Thoughts On "going To Refuge"

[RedQualia]

Disclaimer: Although I've read quite a bit of material relating to Buddhism, I would not pretend to be an expert in the matter. My background is philosophy, first and foremost (OK, and computer science). As such, I can get somewhat hung up on the meanings of words.

Thaivisa User Camerata seems fond of directing others to Ajahn Jagaro's essay, "Am I a Buddhist?" I've read that a few times now, and have had trouble with some of the words used there. Specifically, on initial reading, I had trouble with Jagaro's statements,

"Here the Buddha clearly states that by taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha one becomes a disciple or, in modern terminology, a Buddhist. The classical formula of going for refuge which has been passed down from the time of the Buddha is as follows;

"Buddham Saranam Gacchami (I go for refuge to the Buddha)

"Dhammam Saranam Gacchami (I go for refuge to the Dhamma)

"Sangham Saranam Gacchami (I go for refuge to the Sangha)"

The first problem I have centers on the words, "I go for refuge."

Setting aside Buddhism proper for the moment, the word "refuge" has a long history, and is a bit interesting. As a westerner, I read it as suggesting something of "a solution for an individual in a precarious position." It suggests, that is, a danger from which one needs shelter. The KJV dictionary offers the following definitions for refuge:

1. Shelter or protection from danger or distress.

2. That which shelters or protects from danger, distress or calamity; a strong hold which protects by its strength, or a sanctuary which secures safety by its sacredness; any place inaccessible to an enemy.

3. An expedient to secure protection or defense.

4. Expedient, in general.

There is another widely used but related word, that being "refugee." I won't offer a dictionary definition for this here, since the meaning seems fairly straightforward. A refugee must be one who seeks or obtains refuge (from some threat or nemisis). The existence of the concept of "refugee," in turn, helps to define the word "refuge" in a certain way.

The word "refuge" is also somehow laced with religious connotations, and not just Buddhist. Perhaps this is because it is an "old word," derived from Latin. The "KJV Dictionary" previously cited is, after all, a dictionary devoted to interpretation of the King James Version of the Christian Bible. Virtually all definitions of "refuge" assume a threat, imply an external solution, and hint strongly of religious overtones. (I wonder now, at the degree to which "refuge" may be one of those words mapped imperfectly to the Pali...)

Now, all of this may not look like so much trouble to most of you. You're all comfortable in your Buddhism, surely. It's just me that's weird, no doubt. Always is.

Be that as it may, when I think of one who seeks religious refuge here in the US of A, a visual of a hard working man or woman from say, Texas, or Tennessee comes to mind, who one day wanders out of the corn field and into the revival tent erected near the local Wal-mart, listens to an Elmer Gantry, and suddenly says "YES! SAVE ME JESUS!!!" (familiarity with Elmer Gantry is presupposed; his character is that of a huckster, invented by Sinclair Lewis, and well known through a movie entitled "Elmer Gantry." See http://litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=5407 if you want). This visual, because I know these people. There are many Elmer Gantrys in the US, along with many who wander in from the corn fields. I have always sought to "think for myself," and so I've guarded against the Elmer Gantrys almost all my life.

For me, then, the idea of "going to refuge" has some serious negative connotations. It implies "not thinking for oneself."

That said, "insert segue here" (the subject shifts slightly at this point).

Leave it to Buddhism to again "think different." Kinda. I'm lazy, so tend to google for things first. This led me to the wikipedia page on "Buddhist refuge" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuge_%28Buddhism%29). First, there is this:

----------------------------

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

160. One truly is the protector of oneself, who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled one gains a mastery which is hard to gain.

165. By oneself is evil done, by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone, by oneself is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself--no one can purify another.

Mahaparinibbana sutta clearly states:

For that which I have proclaimed and made known as the Dhamma and the Discipline, that shall be your Master when I am gone.

----------------------------

By my reading, this implies recognition of a bit more independence in thought and action than "refuge" usually suggests to me ("refuge" almost implies total dependence, as I read it). I dunno what I wish to make of this just yet. I'm still grinding on it. But this doesn't seem to correspond to my previous thoughts on refuge in an exact way.

But secondly, there were these words:

----------------------------

To actualise refuge in:

- Buddha: commit yourself to one teacher, the Buddha

- Dharma: listen, study and practice Dharma to overcome your own delusions

- Sangha: respect Sangha and train in accordance with their example

----------------------------

These ideas correspond to the statements of Ajahn Jagaro, and I find that I have difficulty with this advice...

