Nor do I particularly take refuge in the three treasures. I think the dharma, as preserved in the sutras, is valuable, but probably flawed and incomplete. I also suspect that the Buddha is largely legendary. (I am sure that he lived, but I suspect that his accomplishments have been exaggerated.)
For what it’s worth, the Buddha is often understood to be not a man who lived 2500 years ago but awakening itself. Similarly, the dharma is not only what’s in the sutras, but the truth of life as it is (“dharma” is a word that means “truth” but also “phenomena”, which tell you a lot about Buddhist philosophy). And the sangha is not just the group you meet with, but everyone and everything that supports each other’s lives.
Thanks. I apologize for sounding negative and contrarian, but “the truth of life as it is” does not sound like much of a refuge. Could I ask you to please elaborate on that?
Of course. No need to apologize, this is a totally reasonable question!
My way of thinking about this is a very Zen understanding of the refuges, which means it’s a very Mahayana understanding of them. Which means that “the Buddha” is interpreted to include the literal Buddha, but also to mean “awakening” or “bodhi”, of which the Buddha is a manifestation. And since we also understand all beings to already be awake (this is a complex claim about non-duality that cannot be fully expressed in words), it means taking refuge in the Buddha is taking refuge in the world exactly as it is, which also means taking refuge in the life that allows us to know the world.
Now of course maybe you don’t find the Zen or Mahayana framing useful, in which case this won’t sound like a reasonable understanding of that refuge. Some traditions take the refuge quite literally and revere the Buddha as an interventionist deity, and others have other understandings of this refuge that I’m not very familiar with. But of course totally understandable if none of them connect and you don’t want to do it!
For what it’s worth, the Buddha is often understood to be not a man who lived 2500 years ago but awakening itself. Similarly, the dharma is not only what’s in the sutras, but the truth of life as it is (“dharma” is a word that means “truth” but also “phenomena”, which tell you a lot about Buddhist philosophy). And the sangha is not just the group you meet with, but everyone and everything that supports each other’s lives.
Thanks. I apologize for sounding negative and contrarian, but “the truth of life as it is” does not sound like much of a refuge. Could I ask you to please elaborate on that?
Of course. No need to apologize, this is a totally reasonable question!
My way of thinking about this is a very Zen understanding of the refuges, which means it’s a very Mahayana understanding of them. Which means that “the Buddha” is interpreted to include the literal Buddha, but also to mean “awakening” or “bodhi”, of which the Buddha is a manifestation. And since we also understand all beings to already be awake (this is a complex claim about non-duality that cannot be fully expressed in words), it means taking refuge in the Buddha is taking refuge in the world exactly as it is, which also means taking refuge in the life that allows us to know the world.
Now of course maybe you don’t find the Zen or Mahayana framing useful, in which case this won’t sound like a reasonable understanding of that refuge. Some traditions take the refuge quite literally and revere the Buddha as an interventionist deity, and others have other understandings of this refuge that I’m not very familiar with. But of course totally understandable if none of them connect and you don’t want to do it!