@marcitko
Ah, happiness resides in life's small victories.
After all, great victories are the sum of many small victories even as a lake is the summation of so many drops of water.
Peace to you
Peace to all
I've been thinking about this a lot since I responded a week and a half ago and my answer has evolved:
Six years ago, I had created a discussion here about this very question; of refuge and whether refuge necessarily has to remain limited to the Three Jewels. https://newbuddhist.com/discussion/26451/3-jewels-or-4#Item_25
At the time, I wrote:
We take refuge in Buddha,
We take refuge in Dharma,
We take refuge in the Sangha,
We take refuge in the Triple Gem within ourselves.
The passage came from Charles Luk's Ch'an and Zen Teaching, First Series, and it caught my attention because it seemed to offer another way of understanding refuge: not simply taking refuge in something outside ourselves, but recognizing the Three Jewels within ourselves.
I then brought up Huineng's teaching on taking refuge in the threefold body of Buddha within oneself. I was clearly circling around the question of self-refuge, although I don't think I had fully worked out what that meant for my own practice.
I also came across a Kṣitigarbha practice that said:
“I prostrate, go for refuge, and make offerings to the bodhisattva Ksitigarbha…”
That raised another question for me. If a practitioner can explicitly take refuge in a bodhisattva, then perhaps the Three Jewels are not necessarily the only things that can meaningfully function as refuge.
Six years later, I've come back to that question.
And I think I've finally arrived at a formulation that makes sense to me.
My practice now begins:
Above all, I take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha.
I take refuge in Guanyin, my guru, learning to hear as she hears.
I take refuge in the Listening Heart, and kindle the lamp within.
The phrase “Above all” is deliberate.
The Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha remain the foundation of my refuge. I am not trying to replace the Three Jewels or create a fourth Jewel.
But I no longer see that as requiring me to stop there.
For me, Guanyin is more than an object of admiration or a symbol of compassion. I approach Guanyin as a guru; a teacher and exemplar of compassionate listening.
The phrase “my guru” is intentional.
My relationship with Guanyin is informed by Vajrayana practices associated with Avalokiteśvara/Chenrezig, among other Buddhist traditions. So when I call Guanyin my guru, I am not inventing a relationship without precedent. There is an established Buddhist tradition of relating to Avalokiteśvara as Guru Lokeśvara and of taking refuge in the bodhisattva.
At the same time, my overall practice draws from several Buddhist traditions rather than belonging exclusively to a single Vajrayana lineage. The Vajrayana elements are incorporated into a broader practice that also draws substantially from Chan, Theravada, and Pure Land traditions.
For me, Guanyin represents the question:
Can I learn to hear as she hears?
Not merely hearing sounds, but hearing suffering clearly enough that compassion becomes a response.
The third line is perhaps the most personal.
The Listening Heart is the name I've given to my practice. It is my attempt to bring mindfulness, wisdom, loving-kindness, compassion, and Guanyin-inspired compassionate listening together into something I can actually live.
So when I say:
I take refuge in the Listening Heart, and kindle the lamp within.
I am deliberately invoking the Buddha's teaching about becoming an island or refuge unto oneself.
This is not meant as:
“I trust my ego.”
Nor is it:
“I don't need Buddha, Dharma, Sangha, teachers, or community.”
Quite the opposite.
The point, as I understand it, is that eventually I have to practice.
A teacher can point.
A bodhisattva can inspire.
The Dharma can illuminate.
The Sangha can accompany.
But nobody else can cultivate mindfulness for me, develop wisdom for me, listen compassionately for me, or walk the path for me.
That is where the lamp comes in.
I don't want to merely stand beside someone else's light.
I have to kindle my own.
This is where I'm interested in hearing what others think.
Does taking refuge necessarily mean identifying something as an ultimate or exclusive source of salvation?
Or can refuge also mean turning toward that which provides orientation, guidance, stability, and a way of practice?
If the latter is possible, then I wonder whether we can meaningfully speak of several dimensions of refuge:
The Buddha, Dharma and Sangha
- the foundation.
Guanyin
- the teacher and embodiment of compassionate listening.
The Listening Heart
- the practice I return to.
The lamp within
- the responsibility that ultimately cannot be delegated to anyone else.
Six years ago, I was asking whether the Three Jewels were the only possible objects of refuge.
Today, I think the more interesting question is:
What does it actually mean to take refuge?
And perhaps the answer is not simply about what we take refuge in, but where refuge ultimately has to become real: in our own practice.
