlightenment “carrot” as something for people to yearn for. to give them the illusion of the goal and motivation for practice. this is “using illusion to fight illusion.”
my two cents.
~C
Actually, dialectical materialism is about as closed to dependent origination as you can get outside of Buddhism. The example you cite from Marxist political economy is but one example of this. See Kosic’s book _Dialectics of the Concrete_ for more.
DGA
hi, i had a similar reaction to Shinzen’s enlightened-unenlightened comparison as a sales pitch. It is an American thing i suppose:).
He does present some of the downsides of enlightenment in another video, admitting that it isn’t constant bliss and all these other misconceptions people have. He is also honest about undergoing psychotherapy many years after his enlightenment to get rid of some issues.
I don’t like the emphasis on the absolute at all, since we are all living in the relative world full of conflict, mind-bodies with identities.
And i don’t see why one should use illusions to “attract” people (okay, any concept is illusory, but there are degrees of truthfulness).
The ending (in practice: a large diminishing) of psychological suffering is enough reason to become more aware of one’s life and to dig deeper, no?
This possibility should be known by everybody, and it is only logical that without any guidance, one will most likely lose a lot of time and/or will get trapped somewhere along his/her path.
Isn’t the whole idea of enlightenment a selling point? I mean if you had never heard of enlightenment would it be somethng that you would natually seek after? I see it kind of like Christian salvation, you don’t know your damned until some christian tells you that you are (in their eyes), in other words it’s just a learned desire not a natural one. I see this the same with enlightement, I didn’t know I wasn’t enlightened until I learned about enlightenment. I see “enlightenment” as just the natural state as Nisargadatta and Ramana Maharshi understand it. I really don’t know about all this seeking after enlightenement. I think a better way is just to stop all the seeking and just to stay still and let enlightenemnt find you. I don’t mean this as doing nothing, I mean this as nothing doing, subtle but important difference.