Features of the Buddhist Sangha. Sangha is the concept of sangha in the traditional sense. Monastic Sangha Arrow down Arrow up

The Sangha, or spiritual community, is the third of the jewels. According to Buddhist tradition, there are three levels of sangha: Arya-sangha, bhikkhus-sangha and maha-sangha. Understanding the meaning of each of these terms will allow us to more fully understand what the Sangha is in the traditional sense of the word.

Word Arya as part of an expression Arya-sangha literally means "high-born" and by extension "holy". In Buddhist terminology Arya always means holiness as “contact with the transcendental.” That is, Arya-sangha so called because it consists of holy persons (arya-pudgala), who have some transcendental achievements and experiences common to all of them.

These people are united on a spiritual level, but they may well not be in physical contact, because they are united by a commonality of spiritual experiences. At this level, the Sangha is a purely spiritual community, a collection of individuals from different parts of the world and different eras, sharing the same spiritual achievements and experiences, which removes space-time separation for them.

According to the general basis of beliefs and doctrinal positions adopted by all the different schools of Buddhism, there are four types of saints as follows: stream-enterers (srotaapanna), once returning (sakri-dagamin), non-returners (anagamine) And Arhats. They created a spiritual hierarchy that mediates between Buddhahood and ordinary human unenlightenment.

The path to Enlightenment, as taught by the Buddha, can be divided into successive stages in various ways. However, the main division is considered to be into three large stages: ethics (Sanskrit - sila, Pali - sila), meditation (samadhi) and wisdom (Sanskrit - prajna, Pali - rappa). Wisdom, the final stage, comes in the form of flashes of insight that illuminate the nature of reality. These flashes of insight are not conceptual, they are immediate and intuitive. They usually occur during deep meditation.

It turns out that in spiritual life nothing comes at once, everything happens gradually, step by step. Slow and systematic progress is required at all stages. So we find that insights come in different degrees of intensity. You may experience a faint flash of insight (if your meditation is weak, it will not give you more), or you will have a very bright, powerful flash of insight that illuminates the hidden depths of reality. Types of saints differ in the intensity of their insight.

This poses an important question: how is the intensity of insight measured? Traditionally in Buddhism, insight is measured in two ways: subjectively, by the number of spiritual fetters (Pali - Samyaojana, in total there are “ten shackles” that chain us to the wheel of life in which we revolve), which it can break; and also objectively, by the number of rebirths coming after achieving a given level of insight.

Saints of the first level are called those who entered (lit., “got”) into the stream (srotaapanna), which will gradually lead them to nirvana. Those who entered the stream developed a level of insight sufficient to break the first three of the ten shackles. Let us dwell on these chains longer than on the others, since they concern us most directly.

The first shackle is called satkayadrsti(pali - sakkayaditthi), What does “personal view” mean? It is twofold. The first one is called sasvata-dristi. According to him, the self-identity of a person remains unchanged after death. This is the traditional belief in the immortality of the soul, any form of it. We, they say, have a soul (an unchanging self-identity, ego), which is different from our body and remains after our death (it either goes to heaven or is reincarnated). What is essential here is precisely that the soul is unchanging (like a kind of spiritual billiard ball that rolls forward without changing); it is not a process, but an existing something. Another type of “personal view” is this: after death comes oblivion: death is the end of everything, everything is stopped by it (the traditional term is “uccheda” - literally suppression). In other words, according to this belief, the mental side of life ends at the moment of death, along with the physical, material one.

According to Buddhism, both are extreme and incorrect views. Buddhism teaches a middle view: death is not the end of everything in the sense that with the death of the physical body there is no complete cessation of mental and spiritual processes; they continue. But this is not the continuation of the existence of an unchanging soul or ego. What lasts is nothing other than the mental process in all its complexity and constant variability and fluidity. From a Buddhist point of view, what continues after death is, as it were, a stream of mental events.

The second shackle is vicikitsa(pali - vicikiccha), which is usually translated as "skeptical doubt" and sometimes as "indecision". This is not the “good faith doubt” of which Tennyson said: “Indeed, there is more faith in good faith doubt than in half the creeds.” It would be more accurate to say that Wichikitsa- this is a reluctance to come to a certain conclusion. People are hesitant, they would rather sit on the fence, they don’t want to jump to either side. They remain in this indecision, are not united with themselves, and do not try to do so. As for the question of posthumous existence, today they think one thing, and tomorrow - completely different. They don't take the trouble to figure it out thoroughly and think everything through clearly. And such complacency in hesitation is a shackle that, according to the teachings of the Buddha, must be destroyed.

The third fetter is called silavrata-paramarsa(pali - silabbata-paramasa). This term is usually translated as “attachment to rites and rituals,” which, however, is completely incorrect. The literal meaning of the word silavrata-paramarsha is "acceptance of ethical rules and religious prescriptions for an end in itself." Sheila this is not a ritual at all, but a moral precept or rule (if, for example, it is said that, according to the teachings of the Buddha, one cannot take a life, then this is - sewed, moral rule). Gate is a Vedic word meaning vow, observance of a religious precept. An element that transforms an expression silavrata-paramarsa in the term for "fetters", it is paramarsa- “clinging”. Thus, together it is “taking moral rules, even (good) religious precepts, as an end in themselves, clinging to them in themselves.”

This brings us back to the parable of the raft. As I already said, the Buddha likened the Dharma to a raft that transports us from this shore of samsara to that shore of Nirvana. Dharma in all its aspects, the Buddha taught, is a means to an end. If we begin to think that moral rules and religious precepts - even meditation or the study of sacred texts - are self-sufficient, then they will become our fetters, and the fetters must be broken. Thus, these fetters arise when religious practice and injunctions are viewed as an end in themselves. They are very good as means, but they themselves are not the end.

These are the first three fetters. One becomes a stream-enterer, therefore, by understanding the limitations of the “I”, the need for certain obligations, as well as the relativity of all religious practices and prescriptions. Upon reaching the stage of entering the stream, according to the Buddhist tradition, no more than seven rebirths remain in the wheel of life, and maybe less. Stream entry is thus an important stage of spiritual life. One can say more - this is spiritual conversion in the true sense of the word.

In addition, stream entry is achievable for every serious Buddhist and should be considered as such. There is no use in meditating lukewarmly and somehow following the five precepts, looking sideways at Nirvana. One should seriously believe that it is quite possible in this life to break the three shackles, enter the stream and firmly embark on the path to enlightenment.

Saints of the second level, “once returning” (Skt. sakrdagamin), these are those who will return as humans to earth only once; they broke the first three of the shackles and greatly weakened two more: the fourth, i.e. "the desire to exist in the sensory world" (kama-raga), and the fifth - “hostility” or “anger” (vyapada). These shackles are very strong. Breaking the first three is comparatively easier, because they are “intellectual”, so they can be broken by pure intellect, in other words, insight. And these two are emotional, rooted much deeper, and it is much more difficult to break them. Therefore, even weakening them is enough to become a one-time returner.