First, I'm already committed to one teacher: me. The world is a bit more complex now than it was 2,500 years ago, and so the idea of committing to "one teacher" (it implies "only one") appears a bit unwise, unless one wishes to shut out much of the world.

I also have difficulty with the last one. Broadly speaking, "respect for the Sangha and training in accordance with..." isn't bad advice. And yet the Sangha is a political organization, and members thereof often seem to have their own axe(s) to grind. They can also serve as natural censors, and have been known to expel those who do not think in "the right way." Politics.

Functionally, they can also be "the blinders" of their "followers" (for lack of a better word). The equivalent of the Sangha in the Catholic church also heavily influenced the writings of Aquinas. His philosophy presupposes a great deal in medieval terms (a neo-Platonist dualism, primarily), along with lots of other fundamental limitations that together, greatly restricted his ability to think (he simply could not say certain things, so "bent" his philosophy to work around it all; lots of contortions here and there).

So while "respect the Sangha" may be somewhat good advice, "beware the Sangha" could be equally good. This latter thought is what turned me away from any idea of orange robes, in fact (whether or not I was really serious about such in the first place). It was the consideration of potential "pressures to conform" coming from either the Sangha or an abbott that convinced me I did not require such a robe in order to further explore Buddhism. (That is, I began to see a real "Medieval potential" in the temples of Thailand, and began to suspect an outcome not unlike that of Aquinas. I therefore "sought refuge" from the Sangha).

Such are my thoughts here this morning, far, far away from Muang Tai.

I'm an expert at nothing, and increasingly so. Certainly not an expert in Buddhism. Your thoughts are therefore most welcome. Feel free to throw rocks at anything I've said here. I don't think I've said anything worthy of censorship, but hey, one never knows what others may want to be thought, and not thought.

Edited June 26, 2007 by RedQualia

[jumnien]

Thanks for writing. The first thought that comes to mind is that many westerners, especially fundamentalist Christians, try to delineate the big differences between Buddhism and Christianity. Some anti-Christianers seem to fall into that trap as well. There are many good sources of interfaith dialogue where the fundamental similarities of many spiritual paths are explored. Fascinating stuff; better to look for the similarities than look for the differences. Most of these spiritual paths point toward being nice, kind and gentle toward others and maintain a vigilance over your inner lower power and places. Most paths agree that its an inside job and Buddhism is certainly no exception.

My superficial thoughts on the refuge business is this. Historically, I take refuge (or seek escape) in many things that aren't necessarily in my own long-term best interests. Donuts, cigarettes, heroin, tall strange women, oreos, fast cars, crack cocaine, short strange women, pastries, pornography, beer, valium, material possessions, medium height strange women, Mexican food, etc. This "buddha business" just points me to a grand experiment. What if I sought refuge in a higher power or a higher place within my consciousness that might serve my long-term interests better. Better in the sense of happier.

Another thought comes to mind. There are many who, like you, are anti-Christianity, or a bit negative anyway, because they want to maintain some sort of intellectual independence. They don't like the logic of Christianity. Most of them were educated in countries with a predominant Christian population and indeed many in Christian schools. Many of them complain that the education system in Buddhist Thailand doesn't encourage the kind of intellectually independent thinking or "thinking for one's self" that schools in the Christian West do. It's all a little confusing....

I think of a refuge as a safe harbor. Sure, you say, just find a safe harbor and anchor there. Easier said than done in my experience. Easier to ask others with more experience where the safe harbors are. Some harbors look safe but have hidden reefs and other dangers. A bit of dharma study, a bit of a relationship with a teacher or mentor, a bit of following direction, a bit of discipline, a bit of fellowship and more has served me very well. Buddha, Dharma, Sangha. Going it alone in spiritual matters can be quite dangerous. We are beings designed for self-deception and denial.

This response certainly doesn't do your well-written OP justice. But I wanted to keep it in circulation as it's good food for thought.

[RedQualia]

My superficial thoughts on the refuge business is this. Historically, I take refuge (or seek escape) in many things that aren't necessarily in my own long-term best interests. Donuts, cigarettes, heroin, tall strange women, oreos, fast cars, crack cocaine, short strange women, pastries, pornography, beer, valium, material possessions, medium height strange women, Mexican food, etc. This "buddha business" just points me to a grand experiment. What if I sought refuge in a higher power or a higher place within my consciousness that might serve my long-term interests better. Better in the sense of happier.

I think of a refuge as a safe harbor. Sure, you say, just find a safe harbor and anchor there.

