The Triple

Gautama Buddha lived over five hundred years before the birth of Jesus Christ. He formed a new religious community in his time, and with that community he started a new religious faith in India. His followers believe that he established a path of salvation that anyone could follow. The path was discussed by Gautama Buddha during nightly discourses and in individual spiritual direction that he had with his disciples. In his teaching one can find that he taught that there are three refuges whereby one has access to salvation. These refuges are: the Buddha himself, his teachings -- the Dharma, and that of the community of his disciples -- the Sangha.^[1] A Christian who reads about these three refuges should have no difficulty in seeing the similarity between them and in what one has as a means of salvation in Christian doctrine. That is, they should be able to see that the three refuges in Buddhism have a parallel within the work and teaching of Jesus Christ, and in fact a Christian has the same kind of refuges. For the Christian, the refuges the person of Jesus Christ, His teaching, and His Church.

Many Christians and Buddhists should study each other's religions. Each tradition has much that it can offer to the other tradition. Christians certainly have the need to understand Buddhism in its terms and categories of thought in order to have a fruitful dialogue with Buddhists. Christians should seek to understand, among other things, what precisely a Buddhist means when he says that the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha are refuges. Christians and Buddhists should seek to understand each other, not just for the sake of dialogue, nor for the sake of proselytizing (which often happens from both traditions, although with a much higher degree of proselytizing by the Christian) -- but also because it certainly can help to strengthen and enrich each other's traditions. When looking at one's own tradition and the general questions posses in a new framework, one will not only be able to see new ways of looking at the questions and finding new ways of answering them, one will also be provided with new ways to see the strengths and weaknesses of one's traditional theology. With a search for a deeper understanding of the Christian faith and how it answers the questions of life, I offer that not only is the categorization and terminology of Buddhism useful to know -- but its idea of the three refuges can be, word for word, used by a Christian to understand his own faith. Christians seek refuge in a Buddha, who is Jesus Christ; they seek refuge in the Dharma, which is the teaching of Jesus Christ, and they understand and place our trust in Christ's Sangha, the Church. But to say this, as I have just done, there is the need to understand what a Buddhist means by this, and in doing so, see what it means to use these words within the framework of Christianity. For if we use them, do they provide baggage which needs to be discarded, or do they offer a new framework of thought which would enrich our own traditional understandings? In order to answer this, let us look at the refuges within Buddhist thought:

"A spiritual aspirant requires a model, something he or she can look up to as an ideal and thus find guidance and inspiration. In Buddhism this is the Triple Gem, or the Three Jewels of Refuge: The Buddhas, the Dharma and Sangha." (The Dalai Lama, The Path to Enlightenment p. 97)

There are two ways of understanding the three-refuges within Buddhism. In one sense, they are said to be a Triple-Gem, and so they are unified as one; on the other hand, they are understood to be three different jewels, and thus they are three different entities. Since both gems and jewels are precious, the use of the term "gem" or "jewel" is used to indicate that the refuge is itself priceless in value. The three refuges are one in the sense that a Buddha declares the Dharma and those who follow the Dharma follow the Dharma together with other followers of a Buddha: one who seeks refuge in a Buddha seeks the other two -- his teaching and the community which is based upon the enactment of his teaching. The relationship between the three form one reality. However, that one reality offers three different objects of veneration and refuge, and each of the three refuges can be and will be looked upon in their own standing^[2].

The word Buddha simply refers to one who has been "awakened" or "enlightened." Within a Buddhist context, a Buddha is someone who has removed from himself all impure taints found in existence and has unified himself with the pure Nirvana that is said to be beyond impermanent temporal existence. In this, he is said to be holy, without defilement, having achieved a state of total purity, and through this purity, he has also obtained an omniscient insight into the very nature of reality. He has gone beyond the need for selfishness; his ego has been overcome. He is the Tathagata, the one who has "thus gone" beyond the realm of changeable temporality, and has become the conquering victor over karmic defilement^[3]. He is totally pure, omniscient and without error; he is the great teacher who, through his own knowledge and experience of the path of salvation, is able to show to others the path which he has found.

