Sangha in the west

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

Hi to all Dharma my friends here. I'm new in the forum! A an inauguration post I'd like to discuss an issue that bothers me for sometime. What are your opinions about how the term and the idea of 'Sangha' changed and was corrupted in the west? How much the idea was changed through former christian/jewish bias that most western converts carry on to buddhism. Assuming the two traditional meanings sangha has in the asian context, the Arya Sangha and Bhikshu Sangha changed to a western view of a lay community, or congregation or even a kind of a parish or church. How much sangha became a kind of 'church' and 'parish' when coming to western cultural context? Do you believe this new conception can 'corrupt' the going for refuge by mistaking the actual sources of refuge?

I say this because what I see from the perspective of asian buddhism, most lay practiciotitioners don't have the idea of the need of being part of a community and having communion with other practitioners. Practice seems to be more of a personal thing, or a direct student to teacher thing. While in the west there is a well stablished notion that in order to be a proper practitioner you must be somewhat affiliated to a physical community, a sangha, that you must attend with regurality. How much was this idea a western innovation influenced by christian views and practices?

As for me, I don't attend any practice group, nor have the intention to. I have some teachers that I have sporadic contact with and received some practices.

[Thomas Amundsen]

I think I do know what you mean. I guess it's a problem, albeit a small one. I think there is a bigger problem with people even understanding and taking refuge in the first place. I would tend to doubt that the people who have this mistaken view of Sangha are actually taking refuge in the "church" or "parish" of un-awakened Buddhist practitioners in a real sense.

Although, I do not think that Buddhism is meant to be done solo or only with your teacher. Here is a nice quote from the Pali Canon (SN 45.2):

Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie."

"Don't say that, Ananda. Don't say that. Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life. When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

[Grigoris]

I say this because what I see from the perspective of asian buddhism, most lay practiciotitioners don't have the idea of the need of being part of a community and having communion with other practitioners.

I have read an account and critique of Buddhist temples catering to western practitioners (by a Tibetan woman) that says the complete opposite. She said that visiting the temple was ALL about the community aspect of it. About getting dressed up and hanging with friends and relatives, while monks did the boring chanting stuff. This is what I saw in Tibet too. The critique I read (I will try to track down the blog again) was that temples catering to western converts lacked the warmth and community vitality that Tibetans needed, or were used to.

I saw the same thing in the temples in Hong Kong too. After burning huge piles of incense it was picnic time in most cases.

It reminded me of going to church with my parents: people dressed in their finest, kids playing in the church/temple courtyard, women gossiping about each others outfits, food being shared, etc...

The "ethnic" Buddhist temples here in Greece are the same. People use it as an excuse to gather together as a community to share company, food and their culture.

I think you are trying to project too much of a stiff-assed Protestant take on church.

PS Upasakka have always been members of the Buddha's Sangha.

[Nicholas Weeks]

One bigger problem is definition; we in the West translated sangha often as 'community', thus the relaxed participation, since lay folk are wrongly thought to be part of the refuge Sangha.

Technically, (no I do not have a reference at hand) Sangha meant just the monastics and Aryas.

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

One bigger problem is definition; we in the West translated sangha often as 'community', thus the relaxed participation, since lay folk are wrongly thought to be part of the refuge Sangha.

Technically, (no I do not have a reference at hand) Sangha meant just the monastics and Aryas.

Yes, Sangha always reffers to the ordained community and to the arya sangha, the only object of refuge is the arya sangha, that is both shravakayana aryas and arya bodhisattvas! Upasakas are part of the Buddha's dispesation or sassana but not sangha jewel! But even if people go together to the temple and being it a community activity, there is no notion of communal worship as it is in a church, or enphasis of being part of a body of followers. I think this is more of a western creation. Again my opinion.

Here a good article by berzin, he justifies some of my opinions. http://studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-st ... -community

[Johnny Dangerous]

Yes, Sangha always reffers to the ordained community and to the arya sangha, the only object of refuge is the arya sangha, that is both shravakayana aryas and arya bodhisattvas! Upasakas are part of the Buddha's dispesation or sassana but not sangha jewel! But even if people go together to the temple and being it a community activity, there is no notion of communal worship as it is in a church, or enphasis of being part of a body of followers. I think this is more of a western creation. Again my opinion.

So you're saying all the Tibetans that show up with their families to places on special days, for blessings etc. and such are just aping Western attitudes? Seems like a pretty questionable claim. It actually seems like the opposite to me, generally Western practitioners (at least that those that are most comfortable with heir own cultural mores) tend to look down on events that are about community, and see Buddhism as mostly just meditation done on an individual basis. You can just look at how many Buddhists view children in Dharma events and centers for evidence of this.

