Should Buddhist temples collect donations?

footiam

In Asian countries, often you'd find a donation box in Buddhist temples where you could put in money. One is not obliged to put anything in but do you think Buddhist temples should collect donation? Would it be better then, to have a passive donation box standing quietly in a corner of the temple or to pass the hat round to devotees?

vinlyn

Personally, I'm for the passive donation box. When I lived in Thailand and would visit various temples, I was always fairly generous. When a temple charged, they got the minimum acceptable donation.

footiam

Vinlyn, I suppose then it is all right to you that temples collect donations.

vinlyn

It's their decision. But when there is an emphasis on money, which active collection of money is (in my view), I just prefer to contribute to temples that are more passive about the issue.

federica

It's a sad fact that in the current world, every organisation has to survive by using money. How else do you expect Monasteries and temples to survive? Money has to be factored in somehow... In the Monastery I used to attend, there were voluntary helpers that dealt with all donations - whether practical or financial. No monk handled or dealt with the money side of things - but the temple still needed financial donations to survive....

DairyLama

footiam said:

In Asian countries, often you'd find a donation box in Buddhist temples where you could put in money. One is not obliged to put anything in but do you think Buddhist temples should collect donation? Would it be better then, to have a passive donation box standing quietly in a corner of the temple or to pass the hat round to devotees?

There's a variety of approaches in the UK, some places make specific charges, others ask for donations. Obviously it costs money to run places.

seeker242

Having a temple that collects donations is better than having no temple at all. IMO

vinlyn

Please note that I didn't say temples shouldn't make money.

I had no problem with the few temples in Thailand that charged a fee just to walk around; those were usually the temples that had gotten a bit noted in tourist books. But in those cases, I paid just the required fee. When I would get to another temple that didn't charge a fee at all, I'd usually contribute more there. I'd usually buy water or a soda or a snack in some of the temples that had such things, specifically to support the temple. Or occasionally a booklet (that I rarely really wanted) or trinket in some of the simple "gift shops" that some of the temples had. Sometimes there were temples where monks would come to chat, or even walk around the temple with you...that temple would get more than a temple that pretty much ignored you. Some temples made the effort to put up English signs with historical or explanatory information, or had little guidebooks, or something along those lines...they'd get a bigger voluntary donation.

For those with the voluntary drop boxes, I'd often give more if the boxes were labeled as to purpose (for example, medical things for monks, food, the poor, temple upkeep, etc.).

Yes, temples need funds to run. No question about it.

Jeffrey

Donations are optional. There should definitely be such an option because a donor who has the money creates a karmic connection with themselves and the dharma when they donate. It's not bibity bobity boo (magic) it is just the nature of feeling close to the dharma and valuing that connection.

However, I think it should be optional.

RebeccaS

Temples need money. They have rent and taxes to pay and food to buy, too

music

The real test of spirituality is faith. If we have it, money will come somehow or the other. We don't have to seek it. The fact that we seek it (with the convenient excuse that everything requires money) is proof that we have little faith in the dhamma.

karasti

I understand what you are saying, @music but I don't entirely agree. If I need money to pay my bills, pay rent, pay to clothe and feed my children, no matter how strongly I believe that isn't going to put the money required to pay my mortgage etc in my hands. Now, in large Buddhist communities, supporting temples (as I understand) is more common, and they generally can "have faith" that the money will come. But that doesn't work on an individual basis, nor in areas where there are little to no Buddhist community members to rely on. Even the ones here, it's not their job to clothe my children and I wouldn't sit at home not working, studying the darma just waiting for my faith to put clothes on my kids backs. Especially where I live where Buddhism is largely still considered New Age hokum.

I don't mind if places suggest donations, as long as they aren't required, depending on what is going on. When my teacher travels here on retreat, there is a suggested donation, but no one is every turned away if they cannot pay that, or even if they can't pay anything at all. What I find offensive is how it was done in my church when I was growing up, where you are instructed to give 10% of your income to the church in order to be good with God. That kind of thing I can't get on board with, especially when the pastor drives a corvette.

footiam

vinlyn said:

It's their decision. But when there is an emphasis on money, which active collection of money is (in my view), I just prefer to contribute to temples that are more passive about the issue.

Sometimes, I don't think the temples have no other choice but to collect donation. How would it survive without money. Now, I wonder if there is the ruin of a donation box somewhere near the old ruined Buddhist temples in India!