I'd be interested in how others understand this, particularly the relationship between the traditional Three Refuges, refuge in a bodhisattva or guru, and the Buddha's teaching to be a refuge unto oneself.
@Lionduck said:
At least in the USA, women were part of the workforce. They were, however, restricted in the types of jobs and their levels in the hierarchy were, generally, highly restricted. Property rights, economic rights, political and such were limited or non-existent. Foe economics and work, it was the myth of the "Weaker Sex".
That the opening up of women entering the brauder work force is not what drove prices up. It was, perhaps, a contributory factor, but not the driving force.
In the 1970s, nationally, when women finally achieved the right to control their own finances, the reactive (conservative), ccorporate forces looked at the masses and said, "They are too powerful, we must regain our dominance." Beginning with President Nixon, the corporatists began a long campaign to regain dominance in the economic field through their the political influence. The true collapse began when President Regan, with his pro-corporate and anti-union and "Trickle Down" economics and his termination, in 1987, of the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE which required equal air time for opposing political views.
The power of unions declines as laws were changed to better fulfill the corporate (moneyed) interests, and weaken the political power and influence of the working and middle class. All while corporations consolidated power, politically and economically. Wages stagnated or rose slowly in response to increasing prices while the power elite
saw their slalries and bonuses skyrocket.
Of course, the power influencers and the "movers and shakers" pushed the "Blame" on women and minorities. Minorities have never been the source of economic hardship in this nation. Women have been in the greater workforce in numbers in the USA for over 60 years. They are not the cause of the current situation where two or three jobs can not adequately feed, cloth and house a family.
The lack of the human element in the business equation, the "Profit over People" Corporate (and Billionaire) and the false business mindset and the need to always "Grow or Die"
The current Corporate mindset of Gain without the inclusion of Goodness is the core. There is no problem with personal gain when it includes Gain (Goodness) for the community, the society (the people). Gain, without the human element is GREED.
Corporations, of themselves are not Bad. Profit of itself is not Evil. It is the abuse of the power arising from ever centralizing Corporate power and the emphasis of profit with disregard to the benefit or harm to the people (workers, communities, customers/consumers) where the evil arises.
The Buddhist approach of awareness and concern for the People and the environment, the ecosystems of which we are all a part, is a counter-valence to the greed and arrogance, the MARA we see so much in the business and political elite and others which seems so prominent today.
as individuals, in embracing and opening up the power within are we thus able to affect, to change the power without. A thirteenth century monk said it well:
WHEN THE BODY BENDS, THE SHADOW MUST FOLLOWPeace to all
I think the big shift started when the idea that the sole mandate for business was to return profits to shareholders. It was in Milton Friedman's 1962 book, but it really started to take hold in the 70s. I think it also has to do with the size of the businesses today too. Many small business still care about their employees, vendors, communities, customers. But if you want to compete with big companies its all about maximizing returns for the shareholders.
But this is a bit of a tangent away from the thread topic. Most of the reasonable concerns I've heard raised about the struggles of men and boys today has little to do explicitly with not having the provider role. I think to the more traditional men I know and some of them make less than their wives and don't seem to care one bit.
person
@RobinH said:
My wife will soon make more money than me. It's not the reason I feel useless, but feeling useless and fearing that she'll eventually leave me is sadly a part of why I keep coming back to Buddhism. I lack true ambitions. The ones people need to climb the corporate ladder and get that raise and get that bonus... I don't really care for a much better life, some financial stability would be nice and I'm keep trying to find some skill I could learn to eventually provide, because starting a family would also be nice, but what I love (art, creative writing) is not very valued in paychecks, it's valued less and less with AI around now and I want to be useful to her and others, but it's really hard seeing that someone you love and care about craves more in life to be happy and not seeing how you could be the person who helps make that happen. Not much to do with the manosphere I suppose, but needing two jobs in a household just to pay the bills and keep a roof above your heads... yeah, that's not great.
I'm sorry this is your situation. Its one of the sad ways the old patriarchal system hurts men too. The old expectations of judging men by their status and ability to earn is still alive in plenty of people, even those who are opposed to the patriarchal norms.
person
My wife will soon make more money than me. It's not the reason I feel useless, but feeling useless and fearing that she'll eventually leave me is sadly a part of why I keep coming back to Buddhism. I lack true ambitions. The ones people need to climb the corporate ladder and get that raise and get that bonus... I don't really care for a much better life, some financial stability would be nice and I'm keep trying to find some skill I could learn to eventually provide, because starting a family would also be nice, but what I love (art, creative writing) is not very valued in paychecks, it's valued less and less with AI around now and I want to be useful to her and others, but it's really hard seeing that someone you love and care about craves more in life to be happy and not seeing how you could be the person who helps make that happen. Not much to do with the manosphere I suppose, but needing two jobs in a household just to pay the bills and keep a roof above your heads... yeah, that's not great.