Of course, that does not mean people aren't misunderstanding refuge, I'm sure they are in many cases, just an observation. However, this is also something I've seen teachers go out of their way to correct. Even if refuge *is* properly understood though, many people benefit from a supportive community, especially having lay Dharma brothers and sisters who are serious practitioners.

I think you are trying to project too much of a stiff-assed Protestant take on church.

Yep.

[Grigoris]

But even if people go together to the temple and being it a community activity, there is no notion of communal worship as it is in a church, or enphasis of being part of a body of followers. I think this is more of a western creation. Again my opinion.

1. Your opinion is not really based on exepriences of reality. Again, the blog article I read stated that this idea of "every man for themselves" is a western import to (Tibetan) Buddhism.
2. The word "sangha" just means "assembly". If you are wanting to refer to the Sangha (monastic and Arya Sangha) of the three jewels then it is best to capitalise it. Like dharma can mean "phenomena", "law", "rule", etc... but is capitalised when referring to the Dharma of the Three Jewels.

Of course one could say that the actual Sanskrit/Pali term for the followers of the Buddha is parisa "following" and/or gana (which is a more mundane term) but...

Personally I think that the Pali Canon quote by tomamundsen shows that the Buddha considered the community rather important. I would just wonder if the quote comes from a teaching being given to the monastic sangha, and is strictly in reference to the monastic sangha, or whether it includes the broader Buddhist community?

Truth is that the lay sangha was REALLY important in the Buddhas time, because they were the sole source of alms and material support for the monastic sangha. So without a lay sangha the monastic sangha could not have survived.

[Malcolm]

he justifies some of my opinions.

Isn't it great when our opinions are justified?

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

But even if people go together to the temple and being it a community activity, there is no notion of communal worship as it is in a church, or enphasis of being part of a body of followers. I think this is more of a western creation. Again my opinion.

1. Your opinion is not really based on exepriences of reality. Again, the blog article I read stated that this idea of "every man for themselves" is a western import to (Tibetan) Buddhism.
2. The word "sangha" just means "assembly". If you are wanting to refer to the Sangha (monastic and Arya Sangha) of the three jewels then it is best to capitalise it. Like dharma can mean "phenomena", ", "law", "rule", etc... but is capitalised when referring to the Dharma of the Three Jewels.

Of course one could say that the actual Sanskrit/Pali term for the followers of the Buddha is parisa "following" and/or gana (which is a more mundane term) but...

Personally I think that the Pali Canon quote by tomamundsen shows that the Buddha considered the community rather important. I would just wonder if the quote comes from a teaching being given to the monastic sangha, and is strictly in reference to the monastic sangha, or whether it includes the broader Buddhist community?

Truth is that the lay sangha was REALLY important in the Buddhas time, because they were the sole source of alms and material support for the monastic sangha. So without a lay sangha the monastic sangha could not have survived.

You are in concordance with my view that sangha in reference for upasakas is a western construct. And yes, specially in mahayana tradition some teachers and lay students, specifically in the west ,do confuse the arya sangha with ordinary sangha when it comes to a refuge saurce. The term used for upasaka community would be parisa. A lay devotee is only part of the proper 'sangha' when he achieves the first fruition, of a srotapanna or if he is an arya bodhisattva. In the pali tradition, if he becomes an arahant he must leave home life and be ordained. I had myself engaged in this confusion for years before learning in the theravada tradition, and later in the tibetan tradition the distinciton of proper objects and saurces of refuge. This means that during all that years my going for refuge was somewhat 'wrong'. Also aren't the buddha refering here to kalyana mitra, or spiritual friendship, this also have a different in comparision to be part of a community and is more related to a kind of disciple and teacher relationship. And again, even in tibet, people assemble once a week to worship? They see a need to worship together as being part of a body o followers. Besides some communal pujas and festival, religious practice is much more a personal and individual thing then a communal.

And of course, the laity was and is fundamental to the existence and sustainance of Buddhadharma. But I'm really just interessted in the change of ideas and practices when buddhism came to the west. Such as laity taking meditation practice, once rare in some buddhist communities of asia, becomes the norm in the west. If you identify yourself as a buddhist in the west and says that you don't meditate or don't enjoy this practice, many people would get really surprised.

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

Yes, Sangha always reffers to the ordained community and to the arya sangha, the only object of refuge is the arya sangha, that is both shravakayana aryas and arya bodhisattvas! Upasakas are part of the Buddha's dispesation or sassana but not sangha jewel! But even if people go together to the temple and being it a community activity, there is no notion of communal worship as it is in a church, or enphasis of being part of a body of followers. I think this is more of a western creation. Again my opinion.