ZenBadger

It all depends on the temple's situation, some have wealthy patrons or access to government funding for the upkeep of the fabric of the temple and so have a proportion of their day to day running costs already met. Others simply can't get funds any other way so I don't begrudge asking for a minimum donation, especially if it says exactly what the donation is for. I'm not so keen on compulsory donations where it is made clear that if you don't cough up then you will be excluded, that flies in the face of the spirit of the dharma for me. A simple polite notice that if everyone pays £X then the temple can meet its legal obligations based on average annual footfall goes a long way to getting me to part with a little more than £X. I know it shouldn't but it is human nature to treat a retail price and a donation differently, I don't pay a pound extra for a loaf of bread if I think my local baker is struggling but if he was desperate for bus fare I would hand him the pound without a thought. Odd but that's the way the human mind tends to work.

vinlyn

I'm not sure we can compare at all the way temples operate in various countries.

In Thailand you will see the poor village temple that seems to operate with virtually no funds. Then you will see the rich city temple that seems to operate based on being a center for funerals and cremations (a good example of this...for Tom...is the temple in Bangkok on Rama IV Road. It's one gaudy funeral after another...$$$...and they have one of the most elaborate of the modern temples in Thailand...other than some of the government funded temples and some of the "touristy" temples.

DairyLama

vinlyn said:

For those with the voluntary drop boxes, I'd often give more if the boxes were labeled as to purpose (for example, medical things for monks, food, the poor, temple upkeep, etc.).

I know of a Buddhist centre which sends out a copy of it's annual accounts to people who have made a donation. I like the transparency in that.

vinlyn

PedanticPorpoise said:

vinlyn said:

For those with the voluntary drop boxes, I'd often give more if the boxes were labeled as to purpose (for example, medical things for monks, food, the poor, temple upkeep, etc.).

I know of a Buddhist centre which sends out a copy of it's annual accounts to people who have made a donation. I like the transparency in that.


That is a good practice, though I am quite sure you'd never see that in Thailand.

footiam

federica said:

It's a sad fact that in the current world, every organisation has to survive by using money. How else do you expect Monasteries and temples to survive? Money has to be factored in somehow... In the Monastery I used to attend, there were voluntary helpers that dealt with all donations - whether practical or financial. No monk handled or dealt with the money side of things - but the temple still needed financial donations to survive....

I suppose you're right. Who can survive without money? As for monks handling money, I heard originally it is a strict no-no. These days, I think I have seen monks on the road handling money. A Mahayana monk I came across even had a car to go around and if I remember right, she had a regular allowance. Don't you think this is just being realistic or practical?

vinlyn

Yes, footiam, I agree. While I think Buddhism should be careful about becoming too "worldly", even Buddhist monks have to live in the real world and have to rely on other people who live in the real world. Expecting a man to live exactly as another man did 2,500 years ago is not very practical

Songhill

There would be no need to make donations if the western colonialists had not come to SE Asia. In the example of Sri Lanka, the Brits robbed the Buddhists temples of half their lands. The Buddhist overlords were quite compassionate towards their tenants. With the loss of their lands to coffee and tea planters, the peasants of Sri Lanka experienced much poverty and hardship. It was almost like the American GOP view of capitalism, that all the wealth of a nation should be in the hands of the 1% which no distribution down the chain. We have to keep in mind that according to the Buddha, poverty is caused by the mal-distribution of wealth.

footiam

PedanticPorpoise said:

<
There's a variety of approaches in the UK, some places make specific charges, others ask for donations. Obviously it costs money to run places.

I suppose Asia has picked out that culture. In local churches here, some people have part of their monthly pay deducted for the church. One would probably admire that kind of generosity.

footiam

vinlyn said:

I'm not sure we can compare at all the way temples operate in various countries.

In Thailand you will see the poor village temple that seems to operate with virtually no funds. Then you will see the rich city temple that seems to operate based on being a center for funerals and cremations (a good example of this...for Tom...is the temple in Bangkok on Rama IV Road. It's one gaudy funeral after another...$$$...and they have one of the most elaborate of the modern temples in Thailand...other than some of the government funded temples and some of the "touristy" temples.

That's an interesting observation.A temple would not need a lot of fund if it is dhamma it is spreading, don't you think?

vinlyn

I'm not really clear the question you are asking.

footiam

vinlyn said:

I'm not really clear the question you are asking.

Vinlyn, I was thinking about this - if a temple aims just to spread the dhamma and the activities in the temple amount to just dhamma talks by a monk most of the time, then there is no need for a lot of money. Most of the time, money is spent on unimportant things.

DairyLama

footiam said:

Most of the time, money is spent on unimportant things.

Paying the bills is quite important.

footiam

PedanticPorpoise said:

Paying the bills is quite important.

No doubt. Paying for luxuries too.

footiam

Jeffrey said:

Donations are optional. There should definitely be such an option because a donor who has the money creates a karmic connection with themselves and the dharma when they donate. It's not bibity bobity boo (magic) it is just the nature of feeling close to the dharma and valuing that connection.

However, I think it should be optional.

