Dhamma and Commerce

It seems that free translations are available, just not in the ‘package’ that Wisdom Publications brings to it (or by Bhikkhu Bodhi). I used them all the time before these translations were published. If we insist on the BB translations are we assuming the previous translators (which are still available freely) were ‘short’ to a serious degree?

We mustn’t forget that the original pali scripts haven’t been copywrited. That they are not freely available as translated hardcopies, is a serious shortcoming of the Buddhist community. It is also a matter of Buddhist education in that many people rely on monks and third party ‘commentarial’ books for their dhamma, without seeking it at the source. The fact that accesstoinsight.net has advertisements to keep it running is rather worrying, IMO. It is one of the major Theravada websites, predating SC.

with metta

I’m curious why this question needed to be asked… :laughing:

It’s common for people to donate book to libraries or friends, or sell them in garage sales or second-hand bookstores…

If only one customer existed, this would be true.

1 Like

Thank you for sharing some empirical studies. I will take the time to look into these, although it will be a while before I can read them.

I would mention that we have been having a polite conversation, and I would appreciate it if you kept it that way. What I am advocating is not piracy, but generosity.

2 Likes

No worries, we are all passionate about the Dhamma here!

And to be very clear, I want to help those people. As I mentioned earlier, I offered to raise funds for them to support their work. I would love to see them prosper and flourish in the future. But I’m afraid that running a business that treats the internet as an inconvenience is not a sustainable model.

3 Likes

I don’t think that is possible. From the introductory paragraph in Wikipedia’s page:

But, if the original material is in the public domain and has no owner, then a translation can be seen as an original work. So, from a narrow, technical point of view, the copyright assertions in BB’s translations are valid. But, this prevents further distribution over a different medium - mainly the digital/internet one. BB’s translations can’t be posted in SC and used for scholarly analysis, comparisons, studies etc. The books exist in a silo, accessible only to those with lots of money to spend - which is disheartening and sad. For thousands of years, the Dhamma has survived without any such capitalistic limitations, after all.

1 Like

Isn’t there a statutory limitation of 50 years for copyright?

When asked who owned the patent on his vaccine against polio virus, its inventor Dr. Jonas Salk famously responded: “The people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” He wasn’t a monk but there’s definitely something modern monastics could learn from this great man.

3 Likes

You have to develop your mind to the level of the sun to make a statement like that. Sun shares it’s illumination without any discremination. It appears this man had an iluminated mind. (Prabhasra citta)

1 Like

Dear Micheal,
I am sorry not having clarified sufficiently what I implied by saying that in the long run the monk wakes up as a priest with the woman next to him. I was surely not referring to Bhikkhu Bodhi. I was intending, though, to draw attention to the current state of other Buddhist traditions such as in Japan or other countries, where monks are not much more than lay priest with an actual woman next to them. This process did not happen overnight or by the violation of just a single rule at one occasion, but is to me an obvious outcome of an attitude of liberal tolerance towards adaptation and change of vinaya rules, being effective over many centuries. The extant nominal vinaya rules of the different tradition are almost identical, which seems to further indicate that a bend in attitude might be responsible for the great variance in the de facto practice (especially in regards to Theravaada in comparison to the other traditions).

I find following simile very telling: If one would take a parallel line and let it extent over a great length, say 200 km, than the lines would not have deviated, preserving accuracy. Take two lines, skewed to each other just about a fraction of a millimeter and let it extent for some length and you will have great variance – continuous little change over time = eventual big change. I believe that to be one reason why the Buddha stated that a factor for the disappearance of the good law is the fact that people cease to observe the vinaya precisely, to see the danger in the slightest fault (as he put it) or even make new rules.

