Making a living from being a spiritual teacher

[Douglas]

Have you seen how much some spiritual teachers are actually making? i'm not talking about the obvious hucksters, but even the more (seemingly) respectable teachers?

I totally understand that we don't have the ashram culture in the west which supports teachers and gurus, so charging something in order to live is not what i'm talking about.

It's how much. At some point, you have to ask what's going on here?

For example,Rupert Spira is making an absolute fortune. I mean, a massive amount of money. Bernardo may not like this but there it is. If anybody doubts this, please hop over to Rupert's site, check his events schedule and then, with the help of a calculator, rack up how much he is making in a year. Don't count accommodation, as this is not included - the attendee has to pay that separately to the £800 attendance fee. 

Then you have the £10 'registration fee' on the door for his informal sessions. As it's on the door, why is it called a 'registration fee'?

I calculated that he's making well at least 3/4 of a mil per year, and that's not even including book sales. Then add in what his partner makes. They are literally rolling in it.

I agree it's fine to make a living, but this goes way beyond that.

I did the same with Adyashanti (Steven Gray), and he is making an absolute fortune as well. 

I challenge you to check out the schedule for both these guys and total it up the fees; if you imagine how many people you get at a retreat, is eye watering. and this is not even including book sales or video downloads, which Gray (naturally) charges for.

I'm trying to work out who's making more, Gray or Rupert - it's too close to call so far.

You can of course choose to ignore this if your cognitive dissonance doesn't allow for it, but it really should be a concern.

In total contrast, may I present the advaita teacher James Swartz who doesn't charge $800 for a satsang - his are free - the vast majority of his material is free. He charges some money for seminars abroad in order to o pay for his flight.

More tellingly, Swartz lives in rented accommodation and he and his wife earn enough to pay the bills and run his website. This is a massive contrast from Spira and Gray, who are both, by my estimation earning at least $800,000 per annum, not including book sales.

Now, I'm no promoting Swartz per say, the advaita interpretation of non-duality is not my thing, but i do recognise Swartz as a sincere teacher of advaita, who lives relatively humbly, unlike these guys.

As Adyashanti (Gray) has a growing organisation, the Open Gate Sanga, I did at first entertain a faint hope that perhaps some of his considerable  income goes into supporting that. However my hopes were dashed in the small print at the site, where it states that 'the open gate sanga runs by voluntary donation - seminar fees <accommodation not included> do not count as donations'.

[Mark Tetzner]

I am sorry but who cares? To tie financial gain to morality is just a private matter.
To charge 1000 bucks for a live event is entirely normal, or more.
If you have value in the market-place then you can charge some money.
Nothing more and nothing less as far as I am concerned.

[benjayk]

Very interesting points. How about Eckhart Tolle?
Anway, I don't want to insinuate they are greedy, but it does confirm my intuition to not put anybody on a pedestal.
They are "ordinary people", who might value money in a way that has more to with what they want, then with giving and sharing.

They say many words, and I can see some wisdom in what they say. I also can bring myself to believe they have found peace in some way.
However the point of non-duality, is to transcend subject-objective duality, isn't?
Presumably that has to apply not only in some abstract sense, but to realization itself.
So in that sense, to try to find enlightenment in any object of perception, even if it is a "spiritual master", is just a projection.

However if you have the sense you "awakened" and people project and enlightenment unto you, I can understand that's not something you are necessarily particularly interested in pointing out, or even being aware of.
It sort of collapses all the big words into vagueries, which might or might not be profound. What is there to talk about?
At best you might be a humble teacher teach humble things. But that's not really an improvement if you have a guru like status and enjoy it, right?

[benjayk]

OK, sure. They can do what they want.
However it doesn't go well with their message.

Presumably awakening - if such a thing exists - is crucial to the well-being of every person and the world as a whole. It's not a luxury good in any way.
To make that into a commodity does not inspire confidence that you are truly a kind and giving person.
Which in turn implies that whatever you have realized, is missing something important.

Now, it might be they are "secretely" using their excess money in a more giving way, or are planning to.
I am not sure, though. From what I see, it's more likely they are sellers who think there products are worth quite a lot.

[Dana Lomas]

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:22:05 AM UTC-4, benjayk wrote:

 

" ...but it does confirm my intuition to not put anybody on a pedestal."

My feelings exactly ... they are all still all earthly beings.

It does show how thirsty folks are for some message other than what they're getting from the status quo materialist model, in that they're willing to pay dearly for it, in the hope of finding some deeper fulfillment and meaning. I suppose if it really does attain and serve that end, then presumably it is worth it. Who knows how many actually get some sustained degree of self-realization. It also says a lot about how value is equated with money in this culture. Many think nothing of paying 3 or 4 times more for big name brands, in the belief that they are worth that much. Really, how many seekers would follow, for free, some handyman sage in a dingy basement apartment, who could be just as 'enlightening' as the big names on the guru circuit? Not much cachet in that. Seems they much prefer to pay the premium for the ones on a pedestal. :) 

[Douglas]

Which brings me to my point about James Swartz. Who instils more confidence that they embody the teaching: James, living modesty in rented accommodation, or Rupert or Adya in their mansions?

In James Swartz's own words: 'My wife and I work tirelessly to bring this information to the public' - mainly for free.

[Bernardo]

I will only say this, because it's factual: Rupert doesn't live in a mansion...

[Dana Lomas]

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 12:48:40 PM UTC-4, Douglas wrote:

Who instils more confidence that they embody the teaching: James, living modesty in rented accommodation, or Rupert or Adya in their mansions?

I should think that it's highly subjective. Not having met with any of them, I'm in no position to know.  

[tjssailor]

The Himalayan anchorites are the most extreme example of anti-materialism living in caves in the mountains on donated food it that.

On Friday, April 7, 2017 at 12:48:40 PM UTC-4, Douglas wrote:

[Dana Lomas]

I did just spend $140 for a half hour teeth cleaning session ... Surely some TLC for the soul is worth at least that much :)

[Peter Jones]

I'm not sure how any of this matters but it's a good sign if people like Spira are doing well.

Giving things away for free leads naturally to their being undervalued, something jewelry and perfume marketers know very well.