In a democratic world, everything should be optional. Optional to do good things, too perhaps...

Tosh

Some of those temples are verrrrrrrrry plush looking. Must be expensive to build and run.

Metallica

ha ha, people would throw thousands of dollar into going to music festivals to greedy corporations and depraved musicians. Yet gets stingy when it comes to instituations that promotes the Ultimate Universal Truth?

It's only the corporations and the goverment and rich people that are greedy right?

footiam

seeker242 said:

Having a temple that collects donations is better than having no temple at all. IMO

No money no temple. Dhamma probably will still be around, just undiscovered.

footiam

Tosh said:

Some of those temples are verrrrrrrrry plush looking. Must be expensive to build and run.

I suppose that's why donation must be collected. Or do you prefer to differ?

blu3ree

If they were exempt to paying taxes most certainly not. but since politics suck I suppose someones gotta pay for the water and electricity.

footiam

blu3ree said:

If they were exempt to paying taxes most certainly not. but since politics suck I suppose someones gotta pay for the water and electricity.

If you mean the temples were exempt from paying taxes, that probably means they have a source of income. Then,probably,they don't need donations at all and there is no question of whether we should or should not give. Mm... that reminds me, if we don't have a body, we probably do not have to suffer the onslaught of diseases.

blu3ree

footiam said:

blu3ree said:

If they were exempt to paying taxes most certainly not. but since politics suck I suppose someones gotta pay for the water and electricity.

If you mean the temples were exempt from paying taxes, that probably means they have a source of income. Then,probably,they don't need donations at all and there is no question of whether we should or should not give. Mm... that reminds me, if we don't have a body, we probably do not have to suffer the onslaught of diseases.

But if we learn to tame the mind we can ourselves cure multitudes of diseases. i guess what I'm trying to say is that temples should be free to operate should be a stress free place.

TheEccentric

Yes.

robot

Buildings, particularly very ornate ones do need maintenance.

sukhita

There are no Buddhist Temples anywhere near where I live, but plenty of Hindu Temples. These often large and ornate temples are mainly sponsored by the rich, but the "poor" devotees are given the opportunity to financially support the temple for the karmic merit. In this case a few coins are added to the tray of offering of fruits, milk, insense sticks, and flowers. Offerings are always optional. Just so, I think that the (passive) donation boxes at Buddhist Temples are important to the extent that attendants are given the opportunity to give "dhana". If everyone just brought the prescribed requisites like food for the monks, you'll have truckloads of food and no temple. The Buddha taught of constant change... this is not excluded. Just my 2c worth.

jll

temples survive on donations.

however, some monks have abused the donations
for personal luxuries eg. in singapore

Ven. Shi Ming Yi (Chinese: 释明义; birth name Goh Kah Heng; born 1962) is a Buddhist monk from Singapore, currently serving as the abbot of Foo Hai Chan Monastery.[1] In September 1994, Foo Hai Ch'an Monastery, under the leadership of Ming Yi, established the 175-bed Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre for chronically ill patients among the poor and needy.

On October 7, 2009, Ming Yi was convicted of four charges of conspiracy, misuse of funds and forgery[2] and sentenced to 10 months in jail, reduced on appeal to 6 months.

footiam said:

In Asian countries, often you'd find a donation box in Buddhist temples where you could put in money. One is not obliged to put anything in but do you think Buddhist temples should collect donation? Would it be better then, to have a passive donation box standing quietly in a corner of the temple or to pass the hat round to devotees?

Invincible_summer

I've noticed that many Chinese temples in Singapore (and I'm sure other temples in other parts of the world) are quite ornate, and have many gold items that were purchased with donations from the patrons.

E.g. donate $1000 and the temple gets a medium-sized gold Amitabha statue on a certain wall.

I wonder how many people simply donate in hopes of gaining "merit." Or even "face."

BhikkhuJayasara

"passing around" like its in church during collection period puts pressure on people to donate. The box in the corner is how it should be.

vinlyn

robot said:

Buildings, particularly very ornate ones do need maintenance.

Very true. And just by looking at the photo I'm guessing that's somewhere in Asia. At least in Thailand it's a rare temple that charges any fee (other than for entrance at some of the most touristy temples and for very specific services, e.g. a funeral), but there are always numerous donation boxes around.

upekka

footiam said:

In Asian countries, often you'd find a donation box in Buddhist temples where you could put in money. One is not obliged to put anything in but do you think Buddhist temples should collect donation? Would it be better then, to have a passive donation box standing quietly in a corner of the temple or to pass the hat round to devotees?

