SuttaCentral
Buddhists are said to take refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. Everybody knows this formula by heart.
I am interested in a question seemingly less pondered, namely: What exactly are we taking refuge from?
Also, the threefold partition seems to imply that all three elements matter. With the Dhamma and Sangha covered, what remains as the seperate function of the Buddha in the refuge?
Dukkha and the defilements of greed, anger, and ignorance that perpetuate it.
Another way to look at it is taking refuge in.
In what?
The Buddha who realized full awakening through wisdom and the eradication of the defilements. Hence, the end of dukkha. The supreme teacher.
Walk in to virtually any Buddhist temple and front and center is a figure of the Buddha.
Some also see Buddha as referring to an intrinsically pure and timeless awareness. But, as you may have noticed, there is much debate about this in this forum.
Regarding the Dhamma and Sangha you appear to not be taking for clarification. But taking refuge in the teachings and the practices the Buddha taught as opposed to continuing to live in a deluded dukkha-causing way is an aspect of this Refuge.
Hmmm… Why should I take refuge in the Buddha in Buddhism? What can it be? 
Nothing that can be pinned down. 
The direction of wandering on.
(Not all would consider the triple gem to be a refuge, since many find the world to be a wonderful place, and their desire a reliable guide. Why would such a person need refuge?)
It can be helpful to remember the arc of the Buddha, which is rooted in the recognition of being liable to suffering. Liable to old age, sickness and death. It began as a blind struggle for liberation, without even knowing what liberation was, which remains the outset condition for anyone who pursues the Dhamma. Knowing that the Buddha developed out of the same backdrop is perhaps the greatest reminder that our own development is possible. Because even if we are totally miserable and clueless and suck at even the most basic aspects of the practice, we can find solace in the fact that there was a point in which the Buddha had absolutely no clue that there were noble truths, let alone four of them. From that point of view, not even the worst situation is enough to undermine a recollection of the Buddha. It will always shine through if it has been developed enough. Same with the other two gems.
Samsara and the endless rounds of rebirths and concomitant dukkha.
There is danger at every step in the world of Samsara. To properly take Refuge in the Triple Gem gives one quite the protection from being overtaken by lust.
Namaste.
Our own distrust in life. Our own lack of faith in life. Seeing life as a problem. That kind of darkness.
Really meeting with the reality of suffering, one tends to loose trust in life, and starts to see life as problem. While before this was never an issue. We turn into beings who live, into beings who think, worry, conceive a lot. Conceiving starts to rule our lives. Our sense of me grows extreme. All defilements increase when conceiving start to rule more and more.
Distrust in life is the most basic dukkha, i feel. And starting to live in a more and more conceived reality is the natural reaction. One starts to feel unprotected, unsafe, insecure as me in a hostile world.
That we can overcome our depressed state, our anxiety, our doubts, our lack of faith, our darkness, the rulership of conceiving, seeing life as a problem.
The heart will seek a way, a means, to overcome this darkness, which is not pure. The distrust is not connected or based upon dispassion and Truth. The stream will wash away this impurity. The heart wants to live not to fear and die a final death. That is ego. The holy stream wants to honour life, not see it as a problem that must be solved. The heart does not want to end life but that what makes us distrusting, anxious, dark people.
Thank you for your great answers. I’d like to add yet another note to this discussion.
When posting this question I also had in mind the christian-catholic doctrine according to which mere membership in the church offers a certain amount of protection against divine punishment (of the so-called “lesser” sins).
When thinking of the Buddha as divine, could the aspect of taking refuge in him also include a certain shielding against divine intervention? Looking at MN49 specifically, it seems that the Buddha is superior to Brahma. Could it be that the Buddha, once one takes this refuge in him, shield his disciples from certain of Brahma’s punishments that he would otherwise apply to somebody following the Buddhist path, out of his own ignorance?
Thanks.
Thinking of it that way, I assure you Refuge under the Triple Gem is ample protection to be able to walk the Noble Eightfold Path with pure morality.
In Christianity, we believe in Isho (Christ), who has the power to forgive sins and sacrificed himself for the benefit of others, Father and Holy Spirit.
In Suttas we are informed that part of right view is: there is meaning in sacrifice, there are results of good and bad deeds. So in other words, the sacrifice of Isho is meaningful.
But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed.