A few explanations about these two fetters. Kama-raga there is a desire or urge to achieve sensory existence. It takes a little reflection to realize how strong this urge is. Imagine that all your senses suddenly shut down. What state will your mind be in then? This will be experienced as a terrible deprivation. And your only motivation will be to regain contact with others, the ability to see, hear, smell, taste, touch. By thinking about this, we can understand to some extent how strong our craving for sensory existence is. (We know that at the moment of death we will lose all our senses - we will neither see, nor hear, nor smell, nor taste, nor touch. Death is torn away from all this, and the mind finds itself in a terrifying emptiness - “terrifying” for those who seeks contact with the outside world through the senses.)

The fourth bond is strong and difficult to loosen; same with the fifth, anger (vyapada). Sometimes we feel as if a source of anger has entered us, looking for an outlet. This happens not at all because something happened and made us angry, but because anger is always in us, but we are only looking for a target around us into which it could be directed. This anger is deeply rooted in us.

Saints of the third level are "non-returners" (anagamin). If the “once returning” saint only weakened the fourth and fifth shackles, then the “non-returning” saint broke them, he broke the entire five lower shackles, three of which are intellectual and two are emotional. Having broken them, the non-returner will never return to the human level. He is reborn, according to Buddhist tradition, in a realm called "pure abodes" (suddhavazsa) , those. in the group of five celestial sublevels at the top of the world of pure forms (rupa-dhatu). There he finds Nirvana after death.

Saints of the fourth level - arhats,"worthy of worship." These are those who have achieved Enlightenment in this life. Arhat broke all ten shackles - five lower and five higher.

The sixth bond is "the desire to exist in the world of form" (ruparaga). Instead of the “world of forms” we could put the “region of archetypes”. The seventh bond is associated with the “desire to exist in the worlds of the formless” (aruparaga). The eighth bondage is “pride” (tapa). This, of course, is not pride in the usual sense (when, for example, someone says that he is the most beautiful or the most intelligent), but pride, which consists in the fact that I am I, that I am not not-I, or, as Buddha said about it: “That I am either better than others, or worse than others, or the same as others.” It was this pride that was completely dispelled arhat. He does not even have the thought: “I am achieving nirvana.” The ninth bondage is “instability” or “trembling” (Sanskrit - auddhatya, Pali - uddhacca). This is something very subtle. One who will soon achieve arhatship is, as it were, in the interval between the far reaches of the world of appearance and nirvana and vibrates slightly because he has not yet established himself in nirvana. And finally, the tenth bond is the most fundamental and strongest of all. This is “ignorance” (Sanskrit - avidya, Pali - avija), primordial ignorance, spiritual darkness. The Arhat dispels this darkness with the light of wisdom and, having destroyed all ten fetters, realizes Nirvana.

These are the four types of saints who make up Arya-sangha. When we say the words "sangham saranam gachchami” (“I take refuge in the sangha”) in the recited formula of the “three refuges,” then, firstly, we find refuge precisely in Arya-sangha. Secondly, there is bhikshu-sangha, community of monks. It consists of those who have “renounced the life of a householder” and entered the monastic order founded by the Buddha; she observes a single charter of one hundred and fifty rules (pratimoksha) .

A man enters bhikshu-sanghu, when he is ordained as a monk at a local meeting sangha, those. small community. (According to tradition, related primarily to the Hinayana, the Buddhist community - sangha- divided into small local groups, Avasa. Sometimes in Buddhist countries sangha divided according to nationality, then this kind of community is called nikaya). Such a group must consist of at least five fully ordained monks, including at least one elder - sthavira. Traditionally, a novice monk is entrusted to the care of one of the sthavir,- perhaps, but not necessarily, presided over the initiation ceremony, and he personally leads it for five, or even ten years (it is significant that such a teacher can only be sthavira, those. monk with at least ten years of experience).

The duties of Buddhist monks are manifold: first, to study and practice the Dharma, especially meditation; secondly, to set an example for the laity; thirdly, teach and preach; fourthly, to protect the laity from adverse psychic influences; fifthly, to be advisers in worldly affairs.

Currently, in Buddhist countries there are two branches of the monastic order: Theravada (represented in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia and Laos) and Sarvastivadin (in Tibet, China, Vietnam and Korea). There are very few differences in the lifestyle and regulations observed by the monks of these two great traditions. Pratimoksha they have the same one (Japan is a special case because, although monastic ordination existed here several centuries ago, it died out and was replaced by bodhisattva ordination and other types of ordination).

Third, maha-sangha, or "great sangha", so called because it is great in number. This is the community of all those who accept certain spiritual principles and truths, regardless of differences in lifestyle (that is, it does not matter whether a person retired from the world into monasticism or remained in the world). Maha-sangha includes Aryans and not Aryans, it consists of both monks and laymen. It is the entire community of Buddhists at all levels, united by a common allegiance to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. IN maha-sanghu includes all those who have taken refuge in the Three Jewels. What they have taken refuge in is their mutual bond. (From lecture No. 3: “Sangha or Buddhist Community”, 1968)

In the broad sense of the “Buddhist community,” the term “fourfold sangha” is used: a community of monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen. This is a community, the presence of which, for example, indicates the prevalence of the Buddha’s teachings in a country or region. It is important to note that laymen and laywomen do not constitute a separate sangha. Monks and nuns may be called the Sangha without regard to the laity. As a matter of fact, Gautama Buddha meant bhikkhus-sangha by sangha.

In a narrow sense, for example when taking Refuge, it is recommended to understand Sangha as the Liberated Sangha, a community of saints freed from the illusion of “ego” beings.

Monastic tradition

The community of monks and nuns and the Sangha were originally established by Gautama Buddha in the 5th century BC, to provide a means for those who wish to practice the Dharma all day long, free from the restrictions and responsibilities of everyday life. The Sangha also has the function of preserving the original teachings of the Buddha and providing spiritual support to the Buddhist community.

A key feature of Buddhist monasticism is adherence to the Vina, which contains a complex set of rules of behavior, including complete chastity and eating only before noon. Between noon and the next day, a strict order of scripture study, chanting, meditation. Violation of the rules entails punishment up to and including permanent exclusion from the Sangha. The founder of the Japanese Tendai school decided to reduce the number of rules to about 60. Many schools emanating from Tendai abandoned the Vinaya completely. Therefore, as a rule, in Japanese schools there is priesthood, not monasticism.

Monks and nuns may only own a minimum of possessions due to their renunciation attitude (ideally three robes, a begging bowl, cloth, needles and thread, a razor for shaving the head, and a water filter). In practice, they often have several additional personal items.

Traditionally, Buddhist monks eschew ordinary clothing. The clothes were originally sewn together with rags and dyed with earth. The idea that the robes were dyed with saffron seems unlikely, since it was and remains a very expensive commodity, and the monks were poor. The color of modern clothing varies depending on the school (saffron is characteristic of Southeast Asia, Theravada and Mahayana, burgundy is used in Tibet, gray in Korea, black in Japan, etc.)

A word usually translated as monk bhikkhu in Pali or bhikkhus in Sanskrit. Female form - bhikkhunis or bhikkhuni. These words literally mean "beggar", which is traditional for monks to beg for food. In most places this became the rule, people fed monks in order to obtain merit that would ensure them luck in the next life. Although monks did not work in India, when Buddhism appeared in East Asia, monks in China and neighboring countries began to engage in agriculture.