And money is needed for the work.

.  

[benjayk]

Giving things away for free leads naturally to their being undervalued, something jewelry and perfume marketers know very well.

How about food?
Seems there is a certain agreement it should be free for people who can't afford it.

If one is serious about it, it can't be a luxury like jewelry. Not even entertainment.
It's like basic spiritual education. Trying to do maximize your value you get ouf it doesn't seem very spiritual.

Again, I might well be missing something, but it does seem that there is a certain commodification going on here.

And money is needed for the work.

Sure, it's more of a question of quantity. 10$, especially if there are exceptions for poor people, seems reasonable to me.
However if Douglas' calculation is correct, it's way beyond what is needed to live a good life, save something up, and being able to reach many people.
 

[Peter Jones]

Yes, but we're not talking about living expenses. There cannot be too much money available for the work. If Spira spends his money on wine, women and song and traipsing around the Amsterdam res-light district then maybe we should worry, but I expect every penny goes to a good cause. He will be well aware that camels cannot pass through the eye of a needle.

[benjayk]

I just visited Ruperts website, and to his credit I found this on the site for an event "A limited number of scholarships are available for those with financial hardships."
That seems like it might be a fair way to make sure people who can't afford it have a chance to participate. Though he also takes donations, so make of that what you will...

I don't want to judge any specific person, I don't really have enough information to do that.
However I do think it's slightly suspicious when people accrue a large amount of wealth by being a spiritual teacher, while at first glance not being particularly charitable.

[benjayk]

Sure, I don't think Rupert is doing that.
You are of course right that even large of profits can be used for a good purpose.

I am just personally quite concerned about exclusion, because I personally experienced how easy it is to be excluded in our society, and spirituality should certainly try to be inclusive as possible, and create as little barriers as possible.
Everything else seems to be rather unfair towards the people least fortunate in our society.

[Peter Jones]

On Monday, 10 April 2017 12:12:47 UTC+1, benjayk wrote:

I just visited Ruperts website, and to his credit I found this on the site for an event "A limited number of scholarships are available for those with financial hardships."
That seems like it might be a fair way to make sure people who can't afford it have a chance to participate. Though he also takes donations, so make of that what you will...

Exactly!! I attended an expensive school that most people would see as elitist but any spare cash was always used to fund scholarships for people who could not afford it. Some students had nothing to pay but their laundry bill, especially if they had problems such as dyslexia or special talents that deserved fostering. The people who paid could afford it.

Giving stuff away for free rarely works. People value what they pay for. Imagine how many time-waters would turn up to free courses. I don;t have to imagine since I used to run course and had to introduce charges just to keep the wrong people away.

But then. one does have to be careful. I once chatted to a guy who used to be number two in the organisation of a famous guru who famously collected Rolls Royces and clearly loved wealth. He sold two houses to help fund the cause and spent his inheritance. After thirty years he left and published a book saying he'd learned nothing (Nothing!) in all that time, even though for much of it he'd been a teacher in charge of novices. He received death threats and caused havoc. This is gullibility at its worst, and dishonesty, self-deception and stupidity. He had two PhDs, one in physics.   .  .  

Funny old world.

[Peter Jones]

On Monday, 10 April 2017 12:31:27 UTC+1, benjayk wrote:

Everything else seems to be rather unfair towards the people least fortunate in our society.

It is said that Krishna deprives those he loves of everything, and that he's doing them a favour.

But I agree. After all, this is the definition of 'least fortunate'.

Perhaps we need to make sure that teachers are rich enough to be able to afford to work for free when it's appropriate, which means charging the fortunate a bit over the odds. This was what I was getting at.

What is important is not how rich Spira is, but how much he cares.  

[Larry Schultz]

my job is not to defend Rupert Spira, but do you know how many attendees he has in each session?

or what his costs are to put on a 7 day retreat?

I ask because you've proposed what his gross receipts might be - but can you guess what his net might be?

 

[Douglas]

We're talking at least £700 quid for a five day retreat (work out in dollars or euros of you dont do sterling). Not including accomodation which might be another £500.

If you get 300 people turning up to a retreat, and many of Adyashanti's retreats can easily reach this number, and so can Rupert's, then do the maths!

Then multiply this by how many retreats they do in a year, and you have a colossal sum. It's simple maths folks!

Again, no one has explained the £10 'registration fee' for turning up at the door for one of his informal sessions. If it's at the door, why is it called a 'registration fee'?

Saying that, i like they way he delivers and he does come across as a nice chap!

So does Adyashanti, but i am beginning to wonder about Adya, never mind the colossal income as mentioned earlier, none of which goes on his organisation (seminar fees do not count as donations),

Then you have the oprah tv appearance, like he's trying to become the US's version of the dalai lama.

I read an interview recently where the interviewer turned up at adya's house to witness afya doing some weight training and bench presses. According to adya, 'this is a working class body; it likes to be worked'

Yeah, whatever adya...

[Adrian Stratulat]

You are missing the point. Money is not always for yourself. You have a staff, you have costs and taxes. And after that, the net profit in itself, you need it if you want to make a change in the world.

Publishing books? Costs.
Marketing and creating awareness? Costs.
Pr? Costs.
Traveling to various events? Costs.
Creating content? Costs.

Etc.

There is also a factor of money value. If you invest 10$ in an event you wont take it seriously. Invest 100$ and you are there to make it worth.

[Mark Tetzner]

You are also forgetting a principle of capitalism where money will flow towards value, thats the idea.
So if they make a ton of money then good on them.
I once learned from someone I believe to be a smart man that people have hidden beliefs about
damaging people if they charge them. This is however, just a belief.

[Peter Jones]

On Tuesday, 11 April 2017 07:29:45 UTC+1, Adrian Stratulat wrote:

.

There is also a factor of money value. If you invest 10$ in an event you wont take it seriously. Invest 100$ and you are there to make it worth.

We used to charge something for course even for people on benefits, for precisely this reason. 

Who is getting obsessed with money here? Is it Adya and Spira? More power to their elbow I say.

