[Buddha-l] women & , er, religion

[Richard Hayes]

On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:07 PM, Sally McAra wrote:

> To me, words (e.g. "ordination") are context dependent. If one uses it
> in the context of the FWBO it means one thing, but in the context of
> an organisation that has monks, nuns and laypeople, it means something
> else.

The issue is not simply a matter of semantics. It has practical  
dimensions. If you will accept hearsay (which is all I have to offer),  
thus have I heard. On several occasions where ecumenical meetings of  
Buddhists have occurred, members of the ordained sangha have been  
invited to sit on the stage (or some other designated place).  
Dharmacharis in the FWBO have reportedly shown confusion. Have they  
been invited or not? If it is not clear to a dharmachari(ni) whether  
he or she is part of the sangha of ordained Buddhists, then some  
clarification is in order.

> The same with "sangha" - some western buddhists use this to refer to
> all who try to practise Dharma, and others are horrified at this
> usage, and say it's only for monastics ("ordained sangha.")

And some of us reject both of those usages and cling to the meaning it  
has in all the abhidharma traditions. The sangha is nothing but the  
set of all those who have attained stream-entry or the other levels of  
ārya-pudgala on up to arhant. That is the meaning of sangha as an  
unmarked term, and it is only this sangha to which a Buddhist goes for  
refuge. If I am overcome by a craving to refer to some other  
collection of people in the Buddhist fold, then I tend to use one of  
the marked terms---bhikṣu-sangha, upāsaka-sangha---or their English  
equivalents. Sometimes, when I feel like honouring Dr. Ambedkar (who  
accepted only two refuges), I translate "bkhikku-sangha" as Ambedkar  
did: "gang of idlers".


Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes
rhayes at unm.edu