Buddhism understands that there can be and will be more than one Buddha. The most recent Buddha, and historically the most known, is named Siddhartha Gautama. Every Buddha can be a refuge, and in some respect, they all are the same refuge. For everyone who seeks refuge in a Buddha, goes to him for the same reason: a Buddha is a great enlightened teacher that offers an infallible teaching that provides the way to salvation.^[4] One seeks refuge in a Buddha because he has personal insight which only a Buddha can offer. This insight is one that a Buddha will tell others to test before accepting, but nonetheless it is offered as the truth experienced by a Buddha, and so it is to be seen as not just mere speculation. A Buddha (or Blessed One) is described by Ananda (one of Gautama Buddha's primary disciples) thus:

... the Blessed One was the arouser of the unarisen path, the producer of the unproduced path, the declarer of the undeclared path; he was the knower of the path, the finder of the path, the one skilled in the path. (The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, 108:5).

By his personal experience, a Buddha discovers the hidden path to salvation. It is a path that has not risen into existence, and yet it can be declared. A Buddha can be considered as a proper guide for salvation, for he discovered the unused path, explored it completely, and he knows where it goes and the perils along the way. One seeks a guide when one goes into unknown territory so one will not get lost: if one does not, and the path is perilous, one is likely to perish in the attempt to cross it, or at least suffer great harm.

An example that is used to describe the kind of refuge offered by a Buddha relates that a Buddha should be seen as an infallible doctor: he knows what prescription is needed to end the sickness we have brought upon ourselves as a result of actions born out of ignorance. His prescription will work, but it can be seen to be very bitter at the beginning if one does not understand it. One needs constant treatment and application by the infallible doctor until the medicine fully takes effect. Taking refuge in a Buddha is like being healed by the perfect doctor, because a Buddha is said to know the full conditions of one's spiritual sickness, and as the perfect doctor, he would be able to provide the help that is needed in order to make sure one's sickness is finally removed. He also knows the temperament and level of sickness of the individual being healed, and so he offers the medicine in a way and kind that the patient can accept. Within this context, the patient will slowly gain strength. First the patient will be treated by for the symptoms of the sickness he has. When the symptoms are dealt with, and the patient has regained some personal strength, he will then be able to receive the proper medicine that can cure him of his ailments instead of just overcoming its symptoms.

This helps demonstrate the reason why a Buddhist seeks refuge with a Buddha. He is seen as a teacher, a guide, and as a doctor who is the expert on the spiritual path. He knows the fullness of truth; he knows the place one is seeking to go to (Nirvana), and he knows the medicine one needs in order to be fully healed. There is the need for one to know what the teacher says, a way for one to get the map to one's proper destination, and a way for one to know what one's own prescription is, and this is the second refuge:

The second refuge is the Buddha's teaching itself, and it is called the Dharma. In Sanskrit, the term Dharma means "to hold," and the Dharma is said to hold back the causes of suffering. The Dharma contains within itself the truth and the way of salvation. It is the path which one needs to take in order to be saved. Dharma requires of those who follow it proper devotion to itself and practice of its teachings for it to be of any help. It is the teaching, the map, or the prescription which needs to be followed or applied, and only if it is fulfilled will it lead to perfect enlightenment, and with enlightenment, one will have freedom from all defilement and taints.

The practice of Dharma is dependent upon an understanding of reality. This is in Buddhism outlined as the Four Noble Truths, and these are considered the summary of the Buddha's philosophy. There is a great amount of depth to be found in the Four Noble Truths, and it would require a discussion all of its own to bring out all its points in a respectable fashion. For the sake of brevity, it is simply best to name what the Four Noble Truths are, and to discuss how they relate to the second refuge. They state: suffering exists, suffering exists because of a cause, there is a way to counteract and remove suffering -- that is, to cease suffering, and that one must enact the way which ends suffering to achieve salvation. The way of salvation, the practice of Dharma, is called the Noble Eightfold Path. Here one is required to engage in right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration.