 

[Dana Lomas]

Really, I see no point in idle speculation about what Rupert spends the net proceeds on. Or wondering why some individuals feel compelled to spend $225 per day (including accommodation and meals) for this seven day retreat (sold out, btw), when they can attend a two hour satsang for a suggested $10-20 donation at the door, or watch countless hours of free audio/video content online, and quite possibly get just as much benefit. That there is something inherently unspiritual about all this is just a projection of one's own biased beliefs about it, imv. 

[Peter Jones]

Here here. 

[MrBeezweez Weezy]

Hmmm, just seen this thread. I don't care much about money, but then again I don't have much money to care about.

[Dana Lomas]

Insofar as we can choose what to focus awareness upon, focusing upon the mundanity of monetary matter is not what interests me ... I prefer to focus on these rewards instead :)

[RHC]

Wow that was fantastic!

[Peter Jones]

It sure was. Fabulous. Who wrote it? This is not made clear.

[Peter Jones]

Was it Monet?
 

[Dana Lomas]

It was written by Lisel Mueller

On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 7:18:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Jones wrote:

Was it Monet?
 

[MrBeezweez Weezy]

Thanks Dana. I have always loved Impressionism, especially Claude Monet and my favorite is Bain a la Grenouillere. "I do have a dream, a painting, the baths of La Grenouillère, for which I have made some bad sketches, but it is only a dream..." The poem was spot on. Art in any form is communication at it's oldest and finest form. There is no definitions needed, it talks to you, whether you know who's talking, whether you listen or are listening, whether your the artist or the art. The message is always there, spoken a thousand times, seen across thousands of years, and when it comes to you, you realize it's something you've always known, just never knew how to say it. 

[Flp]

You got take into consideration those events are not the casual diy art show with your friends but lots of professionals involved in and outside to make things happens...if he is honest you can’t blame a man for working, looking after his family, or how he chooses to spend his money. Let me ask is it ethical one who lives out of spirituality, at certain degree, to have wealth?

[Cosmin Visan]

All this is irrelevant. Even in the case of idealism replacing materialism at the global scale, this would not mean that finally we succeeded as a species. It will not be at all like this. Only because you replace the surface, the depth of the human soul will remain the same animalic structure. Instead of people struggling to acquire material possessions, they will struggle to acquire "enlightenment". Intead of "I have a bigger car then yours!" it will be "I am more enlightened than you!". Instead of fighting wars for "nationalism" or "political" or "economical" reasons, they will fight wars for "spiritual" reasons: "Oh, yeah ? Are you more enlightened than me ? I show you who is the most enlightened!". In an idealist age, they might even put you in "purification camps" if you will want to acquire material possesions. We can expect the evil in humans to find new reasons to kill each others.

So the spiritual evolution should not be assessed at the level of groups of people, because it is never there. It can only happen on an individual basis. And among us today are surely people that peered deeper into the nature of reality than people 1 million years from now will not do it. So is pointless to hope for "idealism revolutions". It will not happen. What is to be is already here, what is not to be it will never be.

[Lou Gold]

Cosmin,

The problem with what you say is that the competitive individualist model does not fit the facts of evolution, which is heavily dependent on processes of mutualism and reciprocity. An Idealist, understanding interdependence, would be compelled to seek right relationship. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+group+selection+mutualism+competition&oq=evolution+group+selection+mutualism+competition&aqs=chrome..69i57.24335j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Lou Gold]

Cosmin (more)

But you correctly point out that status can replace the goals of wealth or power and result in a new set of unbalanced relationships. Trungpa called it "Spiritual Materialism."

[Lou Gold]

Flp, 

Much depends on the teacher, the location and the social-cultural context. St. Francis would not permit his monk followers to wear sandals in the winter. On the other hand, Rajneesh, while in Oregon, led a parade of his 53 Rolls Royces before his worshipping followers to mock American consumer culture in a Crazy Wisdom way.

[Dana Lomas]

Likewise I'm not sure that a paradigm shift away from materialism is necessarily a harbinger of a new age of enlightenment, as long as there's still its huge shadow to be reconciled, and so many wounded psyches to be healed. Perhaps a paradigm based on the primacy of Consciousness, along with the pervasive and compassionate teaching of relational mindfulness -- what you sow, so shall you reap -- especially starting with children, facilitates such endeavours, whether individually or collectively, until having reached a critical mass, that rising tide will eventually lift all boats, via the modalities of epigenetics and morphic resonance. One thing seems certain, if we sow cynical pessimism, that surely can only inhibit all of the above.

[Flp]

Great point, thanks for adding. That is partially what I meant above on him being honest - that is, a man got to walk the way he talks! Looking forward to future discussions!

[david giles]

Ruper'ts company has almost £900,000 in his business bank account according to his published accounts in March 2019 and he owns a £2,272,000 property in Oxford from what i can make out from the same accounts.

So he isn't exactly poor Bernardo and i would say a house that is worth £2,272,000 is a mansion. 

[Raymond Liljeros]

Dear spiritual friands. I am a surviver from the Andrew Cohen following. Andrew Cohen was not that expensive, but I would have preferred to pay a bit more without the craziness. Perhaps it is possible to find both :). I am starting on Sunday my first retreat with Rupert Spira and yes, me too, I have pondered why it is so expensive. So I asked. The answer was that all staff are paid for their time, no-one is doing free work. That is fair enough. But for one day in Paris with about 100 people, room given for free, with a staff of 2 or 3 and no food, the price of 90€ is pretty high. Of course if you cannot pay, you apply for a free scholarship, paid for by donations. I do not think that Rupert Spira lives a luxury life like some Indian gurus did. But there must be quite a bit of money left over. Perhaps he is saving up to buy a permanent retreat. Who knows. The best thing would be to ask. If I have the chance to be with Rupert in private, I will ask. But I will not ask in front of 180 people coming. Just the way I feel about it. In my native country, all income of the most healthy people in each city is published in the newspaper once a year. Total transparency. I moved to France where I live happily :). France is way way away from transparency, but I love France. Anyway, I will tell you all more if I find out why it is so expensive. Especially since I see that next year the Spira prices go up again. All the best. Raymond

[Raymond Liljeros]

Dear David. Thank you so much for giving this information since yes, it is creating lots of emotions in me. But I have a friend in Palo Alto who bought a house for 300.000 35 years ago when she moved there. Today this house is worth 2.5 million. And this is also a very standard 120M2 house. About the 900.000 on Robert's company. Yes I suppose that this is not coming from his artwork although it is impressive. So we will see what will come out of this some day perhaps. Either it is for his children, or perhaps a permanent center. I say this because he once mentioned on a retreat I listened to about wanting to buy a center in California if I understood rightly but that his partner did not want to live there. All speculations. But compare this to Andrew Cohen. He asked rich people to give away all their money to set up a luxury retreat in the US. He was given millions. And then what ! Finally I think I much prefer to be part of paying what finally is a normal price for a retreat in the USA and UK. In France it would be more like 800, not the 1200 I paid if indeed the profit goes to something positive.