The idea that all Buddhists, especially monks and nuns, practice vegetarianism is a Western misconception. Some sutras discourage eating meat, while in the Pali canon the Buddha explicitly rejected the proposal to impose vegetarianism on the Sangha. Buddha himself ate meat. The Buddha allowed members of the Sangha to eat what laymen donated to them, furthermore, they cannot eat meat if they know or suspect that the animal was killed specifically for them. Consequently, the Theravada tradition (Sri Lanka, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Burma) does not practice vegetarianism, but a person can make his own personal choice in this regard. On the other hand, Mahayana and Vajrayana accept scriptures and practice varies depending on their interpretation of the sutras. Particularly in East Asia, monks take the bodhisattva vows from the Brahmajala Sutra, which takes the vegetarian vow as part of the bodhisattva vows, whereas the Tibetan bodhisattva vows lineage does not include the vegetarian vow. In China, Korea and Vietnam you can find strict vegetarianism in practice, while in Japan or Tibet this is not the case.

According to the Mahayana sutras, the Buddha always believed that lay people were capable of achieving great wisdom in the Buddha and achieving enlightenment. In the West, there is also a misconception that Theravada talks about the impossibility of enlightenment outside the Sangha. In the sutta [ Which?] The Theravāda records that the Buddha's uncle was a lay follower, and achieved enlightenment by listening to the Buddha's speeches.

Who goes there

When Buddhist teaching first arose, the sangha meant the body of Shakyamuni's closest followers. After his death, all the monks who were part of the community were called sangha.

And now this definition means either all people who profess Buddhism, including lay people, or a group of believers formed on some basis, for example, territorial.

Buddhist sangha

The narrowest concept of sangha is a group of saints standing at the same level of enlightenment.

Why is consolidation needed?

Let's look at the benefits of the sangha and its role in achieving enlightenment for each of its members. Every person can achieve it independently, if there is such a goal or intention. But any task is easier to accomplish when you have like-minded people.

In our world, it has developed so that selflessness and any aspirations that do not have the ultimate goal of finding pleasure, enrichment or glorification are perceived by the majority unkindly, at best, as eccentricity. Therefore, a group of people united to achieve a selfless spiritual goal will feel more confident together and feel each other's daily support.

The necessary religious atmosphere is created in the community, in which it is easy to work, improving one’s consciousness. Here it is awkward to show one’s bad traits, which a person is not embarrassed to show to his family or which he is not ashamed of in front of himself. There are always other members of the community before your eyes - examples of spirituality, convincing you that there are opportunities for moral growth.

Hypocrisy has no place in the community. If someone happens to become proud of his own achievements, this becomes noticeable to everyone, and the adept is pointed out about his errors. The importance of the community lies in the fact that each member receives help in case of moral instability, he is not allowed to commit a moral failure, and there is an opportunity to atone for already committed bad deeds by publicly repenting.

Successful fulfillment of the educational and supporting functions of a community is possible with the sincere, friendly attitude of its members towards each other. In this regard, a parallel can be drawn between the Buddhist sangha and the commune, which was created for educational purposes by the famous teacher A.S. Makarenko.

When lay people unite in a community, their property remains with them, but they can, by a joint decision of all members of the community, financially support the poorest comrades, provide assistance to those in need in the form of advice or by working for their benefit.

The main difference between Buddhist communities and communes is their different approaches to ideology.

In the sangha:

do not profess materialism;
there are no negative feelings, such as hatred or contempt, towards ideological opponents;
do not persecute the guilty;
do not subordinate the will of one to the general will;
nurture the individuality of the novice;
create conditions for each adept to fully develop his abilities.

Gelug monks

Therefore, the Sangha is rightly considered one of the three Buddhist jewels, along with the Buddha and his Teachings -.

Emergence

Ayusheev does not recognize Buddhist communities that do not obey him. He believes that due to the formation of a strict state economy in China, it is short-sighted to allocate plots of land on the territory of Buryatia for the construction of Tibetan temples (as for the datsan on Bald Mountain), since in the future they could become a support for Chinese influence.

Conclusion

With this, friends, we say goodbye to you. Thank you for your support and for sharing our articles on social media.

All the best and see you soon!

"Sangha" is a Sanskrit word, its literal meaning is a community that has united and lives together. Since it is a set of people and phenomena that are united and interact to form a single whole, I sometimes use the term “system” or “network”. On the one hand, the word "sangha" denotes a group of people who, as a community, live, act and work together. On the other hand, it can refer to a collection of purifications and realizations in the mental continuum, which also exist together, interact and work together. Even more precisely, this second level of sangha can be defined as the true cessations of true suffering and its true causes, as well as the true paths (states of mind that act as a path) that lead to these true cessations in the arya's mental continuum. Arya could be us or anyone else. These true cessations and true paths also constitute the sangha - the community of living together, in other words, coexisting and functioning together.

Instead of translating, the Chinese simply transliterated the word "sangha" into Chinese letters that sound like "sangha": "seng-zhia" (僧伽, sen-ja) or simply "seng" (僧). They use this classic term for members of the monastic community - a monk, a member of the sangha, and also for the sangha in its higher sense. We also use the word “sangha” without translating it.

The Tibetans acted differently from us and the Chinese: they translated the word “sangha” as “gendun” ( dge-‘dun), which means "people or things striving for a creative purpose." “Gen” means “creative”, and “dun” means “striving towards”. Their creative goal is liberation or enlightenment. Thus, it is a community of people seeking to achieve liberation or enlightenment; or purification and comprehension in the mental continuum, which, in a sense, are aimed at the same goals - liberation or enlightenment.

I've always found it helpful to look at certain words first to get an idea of their meaning. For example, the word usually translated as "refuge" in Sanskrit, "sharanam", means "protection". Then the expression "going for refuge" means "going for protection" and implies an active process: we do not just sit and receive protection, but actually do something. That's why I call it "going in a safe direction": establishing a safe direction in your life and moving to protect yourself from suffering. We can also receive protection from others as they can be an example of how to protect ourselves. The Buddha is such a model: we want to be like him because, having achieved this goal, we will be truly protected from fear and suffering. In other words, by truly practicing the Dharma, the teachings of the Buddha, to become a Buddha ourselves, we will protect ourselves from suffering.

What is the role of the sangha here? It is usually said that it helps us move in this direction. It is necessary to research this to understand what it really means, because there can be many meanings.

When it comes to taking refuge, it is not the Sangha in the general sense, but the Jewel of the Sangha. The Sangha and the Sangha Jewel are not the same thing. Obviously, in order to move securely in the direction of this Jewel, we must understand what it is. There is a danger in calling the community of people who visit a Dharma center "sangha", because without knowing what exactly is meant by the Jewel of the Sangha, we may assume that these people are meant. And then if this community disappoints us or does wrong, we may lose our refuge: “It cannot be relied upon.”

This can also happen if we consider just monks and nuns to be the Jewel of the Sangha, because among them there may be people with great emotional difficulties, and we may think: “How can I take refuge in them?” But they are also not the Jewel of the Sangha. Therefore, in order to truly move in a reliable direction, it is very important to correctly establish what the Jewel of the Sangha actually is.