To enter upon the way of salvation requires a great amount of personal work and labor. To end one's suffering and to remove all of one's impurities and taints requires an ever-increasing effort until, at the end, there will be no effort which is needed at all because by then all the taints and defilements will have been eliminated and there is nothing left to do. One who seeks refuge in the Dharma knows that the Dharma will be able to lead to a removal of all these taints. It can be said, in some respects, to be a trail of purification. Only by reaching the end of the trail will one be saved. It is a guaranteed result if one only fulfills all the tasks which are necessary to reach the end. The Dharma is the prescription that is needed, for it reports precisely where the illness is, and what is required to overcome that illness. Thus, as the way which leads to salvation, as the way which holds back error, the Dharma is truly precious and said to be worthy of veneration and devotion: the Dharma is pure and without defilement, it is not produced but rather is discovered, it is unarisen and always able to bring salvation to those who find it for their refuge:

Inconceivable, free from the two [veils] and from thought,
being pure, clear, and playing the part of an antidote,
it is free from attachment and frees from attachment. (Buddha Nature p.21)

It is important to note, that there is a lot of discussion and debate within Buddhism about the roles of the Buddha and the Dharma, and their relation to each other. This debate focuses upon which of the two can be considered to be the ultimate or true refuge: the Buddha or the Dharma. For those who say it is the Buddha, they say that in the end, the Dharma will cease, and will no longer be needed: when one has crossed over to perfection, there is no need for a teaching, map or antidote -- it is to be seen to be like a raft which one departs when one crosses a river^[5]. For those who say it is the Dharma, they say that the reason one takes refuge in a Buddha is precisely because he tells the way to salvation, and thus, his help is accomplished by the proper telling of the Dharma^[6].

The Sangha is a term that can mean one of two things, both of which are appropriate when referring to the Sangha as a refuge. First, the Sangha is simply the community of Buddhist believers. Secondly, the Sangha also refers to the spiritual heart of Buddhism, that is, the community of ordained Buddhist monks and nuns. Buddhism is an ascetical religion, and so it is understandable for why there will be some form of equivocation going on here. On the one hand, lay followers of Buddhism exist and indeed are the predominant members of Buddhism, and Buddhism does not want them to be rejected. On the other hand, the inner teachings of Buddhism, its heart, focuses on the need to transcend worldly affairs, and so those who truly follow the deeper, inner teachings of Buddhism will in one fashion or another need to become "out of this world," and become a monk or a nun. The Sangha, as the collection of Buddhist followers, is seen to be a community which works for the perfection and salvation of all within. It exists as a refuge, because each member of the Sangha is seen to be connected to every other member. They are co-workers who help each other on the path to salvation. "They are friends helping one to achieve refuge, like nurses." (Buddhism of Tibet p.35).

What a Buddha is said to possess within himself, the community of his disciples are said to possess in a limited degree. For it is within the Sangha that one can find masters of the spiritual teachings of Buddha. Spiritual masters, through their personal experience and understanding, are able to act as guides for those who have not attained the same level of wisdom and understanding. The Sangha is holy, and it contains not only those who are within the current living community of believers, but rather it extends throughout all time and so it is found to be the community of all the followers of a Buddha, including the holy, and great teachers of the past. The Sangha continues to be an embodiment of the Buddha's teachings. It is traditional, and it is where the masters of one generation train the masters of another generation, and this produces lines of "succession" where each line teaches various aspects of the Dharma. It important to remember past masters, for they are also present now through the teachers which embody their message, and it is through them that the Sangha is still a "precious jewel of refuge," worthy of be followed, obeyed, and respected:

The assembly of those who have understanding
and thus do not fall back has unsurpassable qualities,
since their vision of inner primordial wisdom
which knows correctly and knows completely, is pure. (Buddha Nature p.21)

Thus the Sangha is the refuge a Buddhist goes to, both because it possesses the collective understanding and tradition of Buddha's teaching, and because it works as a community which seeks to help each other on the path of salvation. While the work of salvation requires an individual to work and struggle for himself on the path established by the Dharma, he is not to be seen to be totally alone. Rather, the Sangha reinforces one of the principles of Buddhism: interdependence. In understanding the cause and root of existence to be empty, Buddhism states that one of the ways this should be understood is by knowing that nothing is existent within itself, but rather dependent upon outside causes. The cosmos as a whole is seen to be joined, and each aspect of the universe and its particular qualities depend upon every other aspect of the universe and their relations to each other.