[Santeri Satama]

Money especially in its current form is a form of hypnosis (have you seen the hypnotic eye on top of a pyramid...?), so what is the real worth of a spiritual teacher who is under the money hypnosis? Of course there are many ways to teach, also as a warning example, as your worst enemy, or like Kumare: http://www.kumaremovie.com/

I don't know whether we are supposed to wake up from money hypnosis and if so, when and how... so for this spiritual teaching from an authentic bum, please donate to the bitcoin account: XyZ123aBc456MALfunct1oni0nsHOW?

keskiviikko 31. heinäkuuta 2019 1.53.49 UTC+3 Justin kirjoitti:

I agree - commodification of a spiritual teaching inevitably corrupts it ("pay me and I will teach you generosity, give me some money and I will show you the importance of selflessness"). I only pay attention to spiritual teachers who offer their teachings on a gift basis - Charles Eisenstein is a contemporary example.

Having said that, Sheldrake has some great stuff and I read him for his scientific and philosophic work.

[Rigpa]

He's earned every penny.

/thread

Zzzzzzzzzzzz...

[Olga Nechtschein]

Hallo there. So after one week with Rupert Spira. Yes, it is worth every penny ! After all the retreats I have been to, this is the one that is worth all the money and more. And Rupert Spira does not spend the money on a trip to the Bahamas, but perhaps he will spend the money on a permanent retreat one day.

[Alex Merab]

Olga I agree with You. People in this thread who are saying that being spiritual teacher is incompatible with making decent money are at least stupid. Retreats are what rupert does for living and it is his main source of income. He is the best spiritual teacher out there and he deserves every penny.

[Philip Risby]

Spiritualism is not materialism, they are almost opposite ends of the scale

Money is even a fiction of materialism, diametrically opposite spiritualism

Of course they can co-exist, but that of true spritual value cannot be purchased with any amount of money.

This does not imply that value cannot be gained from attending 'spritual' retreats, and it may well be worth paying for by some. The true seeker of spiritual value will have already deduced that it cannot be paid for in monetary terms.

[Alex Merab]

Philip I think you just love to type

[Lou Gold]

Philip,

The problem is not money but commodification, which of course gets closely associated with money but not always in a bad way. Some teachers, like Ram Dass, raised a lot of money for good causes. It seems to me that the more fundamental question is whether the underlying mission is charity -- giving, caring, sharing, the kind of stuff in the so-called Prayer of Saint Francis.  

[Philip Risby]

Dear Alex

Do please explain the value of money to a pure spiritual path - is money a requirement in order to tread the path of spiritual enlightenment?

Or perhaps money is essential for spiritual practice

My love of typing is drawn from my love to seek out a better understanding, so please help me to understand

Kindly yours

Philip

[Philip Risby]

Many a great past mystic has lived life without money or charity, Read about the saints of India or Persia of the past.

There are some today who do not have websites or seek to attract followers or depend on money in any sense  - not easy to find such illuminated souls, especially as they seek silence and privacy, but if anyone has the good fortune to meet such a person, and the patience and awareness and sensitivity to spend time in the company of such a person, then the question of money becomes more than mute, irrelevant, perhaps even insulting.

To find such a person is far from easy, but upon finding and spending even a few minutes in the company of such a person, one is changed, material desires vanish, nothing is the same again

I realise this is probably difficult to understand but if a sense of curiosity is awakened, our best outcome is to stop analysis and discussion and attempting to intellectually understand, and seek out such a person

[Lou Gold]

Philip,

Always good to know to whom you are responding. A name will work or the "Quote original" button if it shows on your device.

In case your advice is directed to me, suffice it to say I'm not a newbie and my life has been unexplainably rich in fortunate encounters and personal experiences, mostly along the path of charity or gift economy. These are my strong preferences AND I do understand certain adjustments made in the modern world. 

[Philip Risby]

Hi Lou

For some reason the name field does not appear in my response box - perhaps this group system is not Linux friendly?

Your response duly noted, thank you

Phil

[Alex Merab]

Dear Philip,

for example if we take Rupert Spira's example - thats what he does for living - he does not have other income. I do not understand why do you think making money is a shame for spiritual teacher. Money is a good thing - more money people will have better it is. of course money is not most important thing, but it makes our life's on earth more comfortable. please let me know what do you think is not true here.. thanks

[Henrik Karl]

You have to remember, Renting a place that size, as in adyashanti's case, for a week.. Costs ALOT. So i doubt he earns that much as you say he does. Sure he earns a good living, but not like you think he does. Alot of fees you are not incalculating. 

[Brad Walker]

I'm not convinced that mind-body practices aren't spiritual gambling, retreat centers aren't spiritual casinos, and those devoted to Enlightenment aren't spiritual Powerball junkies. Spirituality is an alternative lifestyle instead of a satisfied essential need. Spiritual progress is a scarce status indicator. There's nothing uniquely spiritual or praiseworthy about grooming one's nervous system for the self-deactivation of the DMN. It's a great sacrifice of potential, in terms of time and alternative gray matter specialization; why sacrifice a brain of Einstein for yet-another bleeding-heart statue? BK may have accomplished in two years what Eastern tradition practitioners purportedly do across lifetimes, like Scott H. Young learned the curriculum of a MIT CS BS in a year.