An excellent reply, and I thank you for it. I'm with you on the tall strange women, the short strange women, and the medium height strange women. But I would substitute anything with Thai chilis (pet, pet, pet!) for the Mexican food, however. As for the other things on your list, I've pretty much learned to do without them. Well, as best I can.

Otherwise, it will take a bit of time for me to think through your response. What really caught my attention were the two, possibly related definitions you offer for "refuge." In the one case, left in above, you describe refuge as "safe harbor." In the other case, you refer to it as "escape."

It is possible to enjoy the company of any kind of strange woman, while not considering same to be "escape." And yet, I can see "escape" as the possible intent in some cases, and for some people. So... "escape from what?" If instead of strange women, one enjoys the "embrace of the Buddha," and one also sees this as "escape," then the same question follows: from what are you "escaping?" And is an effort to "escape" an approptiate response?

In the case of the Buddha, or your life long mate (strange woman or no), "Safe harbor" seems less strained somehow. There are days when I come home from work severely beaten, as must be the case for many here. Relating my day to my life mate is relieving, and I could see her and the home, etc., as something of a "safe harbor." A "time out" zone, in which to recover. Contemplation of the Buddha could conceivably function in the same way, on the some level or another. I might use the term "solace" instead of "refuge" in this case, however. To seek solace is a bit different from seeking refuge. Solace is mere "comforting," more or less. Perhaps "escape." Perhaps "safe harbor."

But is "seeking refuge" (or the more extreme "Save me Jesus!") the best responses to make? (Please keep my previous discussion of "refuge" in mind as you consider this.)

This sort of "refuge" implies to me a retreat from the world, whether Buddhist or Christian. While I can imagine a situation in which one might simply throw themselves on the mercy of their god(s), is that the best approach? Is it an approach to be advocated? And/or, is this the situation with Buddhism? I can see it clearly in several Christian sects. But it is not quite clear to me that this is one of the goals of Buddhism (whether sometimes an outcome or no).

More than once, I've equated the world to surfing, just to ask the question: is it better to go through life on all fours at the back of the board screaming "Save me!!!", or to stand up, walk to the front of the board, lean out a bit, and feel the ocean spray? I think that in my original post here, I'm asking a variation of that very same question yet again. It is, "to what degree does "going for refuge" constitute remaining on the back of the board, where its safe? And if there is a one to one correspondence, then is "going for refuge" the most correct action? The best action?

Thanks.

[chownah]

The Buddha (by his own words) only taught about how to end dukkha (dukkha being stress, suffering, unsatisfactoriness, pain, unease, disquiet,displeasure, etc.). Could it be that by going to Refuge you are indicating that you are relying on the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha as your guide in ending Dukkha? My view is that the "going to Refuge" thing is like reciting the Apostle's Creed as done in many/most Protestant Christian churches throughout the world...i.e. it is a simple declaration of faith.

I might add that I really don't think that reciting the "going to Refuge" thing is a solemn oath that binds your soul to some dark and unseen forces which will control and manipulate you....after all the Buddha taught that you must use your own judgement to decide what is the correct way for you to follow the Path...he even went so far as to say the you should not believe something just because he said it!!! The Buddha taught that you should question all aspects of life and decide for yourself. If you don't think the "going to Refuge" thing is a good idea then I'm sure the Buddha's advise would be that you should not do it!

Chownah

[jumnien]

For me, going to refuge means above all to stand up and go to front of the surfboard and feel the ocean spray and then fly, baby, fly!!! Surrender is freedom...

[Jet Gorgon]

We are beings designed for self-deception and denial.

Yes, I believe this, Mdeland. Nice words. I also believe I am strong enough in spirit to overcome all evil.

[camerata]

Going for Refuge

The act of going for refuge marks the point where one commits oneself to taking the Dhamma, or the Buddha's teaching, as the primary guide to one's life. To understand why this commitment is called a "refuge," it's helpful to look at the history of the custom.

In pre-Buddhist India, going for refuge meant proclaiming one's allegiance to a patron — a powerful person or god — submitting to the patron's directives in hopes of receiving protection from danger in return. In the early years of the Buddha's teaching career, his new followers adopted this custom to express their allegiance to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, but in the Buddhist context this custom took on a new meaning.

Buddhism is not a theistic religion — the Buddha is not a god — and so a person taking refuge in the Buddhist sense is not asking for the Buddha personally to intervene to provide protection. Still, one of the Buddha's central teachings is that human life is fraught with dangers — from greed, anger, and delusion — and so the concept of refuge is central to the path of practice, in that the practice is aimed at gaining release from those dangers. Because the mind is the source both of the dangers and of release, there is a need for two levels of refuge: external refuges, which provide models and guidelines so that we can identify which qualities in the mind lead to danger and which to release; and internal refuges, i.e., the qualities leading to release that we develop in our own mind in imitation of our external models. The internal level is where true refuge is found.

