I'm looking for Suttas or other texts that describe the triple gem (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha), preferably for laypeople. I'm mostly interested in Theravada Suttas, but also Mahayana Sutras, newer books, or other materials. Grateful for help!

Good Morning, Recently I have been soul-searching and looking for a missing spiritual aspect of my life. I have been reading **Introduction to Buddhism** by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso. After reading part one of the book, I felt a strong connection to Buddhism. Although I don't see myself as seeking total enlightenment in my lifetime, I feel a want to continue my path and perhaps become what I think is called a lay Buddhist. With this personal realization has come a lot of confusion. I plan to continue reading Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's book, however I'm wondering if there is another resource that could help me answer the questions I have more directly at this point. Which is why I'm making this post. I feel like I have almost no resources other than the intention I have to learn. I live in the Southern United States and so I have come up short on finding local resources. In my book, I find myself reading some of what Geshe Kelsang Gyatso says and then wanting to know more, but being at the mercy of what is said later in the book to explain it. It's been a wonderful exposure so far enough that I want to continue learning, but I'm just not sure which resources to seek out. I understand that there are several schools of Buddhism and that has added to my confusion. I think that my book is related to Mahayana, but I could be mistaken. I know that to call myself a lay Buddhist in the first place involves taking refuge in the three jewels and committing to the five precepts. There seems to be discourse on whether or not this is something that can be done alone or needs to be done at an official venue. In a way, I almost feel like I have already taken refuge. There is a prayer to Buddha, Sanga, and Dharma in my book that I have recited intentionally. I'm not sure if that prayer is a prayer for taking refuge specifically, however it almost feels like the lines are bleeding together. In my book 12 commitments of refuge are talked about in addition to the five precepts. This has caused me some confusion because elsewhere on the web I've seldom seem these mentioned. I guess overall to summarize what I'm asking for: I feel a strong connection to Buddhism. I want to continue learning, but feel like I am missing resources. I feel like what I want is a complete guidebook to how I can continue learning and how to practice. Something to give structure to this thing I feel the need to seek out. I know that what is important is learning from the three jewels and applying that to live a better life, but I still feel a need for something to follow to help me do so. A lay Buddhist guidebook if you will. Some questions that have come up for example: - How can I study more Dharma teachings? The book mentions Dharma books which I guess this book would technically count as itself, but are there books specifically for Dharma teachings from Buddha in one book? - The book mentions offerings on occasion. I'm unsure of what this means exactly or how to make offerings. - Can you take refuge alone? - If you do something against the five precepts, do you repent? Or do you just continue living up to the five precepts as well as you can. - Is the Buddhist stack exchange part of Sangha? I apologize if this post is a little messy or rambling. I'm hoping it will be looked on with kind-eyes and someone can point me in the right direction and I can continue learning.

First of all "Sadhu!" and much reason that reaches to good grow, but as just a [meta-topic](https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/2661/should-we-use-honorifics-when-referring-to-monks) what's actually the primary base, good to give occassion to raise not only awareness for good grow but also possibility to give proper answers, citing the Venerables here (although, of course, some will use it to increase their demerits as well). "We" in the question refers to receiver of Dhamma-guṇa (highest goodness), to householder, to people aware of higher and lower, not to speak of those gone for refuge toward the Gems. Maybe good to add a sub-question: Who is the one who really gains something upwardly when giving proper regard, and who's the one who loses if failing? (e.g. the Kamma of reference)

**Namo Buddhaya** In the sutta of Talaputa Sutta: To Talaputa the Actor SN 42.2 The Buddha, to the demand of the actor presenting his wrong view wishing to know what Lord Buddha thought of, answers > Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that. And then proceeds, after the third demand of the actor, on presenting why his beliefs were wrong views. I thus wonder, why wouldn't the Buddha wish to show the way to someone clearly mired in wrong view the right path to practice at his first request ? Why would he ask him not to ask him again ? Especially considering that the actor actually goes and takes refuge for life after his understanding of his wrong views. With metta.