It should be noted that one of the greatest "sins" a Buddhist can do is to cause a schism or division within the Sangha. Its karmic value is enough to send one for an aeon in hell. It brings the community into great confusion. The two factions which come into existence after the break up of the Sangha have to struggle against what would become the development of hate and animosity between the two different groups. One of the great problems with such a schism is that those who are not as qualified to judge, and so are not enlightened enough about the Dharma but rather starting their journey towards salvation will have difficulty in knowing which side of the schism is the true continuation of the Sangha. They will become lost on the path of salvation, and possibly unable to achieve the goal of Nirvana.

Having examined the three refuges as they are seen within Buddhism, there is next the need to see how well they apply to Christian thought. Is it really possible for a Christian to follow the Buddhist terminology discussed above as a way to understand their own faith?

The first question, and probably the one that will have the most difficulty in being accepted, is that of addressing Jesus Christ as a Buddha. If a Christian looks upon the qualities generally understood to be possessed by Jesus, one begins to see that there are many cultural designations placed upon Him. Within Jewish understanding, He is seen to be a King in the line of David, the Messiah, and even a prophet. Knowing that Jesus is God, it can be hard for some to understand how the term prophet would be appropriate. Nonetheless it is a designation, as with many others, which is applicable because of the Incarnation. For in the Incarnation, Jesus can be understood by designations that are related to His humanity. In His humanity, Jesus is a fully-enlightened prophet. He is free from sin and all its taints. As the term Buddha is understood by Buddhists as a category which many can fall under, those qualities which would be used to determine if one is a Buddha are able to be seen in the humanity of Jesus Christ. It should be perfectly acceptable, just like He is a prophet, to call Him a Buddha. The terminology is not within the normal Judaic-understanding of the role of the Messiah, but neither is His Godhood. Rather, there is need for one to understand the Messiah in a way which is deeper than what was merely expected within Judaism: He was not just the expectation of the Jews but of the Gentiles as well. And with the different nations of Gentiles, within what they have experienced in their own history, they have categories of humanity and expectations which transcend those of Jewish Messianic prophecies. Rather, some traditions rightfully understand the possibility of enlightenment within man that provides a fullness of understanding in a way which transcends intellectual-discursive reason, and that anyone who teaches a path of salvation must have this personal attainment of enlightenment. Jesus fulfills this expectation just as He fulfills the prophetic roles of the Jewish Messiah. To understand Jesus as not fulfilling this role would be, in effect, an indication that Jesus failed to meet the full expectation of the nations of the world. This would transform the universal role of the Messiah into something merely tribal and sectarian.

The second question that needs to be addressed is: what should we to make of the Buddhist understanding of the Dharma? Can we call Christ's teaching a Dharma? First, since Christ teaches Himself as a way of salvation, He indeed teaches His own Dharma. With His teaching of a Dharma, however, there is a twist: because the Dharma that Jesus teaches can be said to be Himself. Here there is the possibility that the interplay of the natures of Jesus Christ in the Incarnation can be quite interesting, and hopefully insightful, to Buddhists. The humanity of Jesus is a Buddha, a fully enlightened teacher proclaiming the way of salvation; the divinity of Jesus is, on the other hand, the way of salvation. Jesus told His followers that, "I am the way, the truth, and the life..." As the way, St. John the Apostle calls Jesus by the title Logos. He is the "law" which binds and frees; He is the way which brings salvation. He is both the teacher and what is taught: the two are one and the same. What is taught is the teacher Himself. What Jesus came to teach us about is Himself. In Jesus, the Dharma itself can be said to have reached down and become a Buddha in order for humanity to find that which was lost, that which it has ignored. The light shines in the darkness, the darkness knew it not -- the unarisen path has arisen to proclaim itself as the fulfillment of itself, and to bring about the universal means for all to follow its path.