One monk I know argued on similar lines to you in that he said that he would not be able to teach would he not use money in a Western country to travel. I believe that when people really want to receive teaching and you tell them the condition under which you would be, according to vinaya, able to come they would support this. Another possibility would be to simply walk, as they did in the Buddha’s time, a thing absolutely possible even in modern Western societies – I did it succesfully on several occasions without using any money. Similarly it holds true for other instances, bit by bit one adapts and at the end not much is left and – as I said earlier – the monk wakes up with … and not observes even the Paraajikas, a fact already to be observed even in Theravaada communities. Also: If everybody decides for himself what to keep and what not to keep there will be a lot of confusion and also soon not much left. Therefore I, for one, maintain that it would be best to just heed what the Buddha taught originally in regard to preserving and decline of dhamma and vinaya. It is possible even in modern times …

With mettaa

4 Likes

Bhante, my apologies for not being clear, as I didn’t think for a moment that you were referring to Ven. Bodhi personally. I used the term ‘monks’ to suggest monks in general, but the sentence wasn’t well drafted.

Of course, you are good and correct to maintain a strong and solid devotion to Vinaya. I suppose that because of your fidelity to the Buddha’s rules and the rules of his disciples, I have this liberty to feel free to comment on a variant that is not as strict. In other words, were it not for good monks like you, I’d perhaps not make the comments that I made. But, at the end of the day, I do feel that with wisdom and care, there can be some allowances for conduct that furthers some of the highest aims of the Dhamma, and permits monks and nuns to engage with the lay sangha as effectively as possible.

As for Japanese monks, there are some, like the Tendai monks, that maintain strict standards ( albeit not Vinaya), but you’re right with respect to the Soto and Rinzai monks in Japan. " Examples of the marriage of monks in Japan can be found as early as the Heian period (794-1185)." " An edict, number 133, issued by the new Meiji government in 1872 ordered that monks should be free to eat meat, take wives, and shave their heads as they chose. From that time, the secularization of monks proceeded rapidly. " Celibacy: the view of a Zen monk from Japan. Soko Morinaga Buddist monk. Rector of Hanazono University. I understand that here were many factors, cultural and economic/political, that played into the erosion of monastic life in Japan.

I agree that we don’t want to see Theravada/original/EBT monasticism go the route of medieval Japanese monastics. Even that path in Japan has lead to a lack of faith and attendance by the lay people in Japan, with many Buddhist temples there nothing more than funeral arrangers.

So you agree with this & regard it as “exemplary”; published at a time where the USA was (& remains) conducting wars against & literally destroying non-aggressor nations & the lives of their people?

My intention in writing the essay was to inquire whether Buddhist moral reflection can endorse the notion of a just war explored by moral philosophers, legal theorists and theologians of other religions. Since the classical texts are silent on the issue, I had to rely on my own reasoning. The conclusion I arrived at was that war can be justified as a last resort to avoid barbaric cruelty and terrible suffering when there is no clear alternative. It was not pleasant for me to reach that conclusion. To the contrary, as I stated in the essay, I drew it with reluctance and hesitation. As a Buddhist personally committed to non-violence, I would have rejoiced to discover a perfect fit between the Buddha’s ethic of non-harming and the demands of national and international policy decisions. Reflection, however, led me to see that when we move from personal ethics to public policy, treating the precept of non-harming as a moral absolute can lead to consequences that we would find morally repugnant. The global stage is populated not only by those intent on promoting the common good, but by those who are driven by national pride, ethnic animosity and insatiable lust for power to trespass on the rights of others. Far from securing the well-being of its citizens, any nation that adopts non-harming as a moral absolute could well expose them to unmitigated mayhem and carnage.

To establish my position, it suffices for me to show that there has been at least one historical case where careful ethical reflection would support the claim that the use of military force was morally justified. Thus I singled out for consideration the Allied campaign to stop the drive for global domination launched by Nazi Germany. This may be the only war in modern history that I regard as meeting the criteria of a just war.

