Thinking about Zen Sangha and Money

I find myself thinking about sangha specifically as emerging Western Zen communities and what money might have to do with sangha.

The starting point for my reflection are Dosho Port’s consideration of teachers and authority at his delightful Wild Fox blog as well as a recent note and the many, many comments at Brad Warner’s always interesting Hardcore Zen blog. These are both teachers whom I admire so I try to pay attention to their reflections…

And recently they’ve both touched upon sangha and money.

Brad made a passing comment about how (many, most?) of those sitting with him are not stepping up to pay the rather nominal rent for their sitting group. Clearly frustrated, Brad mentioned how all he is trying to do is provide a place for people to sit; he’s not trying to build a grand organization or anything more that that place to sit. He went a bit further and added he’s not even trying to start a sangha.

Brad’s blog generates many comments. He intentionally does not moderate the comments and over the years has attracted quite a menagerie of wondrous creatures who feel free to say all sorts of things. And do. Most, in my opinion, not worth the effort to read. On the other hand the comments might occasionally reveal what’s in the minds of people at the edge of the Zen world. At least it seems so to me when I do decide to wade through them. And there was, I thought, something of the sort as a thread of assumption held by a number of the commentators how any money involved in Zen tainted the deal. Brad seems to share some part of this assumption, having said many times he doesn’t approve, at least for himself, of charging for teaching. The writers may have been taking this view rather farther along, some apparently feeling paying rent tainting…

Dosho’s recent three part reflection on power relationships between teachers and students started with a description of the Asian model of strict hierarchy, then his view of a contemporary attempt at leveling relationships, and concluded with a passionate call to what seemed to me to be a purer vision of teacher and student walking together toward awakening in a way that involved neither the Asian hierarchy nor the Western community.

At least along the way of his reflection he dismissed the attempt at that more level community of practice as putting the inmates in charge of the asylum. His specific references to this were grounded in anecdotes about Zen teachers who admitted their teaching was compromised when dealings involved contributors.

Again, money.

So, two questions that seem connected. What about money in Zen? And, what about community in Zen?

As those who read this blog regularly know, my thinking is informed by four decades of Zen practice in a variety of circumstances ranging from Zen quasi-monastic to priestly and lay practice. And, without a doubt, also informing all this is my deep involvement in Unitarian Univeralism for more than two decades, much of that as a UU minister.

So, here are my thoughts.

There is nothing wrong with money. There is nothing wrong with a Zen teacher being paid for teaching. There is nothing wrong with a community having both explicit and implicit assumptions in their dealings with a teacher.

In being straightforward about these things and dealing with them in a forthright way, everyone’s practice is enriched.

And something more.

Sangha, community, is absolutely essential for an authentic practice. Without community it’s all theoretical. With community its all about life. We need each other more than we can ever think, teachers and students, and all of us. And, and, at least in modern cultures, money is an essential part of any real community.

Money is a powerful force, no doubt. It is dangerous. And it makes the world go round.

I think it perfectly okay for a Zen teacher to not want to deal with it. The consequence of this is that Zen will be a hobby, an avocation. Nothing wrong with this, either. The root for amateur is love and while the primary understanding of an amateur is someone doing something without pay, it also means doing something for the pure love of it. But it will be a hobby, and as such it is ultimately a private thing.

Which brings us to sangha. In ancient Buddhism sangha was defined as a group of four monks or nuns. It has come to be understood as the community. Often in the west it is defined as the community of practice. But, while I often use that phrase, and did earlier here, I think ultimately that’s too narrow. Sangha is the community of aspiration and relationships.

And, it is powerful. And it is dangerous.

And, I think, for Zen teachers, it is the main way they find their training continues past Dharma transmission and official independence as teachers. As such a very good thing.

So, Dosho describes a teacher who sees she or he is trimming her or his sail to accomodate a signficant contributor. First, there’s that noticing. Talk about a gift! Talk about bringing one’s dharma into the world and testing it.

So many questions tumble out of that relationship.

So rich, as it were…

As is finding one’s self as a teacher held accountable in ways that may or may not be fair.

Of course who thought fair was supposed to be part of the deal?

No doubt another lesson in a box that seems to have an endless supply…

The deal is the way of awakening, of healing the hurt of the world, of finding the way of the sacred ordinary… (Not as Dosho cites elsewhere in bringing the sacred down to the ordinary but in raising the ordinary to the sacred. While the geography of this metaphor can easily be shifted, the point remains…)

Now, I admit, our Boundless Way is mostly amateur. But we’re trying to deal with money forthrightly. I draw a very nominal stipend as a senior teacher (I think currently about forty dollars a month) and all of us senior teachers expect a payment (from a schedule established by the board of trustees) when we visit the various sanghas affiliated with our community. (like church, sangha stands for local groups and larger networks).

A consequence of this is the community understands they have a hand in the support of the work and involving some money in the deal is skin in the game. Bottom line (as it were. It is fascinating how much money provides our metaphors…) there is ownership.

And this is a good thing. A very good thing.

And, my, one more metaphor.

My two cents…