Jump to content

Talk:Sangha/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Deleted section

I just noticed that one of the sections of this article had been deleted by a vandal back in November, and not restored. I'll fix that now. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 09:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

I'm proposing the merger of this page with bhikkhu and bhikkhuni. A bhikkhuni or bhikkhu is defined as a member of the monastic sangha of nuns or that of monks. That being the case, I can't really see what information is ever going to be added to those pages that wouldn't fit just as well here. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Support Merger Ideally, each of these article ought to be separate. Sangha, IMO, is more than sum of monks and nuns. After all it is one of three triple gems. Unfortunately, the current state of each articles doesn't deserve separate article. This may have lot to do with the current state of Buddhism article. FWBOarticle

I was about to effect the merger (which I think should also include Samanera and Samanerasikkha), but then I saw the article on Buddhist monasticism. Maybe we should merge there instead? I'm not sure what the relationship between this article and that is supposed to be. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 06:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Merger: I agree that Sangha and monk (of each tradition) are very different topics, requiring their own articles... articles which might benefit from further development. Each Buddhist monastic tradition has a unique history, various levels of ordination, and practices specific to the geographic and cultural context. Merging them all into a single article might be a setup for an extremely long article, eventually requiring separate articles again. Perhaps we could work on the articles and use a category to collect them all. It's been nearly six months since the merger was suggested and articles have continued to grow. Nat Krause, how are you feeling about this now? Deebki 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you state a quick summary of what the separate content of each sangha-related article will be? These are currently sangha, Buddhist monasticism, bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, and samanera. By the way, doesn't most of what we say about bhikkhus apply to bhikkhunis as well? The current state of these articles is that they have medium amount of overlap, and none of them are very complete (although Buddhist monasticism is the most complete). I have to say that I don't see the downside of merging these articles now and then, if they eventually require separate articles again, splitting them back out. However, it's by no means clear to me that the articles that we split out will be the same ones that currently exist. For one thing, most of the content at bhikkhu currently is about Tibetan Buddhism. It would make more sense to move that to Tibetan Buddhism (if there's room) or to something like monasticism in Tibet.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral for Now: Hey Nat, thanks for your response. I think we've got to be careful about confusing the six schools of Buddhism. I see articles that use Tibetan/Hinayanan terms to describe Theravadin practices (bhikkhu article being one example). There are for instance, 253 precepts for a male Tibetan monk and 227 for Theravadin. Thus, some of our articles are currently confusing, if not misinforming about the number of vows and need cleaup. Perhaps that is a good arguement for merging all the sangha info and looking at it in one place. Certainly we need to research, verify and add citations to the existing work. A quick summary of content for each of the six schools (and each tradition within each school) might be: unique history, various levels of ordination, which vinaya interpretation is followed, practices specific to the geographic area, cultural context, etc. If we were to merge all sangha-related articles, what sections do you think we should create in the resulting article?

BTW, I really appreciate that you caught & fixed the [vandalism] in May. Deebki 08:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Copying merge discussion text, for reference, from Talk:Bhikkhuni --Deebki 19:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Meltingpot

It seems reasonable imho to keep Sangha, Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni, Mae ji etc. as separate yet interlinked articles.--Gakuro 08:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Distinct Articles

I'd suggest that these (Sangha, Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni, Mae ji) remain distinct articles. I imagine that several of these articles will grow significantly, since the situation for women monastics is rapidly changing. Deebki 00:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's reasonable to have an article about the status of bhikkhunis in the Theravada countries and Tibet. But, what sort of information do you suggest should be housed in the other such articles? They seem to me like they are all about the same thing. I don't see any major changes occurring with regard to most of the bhikkhuni sangha.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Nearly all the articles about sangha groups could use development. I should bring this to the Buddhism project. Most are missing info on specific ordination process, levels of ordination, inclusion or exclusion of leity, culturally specific practices of vinaya, roles within the culture, relationships to government and other cultures, etc. Just thinking about the massive sections on a single article (level of ordination, vinaya practice, roles, etc. for every Buddhist tradition) gives me a headache... perhaps as much headache as looking at all the scattered, proliferating articles gives you, Nat. Maybe they could all be categorized together, under something like Buddhist monasticism or even Sangha. What do you think? ----Deebki 10:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Concluding Discussion:

Thanks to each of you who contributed to this very interesting discussion. I appreciate working with such thoughtful, patient people who are so dedicated to creating high-quality articles on Buddhism! I enjoyed hearing your brilliant ideas; they've changed my priorities for contributing. I hope one or some of us take the ideas generated here, over to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism!

This discussion has been open for over six months. No one has commented for 16 days. I've copied comments over from other pages, for complete record of the discussion. I'll go ahead and remove the merge tags if no one objects by 25 September.

To summarize the points:

  • Mergers initially suggested because articles seemed to define those terms as equivalent of "Sangha." Several editors refuted this definition.
  • Mergers reluctantly supported, though recognized as "ideally" being separate, on the grounds that article were too short.
  • Suggested article to receive the new (merged) sections was questioned. Buddhist monasticism introduced as a possible option.
  • Mergers opposed on the grounds that:
a. the subjects are distinct (with unique histories, levels/process of ordination, practices specific to the geographic and cultural context, etc.
b. one, single article would be very long
c. these articles are currently growing. And events in the Buddhist practices are likely to spur continued growth
d. incomplete articles should be developed, rather than merged
  • Mergers re-supported based on "medium amount of overlap" and ability to merge and un-merge/split them, as needed
  • Noted that some Buddhism articles confuse terminology specific to a tradition or school of Buddhism and need cleanup. --Deebki --Deebki 21:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sangha does not mean Monks

In Buddha's Teachings, Sangha means People who have attain either of Four levels of Nirvana, or Steps to Nirvana, namely Sotapanna, Sakradagami, Anagami and Arahat.

This seems to be a topic of some contention, because, unless I'm mistaken, orthodox Theravadins usually believe that sangha can apply to monks and nuns, and this has come to be it's most common meaning. Hypothetically, if this usage proves really problematic, we can later separate this article out into arya-sangha and monastic sangha. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Sangha simply means a congregation. It is most often used to refer to the monastic sangha, usually male since most people don't include the 8 precept nuns. The Suttas most often refer to the Fourfold Sangha however, the male and female monastics, the male and female lay followers and in no way refers to a person's attainments. Arya-sangha specifically refers to those who have attained one of the four stages of enlightenment. Obhaso 20:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
In the Pali Canon, both uses are common. Peter jackson 17:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sangha in Japan?

Does the concept of Sangha extend to Japan? Are all orders of Japanese Buddhist monks part of this. I personally have never heard of this concept, and I simply want to make sure that such articles as Sōhei and Yamabushi are being categorized appropriately. Japanese Buddhism is to a large extent separate and different from mainland Asian Buddhism, and has very complex concepts of sects, organization and associations. So I just want to make sure that you think it appropriate to categorize this way. Thank you. LordAmeth 18:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The Buddhist clergy in Japan, except for the very small Ritsu school, do not have or claim to have the same sort of monastic ordination as found in most Buddhist countries. Whether they would use the Japanese equivalent of the word sangha to describe themselves I don't Know. Peter jackson 18:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuns

I notice the section on women's role carefully refrains from mentioning that the vinaya thoroughly subordinates nuns to monks. Peter jackson 18:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

References missing all over

There are no references to all the myriad information presented here. That|s a shame.

Question: What is the reference for the Buddha eating meat? I know of a contested reference that says he died of a piece of spoilt pork, but the translation allows only for a spoilt mushroom. 217.115.75.231 (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Austerlitz -- 88.75.88.89 (talk) 09:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic

Too much on what Buddhism is and not what Sangha is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.179.128 (talk) 03:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Qeustionable Statement about Zen

"In Kamakura Era, many sects (Zen, Pureland and Nichiren) which originated from Tendai sect abolished vinaya entirely. Therefore Japanese Zen, Pureland and Nichiren, are led by priests (or minister) rather than by monks."