'dana' (donation) is the first 'paramie' (perfection) of ten paramies

practicing dana with 'your own freewill' is one of the skillful deed
for this
passive donation box standing quietly in the corner is good

practicing dana with 'someone's help' is another the skillful deed
for this
pass the hat round to devotees is good

either way it is for your own good

this helps us at a later stage give up (let go of) five skandha (five aggregates)
this is called practicing samma sankappa


once you have donated your money or whatever
it is the receiver's business to spend/use as he wish

if you think about how the receiver use what you have donated
it is not a donation (dana) because you have not 'let go of' whatever you gave

Mahuidou

Jayantha said:

"passing around" like its in church during collection period puts pressure on people to donate. The box in the corner is how it should be.

It is quite a good use of psychology to raise donations that way, and that is why the practice has been used forever. But, donating is a private matter, and with especially how sensitive money and income are in the U.S, the role of the temple should only go so far as addressing their stated need in a brief announcement and posting their expenses.

sharonsaw

I have been with a Dharma centre, Kechara, in Malaysia for around 7 years, and working full-time with them for around 5 years. It is not easy to fund a Dharma centre because many people do not see the value in Dharma classes here. Most Malaysians i have met are only interested in receiving blessings, receiving good luck, help in their samsaric matters eg family, illness etc. and want a quick fix. It is not easy to share with them that the cause of their samsaric issues is their karma and they need to fix that by learning how to stop creating further negative karma. We provide free classes and invite donations but you know what, hardly anyone gives. It is really quite difficult to sustain a Dharma centre. It would be so easy for our Guru, HE Tsem Rinpoche to go to the centre and bless people and receive donations but Rinpoche does not want to do that. He prefers people to learn dharma and come to classes which are held by his students. It is a more difficult task but i can see with my own eyes that Rinpoche is definitely not here to 'make money' but to spread Dharma.

Vastmind

Bills have to be paid. This is not hard.
Disclose all info.
It is a business, whether we like it or
not. The feds give you a Tax EIN, right?

Making money is important.
It keeps the lights on.
It's up to everyone to make sure that
no one is getting rich, that's also
important. Money managment is a lost
art here in the US., it seems.

Fundraising....now, thats another matter.
It's a constant pain in the ass...I know that.
I have done it well....and bad, and all in between.
For all kinds of everyone.
I still love it! Get fundraisers who like doing
stuff. Get finacial guys that are into it.
Passion can fuel good intention, it also seems.

sharonsaw

Oh i don't know about other countries, but in Malaysia, our Dharma centre is a registered society (NGO) so anyone can go to the Registrar of Societies (ROS) to see our accounts so it's very transparent. All accounts are also audited.

Vastmind

^^^ OK, gotcha! That's good!

Sorry, some cultural differences here too....
The youth groups can bring in the
random events/donations here, with
numbers....and other local advantages.

We give blessing notes with our
bake sales.

footiam

jll said:

temples survive on donations.

however, some monks have abused the donations
for personal luxuries eg. in singapore

Ven. Shi Ming Yi (Chinese: 释明义; birth name Goh Kah Heng; born 1962) is a Buddhist monk from Singapore, currently serving as the abbot of Foo Hai Chan Monastery.[1] In September 1994, Foo Hai Ch'an Monastery, under the leadership of Ming Yi, established the 175-bed Ren Ci Hospital and Medicare Centre for chronically ill patients among the poor and needy.

On October 7, 2009, Ming Yi was convicted of four charges of conspiracy, misuse of funds and forgery[2] and sentenced to 10 months in jail, reduced on appeal to 6 months.

Monks are humans first, monks second and if they are monks first, the huge amount of money in temples awakens the humans within. Talking about Surprising Singapore, there is a non-denominational megachurch there called New Creation Church which once breaking raised $21 million in 24 hours and the church also has business ventures. You'd wonder why temples or churches too, need so much money.

lobster

The YinYana temple is carried around. Found just above our noses . . .
Not far to travel. Contains every known Buddha. Donations are removed. :wave:

shadowleaver

Our modern world runs on money. That is our collective Karma. But in my fantasies I sure wish for another kind of world...

sharonsaw

Unfortunately, money is a fact of life and upon everything this world of ours turns - if we want to help the impoverished, we need money. People are starving not because there's not enough food, but because they don't have enough money. Even in Christianity, 1 Timothy 6:10 says, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." It is actually our attachment to money which is the problem - not money in itself.

For Buddhist temples to flourish and spread the teachings, they need money. Maintenance work needs to be paid (most people won't work for free). Electricity, phone bills, staff salaries (full-time staff need to eat and pay rent) etc. My teacher HE Tsem Rinpoche had to leave his monastery in Gaden India when he was 27 years old to fund raise to build a hostel for monks to live because the monks were sleeping out in the open and getting sick from rain and the elements, as well as being bitten by snakes etc. You can hear him tell his story here http://blog.tsemtulku.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/me/why-malaysia.html