[Flp]

Hi Brad,

Your writing brought me into a spiral of (positive) thoughts and, once more, I thought of adding to the conversation by replying to your comments. I understand you are expressing your opinion, which I assume they come from your personal experience and I respect that. But I somewhat disagree in some parts. Let me add I don't know who is BK or Scott H Young, therefore I won't make comments on that. I'm not religious - this purely street philosophy.

According to the almighty Google, approximately 107 billion people ever existed on earth. Between you and me, if I had to place a money bet, I would definitely bet that at least one or two folks (out 107 billion) have followed the spiritual path for the purest reasons that our minds can conceive. And those people would be considered madmen by any western psychotherapist. Afterall, the reality one believes is relative.

Nevertheless, I agree that much of spirituality we see is driven by business as usual (ego, money, etc). And that people seek religion/spiritual path/enlightenment for egocentric reasons, and I don't mean negatively but reasons such as filling empty holes within THEMSELVES, healing THEMSELVES, seeking love for THEMSELVES, finding INNER peace, releasing THEMSELVES. People often seek enlightenment, but it's all in vain since enlightenment can't be found. It effortlessly comes to you, if it's meant to be. The artist creates because he must create. Enlightenment lies under such abstract reality that won't ever be understood, neither can be explained, but only experienced. Even if one could, hypothetically, serve enlightenment on a silver plate, the vast majority (if not all) would reject it. BUT should one avoid the search if the process makes you a better person? “Its the not the Destination, It's the journey.”

I respect your opinion of what you don't consider a meaningful life (aka. how one should spend their time) when you mention "sacrificing ones brain for a bleeding-heart statue". But let me tell you that even Einstein needed love. Even Einstein needed to spend time of his life seeking simple and meaningless pleasures. Seeking love is part of being human. Love is what drives us. And there are many forms in which love manifests, including faith. 

[Rigpa]

Flp,

You DO know who BK is. You're on his forum :-)

[Rigpa]

Brad,

What do you mean sacrificing your brain? Meditation is good for the brain.

[Eugene I]

Enlightenment is not for everyone, and many people who were drawn to it out of curiosity or self-centered reasons either didn't get anything or got disappointed with what they found, and even get angry after wasting so much time with it (and often money). So the negative and even cynical attitude towards it is quite understandable. But there no need to be negative. There are people who do benefit from it. It's like you tried to learn flute and you could not get any progress, flute is not for everyone. So forget it and move on.

[David Samson]

The Buddha followed a path of asceticism prior to his awakening. He determined that asceticism was not the answer.

Many people believe detachment means that one should abjure possessions. That in itself is a form of attachment.

Detachment means that external circumstances are not important. Whether you are rich or poor is not relevant. Attachment to material things is a blockage. Attachment to poverty is also a blockage.

https://excellentjourney.net/2014/12/19/joseph-campbells-samurai-tale/

The degree of Rupert's or Adya's or Swartz's wealth or poverty is irrelevant to the value of what they have to offer. Some people will hear the message more effectively if it is expensive. some will hear it more effectively if it is given away for free. The impact of their material condition on their own selves is the problem each of them have to wrestle with. For any of us to judge them solely based on their material conditions is more reflective of our individual journey's than on any of them.

& then there is this humorous parable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMH8ZdC9WiM

[beherenow space]

“So he isn't exactly poor Bernardo and i would say a house that is worth £2,272,000 is a mansion. “

Having myself lived in Oxford, Britain’s most unavoidable place to live, I can attest to the fact that £2.2 million does not necessarily equate to a mansion :)

[beherenow space]

If Rupert held a monopoly on something then high charges would be an ethical concern. He doesn’t so it isn’t. There are plenty of free opportunities for people.

[John Long]

A lot of real and valid concerns are expressed in this thread, and as a person who has been embedded in the experiential part of the consciousness movement for decades, perhaps I might offer a few thoughts.

First, at least in the western world, a common misstep is to conflate consciousness work with old-school religion, and the first assumptions most of us have per how an authentic religious leader should exist in the world.

A Catholic leader should be sworn to poverty; a Christian should be committed to charity – and on and on, the result being that we set up an idealized “model” for any consciousness worker to meet that jibes with a traditional “holy man” (or woman, or non-bi).  A man of God – pious, broke, humble as a roach, infinitely loving etc.

This is largely a mythological person, even within religious orders. It also falsely assumes that without these qualities, the person in question is not “real,” but rather a poser in it for the money. In other words, while capitalism and worthy causes and stand-up people exist in a vast array of fields, the two (this thinking goes) cannot authentically co-exist when it comes to consciousness work. It’s simply oil and water no matter how we mix them. That is, there’s no compatible middle-ground between money grubbing and authentic and honest insight. It’s strictly one or the other. All or nothing.

This has not been my experience.

The conflict for some arises from evaluating all consciousness workers by this metric, when many of them never got into consciousness work as a religious calling, or to ape the prerogative of God, however we many conceive that; but rather to try and either square seemingly bizarre experiences they were having, or as an investigative mode of boring into consciousness and perception itself. In both cases they are generally trying to make good on a concept Socrates stated over 2,500 years ago: Know thyself. But what the hell does this mean? And how are we to go about discovering answers to this perennial question?

There are basically two ways if you are drawn toward the 1^st person experiential modes of inquiry. You can go with the slow-burn method, find a group (ranging from Zen to yoga to non-denominational meditation outfits, etc.), or try and accelerate the process though secular teachers like Ady and Spira who are basically providing consciousness hacks that provide openings students are not finding in their normal practices. It takes a particular type of person who can pull this off, who has the commercial and organizational wherewithal to mobilize a movement and put on big seminars to a large cross section of people. Their message is by and large no different or more profound that solid teachers found in many traditions but they have the gift of making it accessible to the public. Like successful people in any field, they are rewarded. We don’t begrudge the staggering sums some make who invent scientific gadgets or new medicines or whatever, but we continue to question consciousness workers who profit from their efforts - so long as we conflate them with old school holy men. 

