Shopping The Dharma

[camerata]

Shopping the Dharma

How do we reconcile our roles as consumers and Buddhist practitioners?

Consumer culture has spawned a class of spiritual shoppers who bring their acquisitive instincts to the practice of the dharma.

When we turn to spirituality, we may think that we’re leaving the corruption of the world behind. But our old ways of thinking do not disappear; they follow us, coloring the way we approach spiritual practice. Since we have all been raised to be good consumers — getting the most while paying the least — as dharma students and teachers we carry our consumer mentality right into our spiritual practice.

How does consumerism manifest on the part of the student? First, we shop for the best product—the best group, the most realized teacher, the highest practice. We go from this place to that, seeking the best spiritual product to “buy.” We want the highest teachings, so we neglect foundational practices. Viewing ourselves as fully qualified disciples, we don’t see much need for basic practices such as ethical discipline and restraint of our senses; instead, we jump into the most advanced tract.

Source: Tricycle.

[Xangsamhua]

I like this bit:

Our consumer mentality as spiritual students and teachers draws us away from actualizing our deepest spiritual aspirations. In Buddhism the distinction between spiritual and nonspiritual actions is made primarily in terms of motivation. Motivations seeking only the happiness of this life are considered worldly because they focus on our own immediate happiness; motivations aspiring to good future rebirth, liberation, and enlightenment are spiritual because they seek long-term goals that benefit self and others.

When describing a mind that seeks the happiness of only this life, the Buddha outlined eight worldly concerns. These eight fall into four pairs: (1) attachment to having money and material possessions; displeasure when we don’t have them, (2) attachment to praise, approval, and ego-pleasing words; displeasure when we are criticized, (3) attachment to having a good reputation and image; displeasure when they are tainted, and (4) attachment to pleasurable sense objects—sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile objects; displeasure when encountering unpleasant sense objects. Personally speaking, when I examine my mental states, most of them consist of these eight, so that having a pure dharma motivation is quite difficult.

The rest of the piece seems to be just the standard sort of sermon we've come to expect from religious professionals - priests, ministers, etc - who need to coax a bit more cash out of the congregation, call it dana, collection, pledges, sacrificial giving, or whatever.

OK, I know that religious communities need money and that congregants can have short arms and deep pockets. I also respect Bhikshuni Thubten's stature in the Buddhadharma and Sangha and know she has an abbey to run, but what is she really trying to get across in this piece? We need to be more generous - especially to those who've chosen to lead spiritual lives dependent on the laity's support? We need to make more effort to seek out teachers? We need to stick with our teachers even if their teaching doesn't satisfy our needs? Having sought out and found the Buddhadharma we should stay with it (but why not stay with whatever we converted from?)?

Is it just an exhortation to stay the course? Once we've decided to step out on our chosen path, to stick to it? And to be generous, ungrasping and unassuming in our Buddhist practice and lifestyle? To be "aimless" in the sense Thich Nhat Hanh teaches us?

But Western people are not "aimless"; they are goal-oriented and judgmental. They see possibilities and choices. Commitments are tentative, and, in the religious marketplace (and in the west it is a marketplace) if something truer and wiser comes along they may take it up, and to do so isn't just a sign of superficiality or attachment to worldly concerns.

Religious teachers and spiritual leaders in the West can't assume that they'll have the same loyal and faithful following forever. It doesn't work like that any more. Abbeys and other monastic centres would be wise not to depend on the generosity of the faithful. Mahayana monastic rules enable monasteries to be self-sufficient. Any dana from the laity simply enables more services to be provided. That's the way it should be, or so I see it.

[khaowong1]

I like this bit:

Our consumer mentality as spiritual students and teachers draws us away from actualizing our deepest spiritual aspirations. In Buddhism the distinction between spiritual and nonspiritual actions is made primarily in terms of motivation. Motivations seeking only the happiness of this life are considered worldly because they focus on our own immediate happiness; motivations aspiring to good future rebirth, liberation, and enlightenment are spiritual because they seek long-term goals that benefit self and others.

When describing a mind that seeks the happiness of only this life, the Buddha outlined eight worldly concerns. These eight fall into four pairs: (1) attachment to having money and material possessions; displeasure when we don’t have them, (2) attachment to praise, approval, and ego-pleasing words; displeasure when we are criticized, (3) attachment to having a good reputation and image; displeasure when they are tainted, and (4) attachment to pleasurable sense objects—sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile objects; displeasure when encountering unpleasant sense objects. Personally speaking, when I examine my mental states, most of them consist of these eight, so that having a pure dharma motivation is quite difficult.

The rest of the piece seems to be just the standard sort of sermon we've come to expect from religious professionals - priests, ministers, etc - who need to coax a bit more cash out of the congregation, call it dana, collection, pledges, sacrificial giving, or whatever.

OK, I know that religious communities need money and that congregants can have short arms and deep pockets. I also respect Bhikshuni Thubten's stature in the Buddhadharma and Sangha and know she has an abbey to run, but what is she really trying to get across in this piece? We need to be more generous - especially to those who've chosen to lead spiritual lives dependent on the laity's support? We need to make more effort to seek out teachers? We need to stick with our teachers even if their teaching doesn't satisfy our needs? Having sought out and found the Buddhadharma we should stay with it (but why not stay with whatever we converted from?)?

Is it just an exhortation to stay the course? Once we've decided to step out on our chosen path, to stick to it? And to be generous, ungrasping and unassuming in our Buddhist practice and lifestyle? To be "aimless" in the sense Thich Nhat Hanh teaches us?

But Western people are not "aimless"; they are goal-oriented and judgmental. They see possibilities and choices. Commitments are tentative, and, in the religious marketplace (and in the west it is a marketplace) if something truer and wiser comes along they may take it up, and to do so isn't just a sign of superficiality or attachment to worldly concerns.

Religious teachers and spiritual leaders in the West can't assume that they'll have the same loyal and faithful following forever. It doesn't work like that any more. Abbeys and other monastic centres would be wise not to depend on the generosity of the faithful. Mahayana monastic rules enable monasteries to be self-sufficient. Any dana from the laity simply enables more services to be provided. That's the way it should be, or so I see it.

You have hit the nail on the head. I just returned from spending a year at a Thai wat in Phoenix, Arizona. They still have a few old Thai followers, but there is getting to be fewer every year. Where a few years ago, there would be approx. 35-40 followers at a Sunday service, now theres 8 to 12. The younger people are either not interested or are wandering around from church to church looking for that quick absolution. Don't ptofess to know the answer to what can be done.