The Soto Zen sect, one of the two main Zen sects in Japan, was essentially 'reimported' from China when Zen monk Dogen returned to Japan after many years of study in China. He was certainly a monk, and wrote extensively on things having to do with monasticism. To this day there are many large monastaries that are part of the Soto sect.

Soto was founded by Dogen as an alternative to the Tendai/Rinzai sect.

So I think this statement is overbroad (Zen, Pureland and Nichiren) and should probably be mondified.

What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.211.83 (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it depends on how the person was ordained. Dengyo, AKA Saicho changed the Ordination process [long before the Kamakura Period], so people were ordained using the Mahayana Precepts of the Brahma Net Sutra. Even after this, people were still 'monks'. It wasn't until the Meiji Era that monks were allowed to marry, eat meat etc. in an effort to return them to secular life and bring Shinto back to the front. I believe this is when they [Buddhist monks] became more like 'priests'. Steve (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sangha = Congregation

Almost all Buddhist organisation which does not have monks, call themselves "Lay organisation", so it specifically exclude application of Sangha reference. Only buddhist organisation which apply sangha to themselves while specifically reject monkhood is FWBO. In Wikipedia, NPOV state that views which are supported by "significant minortity" are to be included. FWBO is not a sigificant minority even in the West. It is possibly a significant minority in u.k. but this page is not about u.k. buddhism. FWBOarticle

Not sure what gives you the impression that only FWBO does that ... lots of western Buddhists do. Access to Insight has an article decrying the trend. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you name a Buddhist organisation in the West which do that aside from FWBO? In the West, there are quite few who decided to become buddhist after reading several books "about" buddhism. They usually drop out or join one of Buddhist organisation. Some do indeed remain buddhist without affiliating themselves with any particular temple. But I do not believe these people represent anywhere near the level which can be described as a sigfinicant mionrity. FWBOarticle
There are a lot of examples. The first one that sprung to mind was Cloud Water Sangha, which is the umbrella group for Zen Centers associated with the Rochester Zen Center. There's also, Diamond Sangha, the group affiliated with Robert Aitken; Dharma Sangha, affiliated with Richard Baker; and White Plum Asanga (I'm not sure if asanga is the same thing), affiliated with the heirs of Taizan Maezumi. I found that a good way to check around is to google for (sangha + [some popular Western Buddhist trend]). For instance, I found these easily on google: San Francisco Zen Center "Sangha News"; Southwind Sangha Sôtô Zen Association; Heartland Sangha; Shambhala Meditation Center Los Angeles "Sangha Signpost; and even these links from a Vipassana group: [1].

To add another to the list, Soka Gakkai International calls itself a 'lay organisation'. Steve (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Another factor which should be considered is that the largest groups of Buddhist in the West are actually Asian immigrants (SriLankan,Thai,Chinese, Vietnamese and so on). Westerner convert, though more visible, are minority even in the West. FWBOarticle

That's true, but it doesn't disprove the claim that many Buddhist groups are now using sangha to refer to congregations. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Edited further based on these insights and THE Pali Canon reference stating that sangha also includes lay followers. Esp. the last section, trying to give both the opinions of the fans-of-narrow-usage-of-word and those (like myself) of the wide usage. Will try to add a reference later about the wide-usage-fans treating of the triple-gem-theological-problem. [Ujukarin] 10 Aug 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikdr (talk • contribs) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(originally untitled note)

Made some changes based on personal observations. There are many Buddhist monks and nuns who do not practice monasticism but there is still a sharp distinction between the monks and the laity.