Although the tradition of going to refuge is an ancient practice, it is still relevant for our own practice today, for we are faced with the same internal dangers that faced people in the Buddha's time. We still need the same protection as they. When a Buddhist takes refuge, it is essentially an act of taking refuge in the doctrine of karma: It's an act of submission in that one is committed to living in line with the principle that actions based on skillful intentions lead to happiness, while actions based on unskillful intentions lead to suffering; it's an act of claiming protection in that, by following the teaching, one hopes to avoid the misfortunes that bad karma engenders. To take refuge in this way ultimately means to take refuge in the quality of our own intentions, for that's where the essence of karma lies.

The refuges in Buddhism — both on the internal and on the external levels — are the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, also known as the Triple Gem. They are called gems both because they are valuable and because, in ancient times, gems were believed to have protective powers. The Triple Gem outdoes other gems in this respect because its protective powers can be put to the test and can lead further than those of any physical gem, all the way to absolute freedom from the uncertainties of the realm of aging, illness, and death.

The Buddha, on the external level, refers to Siddhattha Gotama, the Indian prince who renounced his royal titles and went into the forest, meditating until he ultimately gained Awakening. To take refuge in the Buddha means, not taking refuge in him as a person, but taking refuge in the fact of his Awakening: placing trust in the belief that he did awaken to the truth, that he did so by developing qualities that we too can develop, and that the truths to which he awoke provide the best perspective for the conduct of our life.

The Dhamma, on the external level, refers to the path of practice the Buddha taught to this followers. This, in turn, is divided into three levels: the words of his teachings, the act of putting those teachings into practice, and the attainment of Awakening as the result of that practice. This three-way division of the word "Dhamma" acts as a map showing how to take the external refuges and make them internal: learning about the teachings, using them to develop the qualities that the Buddha himself used to attain Awakening, and then realizing the same release from danger that he found in the quality of Deathlessness that we can touch within.

The word Sangha, on the external level, has two senses: conventional and ideal. In its ideal sense, the Sangha consists of all people, lay or ordained, who have practiced the Dhamma to the point of gaining at least a glimpse of the Deathless. In a conventional sense, Sangha denotes the communities of ordained monks and nuns. The two meanings overlap but are not necessarily identical. Some members of the ideal Sangha are not ordained; some monks and nuns have yet to touch the Deathless. All those who take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha become members of the Buddha's four-fold assembly (parisa) of followers: monks, nuns, male lay devotees, and female lay devotees. Although there's a widespread belief that all Buddhist followers are members of the Sangha, this is not the case. Only those who are ordained are members of the conventional Sangha; only those who have glimpsed the Deathless are members of the ideal Sangha. Nevertheless, any followers who don't belong to the Sangha in either sense of the word still count as genuine Buddhists in that they are members of the Buddha's parisa.

When taking refuge in the external Sangha, one takes refuge in both senses of the Sangha, but the two senses provide different levels of refuge. The conventional Sangha has helped keep the teaching alive for more than 2,500 years. Without them, we would never have learned what the Buddha taught. However, not all members of the conventional Sangha are reliable models of behavior. So when looking for guidance in the conduct of our lives, we must look to the living and recorded examples provided by the ideal Sangha. Without their example, we would not know (1) that Awakening is available to all, and not just to the Buddha; and (2) how Awakening expresses itself in real life.

On the internal level, the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha are the skillful qualities we develop in our own minds in imitation of our external models. For instance, the Buddha was a person of wisdom, purity, and compassion. When we develop wisdom, purity, and compassion in our own minds, they form our refuge on an internal level. The Buddha tasted Awakening by developing conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment. When we develop these same qualities to the point of attaining Awakening too, that Awakening is our ultimate refuge. This is the point where the three aspects of the Triple Gem become one: beyond the reach of greed, anger, and delusion, and thus totally secure.

Source: Refuge, by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

[rychrde]

Let me first say that I sympathize with RedQ as I had similar misgivings about the word 'refuge'. Translations have a habit of creating unexpected meanings. If such meanings create blocks then it is right to chisel away at the problem until one has a personally satisfactory solution.

First, I'm already committed to one teacher: me.

