24 The Triratna
As a final contribution to our study of the correspondences between traditional ternaries, we will say a few words about the ternary Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.
Together, these three terms make up the Triratna or 'triple jewel', which several Western writers have very misleadingly referred to as a 'Buddhist Trinity'. It is important to state at the outset that it is impossible to make these terms correspond exactly and completely to the terms of the Great Triad. However, this is not to say that a correspondence between these two ternaries does not exist, at least in certain respects. In fact we have only to start from what is the most obvious point of similarity to see immediately that the Sangha or 'Assembly'[1]-that is, the Buddhist community-clearly represents the human element. From a purely Buddhist point of view the Sangha effectively stands for Humanity itself, [2] because for Buddhism it represents the 'central' part of Humanity and therefore the term of reference for Humanity as a whole. [3] Another reason is that, generally speaking, every particular traditional form is bound to be concerned directly only with its actual adherents; everyone else is, so to speak, outside of its jurisdiction. And there is one further consideration as well: the 'central' position ascribed to the Sangha in the human realm is justified in real terms by the presence inside it of the
Arhats-those who have attained to the rank of 'true man'[4] and consequently stand at the very centre of the human state. The same would of course apply to the equivalent of the Sangha in any other tradition.
As for the Buddha, he can be considered as representing the transcendent element through which the influence of Heaven is manifested. This means that the Buddha as it were 'incarnates' this celestial influence for the benefit of his immediate and indirect disciples, who then transmit a participation in this influence from one to another along an unbroken 'chain' by means of the rites of admission into the Sangha.
In speaking of the Buddha in this way we are not primarily concerned with him as a historical personality; actually his historical reality as such is of only incidental significance for our particular line of inquiry. Our main concern is instead with what he represents [5] as a result of the symbolic characteristics ascribed to him. [6] In fact these characteristics endow him primarily with the features of an Avatar. [7] The manifestation of the Buddha is therefore the 'redescent from Heaven to Earth', as the Emerald Tablet describes it; and the being who in this way 'incorporates' the celestial influences in his own nature and brings theminto this
world can justifiably be termed the representative of Heaven as far as the human realm is concerned. Certainly this is a concept far removed from the rationalised form of Buddhism with which Westerners have become familiarised through the work of Orientalists. It might well be that it corresponds to a 'Mahayanist' point of view, but that for us is not a valid objection because it seems clear that the 'Hinayanist' point of view which is commonly presented as 'original' (no doubt because it fits in all too well with certain preconceived ideas), is in reality simply the result of a process of degeneration.
Be that as it may, the reader is warned against interpreting the correlation we just mentioned as a straightforward identification. Although in a sense the Buddha represents the 'celestial' principle, he only does so in a strictly relative sense determined by his role as 'mediator'-that is, insofar as he plays what is properly the role of 'Universal Man'. [8] Similarly, so far as the Sangha is concerned we were able to equate it with Humanity, but only at the cost of understanding the term 'Humanity' in a purely individual sense. (This includes the state of 'true man', which is still the perfection of individuality.) In fact we need to add one further qualification, which is that (because the Sangha is an 'Assembly') Humanity here is to be conceived of 'collectively' rather than 'specifically'. We could therefore say that while we have been able to find here a relationship comparable to the one between Heaven and Man, strictly speaking both of the terms in this relationship form part of what the Far-Eastern tradition designates by the one term 'Man'-understood in the fullest and most comprehensive meaning of this word as containing in himself an image of the Great Triad in its entirety.
When we turn to the Dharma, or 'Law', it is not so easy to find a precise equivalent-even with the kind of reservations we made regarding the two other terms of the ternary. The matter is made even more complex by the fact that the word dharma possesses several different meanings in Sanscrit, which vary according to
the context in which the word is used and make an overall definition virtually impossible. However, we can be guided to a considerable extent by the root meaning of the word, which is 'to support'. [9] This suggests an analogy with the Earth which (as explained in an earlier chapter) is what 'supports'. Dharma must therefore refer to a principle of conservation and hence of 'stability'-at least to the extent that stability is compatible with the conditions of manif estation, because the word dharma in all its applications is always concerned with the manifested world. As was said earlier in connection with the role ascribed to Niu Kua, the function of maintaining the stability of the world is associated with the 'substantial' side of manifestation. Admittedly it is quite true that the notion of stability refers to something which in the sphere of change is itself free from change, and therefore ought to occupy the 'Invariable Middle'; but it is none the less something which comes from the 'substantial' pole-that is, from the side of 'terrestrial' influences, by way of the lower part of the vertical axis. [10]
Understood in this sense, the notion of dharma is not confined in its application to man: it extends to all beings and all states of manifestation. In other words it can be said that in itself it has a cosmic scope. Nevertheless, in the Buddhist conception of the 'Law' it refers specifically to the human domain; and this means that although it presents a certain analogy to the lowest term of the Great Triad, here again the term is to be viewed in relation to Humanity (understood here as well in an individual sense).
One other point worth considering is that the idea of 'law' always includes an implication of 'necessity' [11] or 'constraint'
—regardless of how it is interpreted or applied-which situates it on the side of Destiny. To this we can add the fact that, for every manifested being, dharma is an expression of conformity to the conditions imposed upon it from outside by the environment, which is equivalent to 'Nature' in the broadest sense of the term. This-together with our comments in the previous chapterenables us to understand why the principal symbol used for denoting the Buddhist Dharma is the wheel. [12] Also, this symbol makes it clear that the Dharma is to be understood as a passive principle in relation to the Buddha, who is described as 'turning the wheel of the Law'. [13] Of course it could not be otherwise, considering that the Buddha and the Dharma belong to the realms of celestial and terrestrial influences respectively. Finally, we note that the fact of the Buddha's being beyond the conditions of the manifested world means he would have nothing in common with the Dharma [14] if he did not have to apply it to Humanity. This exactly parallels the situation described earlier, where Providence would have nothing in common with Destiny if it were not for Man and his role as the link between these two end terms of the 'universal ternary'.