I corrected some inaccuracy with the definition of Sangha and Savaka. I also had to make minor edit of subsequent paragraph for this. I have also clarified the practice of vegetarianism and ordination of nuns in Buddhist country.FWBOarticle 07:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

does this have anything to do with the 'satsang' movement? i ask because of the same sound of the words. rhadasoami satsang for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.170.144 (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2004 (UTC)

Requested move 11 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Pages moved. (closed by a page mover)  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  03:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sangha → Sangha (Buddhism) – so that Sangha (disambiguation) can be moved here. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 14:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC) -- Relisting Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate this being posted so we can discuss it. I don't have a clear opinion right now. Are there current "for" and "against" that might be posted? Any historical background or context on this article that is relevant? Background material would help me participate, if anyone has any to share. Thank you. Best, AD64 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
There are quite many articles with Sangha. For example Sangha (Jainism). The current article talks about Buddhism concept only and hence should be renamed and this page should be converted into a disambig. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 17:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 4 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved – I have decided to overturn my previous close in light of new information submitted below. (closed by a page mover)  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  05:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

– Proposing to undo the previous move. The Buddhist term is overwhelmingly the primary topic: the article traffic statistics from before and after the 1st June move suggest that only about 4% of all users who type "Sangha" are looking for something else. Uanfala (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to me that for a month last year one of the articles that can be ambiguous with Sangha – Jain community – received many more hits that the current article [2]. While this is relevant, it's worth noting that during this period (as during the periods before and after) the amount of article traffic for Sangha (disambiguation) was exceedingly low, so wherever the high traffic at Jain community was coming from, it definitely wasn't from users searching for "sangha". Uanfala (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a small comment: to compare the Sangha in Buddhism article to the article on the Jain community may be misleading, since the Jain community article is not specific to the subject of Sangha. It might be better if we make the comparison to the redirect, which is Sangha (Jainism)? That leads us to this six-month analysis.  OUR Wikipedia (not "mine")! Paine  16:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There are 9 more "Sangha". Comparing only two won't show a clear picture. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 02:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@Capankajsmilyo: The statistics for the other sanghas are already included in the article traffic reports at either of the two links above. The reason we aren't discussing them is that the page views they receive are an order of magnitude below those of the two Buddhist and Jain articles. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sangha as Buddhist community

There was an erroneous (though admittedly common) assumption about Nichiren Shoshu being the "parent" organization of Soka Gakkai. Re-worded it. None of the meaning or tenor of the section has changed. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham:: Since I'm not making a statement, but am removing an incorrect one, I don't think I can insert a footnote. However, if I did, in would note that Nichiren Shoshu has always had a lay organization to which it is "parent", the "Hokkeko", and the founders of the Soka Gakkai chose not to join it, but to establish their own (citing Montgomery, Tamaru and others); that the Soka Gakkai existed for some 20 years before there was even an official affiliation with Nichiren Shoshu (Seagar, Hurst and others).Here's ne possible citation, from Clarke and Somers Japanese New Religions in the West: "In reality, because of the enormous human and financial resources available to the Soka Gakkai leadership for purposes largely determined by that leadership,Soka Gakkai's relationship with the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood has never actually resembled that of 'parent and child'." I've removed the phrase "parent organization" again; if you wish an array of footnotes, I can supply it, but I really don't understand where it would go. Thank you.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe I am involved in this discussion. You must have mistaken me for someone else.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry! --Daveler16 (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Guys, another dimension of same; this traces back to edits I made somewhere 2015 and which were killed later IMHO without proper reasoning.

My point, which I plan to add again at 2 places in the lemma/article, is that those who interpret sangha as 'also including lay followers', and yes those are mainly Mahayana/Vajrayana, DO have some proof in the Pali texts also. Hence the statement that this is Mayahana and not based on any Pali references looks quite misguided to me. My main source is Anguttara-Nikaya II.1.vii (numbering system varies a bit over the different sites): Catukka nipata, Bhandagamavaggo in e.g. http://archive.is/HCoXg (and yes I checked a pure Pali site also, the word translated here as Community is definitely Sangha). I'm not telling that those Theravadins telling that the other terms like parisa are used 'mainly' for a grouping including lay followers in the canon are wrong, they are right. But the Theravadins who seem to have made these edits telling that the other terms are used SOLELY in the canon - nope the proof is above. A matter of simple Venn diagrams I'd say ;-). When I found this sutta some years back I found 1-2 other places also which are proving my point that the Mahayanist view _does_ trace back to Pali canon here, but this one was the clearest.