Isaiah 53:5
In suttas, I remember reading a sutta where Buddha though what to worship/take refuge in - and the answer was the Dhamma itself that he has discovered. (If you can find this sutta, it would be helpful since I can’t find it)
With regards to current spiritual authority on earth and in heaven, the Bible states:
Then Isho came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Matthew 28:18
Not sure what exactly are you asking, but if one were to take refuge in Buddha but would still act wrongly by mind, speech, action against humans, angels or Brahma, they would not be doing as Buddha told them to and there’s hardly any sutta that says they would be protected from those results, rather that there is result of good and bad deeds.
Buddha also states he has discovered Dhamma, not created it. Dhamma could be said to be the truth, the path, the teaching.
In Christianity, Isho is called path, truth and life.
I am the way and the truth and the life
John 14:6
If we take both claims at face value, we would then obtain that Dhamma = Isho, otherwise how could both claims be true?
I am not sure if mere membership helps as it is written:
And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Revelation 22:12-13
So once again the Bible too states that there is a result of good and bad deeds. Now maybe the mere membership would help the people change their ways and give up wrong views and do more good? In that case it will surely help them.
Refuge alone would not be sufficient protection from all unwanted fruit of past deeds, but being a basis for the development of liberation, refuge could lead to a less severe settlement of one’s kamma.
(I think it is helpful to understand the gain of liberation as something broader than divinity, and of the Buddha as beyond its confines. Liberation is a release in all respects, of which even the greatest greatness cannot claim to understand. The gods are small, and their power trivial as compared to the arahants. Even if the individual were to stand in another’s judgment, and be subject to their divine punishment, it pales in comparison to the damage done by their own unwholesome action of body, speech and mind, all of which shape the direction of things to come, and may endure long after the punishment in question. The gods themselves are bound to the same principle, and could wither from lofty heights and eventually face such judgement themselves. So, there is no distinction worth acknowledging between divinity and those who are lesser if neither has any degree of noble release, which is the only thing that could truly set individuals apart.)
This is a beautiful question and I’ve appreciated people’s comments.
I like finding other instances of terms under review, if they exist, to shed light on these kinds of reflections. In this case, Dhp188-196 is helpful because we see saraṇaṁ – meaning “refuge (in something)” – outside the stock formula:
So many go for refuge
Bahuṁ ve saraṇaṁ yanti,
to mountains and forest groves,
pabbatāni vanāni ca;
to tree-shrines in tended parks;
Ārāmarukkhacetyāni,
those people are driven by fear.
manussā bhayatajjitā.
But such refuge is no sanctuary,
Netaṁ kho saraṇaṁ khemaṁ,
it is no supreme refuge.
netaṁ saraṇamuttamaṁ;
…
One gone for refuge to the Buddha,
Yo ca buddhañca dhammañca,
to his teaching and to the Saṅgha,
saṅghañca saraṇaṁ gato;
sees the four noble truths
Cattāri ariyasaccāni,
with right understanding:
sammappaññāya passati.
suffering, suffering’s origin,
Dukkhaṁ dukkhasamuppādaṁ,
suffering’s transcendence,
dukkhassa ca atikkamaṁ;
and the noble eightfold path
Ariyaṁ caṭṭhaṅgikaṁ maggaṁ,
that leads to the stilling of suffering.
dukkhūpasamagāminaṁ.
Such refuge is a sanctuary,
Etaṁ kho saraṇaṁ khemaṁ…
I believe this is what @SDC, @Green and others are also saying in their comments.
Just looking at the sutta, we see the analogy of going deep into a forest to hide from something (or someone) we’re fearful of. That, too, is a form of taking refuge. With this in play, the teaching is to take refuge in the Buddha, his teaching, and the Saṅgha as a sanctuary rather than a kind of hide-out.
As an aside, I don’t think this Pali term is used in the sense of taking refuge from something 
… I’m not sure it works this way in English, either.
Which maybe helps me understand your pivot:
Are you trying to reconcile two different religious paradigms?
I’ve thought about this a lot over the years. In the Christian-Catholoc doctrine, I define it like this: We yearn for someone divine or supernatural to deliver us from something that we can’t deliver ourselves from. We believe, and may even experience, that there’s something (or someone) that puts our well-being in jeopardy and which is beyond us. We may believe that there’s something in our own humanness that is morally deficient and beyond repair without this divine intervention.