Some people in the West think: “If the Jewel of the Sangha is only associated with monasticism, it can be abandoned. We don’t need monks and nuns: modern Buddhism can do without them.” However, the Jewel of the Sangha does not refer to monasticism at all. People may think that the monastic tradition is something ancient or medieval and that it is not necessary in modern society: “We don’t need refuge in the Sangha.” This is a big mistake because the Jewel of the Sangha is misdefined here.

What is the Jewel of the Sangha? Let's look at what the traditions of (1) Theravada, (2) Mahayana as followed by the Tibetans, and (3) Zen have to say about this: it will help to get a broader picture. I think if we look at other perspectives within Buddhism, it will also help to broaden our horizons and not be limited by the narrow confines of our tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. We will also see what is common to all Buddhist traditions.

Sangha in different Buddhist traditions Arrow down Arrow up

Sangha in Theravada

In Theravada, the Jewel of the Sangha is defined in terms of teachings. That is, the term refers to anyone who is at one of the four stages of spiritual achievement, starting from the arya level. "Arya" is one who has non-conceptual knowledge of the four noble truths. The four stages of achievement in Theravada that begin with such knowledge are called "stream-enterer", "once-returner", "no-returner" and "arhat". When we hear these Theravada terms, we should not think: “A stream-enterer is just a beginner: anyone can achieve it.” This is actually Arya level. From a Theravada perspective, the Jewel of the Sangha refers to the Arya Sangha. They are called "Jewel" because of their achievement - the non-conceptual knowledge of the four noble truths and, in particular, the absence of the impossible self (Skt. anatta). This person can be either a monk or a layman.

We can talk about the sangha as it is defined in the Vinaya, the rules of discipline, where "sangha" is a community of monks or nuns with a full set of vows. More precisely, a group of four or more monks or nuns with a full set of vows, whose presence is required at certain rituals. For example, to take full vows as a monk, a certain number of monks with full vows are required, and to take full vows as a nun, either nuns with full vows or both monks and nuns must be present. These fully ordained monks and nuns, who are called Sangha due to the vows taken, are not necessarily a Jewel of the Sangha. They are called the "conventional Sangha" and not the Jewel of the Sangha. Of course, some monks and nuns may also be aryas, that is, both a conventional Sangha and a Jewel of the Sangha.

The Theravada distinction between sangha and the Sangha Jewel is common to all forms of Buddhism. Different technical terms may be used, but a general distinction is always present.

Sangha in Mahayana

What does the Indian Mahayana tradition, which the Tibetans follow, say about this? What was the traditional Indian understanding that they encountered at the beginning?

Maitreya is one of the great masters and founders of Indian Mahayana Buddhism. He is the coming universal Buddha who will come after Shakyamuni. The eminent Indian master Asanga had visions of Maitreya and recorded the teachings he received from him in the so-called “Five Texts of Maitreya.” The study of these texts was considered important not only in Indian but also in Tibetan Buddhism. When considering the definitions of the Three Jewels, we turn specifically to the texts of Maitreya. In three of them, the Three Jewels are defined somewhat differently, although without obvious contradictions. Tibetans follow them all: they are good at combining what at first glance seems contradictory. In these texts there are two definitions: in two - one, and in one - another.

We will find the first definition in the text with the Sanskrit name “Abhisamaya-alamkara” ( mNgon-rtogs rgyan), which means “Filigree of Realizations” or “Ornament of Realizations.” This is the main treatise that all Tibetans study for five years as part of their preparation for the degree of kenpo or geshe. This extremely complex text organizes the vast collection of Prajnaparamita texts into categories and themes that can be easily understood. Thus, this is the real key to understanding all the Prajnaparamita Sutras. These sutras are extremely extensive: there are many versions of them: for example, one of them has a hundred thousand verses. It is not easy to truly study and understand these sutras clearly, and this is where the Abhisamayalamkara helps.

According to this text, each of the Three Jewels has two levels: the manifest (conventional) and the deepest (ultimate). The deepest level is hidden behind the obvious.

Another Maitreya text is Uttaratantra ( rGyud bla-ma), which means "Supreme Eternal Stream". It is dedicated to Buddha nature, and it is also one of the most important texts for Tibetans in the study of Buddhism. The Uttaratantra gives complete definitions of the Three Jewels. Their only difference from the Abhisamayalamkara is that the definition of the Dharma Jewel does not apply to the obvious, but only to the deepest level. With this exception, the explanations of the two texts are the same. The first reveals both levels of the Three Jewels, while the second defines the Dharma Jewel only at one, deepest level. However, now we are talking about the Jewel of the Sangha, which is defined in the Uttaratantra both at the relative and at the deepest levels. Let's look at the explanations of all three Jewels.

The manifest level of the Buddha Jewel is the rupakaya, the body of buddha forms that we see. There are two types of form body: sambhogakaya (the body of the most complete application) and nirmanakaya (the body of emanations). These are the subtle and gross forms in which a buddha manifests. The deepest level that lies behind this collection of enlightening forms is the buddha's dharmakaya, the all-encompassing body. Dharmakaya has two aspects. The first is the jnana dharmakaya (sometimes called the wisdom dharmakaya or the dharmakaya of deep awareness), the all-encompassing body of deep awareness. It represents the fourth noble truth - the true paths in the buddha's mental continuum. Another aspect of the dharmakaya is svabhavakaya, the "natural body" or "essential nature body", which represents the third noble truth - the true cessations in the buddha's mental continuum. Thus, the dharmakaya is the third and fourth noble truths in the buddha's mental continuum. This is the deepest Jewel of the Buddha.

What is a Dharma Jewel? Its manifest level is the twelve categories of teachings given by the enlightening speech of the Buddha. That is, these are the very words of the Buddha that we hear or, if they are written down, we see. Behind this lies the deepest Dharma Jewel - the realization of what the Buddha taught - again, the third and fourth noble truths, true cessations and true paths. True cessations are the complete elimination from the continuum of the mind of the first two noble truths, true suffering and its true causes. True paths are either deep awareness that eliminates the first two noble truths, or free of them, the resulting deep awareness of a buddha's mental continuum. A buddha's mental continuum is free of the first two noble truths, so the fourth noble truth no longer needs to eliminate them. Briefly, when we talk about the deepest Dharma Jewel, we are talking about the third and fourth noble truths in the mental continuum of anyone from the arya to the buddha level. When we talk about the true paths in the arya's mental continuum, it refers to the deep awareness that will eliminate the first two noble truths. When it comes to the true paths in the buddha's mental continuum, it is deep awareness that is already free from them.

A manifest Jewel of the Sangha is any arya, whether layman or monk. Therefore, it is not the group of Aryas taken as a whole, but each member of the community. This is the visible aspect, but what is hidden behind it? The deepest level of the Sangha Jewel, that is, again, the third and fourth noble truths in the arya's mental continuum. Note that Buddhas are also included in this category as the highest level of Aryans.

From the point of view of this Maitreya tradition, the deepest level of all the Three Jewels is the same: they are the third and fourth noble truths.