RobinH
Thanks for that! It's interesting to see so many variations of the chants. I do this one every day and with the Sangha on Sundays. It's taking some time getting the rythm, pronounciation and pitch right. I don't have it completely memorized yet but it's a progressive practice. It looks to me like you have the pronounciation down but it is hard to tell exactly without hearing it. Also, some traditions and schools will do it a bit differently.
This is the version I do.
"Na-mo rat-na tra-ya-ya
Nam-ah ar-ya av-a-lo-ki-tes-va-ra-ya
Bod-hi-satt-va-ya
Ma-ha-satt-va-ya
Ma-ha-ka-ru-ni-ka-ya
Om sa-ba-la-va-ti su-dha-na-tas-ya na-mas
kri-va-ni-mam ar-ya av-a-lo-ki-tes-va-ra
lam-tab-ha na-mo ni-la-kant-ha sri-ma-ha-pa-ta-sa-mi sar-va-to-dhu-su-phem a-si-yum sar-va-sa-da na-ma bha-ga mab-ha-te-tu tad-yat-ha
Om a-va-lo-ki lo-ka-te ka-la-ti es-i-li
ma-ha-bod-hi-satt-va sab-ho sab-ho ma-ra
ma-ra ma-si ma-si rid-ha-yum gu-ru gu-ru
ga-mam tu-ru tu-ru bha-si-ya-ti ma-ha bha-si-ya-ti
dha-ra dha-ra dhi-ri-ni sva-ra-ya ja-la ja-la
ma-ma bha-ma-ra mu-dhi-li ed-hye-hi s-in-a
si-na a-la-sim bha-la-sa-ri bha-sa bha-sim
bha-ra-sa-ya hu-lu hu-lu pra hu-lu hu-lu sri
sa-ra sa-ra si-ri si-ri su-ru su-ru bud-hi bud-hi
bud-ha-ya bud-ha-ya mai-tri-ye ni-la-kant-ha
tri-sa-ra-na bha-ya-ma-na sva-ha
Sit-a-ya svaha
Ma-ha sit-ay-a sva-ha
Si-ta-ya-ye sva-ra-ya sva-ha
Ni-la-kan-thi sva-ha
Pra-ni-la sva-ha
Sri sid-ha muk-ha-ya sva-ha
Sar-va ma-ha as-ta-ya sva-ha
Ca-kra as-ta-ya sva-ha
Pad-ma ke-sa-ya sva-ha
Ni-la-kant-he pan-ta-la-ya sva-ha
Mob-ho-li-san-ka-ra-ye sva-ha
Na-mo rat-na tra-ya-ya
Nam-ah ar-ya a-va-lo-ki-ta is-var-a-ya sva-ha
Om sid-hyan-tu man-tra pa-ta-ye sva-ha"
My teacher doesn't really put herself "out there" so I can't share the video I have for audio.
What makes me sad about them is that there a genuine problems that men and boys face and the way they weaponize them and turn it into misogyny turns people away from looking at and addressing those problems. For example in education outcomes the gender inequality is worse than it was in the 70s only the genders have swapped in terms of who's doing better and who's falling behind. The people on top of society are still more likely to be men, but the people at the bottom of society are also more likely to be men. More homelessness, greater rates of suicide deaths.
Richard Reeves is a good example of someone who is able to talk about men's issues without the red pill nonsense.
person
I recently noticed some new kinds of links appearing in my YouTube feed, interviews with people like Jordan Peterson and Rollo Tomassi. I innocently thought I would have a look since it mentioned some kind of Red Pill, a reference to ‘The Matrix’. I found the interview indigestible and instead had a look on Wikipedia what it’s all about… I read the pages on “Red pill”, “Manosphere” and “alt-right pipeline” before getting thoroughly sick of it.
It seems there are quite a few influencers out there who are trying to convince people to move to the right in their politics, and who seem to be convinced that men are being discriminated against, strange as it may seem. Anti-women sentiments run rampant in this group. I find it quite worrying that these people seem to have a wide reach on YouTube to suck in folks who don’t know any better.
Now I know many Buddhist groups are still men-first, and have a ways to go in terms of gender equality, but at least they are not moving in the wrong direction! This whole process of using the internet to radicalise especially young people seems to me to be something to beware of.
Jeroen