Please respond within a week or so, plan to re-apply my edits next weekend if not proven wrong.

Update: Okay it remains silent here, hence time for tickling a few of you who in the past edited this section. Hard to trace whether it was THIS very dimension, also quite a few edits from an anonymous IP adress sadly. @Daveler16: , @Ogress: , @Puthujjana:, @Ubikwit: So if anyone has objections, shout before my edit comes this weekend and would create a 'rollback war'.

Erikdr (talk) 06:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay rollback war started but sadly not by using the Talk page here but solely by comments. Please continue here

" please refer to secondary sources that discuss the Tipitaka, rather than the Tipitaka itself"

Well I am afraid this member will have to explain here. A secondary source IMHO is in this case inferior to the Tipitaka - the old text states more or less 'The Pali Canon says' (it says that the canon is reserving "Sangha") and that is plain wrong - as he seems to admit that the Tipitaka source is technically correct. THAT, the phrase "with a few exceptions" is all I changed in the text. Plus an explanation and source for that further on. If more members here find it essential to _also_ (not instead of the canon, there is a reason that primary sources bear that name) add a secondary source confirming that some Pali texts tell that 'sangha' can include lay persons fine, I probably can find one. But the whole idea that something plain wrong is better than something technically right imho is not the professionalism we claim to have in wikipedia, sorry...

Erikdr (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of traditional Buddhist texts as primary source

Erikdr, in your edit you are supporting a statement by referring to a passage from the Buddhist scriptures. Although I agree with the statement, and I hold the Buddhist scriptures in high regard, just adding summaries of the Buddhist scriptures is not the correct way of writing a Wikipedia article. You should find a passage in a secondary source that supports your statement, that is, a secondary source that is independent of the subject. For more information see WP:RS and WP:OR.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we are not allowed to use sutras or other primary religious texts without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them. JimRenge (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Okay 2 new developments: 1] I asked same question to a Lankan Bhikshu I recently met online. His interesting answer was that 'Sammuti sangha' is the sangha including the lay people, Ariya sangha the Noble ones; I asked him then what in his opinion the correct wording was for the sangha defined as all robe-wearers. To be continued: interestingly enough his definition of Sammuti sangha contradicts that of e.g. Thanissaro Bhikku.

2] Response to @Farang Rak Tham: well it's complicated even for Wiki-standards. There are 2 places here where I disagree with original text. a] Section 'Definitions'. Here it says without any source "but the Theravada Pāli Canon uses the word ".....

If we have to follow WP:RS and WP:OR, the whole section would have to go? ;-)

Hence as the section is based in some way on a primary source, and wrongly, all I do is correct it. And I could as well move the reference from the 2nd section to here, so then after the word 'exceptions' the reference could come with as extra text 'e.g.'?

b] Section at bottom, and then 'Some scholars'. Yes agree, currently here I add a primary source to a section based on secondary sources. Can remove that for now until I've found a secondary source for this, BUT will do that only if a] gets the reference and if you're not the sole person with this opinion.

Will wait with doing anything with the 'Sammuti' concept until I have further reply from Sri Lanka. But for 2] - well

  • Rak Tham, okay with moving the reference to this Definition section?
  • And any others (well not much response since I started this one week back), agree with Rak Tham that for now b] would have to be undone until I got a secondary source? (Solved by recent comment)

Erikdr (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Erikdr, an easy way to approach writing a Wikipedia article is to simply start from all the secondary sources you can find, and mine from the sources what you can find in them. Starting with a statement that you would like to be in the article, and then looking for a source to prove it, while technically not violating the laws of Wikipedia, usually does not render the best articles.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree, BUT that is unfortunately not the issue here. We have an existing phrase "the Theravada Pāli Canon uses the word..." and that is an attempt someone made to summarise a PRIMARY source (as there is no reference). I fully agree with that phrase except that mentioning the exceptions is IMHO also essential, that's why I made the edit first some 2 years back and now again (hence 'rollback war', I did not trace back who undid it then...) If I'd ever write an article from scratch your advice is great.