The deepest level of the Buddha Jewel is the third and fourth noble truths of the Buddha.
The deepest level of the Dharma Jewel is the third and fourth noble truths of the mental continuums located at the level from arya to buddha.
The deepest level of the Sangha Jewel is again the third and fourth noble truths of the mental continuums from arya to buddha.

At what level of the third and fourth noble truths are all the Three Jewels present? Only at the level of a buddha, where they are all present in one being - the buddha. Tibetans use this logic when talking about the Three Jewels united in one person - the guru as the buddha. This is the basis of their statement, the Tibetans took it from here. It is especially important in tantra.

Another tradition of Maitreya comes from another of his texts called the Mahayana Sutra Alamkara, Filigree for the Mahayana Sutras or Ornament for the Mahayana Sutras, in which the Jewel of the Sangha is spoken of only in connection with the individual arya, without mentioning a third and the fourth noble truths. Reasoning from the point of view of the sutra, Tibetans follow the second tradition. In it, the Jewel of the Sangha does not include Arya Buddhas, only Aryas with lesser achievements. Tantra, where the gurus are considered to be the personification of the Three Jewels, follows the first tradition of Maitreya, where the Aryan Buddhas are included in the Jewel of the Sangha.

Each of the Three Jewels has a symbol: it is called the "nominal Jewel," but it is not the true source of reliable direction. In other words, for most of us, meeting the true Buddha, Dharma and Sangha is impossible, but we can see what represents them. The nominal Buddha is represented by images of Buddhas - drawings and statues. We prostrate before a statue or painting, but this is not the true Buddha Jewel, but only a symbol of it. We offer prostrations to whatever the statue or image symbolizes and do not take refuge in the statue: there is no idolatry in Buddhism.

Likewise, the printed Dharma text, symbolizing both the Buddha's words and their realization, is the nominal Dharma Jewel. In the same way, we take refuge not in books, right? Likewise, the Jewel of the Sangha is represented by a group of four monks or nuns who have taken full vows. In fact, we do not take refuge in the monastic community, which is just a nominal Jewel of the Sangha, called in Theravada "conventional sangha."

Is the presence of the Sangha Jewel sufficient to preserve the sangha?

By this definition, no. The number of full-vowed monks who must be present when taking full monastic vows varies across traditions. But even monks with a full set of vows are also not enough: to take vows, they must be monks for ten years, although, again, this period may vary depending on the tradition. There are several traditions that set rules for taking full vows, differing in the number of monks, or monks and nuns, with full vows present, as well as the period for which the vows are observed.

Sangha in the Tibetan tradition

We have looked at the Indian Mahayana tradition, it is interesting now to look at the Tibetan one. In The Jewel of Liberation, Gampopa mentions general and special objects of refuge. The general ones are the same for Hinayana and Mahayana, but the special ones exist exclusively in Mahayana. Gampopa speaks of the two general Jewels of the Sangha: ordinary beings and aryas.

By a sangha of ordinary beings is meant a group of four or more monks or nuns with full vows who have not yet attained the state of arya. Since the transfer of the line of full-voted nuns to Tibet did not occur, Gampopa mentions only full-voted monks. However, the term "full-vowed monk" ( dge-slong, Skt. bhikkhus) is also used as a common word for monks and nuns.
Arya-Sangha refers to any of the eight types of beings, divided into four pairs, which in Theravada are considered the Jewel of the Sangha: four groups of stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners and arhats, each of which is divided into two types: “enterers” - those those who have begun to achieve comprehension of this level, and the “resultants” – those who have reached this level. Gampopa does not specify whether these aryas should be monks or nuns with full vows.

The special Jewel of the Sangha, which is characteristic only of the Mahayana and is absent in the Hinayana schools, is also distinguished into two aspects, depending on from which point of view the definition is given.

Defined in terms of the objects before us, the special Jewel of the Sangha is the bodhisattva sangha, which implies monks or bodhisattva nuns with a full set of vows who have either achieved the state of arya or not.
In terms of achievement, the special Jewel of the Sangha are arya bodhisattvas who have achieved any of the ten levels of bodhisattva mind ( sa-bcu).

What do they say about this in the Nyingma school? In the text of the great early Nyingma master Longchenpa, “Kindly bowed to make it easier for us,” the Jewel of the Sangha refers to shravakas and pratyekabuddhas, also in four stages: stream-enterers, once-returners, never-returners, arhats, and also arya-bodhisattvas. To these are added “mantra holders” and “possessors of pure awareness” ( rig-‘dzin): in essence, these are aryas following the tantric path of Dzogchen. The Nyingma added a tantric aspect to the definition of Sangha.

As for the Sakya tradition, their main text is “Filigree for the Decoration of the Three Appearances”, which was compiled by Ngorchen Konchok Lhundrub. The author says that the Jewel of the Sangha is the community of Aryas, without explaining, as in the Nyingma or Kagyu, their different groups. It is curious that about the Sangha of ordinary beings, that is, about the nominal Jewel of the Sangha, he says: “Those who accepted the Dharma before us.” This applies to monks who took monasticism before us, which means that junior monks are not included here. In the monastic community, where you sit depends on when you took your monastic vows: therefore, the Sangha is everyone who sits in front of you in the congregation, but not behind you. It is quite interesting that the Sakya gave such a definition.

What does Tsonakapa say in the Gelug text Lamrim Chenmo, The Great Guide to the Successive Stages of the Path? He does not give precise definitions of the Three Jewels, as we did just now. Tsongkhapa discusses how their activities, qualities, etc. differ, but it is clear from his explanations that his definition is exactly the same as Gampopa's. He says that the Arya Sangha is the main Sangha, the Jewel of the Sangha. Pabongka in the text “Liberation in the Palm of Your Hand” writes the same thing, but clarifies that the monastic Sangha is just a nominal, not a real Jewel.

It is noteworthy that everyone agrees that the true Jewel of the Sangha is the Arya Sangha, and this coincides with the Theravada point of view. However, Theravada is referring to the Hinayana Aryas - the Shravakas and Pratyekabuddhas; The Mahayana followed by the Tibetans are Arya bodhisattvas, and the Nyingma tradition specifically mentions tantric Arya practitioners. Don't forget that aryas include buddhas: anyone who has non-conceptual knowledge of emptiness, and a buddha has that too. Then the monastic community is a conditional or nominal Jewel of the Sangha, and not one in which we actually take refuge. In essence, all traditions talk about the same thing, but in slightly different ways.

In the tantric tradition, the guru unites the Three Jewels Arrow down Arrow up

To consider the Tibetan tantric tradition from the point of view of the guru unifying the Three Jewels, we can look to the first Maitreya tradition, especially the text "The Supreme Eternal Stream" ( rGyud bla-ma). In The Precious Ornament, Gampopa discusses this issue in detail, explaining the difference between final and temporary sources of reliable direction.