True. In my wanderings the only buddhist school that speaks that kind of language is Vajrayana, or more specifically Dzogchen (or Atiyoga). In theory, one's ultimate nature can be realized by one's self, because that nature is always there. In theory there is no need for buddhism, no need for masters, no need to refuge in anything... except one's own adamantine nature. I personally think it is important that such a philosophy exists. In theory we can do it all ourselves. In practice we have probably all screwed up at various points and have created a network of internal relationships that hinder our direct awareness of our own inner nature. So in practice there are many techniques to regain that insight and then stabilize it so that we can exist in that state all the time.

The ultimate refuge is in our pristine awareness, or buddha nature. If that still sounds like a kind of 'surrender' or 'hiding' then what you are surrendering to is your own deepest nature, and where you are hiding is called home. Like all psychic states, it just has to be experienced so that the words have meaning.

I would also prefer 'trust' rather than 'refuge'. Trust is better than faith as it is contingent on experiences. Yet again, this may be a Dzogchen view and not necessarily a hinayana or even mahayana view.

One thing we should be grateful for is the lineage of people who have developed, taught and written down these teachings. Without this chain of humans we would probably remain outsiders in a dark world of monotheistic fideism.

rych

[sabaijai]

First, I'm already committed to one teacher: me.

Define 'me'.

[RedQualia]

First, I'm already committed to one teacher: me.

Define 'me'.

The definition of "me" should be self-evident. I assume you have a point you would like to make in response to whatever answer is offered, however. So, what is your point?

[jumnien]

I just hope your "me" is better than my "me". Life's been far less painful and far more adventurous since I stopped following "my" teachings and started following someone else's! Different strokes for different folks...

[chownah]

First, I'm already committed to one teacher: me.

Define 'me'.

The definition of "me" should be self-evident. I assume you have a point you would like to make in response to whatever answer is offered, however. So, what is your point?

One of the core teachings of the Buddha is that the ideas that we have about our selves are delusional and that his delusional self that we put together is the main cause of our malaise in life. You might want to read up on this since it is such a central issue in Buddhism.

Chownah

[thaicurious]

"You are your own refuge."

"Extract(ed) from The Buddhist Proverbs-Buddhasasanasubhasita-collected by His Royal Highness Prince Vajirananavarorasa, the late supreme patriarch of Thailand. Translated into English by Pra-maha Prayong Kittitharo, published by The Mahamakut Educational Council 1967/2510"

at least that according to a web page i just found. (i have no affiliation and can not speak as to the authenticity of the web site nor its quote.)

i had thought the full quote goes something like: "you alone are your master. you are your own refuge. so subdue yourself."~~buddha siddhartha gautama. but i do not recall from where in my past studies i abstracted that.

like rychrde, i also study a bit of dzogpa chenpo pretty much as my introduction to buddhism as it ties in very well to my experience in & practice of dream yoga.

i find no refuge in experience outside the self. though i see most--if not all--outside experience as mostly distraction from true refuge within, i see it also as useful direction to the within, especially when going inside oneself can be the most difficult of all journeys. what a curious place in which to wrap absolute refuge, where most are afraid to go.

[RedQualia]

First, I'm already committed to one teacher: me.

Define 'me'.

The definition of "me" should be self-evident. I assume you have a point you would like to make in response to whatever answer is offered, however. So, what is your point?

One of the core teachings of the Buddha is that the ideas that we have about our selves are delusional and that his delusional self that we put together is the main cause of our malaise in life. You might want to read up on this since it is such a central issue in Buddhism.

Chownah

I cannot read enough, of course. And no matter how much I read, or how many times, I am in constant need of refresher. So thank you.

At the same time, however, I invite you to question what is delusional, and what it not. Please understand that I do not attack your beliefs. Indeed, to the extent you appear to be an actual Buddhist, I admire them. But it is good to accept nothing without constant question. It is good to be sure, from one moment to the next.

Various malaise aside, how much of my reality is delusional? How much of yours?

[rychrde]

like rychrde, i also study a bit of dzogpa chenpo pretty much as my introduction to buddhism as it ties in very well to my experience in & practice of dream yoga.

cool! someone else who does dream, and maybe even sleep, practice :-)

actually find it a bit difficult to do in Thailand as so hot even at night. But they are my favourite practices.

rych

[Grover]

First, I'm already committed to one teacher: me.

Define 'me'.

The definition of "me" should be self-evident.

not-self (anatta) is a central teaching in Buddhism.

"The notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress."