Now applied the following changes: a] This moving of the exception-reference to the sentence about Pali Canon. Removed at bottom. b] Added one sentence with 3 references after the Soka Gakkai link, to show that more Mahayana schools (actually I dare say mostly those without a vinata tradition) interpret sangha in the 'wide' sense.

Will work on explanation, with secondary sources, of the 3 levels of sangha: [1] Arya (no disagreements on that), [2] 'Sasana' (vinaya following robe wearers, not my kind of married robe wearers ;-) and [3] 'Sammuti'; where e.g. Thanissaro interprets Sammuti sangha as equalling [2] but the Lankan bhikshu, and probably some secondary sources I'll find, interprets it more in Soka Gakkai style or in other words AN-Bhandagamavaggo style.

Erikdr (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC) @Jimrenge, please do discussion here instead of immediately acting. Again: If the rule would be 'solely material with secondary sources', then the WHOLE section "the Theravada Pāli Canon uses the word..." must go. If we decide to let that section in, without a secondary source, my simple opinion is that then also this correcting part sentence is needed. What's wrong here?

Erikdr (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Okay, got it (I hope). The section 'the Theravada Pali canon uses the word' _does_ have secondary sources at end. Now mine also has one, as 'authorative' as we had. As Lewis does not mention the exact sutra I still find it helpful to have that in the reference, but if people insist on removing that part of the reference fine :-)

Erikdr (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Okay and on the plan to extend at the end on parisa vs. sangha: 'complicated'. Clear is that the Theravada texts use 'Fourfold assembly' regularly, but that's Parisa. And that we have Ariya Sangha, Monastic sangha and Samutti (non-noble) sangha. But most texts say that Samutti sangha _is_ the Monastics (well except those that have become Ariyas), or that it could be a word describing a quality of humans (ordained or not) instead of a group. Will await response from the Srilankan bhikshu whether he has a 'hard' proof here that Samutti sangha includes upasakas/upasikas...

Qualities of the sangha

Erikdr (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC) Next polishing-up round. Found at least one more reference (Bhikkhu Bodhi again) for this section, hope that the tag about lack-of-sources at some point can go away. The current section was IMHO too much Theravada-focused; even the new source (Bodhi) clearly states that the Monastic sangha is NOT the Third Refuge, that solely applies to the Arya Sangha. Made the text such that it tries to say that what is seen as Sangha-refuge (at wider scale, all schools agree that for smaller-scale it's Ariya sangha but it's soooo hard to find a living Arya) is related to what a school sees as Sangha. A discussion shown at a few other places in the article, e.g. the four links to Mayahana schools at bottom showing that these four include 'Upasakas' in their Sangha definition and hence also define the Sangha-refuge wider. But more suggestions/polishing up welcome - I did not remove any of the old text, only repositioned some sentences.

"Move page" to make new title = "Sangha (Buddhism)"

Please "Move page" to make new title = "Sangha (Buddhism)" As this Sanskrit Language term exists in several religions originating from India. See :

Administrator assisted move required to move back to original title.

mrigthrishna (talk) 11:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with mrigthrishna. Can’t understand why preference is being giving to Buddhism when we find the exact same concept with the same name in other religions as well.-Nimit (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
I prefer "Sangha (Buddhism)". JimRenge (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sangha is not Sanskrit term. It is a Pali/Prakrit term. The Sanskrit equivalent is Samgha. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sangha/Archive_1&oldid=1144365626"