With the combination of a Buddha and the Dharma in Jesus, there is here much opportunity for the inter-religious dialogue which will possibly help both Christian and Buddhist thought. For the Christian, it can provide new directions for Christology. This is not to say that traditional Christology is wrong, but rather this new direction can act as a supplement to traditional Christology: it can be a way to find answers to questions which are still debated within the traditional Christological paradigm. For example, the dispute about the knowledge of Christ, which has become quite strong in the modern era, can be looked at better within the Buddhist scheme of knowledge and omniscience than the modern humanistic modes of understanding which have become quite normal to be used by theologians. If one looks at Christ's humanity as merely human, and with this in a context which does not allow for humanity to possess a fully enlightened intellect, then it becomes difficult to understand how Christ could be omniscient. This is the framework found in much of modern Christian theology. With this framework as a basis, that is, by thinking that a human can never possess fully within himself an omniscience, modern theology often looks into Christian Scripture and reads what it expects to find within it, that is, a purely unenlightened Christ. On the other hand, inside Buddhism, there is already an acknowledgement and an understanding for how a limited intellect can be transcended so that one can become omniscient. Also, with an understanding of the Dharma within Buddhism, one can have a new perspective for how one is to view traditional statements of Jesus like, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." It opens up many possibilities and ways for understanding how Jesus is the way of salvation, while not disputing His unique role of savior. It is a useful tool in answering questions that focus upon the status of those who have been ignorant of the historical person of Jesus and of His Church. Can they ever be saved?

Within the context of Christology, the understanding of the divine person being the Logos has traditionally offered the kind of interpretation and understanding needed to a proper answer to this question, so that the uniqueness of Jesus is not diminished nor is salvation denied by those ignorant of Him in a historical context. For the Logos was seen to be a universal law and order that is throughout all of creation. It was said that one can have a relationship with that Logos without knowing everything about the Logos in an Incarnate fashion^[7]. Sadly this theological perspective has been, in general, lost to the modern world. Theology that is based upon the concept of the Logos is focused upon a word and context which falls outside the paradigms of modern thought and so generally not understood by the layman. Greek thought, from which this theology was born and gained its strength, is no longer understood by modern man. Usually, it is true, one can be led to understand to some degree that Jesus is fully God and fully man, but the significance of the Apostle John calling Jesus the Logos is entirely lost. A discussion of Jesus as the Dharma, therefore, is one which could be beneficial within the framework of the modern world, and not just in talking with Buddhists. Buddhism and its ideals are slowly being transmitted throughout the world, and its concepts are being understood, in some degree, by more and more people. Christian theology seeks not only to continue to transmit the doctrines and dogmas of the Church without error, but also to do so in new ways and means as meets the time and place from which a particular theology teaches. With the rise of Buddhism in the world, and with its concepts being slowly understood and in some degree accepted by modern man, a dialogue with Buddhism and undertaking a Christology using the terminology of Buddhism can only help spread an understanding of the Christian message as well^[8].

Early Christians rightfully took Greek philosophy as the source for their theological terminology, and employed it to the fullest use. Greek thought was used, not only externally as a missionary tool, but internally to help shape and strengthen Christian dogmatics. By discovering Jesus as the union of a Buddha and the Dharma, traditional concepts of Christology can grow and breath in the modern world. They can be resurrected and be found with new life. The kind of enrichment this will offer will hopefully find its way in Christianity, but it must only be after Christian thought has been able to understand the terminology and metaphysics of Buddhism. When this is accomplished, this will also end up helping Buddhism as well. Buddhists will have someone else looking within their system and providing a new direction from which to look at its own concepts, and this will shed new light on questions and debates found within Buddhism, even as it does so for Christianity. Considering Jesus Christ being both a Buddha and the Dharma, for example, could be the means of a new understanding of what a Buddha is, what the Dharma is, and what kinds of relations they can have.^[9]