[David Samson]

Well put John,

It's kind of like the unspoken meme against people advocating for the environment:

"If you truly cared about the environment you would live in a tent & eat grubs. Or better yet, if you truly cared about mankind's impact on the environment, you would commit suicide. Otherwise you are a hypocrite"

[Eugene I]

John,  good points. I would add that in addition to the dimension of "consciousness exploration" there is another independent dimension of the attitude to the apparent world where we live, with the opposing tendencies to accept or reject it (escape from it). Most ancient traditions belonged to rejectionist category, while most of modern teachings belong to the secular (acceptists) category. If one is a follower of a rejectionist teaching, then one of the hallmarks of it is rejection of possessions or money as belonging to the world to be rejected. In such traditions monasticism or at least rejection of possessions is considered the most authentic way of living. Ancient forms of Buddhism or Christianity belonged to this category. The vinaya rules of Buddhis monk community established by Buddha himself did not allow the monks even to touch money.

The secular teachings, on the other hand, do not reject the world where we currently live and therefore do not call for rejection of it's worldly values. They may call to "transcend" them, but make no commitment to reject them. Therefore, expecting the modern secular non-duality teachers to live in poverty and not to accept money for their teachings would be inconsistent with the teachings themselves.

[John Long]

Good point, Eugene.

But some scheduled "rejection" is also required. Not writing off the world we live in, but stepping out of direct engagement long enough to practice and try and experience "reality" before we start evaluating it, drawing mental maps and conclusions. Believing we can avoid this work is another myth, but this time it's usually proposed by physicalists: That we can discover all there is to discover about consciousness simly through noodling it, measuring the brain, etc. via 3rd person inquiries. That's the myth of getting something for nothing - that is, gaining insight about consciousness itself by never actually wraingling with it straight up, in the 1st person. Another myth is that ALL instrospection is like trying to do physics sans instruments, since what we really want, or should want is data and epistemic certainly, only gotten via quntifications. 

If you look at either music or sports (to give two examples), the "10,000 rep" rule is always at play. It takes about 10,000 reps to really get fluent with either an instrument or a sport, given you have the natural apitude in the first place. That's why for virtually all crack musicians or sports people, their background will include five or sex years of "rejecting" everything else and compulsively practicing till the technique becomes a part of their life which they can consistantly express.

Same goes for consciousness work. Even for those who have big bang "spiritual" experiences, the much harder work is learning to integrate this all into our moment to moment life. And nobody does this all at once.  Ady, for example, is huge on the integration process, but this hinges on people having the experiences to integrate.  Spira is mostly focused on evoking non-dual experience. Most students are left to bop around, taking what they want (that they can use) and levaing the rest as over a long process the pieces start to form up into a managable whole. At least that's been my experience.

[Dave Wheeler]

Interesting, and frankly, truth is truth whether it costs you nothing or a thousand dollars :-)

[Eugene I]

Same goes for consciousness work. Even for those who have big bang "spiritual" experiences, the much harder work is learning to integrate this all into our moment to moment life. And nobody does this all at once.  Ady, for example, is huge on the integration process, but this hinges on people having the experiences to integrate.  Spira is mostly focused on evoking non-dual experience. Most students are left to bop around, taking what they want (that they can use) and levaing the rest as over a long process the pieces start to form up into a managable whole. At least that's been my experience.

I totally agree, John. It's like any other endeavor in life, be it creativity or profession: the more you focus and prioritize it, the further you can (usually) advance. But again, in such case, even if I'm focused and committed, it has nothing to to with money. It's just that focusing less on making money would give me more energy and time for spiritual practice. In fact, I could even argue that more money would allow me to spend less time on my daytime job and have more time for spiritual practice.  

However, in "rejectionistic" traditions it is more than that, it is rejection of the world entirely. One of their hallmarks is commitment to non-returning to this world in future incarnations. So, the purpose of the practice is not only integration and so on, but cutting off all the strings (cravings, desires, attachments) that tie us to this world. And that includes money and possessions.  

[Lou Gold]

I don't think it's about an "old school Holy Man" meme as much as about monastic practice. However, in my non-monastic adventures along indigenous and syncretic folk religions there's a strong sense that humility and simplicity are the markers of spiritual nobility. Of course, much of this can change as folkways interface with modern commodified capitalism. Much the same can be observed as psychedelics begin to interface with mass marketing. DAMN MATERIALISM! :-)))

[John Long]

Pou, I would agree that simplicity and humility are earmarks of becoming conscious because the egoic structure has been seen and experienced as impermanent. So spiritual blowhards and know-it-alls are almost always phonies, in my experience. But you seem to still be clinging to the old-world conception that real spiritual folks are also broke, or should be, or taht is some way spiritual virtue is equated poverty. Sounds pretty Catholic to me, but maybe I'm getting this wrong.

Another aspect that is a red flag to me is spiritual smugness or the preciousness that attends some presenters. People utterly taken by "spiritual" an archetype, not realizing that this too is simply another case of being "bound by self." They never got the memo (or directly experienced) that it's all empty.  It's my impression and belief, based on my own experience, that all religiouns, all spiritual traditions, all real insight into consciousness derives from someone having a direct experience of the ungraspable nature of this emptiness at a cellular level, or even deeper if that makes sense. Finding themselves at a non-place for which the only word I can use is "unmanifest," or unborn, a place so wordless I can't even start to explain it to myself. That experience is not at odds with people having a sense of humor, lightness, and wonder that often goes missing in both spiritual folk and scientists, addicted to the belief that they have a role to play or must fight to be "right," in the name of truth. I don't rule out the chance that I am totally mistakn on this, but at bottom, there is no-thing to be right about. Put differently, the ding an sinch is not a "thing-in-itself," but is the source of all things, real and imagined, and as such is totally ungraspable. 

Rub up against that and that smugness will fall away like ash - of that we can be sure.  When we go to integrate it into our lives, we might as well try and have some fun in the process, realizing our humanness tempered by the knowledge that we have every reason to be humble. Ain't easy. I often find myself bumbling along. But damn, what an adventure! 