So you're saying all the Tibetans that show up with their families to places on special days, for blessings etc. and such are just aping Western attitudes? Seems like a pretty questionable claim. It actually seems like the opposite to me, generally Western practitioners (at least that those that are most comfortable with heir own cultural mores) tend to look down on events that are about community, and see Buddhism as mostly just meditation done on an individual basis. You can just look at how many Buddhists view children in Dharma events and centers for evidence of this.

Of course, that does not mean people aren't misunderstanding refuge, I'm sure they are in many cases, just an observation. However, this is also something I've seen teachers go out of their way to correct. Even if refuge *is* properly understood though, many people benefit from a supportive community, especially having lay Dharma brothers and sisters who are serious practitioners.

I think you are trying to project too much of a stiff-assed Protestant take on church.

Yep.

Again, I think i'm not making myself really understood here. I'm not saying that buddhism lacks communal oriented practices, I'm just saying that it is not the 'center' or main religious activity undertaken by followers in general. Like going to church on sundays, synagogue on shabat or mosque on friday is the main religious activity of most abrahamic religions. Communal religious practices do exist and are important in the asian context, but not so central as in abrahamical religion. Maybe also because some people here don't understand the meaning of 'church' in the christian tradition, where it means a body, a body of followers that forms the actual body of christ. Being part of a congregation and be part of a church is pivotal for salvation in some traditional views (like for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox).

Besides festivals and public empowerments. Do people in tibet have the need to go once a week to the temple to pray together and make pujas with a community? See this as their main religious activity and pivotal to their liberation? Are instructed to see the lay community as an actual 'refuge'? I'm insisting on this because I see western practitioners insisting on this in a positive sense, making me recall many christian ideas and bias.

What I know from the vajrayana tradition, is that in India (correct me if I'm wrong), empowerments were a very personal and direct thing, a transmission between student and a guru. You still see this in Hindu culture, were you don't find public iniations. You see public discourses and rituals, but initiations are for an individual.

[Malcolm]

What are your opinions about how the term and the idea of 'Sangha' changed and was corrupted in the west?

It has not changed, nor has it been corrupted.

[Grigoris]

You are in concordance with my view that sangha in reference for upasakas is a western construct.

Whatever gets you hot and creamy between the thighs. Looks to me that you are not looking to learn anything, you are just looking for validation.

And yes, specially in mahayana tradition some teachers and lay students, specifically in the west ,do confuse the arya sangha with ordinary sangha when it comes to a refuge saurce.

Not my experience, but like I said before...

A lay devotee is only part of the proper 'sangha' when he achieves the first fruition, of a srotapanna or if he is an arya bodhisattva.

Ever heard of the ngakpa/ngakma traditions? Obviously not!

Also aren't the buddha refering here to kalyana mitra, or spiritual friendship, this also have a different in comparision to be part of a community and is more related to a kind of disciple and teacher relationship.

How did you reach this conclusion?

And again, even in tibet, people assemble once a week to worship? They see a need to worship together as being part of a body o followers. Besides some communal pujas and festival, religious practice is much more a personal and individual thing then a communal.

Your evidence of this being time spent in Tibet observing practice, right?

And of course, the laity was and is fundamental to the existence and sustainance of Buddhadharma. But I'm really just interessted in the change of ideas and practices when buddhism came to the west.

Now you have changed the subject. Now the subject is about practice and not what constitutes Sangha?

Such as laity taking meditation practice, once rare in some buddhist communities of asia, becomes the norm in the west. If you identify yourself as a buddhist in the west and says that you don't meditate or don't enjoy this practice, many people would get really surprised.

So now you are saying that the Sangha has to do with practice and thus western lay practitioners ARE members of the Sangha???

[Grigoris]

PS Even in retreat there are group practices and individual practices, so...

[Johnny Dangerous]

Again, I think i'm not making myself really understood here. I'm not saying that buddhism lacks communal oriented practices, I'm just saying that it is not the 'center' or main religious activity undertaken by followers in general. Like going to church on sundays, synagogue on shabat or mosque on friday is the main religious activity of most abrahamic religions. Communal religious practices do exist and are important in the asian context, but not so central as in abrahamical religion. Maybe also because some people here don't understand the meaning of 'church' in the christian tradition, where it means a body, a body of followers that forms the actual body of christ. Being part of a congregation and be part of a church is pivotal for salvation in some traditional views (like for Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox).

I don't know many Western Buddhists personally who view community as central to their practice, or very few at least. Like I said, in my experience the idea that it is a mostly meditation-centered "personal" thing is much more common. If anything Westerners IME tend towards a kind of "dumb individualism" regarding practice, where they think they need no one's help or advice.