Before you became a Buddha, when did you begin to achieve true paths and true cessations? Only when they became Arya. Imagine, for example, that you have an old radio or television with circuit board tubes. You want to turn this into a computer motherboard. Old lamps symbolize misunderstanding. You are going to take them out and insert new chips - non-conceptual knowledge of emptiness. When you take out one of them, this is true cessation, the absence of this lamp, emptiness. This is true cessation, the third noble truth. Then you install a new lamp - this is the fourth noble truth. The new lamp is the reason for removing the old one and what replaces it. On the one hand, the new lamp eliminates the old one, therefore it is like a path whose function is to get rid of the old part. On the other hand, this is also the result, the fourth noble truth. She is both the path and the fruit.

You start getting rid of some lamps, replacing them with new ones when you become an Arya. You have to some extent the absence of the old and the presence of new lamps: a little of the third and fourth noble truths. Thus, Aryas who have not achieved Buddhahood do not have complete sets of the third and fourth noble truths, and therefore are only temporary sources of reliable direction. The Buddha has no old lamps at all, only new ones. Only a Buddha has the complete sets of the third and fourth noble truths, so only a Buddha can be the ultimate source of reliable direction. When discussing the Jewel of the Sangha, we must focus on the ultimate Jewel of the Sangha, which is exclusively the Buddhas. The Arya Sangha, which has not yet become a Buddha, can only help us reach the stage in which it itself is, so it is only a temporary source of reliable direction.

This is the reason for perceiving the guru as a Buddha who embodies all the Three Jewels. In Tibetan Buddhism one always takes refuge in the guru. Why? The Guru represents all the Three Jewels, including the Sangha. Why is he Sangha? Because a Buddha as an Arya Sangha is a member of the Sangha. From the point of view of the third and fourth noble truths in a buddha's mental continuum, he is all the Three Jewels, all of them united. Therefore there is a guru and refuge in the guru.

It is interesting that in Theravada they do not talk about the Fourth Jewel, that is, taking refuge in the guru. They take refuge in their own karma, since it is the creation of positive karma that will bring protection from true suffering and its causes, which also confirms that refuge is an active process.

Causal and resultant sources of reliable direction Arrow down Arrow up

Another difference between Mahayana refuge, or reliable direction, and Theravada is the division into causal and resultant sources. When we take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha as external manifestations, this is a causal reliable direction: they show the direction that causes us to achieve the state of the Three Jewels ourselves. We intend to become the Three Jewels. How to become the Three Jewels, that is, Buddhas? Buddha embodies the Three Jewels. We accept the reliable direction of the external Buddha, Dharma and Sangha as "causes": this is called "simply accepting the reliable direction." Particularly accepting the reliable direction—“ultimately accepting the reliable direction”—refers to the state of the Three Jewels that we will achieve in the future based on our Buddha nature. The object that provides reliable direction is the Three Jewels that we will become in the future. Therefore, for example, prostrations are associated with taking refuge, a reliable direction: we express respect not only to the causal, external Three Jewels, but also to our subsequent achievement, when we ourselves become them.

One may ask, “What does the Arya-Sangha, the Jewel of the Sangha, mean in terms of what I want to achieve?” It can refer to one of two goals - the temporary state of arya or the final level, the state of a buddha. When we have bodhichitta, our mind is focused on our own future enlightenment: not on enlightenment in general or on the Buddha's enlightenment, but on our own enlightenment that will exist in our mental continuum in the future. It hasn't happened yet. This is the ultimate source of the reliable direction we are going to achieve. All this fits together very well.

It is clear that a buddha embodies the Three Jewels, but why does a guru also?

The Guru symbolizes the Buddha. This brings us to the topic of seeing the guru as a buddha. This is a very broad topic, and it would take a whole weekend to discuss it, so we won't talk about it now. Essentially, when we view the guru as a buddha, we see him as a fully revealed buddha nature. Likewise, by taking the resulting refuge in ourselves, we strive to become the Three Jewels ourselves. To develop the ability to see these qualities in ourselves, we need to learn to see them in the guru: this helps us to see them in ourselves. If we see them in ourselves, this does not mean that we are literally enlightened. The same goes for seeing the guru as a buddha: it doesn't mean that the guru is omniscient and knows, for example, the phone numbers of every being in the universe, does it? This is not what is meant.

How are the Three Jewels different from each other? Arrow down Arrow up

Each of the Three Jewels is the ultimate source of refuge, the third and fourth noble truths in the buddha's mental continuum. How are they different from each other? Earlier we mentioned the deepest aspect of the ultimate source of reliable direction, in other words, the Buddha Jewel, regardless of whether it is an external buddha or the buddha that we ourselves strive to become. We then considered that the three Jewels of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha as sources of reliable direction are all the third and fourth noble truths in the mental continuum of the individual. What is the difference between the Three Jewels? They look at true cessations and realizations from different points of view.

From the perspective of the Buddha Jewel, these are sources of inspiration, which is usually translated as “blessing.” True endings and true paths inspire us. The Buddha's Jewel inspires us to achieve the same state as him, whether it is an external Buddha or our own attainment of that state in the future.

From the Dharma point of view, these are the sources of genuine achievements, “siddhis” in Sanskrit. The source of our enlightenment is the ability to achieve true cessations and true paths.

From the point of view of the Sangha, they bring enlightening influence, which is sometimes called the actions of a buddha. As for the external buddhas, true cessations and true paths in their mental continuum allow them to spread their enlightening influence to everyone. When we ourselves reach this level, true cessations and true paths in our mental continuum become a source of positive impact on others.

How should we understand this in relation to the Sangha? When we think about the Sangha, we mainly focus on its influence and activity - on what it does. When we consider a monastic community or a Dharma-centered community, it is useful to think about what is most important: how do they function? What are they doing? How do they affect us and others? This is the most important thing we can learn from this explanation. Also, there is a lot to be said about the tantric side of this issue, but we don't have time.

Sangha in the Zen tradition Arrow down Arrow up

Before moving on to the topic of the monastic community and Dharma centers, let us consider the ideas of the Zen tradition. Dogen, the Japanese founder of the Soto Zen tradition, wrote very clearly about the Three Jewels. According to Dogen, the Sangha Jewel has two levels. The first, which he calls "divine buddhas", refers to the great bodhisattvas such as Manjushri, Avalokiteshvara, Ksitigarbha. In the Tibetan tradition, Manjushri and other great bodhisattvas surrounding the central figure of the Buddha also represent the Sangha in the tantric refuge tree. It's the same in the Zen tradition.

Another aspect of the Sangha Jewel is the four levels of aryas. Here they mean shravakas, pratyekabuddhas, bodhisattvas and buddhas who have reached the level of aryas, which is consistent with everything said earlier.

Dogen talks about the three aspects of the Three Jewels: the “harmonious Three Jewels,” the “manifest Three Jewels,” and the “preserved Three Jewels.” The “Harmonious Jewel of the Sangha” is the agreement and harmony of all factors of enlightenment. On a more abstract level, it is the peaceful interconnection and harmony of all phenomena. Here we see the idea of a community and a system in which everything interacts harmoniously. I think the most important thing for a monastic community or a Dharma-centered community is for everyone to act harmoniously together, without excluding anyone.

“The Manifest Jewel of the Sangha” is the training and practice through which we reach the level of arya, which is similar to the enlightening influence, purpose and activity of the Jewel of the Sangha that we discussed earlier. What is the main purpose of the Sangha at the center of Dharma? An opportunity to study, practice and meditate together to achieve the goal of true cessations and true paths.