I define the (secular) Buddhist paradigm like this: We yearn for release from personal suffering through our own agency. Indeed, we eventually seek release from yearning itself as that becomes its own hindrance. This path presupposes that everyone experiences suffering and is ignorant of the root causes of this suffering. Suffering is experienced as compelling, irritating, distracting, or, ultimately, painful mental and emotional states. Through rigorous dedication to morality, reflection, and meditation we can identify and abandon the mental habits that result in suffering.
(I subscribe to kamma and rebirth but that’s not really pertinent to this thread.)
So I don’t see refuge or sanctuary in the Christian paradigm. Whereas I see this as the apt metaphor for the Buddhist paradigm. And oh – just saw @SDC’s latest post which seems to say similar thoughts for your second question.
I am sorry about that, I am not a native speaker of English. I meant it as in taking shelter from a storm (I know this one to be right because of that Bob Dylan song😅).
No, this is absolutely not my intention. I was just wondering if the triple gem offered some similar kind of divine shelter by merely subscribing to it.
And I can’t wait to read his recent “tell-all” about what his lyrics really mean! He was Taylor Swift way before Taylor Swift.
Anyway (this being SuttaCentral after all), I do think language plays a role here. I’m curious how saraṇaṁ is translated in your native language. Does that word allow for something more than the English expression “take refuge (in something)”?
I’m definitely not the model student when it comes to non-English. Still, when I check out a French translation, it’s the expression chercher un refuge which does not equate exactly to “take shelter from a storm”. It’s look for a refuge.
I really don’t see the sutta textually saying we are taking shelter from a storm. In fact, we’re directly headed into the storm by way of taking on the root cause of our suffering – ignorance. Ironically and poetically this is the supreme sanctuary.
Usually Zuflucht (translatable as refuge, shelter, asylum, safe haven), and it does seem to work both ways in German, Zuflucht nehmen bei and Zuflucht nehmen von/vor (or is it, @Sabbamitta?).
And I can’t wait to read his recent “tell-all” about what his lyrics really mean!
Could be worse. He could be recording a Christmas album 
In my translation it reads:
Ich nehme Zuflucht zum Buddha, zur Lehre und zum Saṅgha der Mönche und Nonnen.
So the nature of this refuge is not to seek protection/shelter from something? Then what is the reason for taking refuge? Linguistics aside, it seems to me that refuge is usually not taken without a cause.
I think it is misleading to say that going somewhere for refuge is not also refuge from something. If I go for refuge in a shelter to be safe from the cold, both ends are relevant to my safety.
Let’s not! 
Let’s see…
√sar: Go, flow (DPD).
Doesn’t look like a Sanskrit root @srkris ? I think √sār in Kannada (ಸಾರ್) meaning “to reach / to go near” is more meaningful.
Either way, -ana suffix, according to Ṭhānuttamo:
-ana: (a) This affix forms a large number of derivative substantive nouns and adjectives. (b) It may be applied in the sense of the present as well as the past (Kacc 650). (c) As per Kacc 622, affix yu → ana. (d) After roots ending in r and h, ana → aṇa (Kacc 549). (e) The yu affix + a causative affix → ānana (Kacc 641; Thitzana, 2016: 781). (f) Affix150 | Māgadhabhāsā (Pāḷi) yu may, seemingly, also stand untransformed (e.g. √vā + yu + si [→∅] → vāyu – “wind [blowing in past and present]”; Kacc 650). (g) It expresses the following:
– Habit, habitual pattern of doing things well, consistent
character, ingrained nature (Kacc 533).
– Agent (e.g. rajoharanaṃ – “the dust remover”; Kacc 548).
– Instrument (e.g. karanaṃ – “a supporting cause”; Kacc 548).
– A locative sense (e.g. ṭhānaṃ – “a place”; Kacc 548).
– Appended after √nanda, it carries an abstract sense and is also
taken as a direct object (e.g. √paca + ana + si [aṃ] → pacanaṃ – “the cooking”; Kacc 533, 546).
I agree. Any movement implies a departure and an arrival - a departure from ignorance, from suffering, all these make sense.
As for other occurrences of saraṇa except for the refuge formulas, I’ve yet to find any, but I think there was a storm analogy and seeking shelter from flood, something to that effect.