Talk:Refuge in Buddhism/Archive 1

"Wikipedia is not a How-To resource"

It seems to me that this is an inappropriate criticism. Is the Wikipedia article on the Ten Commandments criticised because it teaches the reader "how to" be a good Jew?

I was reading an essay on demographic stats of South Korea, which said that the demarcation of "taking refuge" could no longer distinguish Buddhists from non-Buddhists. In this article, it wasn't until the "how to" section that I had any idea what this meant. 71.101.164.169 (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Buddhist do not have to take refuge?

I'm not sure about the openning statement of the article. Is it not ture that all living things are considered buddhist, which means that animals who can not take refuge are also buddhists? For example, I have never taken refuge and still consider myself a buddhist. What do people think about changing it to something like 'Refuge is taken by a majority of Buddhist who wish to affirm their belief in buddhist values', or something similar. What do people think? The Halo

No, see e.g. [1] where it says The first two steps in the process of becoming a lay disciple of the Buddha are the going for refuge and the undertaking of the five precepts. You can, of course, follow the precepts and aspire to the same goals throught the same means as Buddhists, but if you'd like to make a public commitment (i.e. to say "I am a Buddhist"), then going for refuge is important, see e.g. [2] where it says If one does not understand the reasons for going for refuge, the meaning of taking refuge, or the qualities of the refuge-objects, this lack of understanding is a form of ignorance which corrupts the going for refuge. Andkaha^(talk) 15:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i agree, if one wants to make a public commitment to Buddhism then the refuge would be the way to go, but the article makes it sound like to be a Buddhist one HAS to take refuge. It does not make the difference between being a Buddhist and not being a Buddhist. How about if we put the fact that one does not have to take refuge somewhere in the article? The Halo 20:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I have yet to see a text on Buddhism that says a Buddhist doesn't really need to go for refuge. If you see yourself as a Buddhist, what is it with going for refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha that you see as being troublesome? Andkaha^(talk) 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as troublesome. I see it as not always needed. Buddhism is about working out one's own salvation, however one wants to go about that. I feel that this is quite close to the subject of vegetarianism. Some Buddhists are, some aren't. It's personal choice and interpretation of the first precept. More to the point I have yet to read a Buddhist text that says one must take refuge or one can not call ones self a Buddhist, which is what the article says, and it is misleading. I also find the idea that one has to pleadge ones self to certain teachings to be a Buddhist off putting. One of the great strenghths of Buddhism is that you reach enlightenment your own way. That is why there is not set path. What is the matter of putting something in the article that says it is not a prerequisite to being a Buddhist? I does no harm and offers an alternative view on the subject. The Halo

Until I see or read about a respectable Buddhist teacher says that the going for refuge is not one of the central acts in ones practice of Buddhism, I will not agree on changing the article in the way that you propose. Furthermore, if you're a Buddhist, then you follow the path that the Buddha quite clearly pointed out, and you do this with faith in the Buddha (symbolising the goal of the practice, the teacher, and the seeds of enlightenment within yourself), in the Dhamma (symbolising the path towards the goal and the practices and ideas that makes up the path (e.g. the four noble truths, the eightfold path, the principle of conditioned co-production, etc.)), and in the Sangha (symbolising the spiritual community, which is the mundane community around you with its teachers and friends, but also the Sangha of enlightened beings, past teachers and every other Buddhist that ever were). I think we need others to comment on this discussion as well... Andkaha^(talk) 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that we should wait for others to comment on it and see if anyone else has any ideas. How about we wait until Monday and then see how the discussion goes? I guess we should also remember that when it comes down to it we are both on the same path, even if we are travelling in different ways. The Halo

This issue was settled in dialogue at User Talk:Andkaha#Refuge and User Talk:The Halo#Regarding refuge. Andkaha^(talk) 13:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

--- June 2006 ---

Dear Sir,

__ I can see how one could be mislead; "Taking refuge" makes the difference between Buddhists and non-Buddhists. It is not even necessary to take refuge in a formal session with a teacher, but it may help to clarify your choice and to remember your commitment. [buddhism.kalachakranet.org/refuge.html] [www.berzinarchives.com/vows/action_train_taking_refuge.html]

__ Let us look closer, and you will see the person has a problem with English and translation of the words he would like to use. First, these references are mainly Tibetan, and thus talking about the six steps in taking refuge which is the why behind his wording of with a teacher.