The pragmatic karmic framework serves as a matrix of moral reflection for those committed to Buddhist ethical values who seek to advance toward final liberation gradually, over a series of lives, rather than directly. Its emphasis is on cultivating wholesome qualities to further one’s progress within the cycle of rebirths while allowing one to pursue one’s worldly vocation. In this framework the moral prescriptions of the teaching have presumptive rather than peremptory validity. One who adopts this framework would recognize that the duties of daily life occasionally call for compromises with the strict obligations of the Buddhist moral code. While still esteeming the highest moral standards as an ideal, such a practitioner would be ready to make occasional concessions as a practical necessity. The test of integrity here is not unwavering obedience to moral rules but a refusal to subordinate them to narrow self-interest.

In time of war, I would argue, the karmic framework can justify enlisting in the military and serving as a combatant, providing one sincerely believes the reason for fighting is to disable a dangerous aggressor and protect one’s country and its citizens. Any acts of killing that such a choice might require would certainly be regrettable as a violation of the First Precept. But a mitigating factor would be the Buddha’s psychological understanding of karma as intention, whereby the moral quality of the motive determines the ethical value of the action. Since a nation’s purposes in resorting to arms may vary widely—just like a person’s motives for participating in war—this opens up a spectrum of moral valuations. When the motive is territorial expansion, material wealth or national glory, the resort to war would be morally blameworthy. When the motive is genuine national defense or to prevent a rogue nation from disrupting global peace, moral evaluation would have to reflect these intentions.

I do. I agree with Ven. Bodhi on this issue. I recall this essay and the debate from some years ago, and agreed with Ven. Bodhi at that time, and felt that he demonstrated some unique insight into this application of kamma and intention. My own two cents, in a time of just war, I’d not take up a rifle, but would act as a medic or assume nonlethal duty, if that were available to me.

So it appears you are unable to discern the utter hypocrisy of the justification? Now, I am not referring to the idea of a just war, despite it being unBuddhist. I am referring to the utter hypocrisy & outright falseness that portrays one political side, particularly the current USA side, as the side that is not the rogue nation engaging in all of the crimes BB has listed. The USA group is currently the only terrorist group on the earth. Not Russia, not Iran, not North Korea, not Iraq, not Libya, not Syria, etc.

That’s a completely different issue. I wasn’t addressing that. I am ashamed of what the US has done with its drones, and its incessant need to kill others in foreign lands. I grieve for every child and parent killed in these lands that we bombed. There is, and was, no just aspect to these wrongful actions. But, this is not the issue that was being addressed.

Sure. But I am pointing out the terrible timing of this & the use of an example that frames the USA as the good guys; as the liberators of the Holocaust! BB, whether by intention or mistake, provided a pro-US pro-Israel narrative. If by mistake, this was terribly careless & insensitive in relation to nations, such as Iran, who are labelled as WMD antisemitic Holocaust denier terrorists (even though Iran has been homeland for Jews for 3000 years since the Babylonian exile, where it was the Persians that set the Jews free from the Babylonians). I heard today the USA is reimposing sanctions to starve, deprive & kill people in Iran yet BB raised this issue of a ‘just war’ during this time of fabricated USA wars.

@Deele , I think your suggestion of a pro-Israeli narrative or intent by Ven. Bodhi is unfounded and, frankly, careless. Ven. Bodhi did not address the Holocaust; he addressed the Nazi occupation of Europe and its violent expansion. Had not the US and the Soviet Union cooperated to encircle and then defeat the Nazis, the world might be a very different place today.

" This may be the only war in modern history that I regard as meeting the criteria of a just war." I think many scholars and lay people with some sense of the history of that time would agree with this statement.

To me, it’s unseemly to tag Ven. Bodhi with some kind of pro-Israel bias. I have never read in any of his writings or from his many talks any suggestion of this, and it is manifestly unfair to tag him with such a bias. It seems to me an ugly cheap shot to take, an unnecessary and unskillful ad hom attack, when simply discussing the merits of a “just war” theory would be adequate. Reasonable people can disagree on a subject like this, but the ad hom stuff is just unnecessary.