[thaicurious]

cool! someone else who does dream, and maybe even sleep, practice :-)

actually find it a bit difficult to do in Thailand as so hot even at night. But they are my favourite practices.

hi rych, i thought i picked up correctly on that code word dzogchen. here in the states i set my a/c on hybernate to sleep and should i ever settle in thailand that will be a requirement. even then i think i would spend the hottest, most humid months in cooler climes.

when you get farther into trance states you don't even need to put your body to sleep as you become able to step consciously into a lucid dream from even just a daydream. though you'd need to be able to sleep and practice dream yoga to get to that point so i suppose there's a catch-22.

what i found most interesting & useful in learning about atiyoga was that before dream yoga i didn't utilize dream states so much as refuge but more as entertainment. (i'm easily amused.) just as the outside world provides distraction from entry within but just as it also provides clues & metaphor to find the way, going within to find refuge can be just as distracting and can grow the ego rather than subdue it. so you learn not just to enter the dream but then to destroy that which so captivates imagination & attention. the peace found there is profound.

but i don't know that one ever remains permanently in such a state. i think it is a place to glimpse but not in which to reside. i don't think one functions well on this planet with one's head in the clouds. we are not that tall. on one hand it might be the only true refuge; but at least for practical purposes, i think it is less of a place of refuge and more of a place of reference. so even given dream yoga and other parlor tricks, we still seek comfort & satisfaction in community (even if it is the community of one) and in naming your applicable preferred theories & so-called (or not) gods.

[rychrde]

cool! someone else who does dream, and maybe even sleep, practice :-)

actually find it a bit difficult to do in Thailand as so hot even at night. But they are my favourite practices.

hi rych, i thought i picked up correctly on that code word dzogchen. here in the states i set my a/c on hybernate to sleep and should i ever settle in thailand that will be a requirement. even then i think i would spend the hottest, most humid months in cooler climes.

when you get farther into trance states you don't even need to put your body to sleep as you become able to step consciously into a lucid dream from even just a daydream. though you'd need to be able to sleep and practice dream yoga to get to that point so i suppose there's a catch-22.

what i found most interesting & useful in learning about atiyoga was that before dream yoga i didn't utilize dream states so much as refuge but more as entertainment. (i'm easily amused.) just as the outside world provides distraction from entry within but just as it also provides clues & metaphor to find the way, going within to find refuge can be just as distracting and can grow the ego rather than subdue it. so you learn not just to enter the dream but then to destroy that which so captivates imagination & attention. the peace found there is profound.

but i don't know that one ever remains permanently in such a state. i think it is a place to glimpse but not in which to reside. i don't think one functions well on this planet with one's head in the clouds. we are not that tall. on one hand it might be the only true refuge; but at least for practical purposes, i think it is less of a place of refuge and more of a place of reference. so even given dream yoga and other parlor tricks, we still seek comfort & satisfaction in community (even if it is the community of one) and in naming your applicable preferred theories & so-called (or not) gods.

Hi

agreed, can end up being your own private matrix-style cinema. But I came to it from my own efforts initially. Many years ago had an annoying recurring dream. Was interesting in its own right but would always wake me up. I figured we cannot die in a dream - I could have been wrong! - so spent some time making it lucid so could do what I needed to do. It worked. And was very happy when I discovered this within dzogchen.

btw if you're coming to Thailand there are no dzogchen teachers here. I have not been able to find any. And very very rarely does one come for a short retreat. Where are you in the US?

Dream practice does not seem to me so much of a place of refuge. If I understand it correctly its ultimate aim is to achieve dreamlessness. Once all the neurotic knots have been untied there is little left to dream about, apart from perhaps more profound level dreams, including having teachings :-)

rych

[thaicurious]

hi again rych (& with apologies to the op if this is a thread hijack. i will try to relate my responses with regard).

reoccuring dreams indeed are a good portal to lucid dreaming. i had the mixed blessing of being born a lucid dreamer. when i was a very young child i did not know the difference between being awake and being in dreams and so it was quite odd for me to confront--when i was later awake--someone who had been in my dream, only to have them deny that a particular event had occurred. it wasn't until later in childhood that i was able to discern the difference and even later that dreaming and waking blended again, only this time with a bit more understanding--which might seem like confusion--because now i get to doubt my waking life as much as my dreaming one. i find it all amusing and have learned also to find at least some measure of refuge in both.

i have a cousin who is very involved in buddhism which might have attracted me there. in exploring this i merely stumbled early on upon "the practice of dzogchen" by longchen rabjam and immediately related well to many concepts there. easily adaptable in whichever world i find myself, i can just read a little here and there and pick up the practice pretty readily. for instance, i read a piece of the dalai lama which suggested maintaining consciousness while putting the body to sleep, entering a dream, practicing dream yoga by manipulating dream elements, destroying the dream, creating a new dream (actually i think i added that part myself), more practice, more destruction and then waking the body up all without losing consciousness and was able to do this on my first attempt.