By "preserved Jewel of the Sangha" we mean the ways in which the Sangha exists: how does it maintain itself? Why does it continue to exist? How does one remain free from samsara, alleviating all suffering? In other words, what does the community do? Obviously, we practice and meditate together to achieve the third and fourth noble truths of the arya level and above. How to support a community to preserve it forever? Trying to help not only oneself, but also others, alleviating suffering and freeing oneself from samsara, that is, in a non-samsaric way. In other words, we are not helping ourselves and others to earn money, become famous, or compete with other Dharma centers. Our motivation is not samsaric: we do it with enlightening and pure motivation - then the center will continue to exist. If you help others and yourself out of worldly concerns - to compete or become famous - it will not last long: other people will try to stop you. This is really important: most Dharma centers face financial problems, their organizers are always worried about how to pay bills and attract more students, and it turns into a business. Then, of course, you have to compete with other businessmen, which always leads to increasing worries and problems and takes your attention away from the main purpose of the sangha - from the true practice of the Dharma, joint learning and meditation. Of course, when planning to maintain the center, you must take care of finances. But the most important thing is not to limit yourself to joint meditation, study and practice, but also try to help others with pure and non-samsaric motivation. You give teachings not to attract a large audience and make money, but to help.

This explanation in Soto Zen is extremely significant in terms of how to develop the Dharma center so that everyone acts in harmony with each other. Then we will move towards the goal, becoming aryas, the Jewel of the Sangha. Our reference point is the monastic community as the Buddha imagined it, but this does not mean that everyone should accept monasticism. It is clear that many monastic communities may be quite samsaric in their goals, but our role model or ideal is not them, but purer communities, because the ultimate source of reliable direction is the Buddhas. Anyone who has not achieved buddhahood still has limitations, and before achieving arhatship, samsaric deficiencies. We must remember that they are only temporary sources of reliable direction; only the Buddha can be considered the ultimate source. This is very important because when we see shortcomings in those who have taken monasticism or even in highly realized beings, we can easily become disappointed. They cannot be the final source of reliable direction (refuge) unless they have already become Buddhas. They still have limitations, so what are you waiting for?

Don't take everything we've discussed so far as purely scientific information and facts. The point is to apply it and see how it can teach us to live in accordance with the Dharma. Here's the most important thing. Do you have any questions regarding what we have already discussed?

By what signs can we understand that the Dharma center is managed in a samsaric way?

If the main activity and goals of a Dharma center are to raise capital and organize companies to increase the number of disciples, this is one sign that it has fallen victim to this misguided approach. Either you buy a large area or building and spend all your time working to maintain it, leaving little or no time for practice, meditation and study. Worldly goals become the main ones, and I think there is a certain danger in this. I have encountered this all over the world in the Dharma centers I have visited. Members of such centers are engaged only in construction and other work: they work in a store, restaurant or repair buildings. The focus on Dharma is lost and remains only in theory: “Oh yes! We do this for the benefit of all living beings!” I'm talking about the main goal. Of course, volunteers are needed, and you have to do this and that, pay rent and so on, but don't forget about the most important thing: practice together, learn and try to benefit others. If creating a new Dharma center or buying a big statue is more important than getting together to practice together, that's a problem. Of course, if you need a more spacious place, then attracting finance or making repairs is natural and necessary, but do not forget about the most important thing. There are many examples where Dharma centers forgot this: people stopped acting in harmony with each other and instead of bringing joy and peace, the Dharma center turned into a source of anxiety, tension and quarrels. Then you lose your way.

If the Dharma center is a source not of peace, but of discord, and does not contribute to harmony, since people gather there for communication, and not for the sake of Dharma, and the leaders not only approve of this, but also encourage it, is this also wrong or justified in some situations?

I think it's important for groups to do a lot of things together, including rest and relaxation. It is very useful to go on picnics, eat together, etc., to create a sense of unity. But, again, why are you doing this? Do you think mostly about this or about studying, practicing, meditating and helping others together? It seems to me that a little communication will be beneficial if this is not an end in itself. After all, is it a club or a place to practice, study and meditate? In my opinion, it is a big mistake if in your Dharma center everyone is too serious and no one talks to anyone: you go in and sit down to meditate, looking at the wall, and then everyone leaves without saying a word to each other. This is also not the best option.

What if this is the only place we know? What should we do if we have been going to such a center for a long time and don’t know that there are others, and they don’t tell us about them?

Search the Internet. This is an active process: don’t wait for everything to come to you on its own.

Sometimes groups are very closed and there is no access to their pages on the Internet.

Go somewhere else and look. If this is important to you, but there are no such centers where you live, go somewhere else. Complaining won't help here. If there is nothing suitable near you, and you really want it in your life, try to create such a place or go somewhere where there is something better. If this is just a hobby for you, that’s a different matter.

Monastic sangha Arrow down Arrow up

After the Buddha gave his first teaching, a group of celibate monks began to follow him wherever he taught. At first, under such special circumstances, they became monks automatically and followed the Buddha. About twenty years after his enlightenment, the Buddha began his first retreat during the rainy season, and this became the starting point for the founding of monasteries: before, monks simply wandered around. Shortly before his death, the Buddha began a tradition of monasticism for women. Over time, various monastic vows arose. Buddha didn't just sit down and say, “Here are the rules.” Over time, the community gained more and more experience. When problems arose, such as begging for food and the like, the Buddha would say, “To avoid this problem, such and such a vow is needed,” and he would establish various rules of discipline so that everything would be harmonious in the community. This is how vows appeared. The Buddha said that the monastic sangha is the main guarantee that his teachings will be preserved. It is very important! The Buddha himself said that the existence of a monastic tradition is necessary: monks and nuns are completely dedicated to preserving the teachings of the Buddha in their entirety.

The Buddha's teachings consist of three baskets known as the Tripitaka. The first basket is sutras about the development of various types of concentration, including advanced ones; they are called “exercises in higher concentration.” The second basket, abhidharma, or “divisions of knowledge,” is associated with the exercise of higher discriminating wisdom. We as lay people may be able to follow the first two baskets, but not the third, the Vinaya, the rules of monastic discipline. Monks and nuns observe not only the requirements of the first two, but also the third basket. Although we lay people do not follow all the precepts, we can help preserve these teachings by supporting monks and nuns.

Why do people become monks and nuns? The reason is not only the desire to adhere to all the teachings of the Buddha, which is very good. The main reason for taking up monasticism is to develop ethical discipline, self-discipline, and for this we need vows and the support of the community. If we have a family, work, etc., it is very difficult to improve discipline on our own. To strengthen it with the help of vows and the support of the lay community, people take monasticism. Such ethical discipline becomes the basis for the development of higher concentration and higher wisdom. In addition, by accepting monasticism and renouncing worldly life, we develop complete renunciation.

By renouncing worldly life, you are renouncing the opportunity to have a family and other worldly concerns. This is the first step in developing complete renunciation of samsara in order to achieve liberation. You give up your appearance, hairstyle, style of clothing: now you constantly wear the same clothes, and your head is always shaved. You give up trying to attract a partner and so on. This is a good basis for developing the complete renunciation necessary to achieve liberation.