1 Like

In my opinion, this is not really true. Being such, it makes a very poor argument from a famous bhikkhu who is regarded as a scholar. Obviously, both BB & yourself need to study history more accurately. The only Nazi expansion that occurred prior to the declaration of war upon Germany by Britain & France was the retaking of prior German lands where German people lived (and the voluntary union with Germanic Austria). This is why every genuine scholar attributes the Treaty of Versailles after WW1 as a cause of WW2. Historians study cause & effect rather than believe in random non-causal Maras.

The Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany when Nazi Germany took military action against Poland when Poland wouldn’t concede to German demands to re-link German lands in Poland, such as Danzig. It was the Nazis & Soviets that cooperated. But obviously this later broke down & the USA supported the brutal Soviet Communists. The result of that US support was East Europe became Communist. While I am not taking sides here, I am just pointing out how unfactual & uncompelling your & BBs arguement is. I am not aware of any Nazi objections to European culture therefore you have given the impression you believe Communism was a good thing.

My point is sloppy propaganda such as “Nazi occupation & expansion” makes BBs carelessness even worse. The Nazis did not seek to occupy Europe. France declared war on Germany & the British sought occupy Norway therefore the Germans had no choice but to occupy, France, Holland, Norway, Denmark, etc. Such is war. It was the British Empire and today the American Empire engaged in actual occupation & expansion. Therefore, BBs viewpoint here was purely subjective & completely flawed because it took sides & ignored the world political reality of the era. It was certainly biased & prejudiced. It condemned a perceived Nazi expansion but condoned a Soviet expansion to occupy all of East Europe. Fail. Yet used to justify a just war; as though the Nazis were the only imperialists that ever existed in the entirety of world & recent history.

The complete superficiality of BBs argument shows why a wise bhikkhu would avoid the topic of ‘just war’.

Thanks. But I am not. I am referring to his narrative, where he inferred the Holocaust was the only example of a crime that would justify a Just War. The article refers to Jewish fugatives, etc. It is obviously Holocaust focused. There have been so many atrocities over the last 300 years, many far worse than the Holocaust.

In short, it is all a matter of IMPRESSIONS and being cognisant of the IMPRESSION being made.

Just as my posts here make an impression which other people interpret, so does BB. His timing & example in his case for just war could not have been worse.

For example, if I as a Buddhist concluded the British support for a Muslim ethnic cleansing against Christians that resulted in the Lebanese Diaspora of the 1850s was the worst crime ever; surely any reasonable person would gain the impression I am being biased from my Maronite Lebaneseness.

BB has done enough actions where Buddhists accuse him of ignoring Vinaya. Yet if his US supporters take no objection; it shows it is changing Buddhism. As a non-American Buddhist, I have always had the impression these typical BB political views accord with his US supporter base.

For example, when one of BBs first reactions to the Trump election victory was “womens reproductive rights”, he was immediately questioned on his blog by a number of people about the impression he supported abortion. Then he replied with some convoluted reasoning. about how he does not support abortion. Now, how one can support womens reproductive rights but not abortion is beyond me? (Note: I am not an anti-abortion crusader).

This is another example of essentially playing games with religious law & again will be accused by Buddhists as being Talmudic since this is exactly the speciality of the legalism of Talmudism. Yet you accuse me of making cheap shots. Thanissaro mentioned it. I mentioned it. It is not Buddhist. Unfortunately, Buddhist Theravada monks are unable to give blanket political legislative support for womens reproductive rights but can make discrete comments on ‘intention’, ‘context’, etc.

I cannot be any more diplomatic by stating the reality that US Buddhism has strongly been nurtured by Jewish people, including the phenomena of the self-proclaimed ‘Bu-Ju’, and this non-Buddhist culture must obviously be influencing the US version of Buddhism.

