yes what's with the category?...
i taught art at high school.. it was a career... it did not pay $120 an hour that's for sure... if i was paid $120 an hour for every individual i taught i'd be a mega rich woman.. merle Joe, I think it all depends on how you define 'Dana'. Early monastics were allowed to receive dana in order to support themselves at the basic subsistence level - not as a reward for their teaching. I the reasoning for this still holds true today. The Dharma is not a resource for a few to exploit as some kind of cottage industry. I've even seen some schools/teachers post recommended amounts that should be 'donated'. And some of these recommended amounts run into the hundreds of dollars. Imagine the stressed out working-class single mum who wants to learn more about the Dharma. She'd bet screwed (again..) before she's even started. No wonder teaching of the Dharma seems to be mainly a preserve of the educated middle-class. I don't put teaching yoga, art, martial arts etc. in the same category as the Dharma. I'll leave you to work out why ; ) Mike --- In [email protected], "Joe" wrote: > > Mike, > > No one says or knows that Subhana is charging *ANYTHING*. > > Name your price, you Young Dudes. > > Merle is simply having precognitive nightmarish DREAMS of Currency. > > God knows why. > > I suspect a previous life full of Poverty. Or a present life full of > Sufficiency, and Then Some. > > Well, Art Teachers earn a living. No? > > So do Dharma teachers. > > Why is Art so sacrosanct that lucre does not tarnish it?! > > It's tarnished. > > God knows it's tarnished! Is it EVER! > > And why is Religion and Dharma so secular that teachers must only drink the > recycled leavings of your discarded Watercolors? > > Gimme a *break*. > > Don't pray for us. I suggest that Fasting is more efficacious. Just keep it > UP (not *YOU*, Mike; sheesh). Fast. We'll appreciate it. > > --Joe > > > > "mike" wrote: > > > > Merle, > > > > Don't be so harsh on yourself. I think you're right to be somewhat > > skeptical about teachers who receive an income, or make a living, out of > > the Dharma. Joe is also correct that so often we listen to our > > discriminating mind and hence create points of view that are just not true > > reflections of reality. But there has to be a balance. I don't know > > Subhana, but if it's true she is a practicing doctor, then my feeling would > > be she shouldn't be charging money for teaching the Dharma. Where, for > > example, would she know that trip overseas was paid from - her doctor's > > salary or from a talk on the Lotus Sutra? (I'm not necessarily impugning > > Subhana as I know nothing of her circumstances. But I think my concerns > > still stand). > > > > I also think it's wrong if a person makes a living teaching the Dharma, but > > could be earning a living in other ways. Let's not forget that Buddha > > forbade his monks from even * handling* money! In the Vipassana tradition > > of S.N.Goenka (the one I follow), all retreats are free of charge, and all > > teachers are volunteers. Simply put, no one should receive financial > > compensation for teaching the Dharma, at least not beyond reimbursement for > > travelling expenses etc. sometimes 'wage' can conveniently be interpreted > > as 'Dana'. >