while i very much appreciate & enjoy learning more of dzogchen, i do not seek a teacher. while it is nice to get confirmation, i prefer first exploring on my own. my curiosity to thailand was first visual as most every picture i've seen of that country is just so beautiful (obviously i have not seen a lot of pictures of the poverty which i imagine i might find there). also whenever i get to choose the restaurant i pick thai food. i very much enjoy the thai people i've met here in the states. and i would love to live for a while where the judeo-christian ethos is not quite so pervasive. if i was concerned completely with just my so-called spirituality then i'd be better off in tibet but i'm an absolute idiot when it comes to learning other languages and so think i will fare better in los where i understand there are many english speaking expats and i also read that many thais also speak at least some english. i believe that just more exposure to any brand of buddhism will help my thinking as i will be able to incorporate that into my dreaming. as i am not normally a meditator in waking life (i'm generally too lazy and distracted for that), when i do practice in waking life i am better able to incorporate meditation within a dream and thereby open that portal as well. you will find refuge there.

for this next year at least i will be residing in south florida where i am working on getting my body back into shape. i had a few rough years of dealing with the death of close friends and parents and now it is time do deal with my life instead of their deaths. and i'll see where it all leads me. isn't life interesting.

[rychrde]

yes, maybe just open a new thread on this! lol

In general I think many children have experiences that in the west would have been categorized as some mental illness. Also looks like children have the good sense not to tell if they feel they won't be understood! Hopefully this is slowly changing.

rych

[bluestamp]

Hi RedQualia

I don't think 'seeking refuge' is the less version of "Save me Jesus". You don't throw yourself to the mercy of the Buddha by saying those refuge lines.

Going for refuge to the Buddha, it basically means you want to learn from him. He will show you the way, but YOU DO the WORK.

Of course, you can try to find your own way, but why 'reinvent the wheel' ? And will you actually going to find it? Would it be the right one ?? I would say there is no such thing as commit yourself to one teacher (the Buddha), Buddha only tells you which one is good which one is bad, never force anyone to follow what he says, and in my opinion it's not forcing you to commit to him.

Saying refuge is no use if you don't do anything about it, eg; learn and practice the dhamma.

First you have to think that you do want to take refuge, and you say it, and then you act on it.

For the refuge in Sangha, I can see where you concern is. There are good and bad monks. Camerata has given good explanation about the types of Sangha.

As far as my concern goes, (as I don't know which one is bad and which one is good monks), I take it in good faith that all Sangha in general is good. But if I know or see bad monks, then I won't of course respect them so much, especially if I know they have done parajika, not even a bow!

Don't worry too much if we don't know if the Sangha member good or bad. They have their own rules. When a monk did 'Parajika', their monk status is automatically stripped off regardless anyone knowing it or not, and this will only make him a con wearing a monk's robe, not more. Even if you respect them as a monk out of your ignorance of their parajika, you have nothing to loose but it's their bad karma will accumulate.

Avoid bad monks, but do seek good monks where you can learn from his experience, it's like with a good teacher you can learn more, faster, and better.

Don't worry too much about taking the refuge. If you did say those lines and next day you say an oath to another religion, or even just say to yourself that you don't want to go for refuge anymore, then your refuge is cancelled. No hard feelings. No curse. No death threat. You are free to go .

After all it's your mind that say those things, no other people can force you to say those words.

Having said that, if you really still have problem with the refuge, then it is very simple : don't do it.

Just learn, study, and practice further until you are comfortable with buddhism, until you reached a point where you are ready to take refuge, until you want to take refuge. Once you have reached arahant's then I'm sure you know what you want

[RedQualia]

Hi RedQualia

Don't worry too much about taking the refuge. If you did say those lines and next day you say an oath to another religion, or even just say to yourself that you don't want to go for refuge anymore, then your refuge is cancelled. No hard feelings. No curse. No death threat. You are free to go .

After all it's your mind that say those things, no other people can force you to say those words.

Having said that, if you really still have problem with the refuge, then it is very simple : don't do it.

Just learn, study, and practice further until you are comfortable with buddhism, until you reached a point where you are ready to take refuge, until you want to take refuge. Once you have reached arahant's then I'm sure you know what you want

Perhaps the best reply thus far. Thank you.

One detail: My concern with the Sangha is not so much about individual "Good or bad monks." It is that, in the final analysis, and as a collective entity, it is at the political level. In any dealings at more abstract levels relating to politics, I would become "one for whom the sangha speaks." I would also become one subject to censorship by the sangha.