The third question, and one which probably will have the least amount of concern associated with it, is that of calling the Church a Sangha. In this regard, it is more or less a difference of terminology being used than of meaning. Studying Buddhist thought on the role of the Sangha in salvation can only reinforces several ideas about the Church: first, the Church is a refuge; it is the means of salvation. Secondly, as it is the means of salvation, as it is a refuge, it is of great importance not to bring scandal to the Church, and with that, not to create schisms or divisions. Within Buddhism, as was stated above, one of the greatest errors one can do is to split the Sangha -- its karmic fruit is said to be hell. Looking at the Church as sacred and as a refuge for salvation, one can understand why making a schism in the Church can only have a highly negative consequence to the one who has caused such a division. Thirdly, as the Sangha is said to be devoted to the help and welfare of those within its confines, this also reinforces the ideals of social doctrine within the Church: that is, as the Sangha is seen to be a refuge which relies upon interdependence and working together, so in this fashion the Church is also to be seen. Social doctrine, which focuses on the need for proper social principles within the Church, is there to help strengthen the world by the Church working for the betterment of all. Knowing that one is dependent upon one another for salvation helps reinforce why Christ would emphasize that His disciples have love for one another. He said, "They will know you are my disciples by your love for one another." It is indeed this love which creates the bond that strengthens the Church and provides it the necessary means for being an ark of salvation. When the bonds of love are broken, the refuge that the Church provides is weakened -- it is not totally destroyed, for it relies upon Jesus, but nonetheless the aid the Church can provide is greatly diminished. A breach of love will only provide confusion for those outside the Church. It is easy to see how the Acts of the Apostles expresses this bond of friendship, love, and unity within the earliest history of the Church. What is seen in the Acts of the Apostles surely is to be the example and ideal for the Church. As a Sangha, as Jesus's Sangha, the Church needs to remember its goal, its mission, and how its mission is to be accomplished. It is done through the bonds of love, which unites one to the teachings and to the way of Jesus. It is to be where each member, from the Pope down to the newly baptized infant, have a responsibility to each other. They are there to help each other along the path of salvation. And to the Buddhist, the Christian can point to Christ's Holy Catholic Church and say, this too is a Sangha, and say it is the Sangha which the Dharma itself has provided as a refuge to bring about salvation. Thus, to a Buddhist a Christian can say that Christians are, in some respects, also Buddhists, even as St. Paul was able to be a Jew among Jews, and a Gentile among the Gentiles. With the Buddhist, we can proclaim that their understanding is in itself, correct: there is a Buddha, there is a Dharma, and there is a Sangha, and all three are venerable and are refuges which we, as Christians, follow. We can also respect the Buddha of Buddhism (and we should, for he is a holy man, a Saint^[10]). With that recognition, a Christian should have an interest in Gautama Buddha, his teaching (which like St. John the Baptist, can be seen as pointing to the Christ), and his Sangha (which like the followers of St. John the Baptist, should be understood within their own context of having something which indeed does help them for their own salvation). There are several questions which are in need of answering, both for the Buddhists about the Christian version of the Triple-Gem, but also for Christians in regard to the Buddhist Triple-Gem. For the Christian, the question of who Gautama Buddha is, and his role in history needs to be addressed. By addressing who Gautama Buddha is and what he means to the Christian, the fullness of his teachings need to be studied and addressed so that the problems and questioned he raised can be seen in a way so that they can help inspire a Christian. This will also help one to see what a Christian can offer to a Buddhist within the Buddhist's own perspective. For indeed, their perspective, even as that of the Jews and that of the Greeks, is one which has questions and ideals that the Christian should understand. The Christian should also comprehend that the merits of Buddhist thought deserve to be brought into the Sangha of Jesus Christ, and indeed, only by willingness for the Christian to enter a dialogue with Buddhists will this be able to be done. To the Buddhist, of course, I believe there is the need to further understand the person of Jesus Christ, and with it, His teachings. Buddhists also need to see where these two pivotal figures in history, Jesus and Siddhartha Buddha, relate to each other, and where their Dharmas, their teachings, supplement one another.