__ Second, If you would look at: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Points_Unifying_the_Theravada_and_the_Mahayana] You will see point two under the Text of the Original Document states:

• We take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha (the Three Jewels).

This follows the original PALI reference of: [www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/wheel282.html]

• The first two steps in the process of becoming a lay disciple of the Buddha are the going for refuge (sarana gamana) and the undertaking of the five precepts (pañca-sila samadana). By the former step a person makes the commitment to accept the Triple Gem — the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha — as the guiding ideals of his life, by the latter he expresses his determination to bring his actions into harmony with these ideals through right conduct.

__ The question comes from the informal concept of; How can one take refuge informally? Of the Buddha and Dharma, we can understand for the are the Founder and the LAW; these one can honor and acknowledge. These one can learn about from books and so forth. It is this third member of the Triple Gems, the Sangha, which we say can not done informally. In your reference: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangha] Sangha is a group of formal monks or nuns. This would have to take place where they stay, in a temple or in a monastery. A Sangha is a specific school with sincere practices and particular rituals. One may that refuge in the Triple Gem to become a Buddhist and be in supporting a Sangha, but one can still be looking for the exact school that fits them. This is basically what the Tibetan was trying to say for in the version of the refuge there are six steps of which the first three are the Triple Gem.

__ The Refuge is still a formal taking or ritual done within a Sangha setting.

__ I hope this helps.

Sincerely - DeWayne LaFrain

This whole discussion seems to me misguided. There is no "central authority" in Buddhism which defines what a Buddhist is, or believes. There is also no central authority in Buddhism which rules on the interpretation of scriptures, or on which scriptures are canonical. The ordinary meaning of the word "Buddhist" is someone who classifies him/herself as a Buddhist. So of course it is not true that someone who does not take refuge (in the sense expounded in the article) cannot be a Buddhist. Some statement to the effect that it is an important part of Buddhism, or that many Buddhists regard it as a defining characteristic of a Buddhist, would be more appropriate. Barbacana (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge this with Three Jewels

The introductory paragraph of this article begins by restating material covered in Three Jewels. They should merge to reduce ambiguity in restatements. - Rgrant 22:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the motion, the refuge/triple gem articles ought to be put together. This is confusing.

Also, I would like to agree -- the REFUGE IS WHAT MAKES A BUDDHIST. Non-Refuge means you are not a Buddhist. Buddhism is the Triple Gem + 4 Noble Truths. Sangha July 15,2006

Hey there- I'd like to respectfully disagree. The reason is that Taking Refuge, while directly related to the Three Jewels / Three Treasures, is actually a distinct entity. Someone (a non-Buddhist) attempting to learn about what the Three Jewels are will have a difficult time if they have to wade through the huge amount of material on the different vows for Taking Refuge. So, in keeping with this paradigm, I'm moving all the content specifically related to forms of Taking Refuge (including vows, chants, histories, different traditions amongst branches of Buddhism) into this page, and moving all content related to the three concepts (Buddha/Dharma/Sangha) into Three Jewels. I hope this helps. Again, my aim is to make a clearer article that is useful to practitioners as well as non-Buddhists. brain 20:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Your change seems to have been reverted. Most of the contents of the articles currently seem to be identical. Peter jackson (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Self refuge

I'm removing the "self refuge" that Sangha added with references to two passages to the Dhammapada. The reason for this is that I do not think that the self qualifies as a true refuge, as there is no unchanging self to take refuge in. The two passages from the Dhammapada are taken from a section ment to tell the practicioner to live according to the ethical precepts (and they are verses 160 and 165, not 158 and 163) unless he wants to cause pain for himself. See Dhp XII: Attavagga (The Self). --Andkaha^(talk) 23:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So instead you become a "slave to a "powerful person"? So are you saying the Dhammapada is wrong and YOU are right? The Dhammapada passage clearly indicates that when we take refuge in the Buddha, we are not taking refuge in anyone OUTSIDE ourselves, we are taking refuge in our Buddha nature. It also teaches to take responsibility for your actions.