I have observed monks toy with the Vinaya, about eating ‘medicine’ (ghee = cheese); digging the earth, etc. However, toying with the Pārājika about encouraging killing via war, abortion, etc, simply goes too far; just as in the current Burmese situation with monks encouraging the ethic cleansing of Muslim Rohingya; where the face of the specific monk was placed on the cover of Time Magazine as the Face of Buddhist Terrorism.

Regards :lizard:

Hi all,
This is a friendly reminder to return to the original purpose of this discussion, and to maintain civil conversation.
Thanks

3 Likes

On the topic, I would like to call attention to the fact that in the case of The Pali Text Society, their financial statements are public and can be accessed here.

Pali Text Society (Charity no. 262216)

In a nutshell, it seems that PTS is not making enough cash to cover for its running costs.

What keeps it afloat is a portfolio of investments worth around £ 3.2 million (mostly equities), which yielded £357,000 in calendar year 2016.

Of their recurring cash costs of around £230,000 some £100,000 were spent in staff wages and administrative costs. The reported sale of Pali texts was of around £91,000 in the period.

0000262216_AC_20161231_E_C.PDF (646.6 KB)


And in the case of Wisdom Publications Inc, I could find at Charity Navigator their IRS Business Master File:

042979113_201512_990.pdf (463.5 KB)

WISDOM PUBLICATIONS INC (EIN 04-2979113)

The “business model” of Wisdom Publications Inc is very different to the one apparently followed by The Pali Text Society. They are definitely “in the business” when it comes to selling Dhamma-related stuff to keep themselves afloat!

In 2015, the cash inflow net of cost of goods sold (i.e. Dhamma-related stuff) by Wisdom Publications totaled $1.985 k in the period. In that year they made $2.44 million in gross book sales sales, at a gross profit of $1.64 - a meaningful 48% gross margin. On top of that they received donations of $162.5 k, royalties of $160 k and other book related revenues of $22k.

Wisdom Publications’ functional expenses were $1.75 million in 2015. I hope they employ a lot of people because some $887 k out of this total were spent in wages, compensations and employment-related expenses. Unsurprisingly, as in any entity operating in the business of publishing and selling books, the second largest functional expense item was related to royalties, which amounted to $352k in the period. The third largest item was advertisement, $236k.

As a result of the above, Wisdom Publications made in 2015 $235k out of selling Dhamma-related stuff (books mostly) after all functional expenses were deducted. This relates to the $200k improvement in their cash and investments position in that year, which was at $1.29 million by 31 Dec 2015. Another key indicator to look at their inventory position (Dhamma-related stuff waiting to be sold) which averaged $1.3 million in that year.

Last but not least, it called my attention the fact that Wisdom Publications apparently made very little dana itself in that year. :disappointed: In 2015, the reported total made amount of donation and gifts given/offered was of only $2,000 (two thousand dollars). This is a very small figure when compared to to the $92.7 k spent in travel, accommodation/occupancy, conferences, conventions and meetings in that same year. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

How much is Wisdom Publications worth?

There are many ways the value of a positive cash flow business such as Wisdom Publication can be assessed. On a conservative basis, we may approach it by its current outstanding cash and cash equivalents position ($1.2 million) and of course the operating cash flow stream selling Dhamma-related stuff yields (~200k / year). A simple net present value calculation over this cash flow stream assuming it to remain at this level in the long term and a reasonable risk-adjusted capital cost of opportunity of 10% would result in $2 million. Hence, it is worth at least $3.2 million in total.

We may as well tackle the question from a simpler end and use instead the average Price to Earnings ratio of ~30x for the Publishing & Newspaper industry found at this link. This means that Wisdom Publications could be worth as much as $7 million, or 30 times the net profit of $235 k reported in 2015 ( “Revenue less expenses” in the document above).

You may add as well to both the above measures the net-of-depreciation value of Wisdom Publications’ fixed assets - land, buildings, and equipment- booked at $357k as of year end 2015.

For a non-profit enterprise $3.5-7.4 million looks like a lot of money to me! :sweat_smile:

3 Likes