[Brad Walker]

There's something vaguely sinister in the spiritual status quo. Most people become religionists reliant on grace for unmediated experience or emotionally narrow atheists, intellectual fundamentalists. Of the remaining that can't let spirituality go, they're sequestered into a legal monopoly of inefficient mind-body practices which are circumscribed within the Protestant effort ethic. In their chase of the Clear Light, Buddhists too readily dismiss the substantial contents of non-material experience. Supposedly compassionate mind-body monopolists are unwitting accomplices of brutal drug civil warriors. Humanity is spiritually unfulfilled, and widespread gnosis may be necessary to weather the coming century without tragic loss.

Someday nervous system technology will safely, reliably, and efficiently initiate profound spiritual experiences. After this is available, mind-body practice spiritual "authorities" will become anachronisms. Hopefully UBI will be in place or they will become grocery cashiers, unless they had wisely cashed in. In the meantime psychoactive substances are available technology that can be used with little risk. To be opposed to them is spiritual Luddism.

Rigpa:

>What do you mean sacrificing your brain? Meditation is good for the brain.

The brain restructures itself according to activity. People develop brains specializing in their primary function. Those who excessively meditate restructure their brains for meditation, at the cost of specialization for their occupation. It's not clear when meditation becomes excessive and suboptimal for daily activity; Yuval Noah Harari goes on retreat for a few months a year and that's apparently caused his unique perspective.

Eugene I

>Enlightenment is not for everyone, and many people who were drawn to it out of curiosity or self-centered reasons either didn't get anything or got disappointed with what they found, and even get angry after wasting so much time with it (and often money). So the negative and even cynical attitude towards it is quite understandable. But there no need to be negative. There are people who do benefit from it. It's like you tried to learn flute and you could not get any progress, flute is not for everyone. So forget it and move on.

This is naive nonsense, psychologizing and blaming the victim of the spiritual Powerball. If Enlightenment is an act of grace like U.G. Krishnamurti claimed, it's literally a lottery with ultrarare payout. Enlightenment is sold as a never-ending high or unassailable nondual awareness, and the highest expression of humanity. When a practitioner inevitably fails, it can't suddenly become just another insignificant hobby like playing a musical instrument. If the good obtained in a pursuit of Enlightenment can be obtained more economically, Enlightenment should be taken off the pedastal.

[Eugene I]

Brad, just let it go :)

I can't write poetry and I don't care, it's not for me. But if I would try and fail, I would not be mad at other poets who gave me "false promises".

[John Long]

This from Brad:

"Someday nervous system technology will safely, reliably, and efficiently initiate profound spiritual experiences."

No cigar on this one, Brad.  I worked with brain mapping technology for many years, especially qEEGs and regular EEG rigs (neurofeedback). A favorite protocol was to try and "evoke" brain states found in long time meditators, and the best we could ever do is kick in the parasympathetic nervous system, boost Alpha waves and induce a relaxed state. What's more, super long terms meditators produce a lot of sychronomous slow waves (delta and theta) and if you pushed a regular person into that state they would seizure. 

This fiction of yours derives from the belief that brain states alone create phenomenological (experiential) states, when it is more the other way around. Or else you have the other fiction - that brain states are identical to experiential states, basically Identity Theory, which dead ends in babble and nonsense.

Also, narrow focusing on cognitive tasks can fatigue the brain which is relieved by NOT thinking, which restores cognitive function, rather than reduce it. In other words, the phrase, "Shut up and stop calclating" is actually true. To investigage the science involved with this, check out Open Focus stuff, by Dr, Less Fehmi, formerly of the Brain Institute at UCLA.  

JL

[Lou Gold]

Brad,

But you seem to still be clinging to the old-world conception that real spiritual folks are also broke, or should be, or taht is some way spiritual virtue is equated poverty. Sounds pretty Catholic to me, but maybe I'm getting this wrong.

Here's what I said in my other post in this thread:

The problem is not money but commodification, which of course gets closely associated with money but not always in a bad way. Some teachers, like Ram Dass, raised a lot of money for good causes. It seems to me that the more fundamental question is whether the underlying mission is charity -- giving, caring, sharing, the kind of stuff in the so-called Prayer of Saint Francis.  

Sure, it's "catholic" in the original meaning, which is "universal," however, I'm not Catholic. My experience, which is substantial, is with the Native American traditions of North America and the folk and indigenous traditions of Amazônia. I don't run with the "workshop crowd" but with folks who are generally materially poor and simple. However, now that I'm back in the States, the "normal" middle-class style of consumption (spiritual or material) seems excessive and way out of balance. I understand that some folks find this "concerning." Personally, I do like the notion that "medicine" and healing are human rights charitably offered and should not be instruments of class, status and power.

...a non-place for which the only word I can use is "unmanifest," or unborn, a place so wordless I can't even start to explain it to myself. That experience is not at odds with people having a sense of humor, lightness, and wonder that often goes missing in both spiritual folk and scientists, addicted to the belief that they have a role to play or must fight to be "right," in the name of truth.

Yes, INDEED!

[Flp]

Rigpa, shame on me :) but I never read the forum. I stumbled upon the thread of Google and have been subscribing ever since, but now I'm curious reading more since you guys are very good writers.

I'm led to believe that people always give more value when it costs money (at least it applies to me) - just something I always knew by observing my own life but also blew my mind when being exposed to lacanian psychoanalysis, when the therapist coldly asked me "How much you want to pay per session? Why did you choose that amount?" Just curiosity fact, by no means I believe this should be applied to or justified by spiritual practices.

[David Samson]

It seems to me that a lot of people are thinking about teachers in terms of what they believe they should be & how they believe an honest teacher should live & behave. What anybody else does is irrelevant to your own spiritual growth. What matters is how you grok the experience, not what the other people sharing the experience are doing.

I recall a comment that Adyashanti made in a recording of a talk of his (that I got for free). He stated something along the lines of:

"Everything I'm telling you is a lie. The only purpose of my talking is to try & distract you sufficiently that you allow something real to sneak in past your brain & into to your consciousness"

Pardon me for moralizing but, the bunch of us are like modern Unitarians when faced with a choice in the road where the sign reads: go left to the discussion about enlightenment or go right to receive enlightenment. & of course, we go left.