Hold on there, I'm not saying that Dhp is wrong about anything. I just think you're reading the refuge into the verses when they are in fact talking about responsibility and ethical behaviour. I can't see the clear indication that you can see. When it comes to going for refuge to the Buddha nature when referring to the Buddha refuge, I agree with you. I'm just not sure is the reference you gave was one that clearly pointed this out (and you never mentioned Buddha nature in you text, and the Dhp didn't mention it either, nor any refuge). --Andkaha^(talk) 23:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry there, yes, I put the "Buddha nature" reference in now. When I read the article, it seemed like we were some sort of mindless slaves taking refuge in "powerful people", when the spirit of Buddhism is freedom through "self" control.

But this article is messy, someone should put the refuge and triple gem article together in a neat way. There shouldn't be two articles for this. Again, I apologize if I said anything offensive.Sangha

No worries, but I'm not happy with that section as it is now with a slightly un-called for quote from Dhp. Explain it for me, please. Why don't you just say that Mahayanists go for refuge to the Buddha potential (Buddha nature) within themselves? What is the point of the Mahaparinibbana sutta quote (and why the "clearly states"?). That the Dhamma refuge is the Dhamma refuge even after the Paranirvana of the Buddha, or that it takes the place of the Buddha refuge? Or does it also just talk about responsibility and behaviour? I'm just curious. I don't want to pick a fight. I want a good article.

Don't forget that there are quite a few Buddhists who are going for refuge to the (external) historical Buddha and to the (external/internal) archetypal Buddhas. The article should ideally not be one-sided Mahayana but should reflect an as wide spectrum of refuge practices as possible. And I'm, too, sorry if I'm saying slightly offensive things here (I'm not meaning to). --Andkaha^(talk) 00:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not a Mahayana concept -- this division in terms of interpretation are not there, there is only scriptural differences. The Aghama Suttas (Tipitika Pali suttas) are the base for most Buddhist traditions.

1)I have to defend my article according to scripture, the scripture clearly states IN THERAVADA tradition that the "dhamma and Vinaya" will be your guide when I am gone in the Mahaparinibbana sutta. This is often interpreted to mean that the Dhamma is the same as Sakyamuni Buddha.

In other words, although it is called the Triple Gem, the Buddha and Dharma are names for the same thing.

---

We read in the Kindred Sayings (III, Khandhaa-vagga, Middle Fifty, Ch 4, 87, Vakkali) that the Buddha said to Vakkali:

Hush, Vakkali! What is there in seeing this vile body of mine? He who sees the Dhamma, Vakkali, he sees me; he who sees me, Vakkali, sees the Dhamma. Verily, seeing the Dhamma, Vakkali, one sees me; seeing me, one sees the Dhamma.

The Buddha taught a great deal in this repect. We read in the Gradual Sayings (III, Book of the Fives, Ch XXI, 1, Kimbila) :

Once, when the Exalted One was dwelling near Kimbilaa in the Bamboo Grove, the venerable Kimbila visited him and, after saluting, sat down at one side. So seated, he spoke thus to the Exalted One:

Lord, what is the cause, what is the reason, whereby, when the Exalted One has passed away completely, Saddhamma does not become long-lasting?

Suppose, Kimbila, after the Tathaagata has passed away completely, the monks and the nuns, the lay-disciples, both men and women, live without reverence, without heed for the Teacher; without reverence, without heed for Dhamma... for the Order... for the training; without reverence, without heed for one another-- this is the cause, this is the reason, whereby, when the Tathaagata has passed away completely, Saddhamma does not become long-lasting.

And what, lord, is the cause, the reason, whereby, after the Tathaagata has passed away, Saddhamma becomes long-lasting?