If someone asked, "What? My father, teacher, ... are not just friends?" -- how would one explain significant differences between "tolerance" and "deep respect and regard", of people being in front and what is called a "person worthy of respect"? Since it might sometimes occur, in modern or western world, that one gives the gift of appreciation to someone who you count as an equal -- how to make best, or explain now the further step, respect, reverence and even refuge and total devotion? Does anybody have, can provide, a good answer, strategy, to solve such? Maybe under the headline, "Neither your father, your teachers and many others, nor the Buddha, are your "homies" or your "colleagues" (co-worker on same stage), proper to call and address by name or with 'friend'". Practical try, as well possible inspiration to answer this, might be found under the question: "[Why should one not address a venerable as friend?](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25218/why-should-one-not-address-a-venerable-as-friend) ", by Upasaka Chris. And why the question is very importand and reasonable, why "homie"-like meetings and ways are destructive for a grow, might be also find inspiring answers later possible [here](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/25222/what-are-the-consequence-of-speaking-without-having-got-leave) . *(this is later addition)* ___ *[It's not required to try to answer if the significant different is not really traced yet. Possible better to ask another question. And yes it's another challenging and possible not much broadly beloved question. And yes, feel free to upvote the question as well, if thinking that this gives release.* *Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]*

Yesterday I spent some time studying one of the Vinayas and, completely honestly, I couldn't help but think that some of the rules were shockingly superstitious even by the standards of most of the world religions of the time. For example, rules that emphasize non-violence to such an extent that they forbid monks and nuns from slicing or peeling their own fruits and vegetables. The food, completely vegetarian, must be "slaughtered" by a lay donor before the monks are allowed to break it or bite it. I couldn't help but think that such rules actually harm the Sangha by preventing them from operating in present-day capitalistic societies, where self-sufficiency is highly respected and prized. (And, potentially unsanitary? Modern churches, by contrast, issue each congregant a separate cup and communion wafer, even though the disciples shared a single loaf and chalice.) Other parts of the vinaya were surprisingly in-tune with modern sensibilities of social justice and "Twitter feminism", such as the rule forbidding monks from teaching nuns without being first asked. #DontMansplainDharmma Or the rule that a monk must first ask permission of another monk (trigger warning) before reminding him or politely asking him about a possible rule violation. It made me wonder if there are modern monks and monastic orders that explicitly (and unapologetically) reject the obsolete parts of the vinaya while conscientiously obeying the beneficial parts. Granted, which parts are obsolete is open to interpretation. And secondly, I am aware that the text of the vinaya forbids monks from criticizing vinaya or requesting changes to it, especially for the cause of expediency or attracting new followers. The Buddha himself authored vinaya and expected it to be followed. Is it permissible for a Buddhist lay follower, one who has taken refuge and has chosen to follow the Eightfold Path without picking and choosing, to discuss certain aspects of the vinaya in a skeptical light, as I have just done? Or to describe certain texts as mythological or historical disciples as impure? I have not taken refuge in the Three Jewels and will not unless I can do so in total sincerity and a pure conscience.

An unknown contributer wrote >Imo a yogi (homeless) without formal association is more likely to be assumed to be an outcast holding wrong views, unable to get along with 'the contemporary masters'. Therefore it will be difficult lest one makes a living recycling stuff or otherwise gets the money. How about a layperson. How will he/she be assumed if unknown, without face, name, without formal refuge and renewing? Whould't he/she not merely need to live just from recycling stay, or from improper ways to gain the Dhamma? Maybe worthy to give reflective answer. *[note that this isn't giving for trade, exchange or stocks but toward release from a wheel]*

Many years ago, a Zen Roshi said in a class that "nobody else is your boss except for you. Only you can make the decision and apply yourself to practice, nobody else can." So, I've heard this many times from various Buddhist traditions. However, Buddhism also has this idea of "taking refuge" in various things. If you are responsible for yourself what is the point of "taking refuge?" What is the proper understanding of "taking refuge" in Buddhism?