I kinda prefer to speak for myself...

[jumnien]

For me, the sangha is like minded practitioners. Some of those practitioners may very well have ordained, whatever. The sum of the parts is greater than any individual part. Others on the path are my sangha. What the government of Laos or Myanmar or Thailand considers "The Sangha" is irrelevant to me.

[RedQualia]

For me, the sangha is like minded practitioners. Some of those practitioners may very well have ordained, whatever. The sum of the parts is greater than any individual part. Others on the path are my sangha. What the government of Laos or Myanmar or Thailand considers "The Sangha" is irrelevant to me.

Suspect that I'm still not offering the right words with which to communicate my thought here...

Local churches recruit, and in the end, those recruited are considered "members of the flock." When the church subsequently makes a pronouncement about one thing or another (abortions should be illegal; the theory of evolution is wrong), the one making said pronouncement "speaks for" their entire congregation.

The matter of censorship is also important to me. I do not want to be told what I can and cannot think on pain of eviction from any temple I may inhabit.

These are the kinds of things I mean when I talk about "politics." Not what Myanmar or Thailand, et al, think of anything.

Just trying to be clear...

[bluestamp]

Hmmm......

Are we talking about two different things here ?

If I read between the lines, I've got impression that you want to live in a temple, does this mean you want to be a monk?

Taking refuge is different with monk's ordination.

Taking refuge is just a declaration that you want to follow the Three Jewel, but taking ordination as a monk is a completely different matter, completely different league.

You can't take ordination as a monk and live in the temple if you haven't even solved the first hurdle (that is taking refuge things).

Please learn more and think seriously before you are thinking to be ordained. Of course you will be told this and that you should not do!

at the least there 227 precepts you need to observe as a monk, etc etc. Temple rules, .. The rules about seniority etc etc.

That's the rules part.

For the thinking part, hmm.. what kind of thinking you want to be able to think freely without worried being kicked out of the temple ???

Hehehe... to be honest with you, I'm started to get worried what kind of monk you will turn out to be.

Would you be rebellious, do you have a big ego, or something else ? Please don't get offended , anyway if you are rebellious etc, hmm.. it will be really hard to be a monk....

If you live with a good teacher who can read your mind and your mind keep thinking this and that of course you will be told off, and maybe get evicted if you don't change. But isn't that good for you ? I mean, what is your purpose to be a monk??

Being a monk is much to do with your inner 'self' / mind, you need to guard all your senses, do vipassana all the time, watch your mind all the time (that is if one wants to be a real monk with enlightenment as the aim, and not just get some free food and lodgings). And I'm sure that includes keep watching your 'ego' especially an ego who thinks he doesn't want to be told off

So far, I have never heard any Sangha as a collective entity has pronouncement about this and that (cmiiw). But even so, don't need to worry, good buddhist never take anything said as a "must do" if it is not making sense (check Kalama Sutta for details).

For a new monk, I'm sure it is expected to behave and learn more before you can say any interpretation about the Dhamma.

If you say such a bad thoughts or interpretation of the Dhamma, then of course you will be told off by your teacher, and may risk being kicked out of the temple if you keep going. After all, a teacher's task is to teach the disciple.

Now you may argue what if you are right and they are wrong? But how do you know if you are right and they are not? Of course, they will also think that they are right and you are wrong .

Have you learned more than the they have? Have you possesed more insight or something? Have you become a sotapanna, sakadagami, anagami or arahant, and they are not ?

Therefore, I would say, it's best to choose your teacher well. The one that you respect and know that yes they are true and good teachers. Therefore this thing is not going to happen.

And of course if you say nothing wrong and do nothing wrong, then I don't think you need to worry about being kicked out of the temple

A good teacher should be able to explain to you what's good and not good on your way of thinking. I dont think they will just ban you from the temple for no good reasons.

I think in Buddhist it is quite easy to find out what/who is right and wrong.

First it has to be the Dhamma eg in the Canon, this is not to say that the Canon is absolute, but for both unenlightened persons, this is the best bet. If you are an arahants, then it's different matter, you are in better position to know which one is right or wrong.

And having said that, I don't think there is anything that is 100% wrong or 100% right without considering all aspects. eg abortion is right or wrong ? My answer would be it depends on the health, physically and mentally, background of the pregnancy, financial etc, and how much of bad karma she is willing to face after considering the pro and cons?. Yes, the killing part is wrong, but can she do it? Can't generalise.

Hope that helps ?