Suppose, Kimbila, monks, nuns and lay-disciples revere and give heed to the Teacher, Dhamma, the Order, the training; revere and give heed to one another- this is the cause, the reason, whereby, when the Tathaagata has passed away, Saddhamma becomes long-lasting.

---

You can add the different interpretations of the triple refuge, as long as this interpretation too is included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.254.121.169 (talk • contribs) .

Hi whoever wrote that (please format and sign your comments appropriately). I mentioned Mahayana because of what the Buddha nature article says. Even though the Mahayana and other schools have the same base in the scriptures, the interpretation differs (obviously). Also, I think it is unhelpful to dump a lot quotes from canonical scriptures at the readers of this encyclopedia. It would be more helpful to give the interpretation, conclusion, your own words. --Andkaha^(talk) 08:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

my primary concern is that :

1)the varied interpretations on the Triple Gem by the different schools be put forth. 2)the 2 pages (Triple Gem and Refuge) pages be merged into one. There is too much confusion here. Sangha, July 15, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sangha (talk • contribs) .

Agreed on both points. (Please, sign you comments properly using four tildes). --Andkaha^(talk) 14:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Syn tag

The self refuge in the History section requires a secondary source. The indicate primary source may be subject to original research synthesis and could be removed. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

bhikkhu-sangha or savaka-sangho?

In this article's current first sentence, it includes the phrase: "the Sangha, the community of monks and nuns (Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis)." I think this might be wrong.

In Theravada Buddhism at least "sangha" denotes two different communities:

• bhikkhu-sangha - the monastic community
• savaka-sangha - the disciple community

The latter community has multiple connotations including:

• the community of the four assemblies (monk, nuns, laymen, laywomen),
• the "four pairs and eight types" (cattāri purisayugāni attha purisapuggalā), that is, a disciple who has attained one of the four stages of enlightenment.

Frankly, I used to think that the Triple Gem necessarily referred to the bhikkhu-sangha. But then I started chanting the Theravada "Sangha Vandanā" (see, for example, "Vandanā: The Album of Pāli Devotional Chanting & Hymns," Indaratana, 2002, pp. 7-8), which includes the following (in English and Pali):

The Sangha of the Blessed One’s disciples has entered on the good way; The Sangha of the Blessed One’s disciples has entered on the straight way; The Sangha of the Blessed Ones disciples has entered on the right path; The Sangha of the Blessed One’s disciples has entered on the proper way; That is to say, the Four Pairs of Men, the Eight Types of Persons....

Supatipanno Bhagavato sāvaka-sangho Ujupatipanno Bhagavato sāvaka-sangho Ñāyapatipanno Bhagavato sāvaka-sangho Sāmīcipatipanno Bhagavato sāvaka-sangho Yadidam cattāri purisayugāni attha purisa-puggalā....

At least in this context, the Triple Gem's "sangha" refers to the community of disciples (sāvaka-sangho) who have attained the one of the four stages of enlightment (cattāri purisayugāni), either as a path traveler (maggattha) or fruit obtainer (phalattha) (that is, attha purisa-puggalā). So, pertaining to this article's first sentence, my questions are:

1. What evidence is there that the Triple Gem refers to the bhikkhu sangha?
2. If none, should this article therefore change the opening statement to indicate the savaka sangha or, perhaps, the 4 pairs/8 types of people?
3. If some evidence, then should the opening sentence somehow reflect (for instance, using an end note) the possibility that "sangha" has been traditionally interpreted as either the bhikkhu and/or savaka sanghas?

Thanks for any feedback, LarryR 12:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In the Pali suttas, lay people always take refuge in the Buddha, dhamma & bhikkhusangha. I'd have to check the wording in the Vimanavatthu & Apadana, but in any case the practice of lay people's using the same formula as monks is not original. Peter jackson (talk) 11:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed section

I removed the following, as I felt it was poorly written and detracted from the rest of the article. Anyone want to write a better summary?

Losing the Refuge & Blessings

In Sinhala The word refuge (Sarana) also means the "Blessings". Taking refuge is the process of becoming a Buddhist. But very few know that there are some conditions of losing the Sarana.