A lot of people, especialy from the west, like to follow the Dhamma (Kamma laws, meditation, metta, etc.), however they worry about taking refuge, because taking refuge is seen as an official entry point in Buddhism, where your old religion should be abandoned, for Christians for example, they feel like if they take refuge they will be turning their backs on Jesus. So the questions are: Can a person follow the Buddha's teachings without taking refuge? Can someone attain enlightment without taking refuge?

I read in Wikipedia and also in the suttas that refuge in Dhamma is "verified", as follows: > Svakkhato Bhagavata dhammo sanditthiko akaliko ehipassiko opanayiko > paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti. > > "Svakkhato" The Dhamma taught by the Blessed One is Excellent in the > beginning, Excellent in the middle and Excellent in the end - all of > Buddha's Discourses are consistent and teach the same truth. > "Sanditthika" Dhamma is self-evident and can be understood in this > life itself. "Akaliko" Dhamma, Noble Truths, can not be changed nor > can they be altered over time. "Ehipassiko" "come and see"; Buddha's > Dhamma is to be investigated. "Opanayika" Dhamma can only be > understood by oneself. "Paccattam vedittabbo vinnuhiti" Dhamma is for > the wise to understand and realize. _____________ > The teaching is well explained by the Buddha—visible in this very > life, immediately effective, inviting inspection, relevant, so that > sensible people can know it for themselves. > > svākkhāto bhagavatā dhammo sandiṭṭhiko akāliko ehipassiko opaneyyiko > paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhīti. Can I believe in things I have not verified for myself but still be a Buddhist? Do the words "veditabbo viññūhīti" refer to direct experience? Or can it be merely fluency in theories?

How much discussion of *refuge* is there in the modern vipassanā movement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassana_movement) ? If there is significant emphasis, what is its character? I am particularly interested in Western vipassanā circles such as IMS and Spirit Rock, but also their Eastern progenitors. I am not speaking here of the formal ceremony or commitment of taking refuge as much as the concept and ongoing practice of refuge.

After taking refuge within the Karma Kagyu tradition, I got "blessing pills". I have no idea, by which occasion I should take them, how they are manufactured and in which historical, cultural and ritualistic context they are embed. The answer I got where not helpful.

or when wearing one oneself? (The question might be worthy to copy also in your meta-section... for possible increase of general respect toward the Gems and enviroment for providing such, since else might cause harm for many althought not aware for now.)

I am quite fond and connect deeply to the Buddha's teachings. I have been a soft lay buddhist for almost a year now. I am sure that it is one of the best ways to develop as a being, as well as help others, although some deep stuff about shunyatta still confuses and eludes me. However, I am also sure that "other religions" (in quotation marks since it is debatable whether buddhism is a religion) also have a lot of wisdom to teach, help and love to give. This exerpt from The Triple Refuge, by Sayagi U Chit Tin made me worry: "Taking refuge will be broken for ordinary people when they die, but this breaking is blameless and does not bring bad results. On the other hand, breaking the taking of the Triple Refuge during one's life is very serious. This is broken whenever a person goes for refuge to a teacher outside the Buddha's Dispensation or when a person is disrespectful to the Triple Gem." It seems to me that after taking refuge, if you go to other religions and religious teachers for their teachings on how to develop further down the path, it would be a bad thing (the author does not seem to say why this is a problem nor what happens if you do it). So, is it possible to take refuge, follow the buddhist path to nibbana and still to other religions for help with the path? What about religions that directly contradict buddhist teachings or precepts?

What is the nature of a ? How does one incorporate a refuge tree(s) into their practice?

If one is expected to have unshakable faith in the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha and there is concern that an Ajahn's teachings may be inaccurate, is it still possible to take refuge?

