I’m currently president of the board at my zen center, so I see and think a lot about our finances. We run pretty lean. We ask members to pay dues to support the center, and we hold events where we ask people to pay. 90% of this money though is to cover rent, insurance, food during retreats, and various incidentals. Our teacher gets a very modest stipend, and he couldn’t survive on it alone.
We sometimes debate things like how to deal with people who can’t afford to pay our recommended dues and fees for events. In every case so far we’ve said “sure, pay what you can, these are just guidelines based on what it takes to operate, but we won’t turn you away from the dharma because you don’t have money”.
I know that outside zen (and sometimes even within zen!) you find people who try to make a living by doing spiritual work. I think there’s nothing necessarily wrong with this: our economic system is structured such that money is how we allocate resources, and even if you want to be a mendicant, rather than begging directly for food, shelter, etc. we ask people to beg for money so they can buy their own food, shelter, etc. because that’s how our system works. But of course once you bring money in, because it’s fungible, people can try to enrich themselves, so more discipline is required.
So the optimal amount of money to be asked of in spiritual spaces is not 0, but it’s also not very high. Sounds like the vibes of this place were off, and that’s a shame.
One parting thought: some time ago I saw a tweet that I can no longer find that address the phenomenon you’re noticing rather succinctly. I think it went something like this meme:
(I don’t know if you’re in America but this is a very American thing to turn stuff into jobs. I think it spills over to other places because we’re really good at exporting our culture.)
Really helpful to hear an on-the-ground perspective!
(I do live in America—Austin specifically.)
I don’t think this issue is specific to spirituality; these are just the most salient examples I can think of where it’s been dealt with for a long time and explicitly discussed in ancient texts. (For a non-spiritual example, according to Wikipedia the Platonic Academy didn’t charge fees either, though I doubt they left any surviving writings explaining why.)
How would you respond to someone who says “I can easily pay the recommended donation of $20 but I don’t think this event/activity is worth nearly as much as you seem to think I should consider it worth, so I’m going to pay only $5 so that it’s still positive-on-net for me to be here”? In other words, pay-what-you-want as opposed to pay-what-you-can.
If I were in your position I’d probably welcome such a person at first, but if they keep coming back while still paying only $5 I might be inclined to think negatively of them, or pressure them to either pay more or leave. Which also seems like a bad thing, so maybe it’s best to collect donations anonymously so that nobody feels pressured.
The problem is that the functions of “doing X” and “convincing people that doing X is worth” are often being served simultaneously by the same activities, and are difficult to disentangle.
I can say that what we’ve done in the past is give people some space at the start to see the value and then, over time, lean on them a bit without actually imposing any consequences. If everyone else is paying $20 and they’re only paying $5, it’s reasonable to, after a time, ask them if they think that’s really fair given everyone else is paying $20. What makes them different/special such that they should only pay $5?
Would not apply pressure for them to leave unless their behavior was negatively impacting the sangha. Just paying less than everyone else is fairly private, so assuming all else was equal then I expect to let them stay so long as we could afford it.
ask them if they think that’s really fair given everyone else is paying $20. What makes them different/special such that they should only pay $5?
This might be effective social pressure, but it doesn’t seem particularly rational. If someone else volunteers to pay you more than they need—and more than YOU need—then why should that obligate me to do the same?
Money and spirituality are a tricky topic.
I’m currently president of the board at my zen center, so I see and think a lot about our finances. We run pretty lean. We ask members to pay dues to support the center, and we hold events where we ask people to pay. 90% of this money though is to cover rent, insurance, food during retreats, and various incidentals. Our teacher gets a very modest stipend, and he couldn’t survive on it alone.
We sometimes debate things like how to deal with people who can’t afford to pay our recommended dues and fees for events. In every case so far we’ve said “sure, pay what you can, these are just guidelines based on what it takes to operate, but we won’t turn you away from the dharma because you don’t have money”.
I know that outside zen (and sometimes even within zen!) you find people who try to make a living by doing spiritual work. I think there’s nothing necessarily wrong with this: our economic system is structured such that money is how we allocate resources, and even if you want to be a mendicant, rather than begging directly for food, shelter, etc. we ask people to beg for money so they can buy their own food, shelter, etc. because that’s how our system works. But of course once you bring money in, because it’s fungible, people can try to enrich themselves, so more discipline is required.
So the optimal amount of money to be asked of in spiritual spaces is not 0, but it’s also not very high. Sounds like the vibes of this place were off, and that’s a shame.
One parting thought: some time ago I saw a tweet that I can no longer find that address the phenomenon you’re noticing rather succinctly. I think it went something like this meme:
(I don’t know if you’re in America but this is a very American thing to turn stuff into jobs. I think it spills over to other places because we’re really good at exporting our culture.)
Really helpful to hear an on-the-ground perspective!
(I do live in America—Austin specifically.)
I don’t think this issue is specific to spirituality; these are just the most salient examples I can think of where it’s been dealt with for a long time and explicitly discussed in ancient texts. (For a non-spiritual example, according to Wikipedia the Platonic Academy didn’t charge fees either, though I doubt they left any surviving writings explaining why.)
How would you respond to someone who says “I can easily pay the recommended donation of $20 but I don’t think this event/activity is worth nearly as much as you seem to think I should consider it worth, so I’m going to pay only $5 so that it’s still positive-on-net for me to be here”? In other words, pay-what-you-want as opposed to pay-what-you-can.
If I were in your position I’d probably welcome such a person at first, but if they keep coming back while still paying only $5 I might be inclined to think negatively of them, or pressure them to either pay more or leave. Which also seems like a bad thing, so maybe it’s best to collect donations anonymously so that nobody feels pressured.
The problem is that the functions of “doing X” and “convincing people that doing X is worth” are often being served simultaneously by the same activities, and are difficult to disentangle.
Your question is a though one.
I can say that what we’ve done in the past is give people some space at the start to see the value and then, over time, lean on them a bit without actually imposing any consequences. If everyone else is paying $20 and they’re only paying $5, it’s reasonable to, after a time, ask them if they think that’s really fair given everyone else is paying $20. What makes them different/special such that they should only pay $5?
Would not apply pressure for them to leave unless their behavior was negatively impacting the sangha. Just paying less than everyone else is fairly private, so assuming all else was equal then I expect to let them stay so long as we could afford it.
This might be effective social pressure, but it doesn’t seem particularly rational. If someone else volunteers to pay you more than they need—and more than YOU need—then why should that obligate me to do the same?