• Consideration on any other human, god or a deity as as having the ability to lead oneself to enlightenment.

As I am a Buddhist because of my parents I do not feel this as a big deal of going refuge every time we worship, even before I understood the real meaning of Refuge. But the moment when one goes refuge on good understanding is said as one of the most important events of their life.

vishva8kumara@gmail.com

Airosche 05:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

POV

Pretty clear the article was written by Buddhists (the word "duh" comes to mind), but I think there are POV issues. I already rewrote these two rather ridiculous phrases:

In Buddhism, instead of looking for any external refuge, we become our own refuge in our Buddha nature

It is not proper to use a subject pronoun that could be seen as including the reader. But far, far worse was:

Sraddha is a beautiful Sanskrit word that is imperfectly mapped to Faith.

I'm sure whoever wrote that sincerely believes it, but it is not NPOV.

I'm not entirely sure that the whole "Refuge advice" section conforms with NPOV either, but I did not take it out seeing as it is a large section, and the article gets occasional edits. If anyone sees this message before I come back to take a more in-depth look at the article, please bear these concerns in mind. Nosleep1234 12:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Refuge prayers

Why are they repeated twice? I don't have time to edit them yet, but is it also possible to add the refuge prayer "Namo Gurubyah, Namo Buddhaya..." commonly found in Vajrayana? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlee369 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article has some serious issues. Most importantly, it doesn't even tell me what Refuge is or what it means. I'm a smart person, but I can't understand a word of this article, and after reading it I don't know any more than I did when I started. Right now it looks like it's written by experts and for experts; it needs to explain the basic concepts for a reader who has no background.

On a somewhat less urgent note, there is a large section that is nothing but how-to advice. I thought about BOLDly removing it, but figured I should give you a heads-up here first so that you might have a chance to clean it up. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the heading of the Advice for Refuge to "What taking Refuge means". Actually this capter does not describe how to take refuge, but what it actually means for a person who takes Refuge, besides the formal taking of vows. Taking refuge is an activity, and I suppose that describing the implications of an activity is not quite 'how-to' advice? For example, the baptism article contains a chapter "Meaning and effects of baptism". If you look at the first line of your above comment, that asks for an explanation of what it means; well, this chapter explains exactly what it means; a change in attitude of the 'refugee', and you want to remove it??? rudy (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, this article is really problematic. i am considering taking refuge vows and was going to send my family here to learn what that means, but as Politizer notes, it is incomprehensible. not only that, but it is a jumble of different traditions. there is a lot here that is nothing like what i was taught in Shambhala/Tibetan Buddhism - nobody says you have to take the Buddha as your only teacher or eschew human teachers, for example.

someone with enough knowledge needs to rewrite it. it needs to be divided into sections based on schools of thought, explaining thoroughly in easy-to-understand terms how each different teaching/practice conceptualizes and teaches refuge and refuge vows.

Vcrs (talk) 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Srog gtad

What is the difference between srog gtad and talking refuge?

• http://www.nitartha.org/cgi-bin/find

Austerlitz -- 88.75.209.44 (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Finding:

srog gtad

life-[force] entrustment [of] [IW]

srog gtad - assigning of the life force (kind of transmission usually associated with wrathful protector deities) [JV]

srog gtad - life-entrustment, entrustment of the life-force [of.] [ry]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.202.224 (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I came here looking for an exact definition of "refuge"

.. in this context and didn't find it. Where is the original word and it's etymology and possible English translations? Steve M Kane (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Chinese characters for Mahayana version

I believe the wrong characters have been used for the Chinese Mahayana version. The character 帰 is a Japanese Kanji derived from Chinese. The Chinese don't use 帰. I believe instead the character is 皈.--107.15.37.241 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This article does not explain "taking refuge" means

This exact criticism was brought forth nearly ten years ago. The article tells nothing to a person without background about what taking refuge means. This needs to be fixed urgently. Korn (talk) 22:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

There may be some useful content and sources about this topic in the article Faith in Buddhism, which is a good article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)