I'm also from a family of lapsed Catrholics, so I know what you are talking about, it just doesn't match my experience.

Besides festivals and public empowerments. Do people in tibet have the need to go once a week to the temple to pray together and make pujas with a community? See this as their main religious activity and pivotal to their liberation? Are instructed to see the lay community as an actual 'refuge'? I'm insisting on this because I see western practitioners insisting on this in a positive sense, making me recall many christian ideas and bias.

No, but again I don't know any people who view going to a Dharma center weekly as pivotal to their enlightenment either, I have never met anyone who held an idea like that.

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

A lay devotee is only part of the proper 'sangha' when he achieves the first fruition, of a srotapanna or if he is an arya bodhisattva.

Ever heard of the ngakpa/ngakma traditions? Obviously not!

I know what nagppas are, we have one discussing here(Malcom). I know about lay practitioners in general mahayana like Nan huai chin. Where did you miss the words 'in GENERAL'?

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

What are your opinions about how the term and the idea of 'Sangha' changed and was corrupted in the west?

It has not changed, nor has it been corrupted.

Please, explain why not Namdrol la!

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

No, but again I don't know any people who view going to a Dharma center weekly as pivotal to their enlightenment either, I have never met anyone who held an idea like that.

It's just and exemple I gave. I'm reffering to the view that being part formally of a buddhist physical community, a "sangha", is pivotal to practice and liberation. Many westerners i've come in contact hold the view that this is a pre-requisite of a proper dharma practice being part of a formal practice community and dharma center. Again this is a personal experience.

Whatever gets you hot and creamy between the thighs. Looks to me that you are not looking to learn anything, you are just looking for validation.

I respect all of your opinions, and it is this I want from you, your personal VIEWS. I want to hear from you!

So now you are saying that the Sangha has to do with practice and thus western lay practitioners ARE members of the Sangha???

My intention is that, I understand some people view the term sangha as to refer to the buddhist community as a whole, and confuse this with the sangha jewel. And as an object of refuge.

Now you have changed the subject. Now the subject is about practice and not what constitutes Sangha?

I'm trying to make a distinction between the traditional understandings of sangha, both in a canonical sense, and also a traditional sense, as it happens in asian cultures. And how this whole thing changed when in western countries and cultures. And how possibly our bias from christianity led to a change on this view. How people here changed the traditional of view of sangha of being the twofold assemblies, of monks and aryas, and changed it to a broader sense of a general community of practitioners. Whether lay or monastic, ordinary or enlightened. And also if this view might affect our understanding and actual attitudes of refuge practice.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/sangha.html

[Malcolm]

What are your opinions about how the term and the idea of 'Sangha' changed and was corrupted in the west?

It has not changed, nor has it been corrupted.

Please, explain why not Namdrol la!

One, the Sangha is all people who have taken refuge, not just "ordained" people. This is made extremely clear by Gorampa Sonam Senge, among others.

The refuge of the Sangha has two aspects: the Aryā Sangha, the actual Sangha of refuge, and then there are our teachers and companions on the path. And for Mahāyanists, the Ārya Sangha of Refuge is only bodhisattvas, not even arhats and so on.

In Tibet, monasteries are the source of community life. People go to them for education, medical care, advice, rituals, help with mundane matters as well as spiritual.

[Nyedrag Yeshe]

It has not changed, nor has it been corrupted.

Please, explain why not Namdrol la!

One, the Sangha is all people who have taken refuge, not just "ordained" people. This is made extremely clear by Gorampa Sonam Senge, among others.

The refuge of the Sangha has two aspects: the Aryā Sangha, the actual Sangha of refuge, and then there are our teachers and companions on the path. And for Mahāyanists, the Ārya Sangha of Refuge is only bodhisattvas, not even arhats and so on.

In Tibet, monasteries are the source of community life. People go to them for education, medical care, advice, rituals, help with mundane matters as well as spiritual.

Thanks Namdrol la! It is this kind o clarification I was looking for! My understanding was mainly shaped by a Theravada view. Nice to see different definitions of the whole specrtum of the sangha!

[AlexMcLeod]

A lay devotee is only part of the proper 'sangha' when he achieves the first fruition, of a srotapanna or if he is an arya bodhisattva.

Ever heard of the ngakpa/ngakma traditions? Obviously not!

I feel I should point out that the ngakpa tradition is a form of ordination, and hardly counts as a lay person. Just as I wouldn't consider a Zen priest a lay person, someone who has gone through that training is not the same as an Upasaka.

I feel that unless you have access to an Arya, you should consider your teacher and fellow practitioners to be part of the community you can lean on for support. Eventually, an Arya will come your way to help you finish the Task.