Footnotes

[1]I acknowledge that the term salvation is not generally used within a Buddhist context in the same way as a Christian context, but I think that one can understand that the attainment of heaven in Christian understanding, which is the attainment of salvation, is more or less the same kind of concept as the attainment of Nirvana in Buddhism. Thus, for the sake of simplicity, I will use the term salvation for both, and I will also employ many other similar kind of simplifications for this essay.

[2]What I offer here is a simplified discussion of Buddhism. There are many internal debates upon the nature of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, and it is not needed to be fully addressed in this essay. I will admit I will take those ideals which I find the most interesting and enlightening. I find support in this process by the acceptance of different schools of thought within Buddhism, for they recognize the right to school of thought to follow the direction which the practitioners within find the most suitable to their own spiritual path.

[3] Impure karma can be understood, in Christian context, as sin. So, within a Christian context, a Buddha would be one who has no sin, no original sin, and none of the defilement of sin -- concupiscence -- left.

[4]It must be remembered that the word infallible means that it is unable to error, or fail, in producing its desired end.

[5]"In a true sense only the Buddha is beings' refuge...." (Buddha Nature p.22)

[6]"The practice of Dharma, which is the fourth Noble Truth expounded by Buddha, gives rise to the Noble Truth of cessation, the third truth, which is the state of nirvana wherein mental distortion is totally pacified. Our actual refuge then is the Dharma, both as the Noble Truth of the path to be practiced and the Noble Truth of cessation to be generated within our continuum." (The Path to Enlightenment p. 100)

[7]St. Justin Martyr in his First Apology discussed how one can be a Christian before the birth of Christ, and he stated that it is through one's loyalty to the Logos. He named many pre-Christian pagans, in this light, as Christian.

[8] In a similar light, the theology of the Logos can also be discussed in relation to the Tao of Taoism, and this will also provide a greater grasp of the work of Jesus throughout creation. As an example of this, look to Catherine John Augustine's Christ the Eternal Tao page.

[9] It is to be sure, I have not really even begun to discuss Buddhism and how it views the relationships between the Buddha and the Dharma, but I think that this Christian understanding of the Dharma can possibly be used within Buddhist debates as a beneficial and new perspective. The means of how this is to be done, and in what method, it is not for me to say for I am not a Buddhist theologian, but I think that I can see several possible ways this could be employed -- despite the tremendous amount of answers already given in the different schools of Buddhism. It could in some ways be a knife to cut off some erroneous views, in the ultimate sense, and help to strengthen a monistic understanding of the relationship of the three Refuges.

[10]The change of Siddhartha Buddha into the Christian Saint, Saint Josaphat, should be researched on its own to understand the fullest extent that Buddha has been called a Saint within Christian tradition. See the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia here Saints Barlaam and Josaphat or read the life of St. Josaphat here: Life of Sts Barlaam and Josaphat.

Asanga. Buddha Nature: The Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra with Commentary. Commentary by Jamgon Kongtrul Lodro Thaye, explanations by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche. Trans. Rosemarie Fuchs. Ithaca, New York. Snow Lion Publications: 2000.

The Dalai Lama. The Buddhism of Tibet. Trans. Jeffrey Hopkins. London, England. George Allen & Unwin, 1975. Reprint: Ithaca, New York. Snow Lion Publications: 1987.

The Dalai Lama. The Path to Enlightenment. Trans. Glenn H. Mullin. Ithaca, New York. Snow Lion Publications: 1995.

The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Trans. Bhikku Nanamoli and Bhikku Bodhi. Somerville, Massachusetts. Wisdom Publications: 1995.