Whenever I myself encounter a contradiction between doctrine and reason, I always give priority to reason.
H.H. the XIVth Gyalwa Rinpoche
We sometimes find when studying scripture that two or more eminent figures, scholars and practitioners of great renown, appear to have been in dispute over some fine point of doctrinal interpretation. Often this can be resolved through careful analysis. Studious examination may reveal that each was addressing their particular subject from a markedly different application of a particular term. And since Buddhist philosophical nominclature often has several shades of meaning, it is left for the reader to divine which sense applies according to the context in which it is used. Take for instance the term Dharma. Below are cited two seemingly contradictory passages. Each is taken from a separate Lam Rim text (one Kagyu and the other Nyingma), from their respective chapters on refuge practice.
In The Jewel Ornament of Liberation, Gampopa states, “The ultimately real is the Buddha alone as refuge.” And further, “The two kinds of Dharma and the assembly of the saintly are not the ultimate refuge.”
Then in apparent contradiction, in The Jewel Ladder, Terdak Lingpa states, “The noble truth of the path, shown by the Buddha himself, is the supreme doctrine, the ultimate object of refuge.”
Can they really be in discord? On the surface it would seem so. But if we penetrate more deeply, carefully examining the explanations which accompany each statement, we find that they are instead referring to separate aspects of Dharma in its role as an object of refuge. Both statements are equally true, but operate at radically disparate levels of realization from the side of the practitioner.
Gampopa clarifies, “The Dharma that is taught is only a collection of words and letters and has to be discarded like a raft when we have reached the other shore. The Dharma that is understood has two aspects, the Truth of the Path and the Truth of the Cessation of Misery.” The key to this statement is what he means by Cessation of Misery. It is here that the two sages diverge. Gampopa describes it as having, “...no real existence being compared by the Shravakas to the extinction of a lamp.” By this we know that he is referring to cessation in the sense of naming a process (versus its resultant state). He calls attention to an activity -- which must terminate upon completion. Reasoning thus, it follows that once all delusion has been conquered no further application of its antidote will be required. There being no further application, the activity (cessation) then comes to an end. Once cured, the patient no longer has need of medicine. Dharma in this sense is not eternal and therefor cannot be called ultimate.
Terdak Lingpa, on the other hand, prefaces his argument with the following, “The paths He has shown us are those to be cultivated and those to be abandoned, what is virtue and what is non-virtue.” The key words here are cultivated and virtue. These indicate that he is referring to Dharma in a much larger sense -- not merely by what ceases, but also by what is given rise to as a result of that cessation. He specifically mentions the cultivation of virtue, i.e. merit and wisdom. Now it is a given that whatever is cultivated in the mind of a Buddha is an enduring quality. This is so by definition. For it is not only the mere passing away of all faults which defines Buddhahood, but also the accumulation of every virtue. This too is taken for granted by all Buddhists. But lest I be accused of reading too much into one small passage of the author’s text, let me cite from a later chapter of the same work: “The Truth of Cessation has different levels, but the ultimate Truth of Cessation is the state of Buddhahood.” So, now it is clear. He uses the term in a larger sense. Dharma here is not confined to the application of curative measures, but rather includes the resulting state of absolute health. This aspect being eternal, Terdak Lingpa terms it ultimate.
To put it another way: We ordinary beings do not yet embody ultimate Dharma within ourselves. We must therefor regard the Buddha, who does embody it, as our ultimate refuge. Having not yet attained final realization within ourselves, we perforce must seek it from one who has. For us then, Buddha is the font of ultimate Dharma, the catalyst for our future attainment. At this stage, the Dharma is apprehended as an external teaching which we carry out and put into practice, a method we employ, a tool which eventually we shall abandon.
But for a realized being, Dharma is apprehended differently. Having long since gone on to penetrate the Buddha’s teaching, one attains unfettered direct realization of Emptiness. This realization is the actual embodiment of ultimate Dharma. Having incorporated the Ultimate within their own being, one has then no further need of seeking it from any other. At this level of realization, all that remains to serve as refuge is the ultimate Dharma embodied within. The Buddhas obviously have no need of seeking refuge from each other.
It follows therefor that at each stage along the path to Enlightenment, both Buddha and Dharma will serve alternately as ultimate refuge depending upon the quality of our spiritual attainments and our remaining cognitive disfunctions. At the initial stage we go for refuge to the Buddha as an embodiment of the Ultimate. Through faith in Buddha we practice His teaching. With continued study and practice of the Dharma as a path, realizations arise within. Each realization gained serves as the direct antidote to a measure of our embeded delusions. And each delusion conquered gives rise to a subsequent cessation of suffering. Then finally, having experienced complete cessation, cessation itself also ceases. Thereafter, that Knowledge which is our embodiment of Dharma prevents any reoccurrence. Embodying inner Dharma as our own ultimate refuge we are transformed, becoming at one with it and an ultimate refuge for all those countless others who are yet bound in samsara’s chains.
Thus it is that through analysis we arrive at an understanding which encompasses both of the passages cited above without any contradiction. Ultimately, Buddha and Dharma are in no way separate. They are One. There is no Buddha who does not embody all of Dharma. And there is no Dharma which is not embodied to the fullest by every Buddha. They mutually interpenetrate one another in every respect.