Marriage (and/or a binding relationship) is not very popular among modern people, who believe strongly in promoted "pseudo-liberality". --- As an aside: - The word religion has very similar meaning like marriage, deriving from "[religiō](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio) ". >The classical explanation of the word, traced to Cicero himself, derives it from re- (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully". Modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell favor the derivation from ligo "**bind, connect**", probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re- (again) + ligare or "to reconnect," which was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius. - A certain text from a possibly well-known song came to mind the last days: >[Love and marriage](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p8t5cOjlEPU) , love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage this I tell you brother you can't have one without the other. - Next to the possibly well-known wordily marriage issues, the "marriage" stance with the Jewels, for Nibbana in a guided, related way, goes "informal" like that: >“[I go](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/vin/mv/mv01/mv.01.13.khem_en.html) to the Blessed One for refuge, and the Dhamma and the Saṅgha of monks. >“May the Blessed One remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge from this day forward, for life. --- What do you think, or what would you like to share on Dhamma, in relation to bonding, duties in relation to one partner (for worldly bliss), but also in regard of the relation with the Triple Gems for an end of suffering: - Is it possible to gain, either this in this world, or that beyond, if there is no real refuge and total acceptance of the duties in this "contract"? - Can a Hallodri (lightheaded man/woman) expect to gain one or the other, e.g. without real relationship (refuge), if they're either not giving promises or if they're carelessly breaking promises? - And what about relationships where both people mutually agree not to be loyal: can any higher attainment be expected then? *[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains my means of trade and exchange]*

I'm sitting with a bunch of people (and have been for quite a while now), and I want to deepen my practice. I want to make a commitment, primary to myself, to stay on track and want to take _Jukai_ (refuge). __Situation:__ Our group is quite heterogeneous and a mere "sitting group". Our common denominator is Soto-Style Zen, but we are lay, lay-ordained people, and monks. Some style themselves Buddhist, other Christian. We have no common teacher, head temple, center or any authority on site. That leaves me with a few options, all a few hours driving away from here, to commit to a master. - First there is the teacher of most/all of our lay-ordained members. Naturally, that would be the prominent choice, but that would be logistically the most challenging one. - Then there is a temple, which is nearer, but not so closely coupled to our group. That would be a more convenient choice. - Last there would be a main temple of the all over arcing organisation, the both former options are incorporated. But that one is a longer drive, again, and it is the most "unpersonal" option, since it is an higher organisation. __Personal Consideration:__ I want to make the commitment more for my self. From my point of view, my shanga is my local group. I would want to get to know a teacher quite well, before I would choose him for a monk ordination. But with Jukai, as a first step, I won't consider it that important. __Questions:__ - Who can actually gives Jukai? Who's entitled to? - What is the dogmatic consequence, exactly (link is sufficient)? - How deep are the bonds between the one giving Jukai and the one receiving it? - How to ask for Jukai? - How to prepare for that event? - Any other points, I may miss and should think about? __Edit 2015/10/30, after Andreis Answer:__ His answer moves into the direction of "taking refuge in the _three nobles truths_". I realize, that I'm already taking refuge on a regular basis by chanting the _Shigu seigan mon_ (The Four Bodhisattva Vows). Therefore I changed title and tag back to _Jukai_. I want to focus the question on Soto-Style Jukai as a __lay-ordination__ with committing to the 10 precepts to reinforce my practice. PS: I want to thank Chris for the proof-reading. English is not my first tongue and I am constantly make mistakes while writing, unable to see them myself.

Buddha being one of the three jewels, how am I supposed to take refuge in him? Is it through meditation? The only meditation I know is 'mindfulness', and I think that it isn't enough. That being so so, how do I reach out for him?

When was taking refuge in the 3 jewels of Buddha, Dharma & Sangha started? Was it started by the Buddha in his time or was it after him? When I mean taking refuge, I mean for a lay Buddhist and not for a Bhikku. What is the source of the 3 refuges mantra: Buddhaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi. Dhammaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi. Saṅghaṃ saraṇaṃ gacchāmi.