I'm not saying that having a family and working is bad. It is neutral: neither good nor bad. The point is that they create a situation in which we have more worry, desire and anger. This is precisely what we renounce. Taking up monasticism is actually the first step to fully focusing on learning and meditation, practicing to achieve liberation and enlightenment. We can do this while remaining a worldly person without a family, but it is still quite difficult to provide for ourselves. Even if we don't have a family, we will have to work, and this will take time away from studying and practicing. By joining a monastery, we receive support from the lay community.

One of the main responsibilities of the Buddhist lay community has always been to maintain a monastic community that deserves respect and assistance. These are not lazy people who want to eat free and not work. One of the early Mahayana sutras, the Vimalakirti-nirdesa Sutra, discusses lay bodhisattvas and whether it is possible to be a bodhisattva and achieve enlightenment while being a lay person. Vimalakirti is the name of a householder bodhisattva, and in this sutra there is a lot of jokes about the arhat monks. I think this sutra points out what problems arise if monastics become arrogant and stop helping others.

Monastic life is always taken as a model. At the beginning of the 14th century, Lutai, the king of Thailand, joined the monastic order for three months and then left it. He began the Thai tradition of men accepting monasticism not for life, as it was before, but for a short time, which was also adopted in Burma in the 19th century. As a result, all men in these countries (the female monastic tradition here, as in Tibet, was interrupted) took monasticism in adolescence, usually for about three months. If you think about it, it's much nicer than mandatory temporary military service. In addition, this contributed to the unification of villages and communities: when the monks go out to beg, all the mothers give them food, because the sons of each of them were once monks. This strengthened the tradition of feeding and supporting the monastic community with the entire village, and all the men received the experience of monasticism, so they treated it sympathetically: for them it was not something completely unfamiliar. Of course, many did not limit themselves to just three months and remained monks for life.

In Thai and Burmese villages, monks organized schools for local children. I don’t know how things are now that there are public schools, but there used to be such a tradition. The monks not only meditated and studied, but also engaged in public service. Again, not all, but optional. In the Chinese monastic community, monks and nuns also engage in socially beneficial activities. For example, now in Thailand it is mainly monasteries and monks who care for those dying of AIDS when no one else wants to do this; Thailand has a huge problem with AIDS. Tibetans don't worry too much about social assistance; His Holiness the Dalai Lama recognizes this and considers it necessary to correct it. I think in Tibet it's mostly due to geography: the monasteries were very isolated, you couldn't go out and go into a town or village to collect food in a begging bowl. Therefore, worldly people come to monasteries themselves and bring offerings. I think this is the reason for the detachment.

In my opinion, the opportunity to take up monasticism as an alternative to serving in the army or ordinary public work is very important. The teachings will survive if people have the opportunity to become monks or nuns, dedicate their lives to the practice of the Dharma and, if desired, help others, with the support of the entire Buddhist community - this is what the Buddha said. Of course, if you help others and then go to parties at public expense, this is not enough: you need to rely on ethical discipline, shared practice and meditation. Therefore, in the West it is very important to support monasticism. In fact, to be a monk or nun you need a monastery: it is a communal phenomenon. It was never intended that by taking monasticism people would live on their own, wear secular clothes and go to work during the day - this is not the best option for a monk or nun. Unfortunately, many in the West have to live like this. We must understand how difficult it is and not judge them for not having circumstances favorable to being monks or nuns. In many Dharma centers, lay people often look down on the monks and nuns, almost like they are servants who have to run the center, make tea, and the like, even though it's exactly the opposite. This should not be done by monks and nuns, but by lay people.

To be an object of respect, monks need to keep their vows, to be real monks and nuns. The texts say that even a scrap of monastic robes is worthy of respect, which means that even if those who have taken monastic vows do not keep their vows properly, we should still honor their robes. We respect their intention to work on themselves by becoming a monk. Sometimes you meet monks and nuns who don't try to be better. For example, some were sent to a monastery when they were children because their parents could not feed them. However, even in this case it is necessary to distinguish a person from the institution of monasticism as such, which is symbolized by the clothes. I think it is very important for us as Buddhists to reflect on our personal relationship to monks and nuns, and to the institution of monasticism in general. Maybe we consider it unimportant and have never even thought about it? Or is it actually an appropriate object to respect? In the end, even without being a true Jewel of the Sangha, they represent it to us. They symbolize the aspiration to the state of arya, to true cessations and true paths, that is, to the true Jewel of the Sangha.

There are organizations that help monks who work or do anything else in different countries of the world.

There are many programs supporting monasteries for Tibetans in India and Nepal, but there are far fewer for Western monastics, and this is a problem. People tend to be much more sympathetic to ethnic rather than Western monks and nuns, even though they are the ones who need help. But this brings us to the larger topic of how to run a Western monastery.

Now our main goal as lay practitioners is to build good Dharma centers. What can we do to help monks and nuns?

How have they been helped traditionally? They were fed and given a place to live so that they did not need to earn money to pay rent and buy food. Help them with health insurance, for example. The Dharma Center can certainly arrange group health insurance for monks and nuns. This would be very helpful.

, “assembly, multitude”) is the name of the Buddhist community. The term may be used to refer to religious brotherhood in general. In a narrower sense, it is a host of beings who have achieved a certain degree of enlightenment.

In a narrow sense, for example when taking Refuge, it is recommended to understand Sangha as the Liberated Sangha, a community of saints freed from the illusion of “ego” beings.

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 3

Three Jewels - Buddha, Dharma, Sangha

Sangha -Part One (p.2)

Sangha -Part One (p.1)

Subtitles

Monastic tradition

The community of monks and nuns and the Sangha were originally established by Gautama Buddha in the 5th century BC to provide a means for those who wished to practice the Dharma all day long, free from the restrictions and responsibilities of everyday life. The Sangha also has the function of preserving the original teachings of the Buddha and providing spiritual support to Buddhist communities.

The idea that all Buddhists, especially monks and nuns, practice vegetarianism is a Western misconception. Some sutras discourage eating meat, while according to the Pali canon, which scholars believe was compiled more than 300 years after the Buddha's parinirvana, the Buddha unequivocally rejected the proposal to impose vegetarianism on the Sangha. Therefore, the Theravada tradition (

Features of the Buddhist Sangha. Sangha is the concept of sangha in the traditional sense. Monastic Sangha Arrow down Arrow up

Monastic tradition

Links

see also

See what “Sangha” is in other dictionaries:

Books

Who goes there

Why is consolidation needed?

Emergence

Conclusion

Sangha in different Buddhist traditions Arrow down Arrow up

Sangha in Theravada

Sangha in Mahayana

Sangha in the Tibetan tradition

In the tantric tradition, the guru unites the Three Jewels Arrow down Arrow up

Causal and resultant sources of reliable direction Arrow down Arrow up

How are the Three Jewels different from each other? Arrow down Arrow up

Sangha in the Zen tradition Arrow down Arrow up

Monastic sangha Arrow down Arrow up

Encyclopedic YouTube

Subtitles

Monastic tradition