I recall another comment I attribute to Ram Dass. To paraphrase:

"I love teachers. I try to use them wisely & then dispose of them in such a way as to not be littering"

Teachers s.a. the ones we have discussed in this thread, along with others s.a. BK, s.a. each other, s.a. every being you meet or read about or dream up in your imagination.

On a basic level I like to consider my experience as a conversation between that fragment of M@L which appears to me to be confined within this shell of flesh & bone & the other part of M@L which appears to be external to this body. It really doesn't matter if someone who claims to be a "holy" person is sincere or a con artist. It doesn't really matter if they are getting rich from teaching something useful or something useless. What matters is what I take away from my encounter with them (& everything else)

Another valuable tidbit that I got from Adyashanti. My interpretation:

These days, many people have "enlightenment" experiences. Sometimes they are brief, sometimes they sustain for a while. (personally, I wouldn't say that I've had more than glimpses but my level of awareness isn't important - only if my words bring out something valuable for you) What I can say about the experience of enlightenment is that it is an ongoing process. It's like climbing a difficult mountain peak. Once you get there, the air is thin & the footing is treacherous. It is very easy to slide back down the slope. Sometimes you even fall off of a very high cliff to crash to the rocks below. Staying "awake" is an ongoing process. Every instant in time is a fresh opportunity to either "be awake" or to "be asleep."

Yes, sometimes people are disappointed with the "enlightenment" experience. Some people think that "enlightenment" means a permanent dopamine high. From what I can tell, enlightenment only means freedom. Not necessarily freedom from pleasure or pain, ease or suffering. My take on it is that it means freedom. 

IMHO, Dreams are essential to being a complete human. We are born in to this reality with the freedom to have dreams. Sadly, sometimes those dreams are squashed by the other beings around us. Being "enlightened" is not a requirement to have dreams. Being "enlightened" is freedom from clinging to the desire for things to be other than what they are. You can (& should) still dream about what they could be - that's just being human. 

[Tony Budding]

I would divide this issue into different aspects:

1. We live in a free society, so people are free to practice meditation on their own or in groups. People are free to start businesses, including retreats where they discuss any topic they want. As long as there is not deliberate misrepresentation in the offering, the purchase and sale of attending a retreat is a viable exchange in a free society.
2. As in all transactions, buyer beware. Do you understand what you're paying for? Are you clear on your expectations of the benefits you will receive for the money you spend? If lectures and meditations and communal experiences are promised and delivered, then it's a fair exchange. 
3. There have been snake oil salesmen since the beginning of time. The magic cure-all for whatever ails you. Accompanied by the ready testimonial from a "random" past customer. Trust me, it works! With "spiritual insights," no one can make them happen for anyone else (I can defend this statement if anyone wants). But, you never know what might trigger an insight for yourself. If paying money to be around people who are all seeking spiritual insights seems like a beneficial endeavor, then go for it. But I would be vary wary of anyone promising results FOR you.
4. There have been a lot of business-ignorant statements in this thread. Revenue MINUS expenses is income. Running seminars has a lot of hidden expenses. I haven't seen anyone's books, but just because there is significant revenue doesn't mean there's significant income. They might run a super tight ship with large margins. Probably not, though. 
5. Mo money Mo problems. Money is a form of energy that needs to be managed. It is neither good nor bad inherently, but there is a big risk of attachment to it. Money feeds the ego like water flows downhill (you can stop and/or redirect it if you work hard enough). And the more money there is, the more effort you need to exert. So, when you look at all the ways you can spend your days, you might find that past a certain point, the pursuit of more money actually reduces the true quality of your life. 
6. Having owned, led and/or been part of senior management on a variety of non-profit and for-profit organizations over the past 30+ years, I can say without reservation that complexity increases geometrically with size. If a "spiritual" group is running a large organization, they are dedicating A LOT of time to it. This by itself is neither good nor bad, but the question of "why?" comes up. Why grow the organization past a certain point? Why spend so much on marketing? Why have so many lawyers? In my experience, the answers often come with large doses of ego, attachments and desires. 

Bottom line: eyes wide open and money can't buy you love.

[Lou Gold]

Tony,

Mo money Mo problems. Money is a form of energy that needs to be managed. It is neither good nor bad inherently, but there is a big risk of attachment to it.

Money is not energy. It is a fiction that facilitates organization beyond a network of about 150 people. It has benefits like being able to build a space station or a CERN. It has costs in that the productions are are generally incentivized or weaponized into forms of control. 

complexity increases geometrically with size

Indeed. The great problem of finding "solutions of scale" is scale or, in the words of the sage, "There never was a big problem that could not have been solved when it was small." 

Bottom line: eyes wide open and money can't buy you love.

Nor can ambition.  As Nobel Laureate George Wald noted, "What one really needs is not Nobel laureates but love. How do you think one gets to be a Nobel laureate? Wanting love, that’s how. Wanting it so bad one works all the time and ends up a Nobel laureate. It’s a consolation prize. What matters is love.”

[John Long]

In some sense, some of this discussion feels a little like a couple bald dudes arguing over a comb. 

From the widest possible context I can muster, there are a few things worth mentioning about consciousness teachers and seminars.

First, seminars most seminars are opportunities to either encounter new ideas and pracices or grind it out and get some intensive reps in under direct supervision of expert(s). An intense interval of your regular slow-burn practice. These usually work best when the orientation of the teachers is geared entirely toward the students, not the teacher. That takes a very mature soul for the teacher not to fall into a role that is some way, big or small, is not self serving or selfish - to be entirely (so far as they can) to be about service.

Most every student has an idealized hope that every teacher will do this, wil live up to trying to be a saint, forgetting themselves and keeping the focus on the work and the individuals. The great teachers are also great life coaches in this regards because you can sense they are doing this. When it doesn't go this way everyone feels a violation of trust that the teacher didnd't live up to the ideal.  This doesn't mean coddling students but doing whatever they can to move them along. The process does the work. And good teachers have a great faint in the method. But they model the method and that's worth a lot. It makes people believe the path is doable, not some spiritual pipedream or cosmic jive.

So ultimately good teachers build trust in the method, the process, and in the students themselves. That's something of a magic act,