Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Is NewBuddhist a Sangha?
Just wondering. I would think so.
"Sangha (Pali: सन्घ ; Sanskrit: संघ ; Wylie: 'dus sde) is a word in Pali or Sanskrit that can be translated roughly as "association" or "assembly," "company" or "community" with common goal, vision or purpose."
So... is that not we are?
"Sangha (Pali: सन्घ ; Sanskrit: संघ ; Wylie: 'dus sde) is a word in Pali or Sanskrit that can be translated roughly as "association" or "assembly," "company" or "community" with common goal, vision or purpose."
So... is that not we are?
0
Comments
But I'd consider everyone here a sangha
A decent Sangha wouldn't allow this.
Convention has, after all, moved on a little from when the Buddha walked the earth. If Convention has changed, then I see no reason why we should not consider ourselves every bit as much a Sangha as one of a more conventional type....
Ch'an_noob, not everybody has the luxury or convenience of a real Sangha nearby. This will have to suffice for many, and as such, is every bit as embracing.
Just forget all that. For me its a sangha. But I don't have any proof.
...btw, { } am an urban buddhist monk (one that can marry and have long hair; but that is now completely vegetarian).
Historically speaking sangha refers to the monks, nuns, and gurus. (Especially all disciples under the same guru) "My brothers and sisters have taken refuge and teachings from (lama) therefore, we are a sangha."
But, I affectionately refer to anyone that practices the dharma to be a part of the world sangha.
Sangha... It has come to simply mean a group of people that follow the dharma, debate, converse, and compare notes/thoughts in regards to the dharma. Therefore, yes... this forum is a sangha. We are all connected by the same desire to become enlightened and are helping each other to that goal.
Federica put it well: "not everybody has the luxury or convenience of a real Sangha nearby. This will have to suffice for many, and as such, is every bit as embracing."
I don't think NewBuddhist qualifies, primarily because of all the chit-chattering all the time. I don't believe sanghas are composed of wordy persons, but of worthy persons. But that is just my opinion. Although in large part I do admire what @Rmurray1985 says above, I think we tend to go our own separate ways too much.
I could say more on this subject but consider it wise not to.
i'm quessing you must be a worthy person to know what qualifies one to be a member of a sangha.
On worthiness, what does it mean to acknowledge the dignity of another person?
Primarily it means to make people feel special and important. This is what gentlemen and ladies strive always to do.
I said above that there's plenty more on matters such as these that I could say but thought it wise not to. So please let me summarize (for my last time) here:
In a real sangha deference is given to the elders and to other people who show by the inflections of their words and their deeds that they are part of a committed community. On the internet, on the other hand, reality cannot afford that there should be anything like this kind of genuine unhindered communication or hands-on community.
That said, it would nonetheless be nice if our folks would try a bit harder to think of NewBuddhist as a sangha-by-extension, and behave as endearing members. In other words, not (over-)reacting to perceived insults or insisting on one's point of view —or being "in-your-face" so much... I guess another way to say that is just a little bit more humility sometimes.
When people bring up points in good faith they should neither expect to be attacked for them, nor should they expect universal sympathy, either.
Belonging to a sangha does not entail getting an automatic pat on your back for everything you say and do. However, online we tend to crave this sort of thing too much.
personal opinion is one thing.
It neither makes it general, nor agreeable to all....
Amen.
samgha : http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&tinput=samgha&country_ID=&trans=Translate&direction=AU
interesting, yasodhara was the second buddha of samyak buddha shayamuni's era.
note : requirement of no kama råga!
Many of us consider this our sangha, regardless of strict pedantic, semantic reference.
I care little about the strict interpretation of some terms. If people want to call this a sangha, if they feel like coming here and using this place as their sangha, and they find comfort, community, solace, companionship, contentment, learning, humour, gentility, discussion, debate, and a place to vent and release - then as far as I'm concerned, it's a sangha.
Clearly this internet forum is a group of people and a community, and most of us are influenced by Buddhism. However it wouldn't be correct to say this is a 'Buddhist Sangha' - there are rules for establishing a Sangha. 9 ordained monks with a proven lineage can do it. I am not a member of the Aryasangha myself, but for the moment simply take and use the parts of Buddhist philo I find useful. The Sangha is sacred, sacrosanct.. Monks takes refuge in 3 jewels including the Sangha, not some guy calling himself 'Ncryptx' and a web developer skilled in ASP or PHP.
and yes, I know it is aryasamgha; however the semantic/conceptual context can not be denied.
when saying "am an urban buddhist monk"... 'am being serious. // ...egoless writting sounds better in other languages
Let's just suppose for a moment that the website can be a Sangha in the sense of coming under the jurisdiction of the Vinaya. How often are there disagreements on internet fora? Nobody would dare to argue for fear of causing a major sin and damning themselves to terrible tortures in the Buddhist hells. After all causing a rift in the Sangha is almost as serious as trying to kill the Buddha.
I mean, if we are going to rely on a strict definition of what does and does not make a "sangha" a sangha, then how do you propose to determine whether or not the people that frequent this board are pratyekabuddhas or bodhisattvas? It's made quite clear in the literature that a bodhisattva need not be a monk. Nor could a pratyekabuddha be a monk, as they rely only on themselves.
Also, note the differences made there between "deepest", "apparent", and "nominal" sanghas.
It's just a word.
It doesn't have to be a sangha in order for it to be a useful, helpful community.
You mean not allowing people to debate personal views?
A bustling train station with a lot of rude encounters: yes!
:wave:
I'll bring lunch,(smoked salmon sandwiches, pickled quail's eggs, salade Royale, chocolate truffles) you bring the champagne, and it had better be a good one.