Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. Whether the Heart Sūtra counts as a definitive or merely interpretive sūtra turns out to depend entirely on which school you follow — a puzzle Geshe Pema Tsering unpacks in this 44-minute session. He sets out the shared three-part test for interpretive sutras (the Buddha had a specific intention, a specific need, and the literal reading harms the actual nature of things), then applies it school by school. The Mind Only school treats the third turning of the wheel as definitive, interpreting the first two. The Autonomous school splits the second turning: the extensive Prajñāpāramitā collections are definitive, but the Heart Sūtra is interpretive. The Prāsaṇgika Consequentialists reverse this, treating the entire second turning — Heart Sūtra included — as definitive because it directly teaches how things actually exist. Suited to students already grounded in the tenets curriculum.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 09 Tenets 2001 12 04.mp3
UUID: 328ea2d9-5b95-45fa-b985-4e324c3cfeb2
Teacher: Geshe Pema Tsering
Collection: Principles of the Tenets (Geshe Pema Tsering)
Date: 2001-12-04
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 44.8 minutes
Words: ~3,425
So here we’re continuing with the Autonomous section. So really on page number twenty one. So as it states, like the advocates of mind only, the Autonomous assert that for sutras, there are both lesser vehicle sutras and and great vehicle sutras both. And there are both interpretive and definitive components. So this is a particular view that’s held by the autonomous school as well as the the mind only.
It was this definitive and interpretive division of the words of the Buddha. Now as it continues in the text, they have different instances because advocates of mind only assert that the first two wheels of Dharma are interpretive sutras and the last wheel is a definitive sūtra. So here in this context, meaning here for the Autonomous, they assert that the first and the last wheels, turning of the wheel of Dharma, are interpretive sutras and the middle wheel has components of both interpretive and definitive speech of the Buddha. And that is because they assert those sutras applying the distinction ultimate to objects of negation are definitive sutras and those not applying that distinction are interpretive sutras. So therefore, for that reason, the Autonomous assert that the one hundred thousand, the eighteen thousand, the eight thousand Prajñāpāramitā Sutras are in fact definitive sutras, whereas the Heart Sūtra is not a definitive sūtra, it’s an interpretive sūtra.
So therefore, for the three great vehicle schools, then they assert different, they assert differently what is an interpretive sūtra and what is a definitive sūtra. So in fact the sūtra is therefore that they are variously interpreted as being interpreted and definitive are firstly the first turning of the wheel, which is the turning of the wheel of the four truths. The second turning of the wheel, which is the wheel teaching that objects do not exist by their own characteristics. And then the third turning of the wheel, that is the turning of the wheel differentiating the speech of the Buddha. So here these three great vehicle schools have a different way of assessing what is interpreted and definitive in relation to those wheels of Dharma.
So these three great vehicle schools then variously assess or assess in different ways what is interpretive and what is definitive. Although the words of sutras are the same, still they have a different way of assessing what the meaning of those words is. So here, for the mind only school, in general, what is can be literally accepted. If the words can be literally accepted in a way that they exist within the sūtra, then it’s a definitive sūtra. If they cannot be literally accepted as stated, then they’re an interpretive sūtra.
So therefore for the mind only school, the Cittamātrins, they assert that the final turning of the wheel of Dharma, since it can be accepted literally as stated, is therefore a definitive sūtra. Whereas the first two turning for the wheel, that is the turning of the wheel are teaching the four noble truths and that teaching that all objects lack characteristics, the second turning of the wheel, those two are interpretive because they cannot be literally accepted as they stand. So here the first turning of the wheel is teaching the nature of the four truths. However, it’s teaching the nature of the four truths assuming that the four truths are truly existent or truly established. So therefore, for the the mind only school, they accept that the first turning of the wheel is teaching the nature of the four noble truths.
But in teaching the nature of the four noble truths, it’s asserted by them that therefore the three characteristics are being taught. That is the characteristics of other-powered thoroughly established and imputed dharmas, those three. But they’re also taught with the assumption that they’re truly existent. But because the mind only school doesn’t accept all three to be truly existent, then they assert that the first turning of the wheel therefore is interpreted. It’s not the final view of the Buddha.
So, if something is interpretive, then it really is established in relation to three things. That is firstly, there is a specific intention behind stating it. There is a specific need for stating it. And also, there is a particular reason one needs to state it in that way for the benefit of certain beings. So those three conditions prevailing, then there is ground for giving or establishing interpretive sūtra.
So, with that intention, so here in establishing the first turning of the wheel is an interpretive sūtra from the point of view of the mind only school, then firstly the intention is established, the intention of the Buddha to speak of these issues in that particular way. There is a particular intention of the Buddha to do that. Secondly, there’s a need. The need is in order to lead those beings of that predisposition, such as those following the, say the great exposition view or the sūtra view and so on, in order to teach and lead those beings, tame those beings, there’s a need to teach from that particular point of view. So the third component here for establishing the need to teach an interpretive sūtra is that the way that the actual sūtra is taught, that is that all existent entities are truly existent, is not in fact how all existent entities exist.
So the third component here is having a component of actually harming the actual or the final nature of abidance of entities. And that is harmed here for the mind only school because for them, they assert that from amongst the three characteristics established and imputed entities, for them imputed entities are not truly existing. So therefore, by those reasons one can establish that for the mind only school, the first turning of the wheel is in fact an interpretive sūtra. So similarly, also the mind only school asserts that the second turning of the wheel is an interpretive sūtra. And that is an interpretive sūtra because these three elements also apply to the second turning of the wheel.
That is the element of there being an intention, there being a need, and there being something which is harmed by the way the sūtra is explicitly stated. So firstly, the intention here is to teach that all objects lack characteristics. And in fact, this was stated by the Buddha having the intention that here imputed entities are not established by their characteristics. So therefore, the Buddha with that intention that imputed entities lack characteristics, the Buddha therefore stated that all objects lack characteristics. Then the specific need, of stating that sūtra or turning the the, second wheel is in order to lead or to teach those students of Madhyamaka or middle way view.
So, therefore, there is a need in order to draw or in order to teach those of middle way, specifically of Prāsaṇgika Consequentialist school predisposition in order to bring them or to teach them. Therefore, there is a need to teach the middle, need to teach the second turning of the wheel. Now, also, there is an element of harm that also arises here. And that is that literally, when it’s stated that all objects lack characteristics, that harms the actual state of affairs for the mind only school. Because for the mind only school, they assert that other powered entities and thoroughly established entities are in fact truly existent.
In fact, they possess characteristics, which and stating that they don’t possess characteristics actually harms that specific belief of the mind only school. So, therefore, for the mind only school, for those reasons, that is that there is an intention of the Buddha, there is a need, and there is an element that’s harmed, by that particular presentation. And those three exist. Those three elements exist in both the first turning of the wheel and the second turning of the wheel. So in fact, so here, those first two turnings of the wheel from the point of view of the mind only school, because they possess those three elements are regarded as interpretive and not definitive.
And in fact, they go on, then to assert that there are three natures, that are commented upon in these three particular turnings of the wheel. And depending on the intention of the Buddha, then specific teachings are given in order to highlight these three specific natures. So therefore, anyway, because of the particular presentation of the mind only school, For them, therefore, the first two turnings of the wheel are interpretive, but the final turning of wheel is definitive. So therefore, the final turning of the wheel is regarded as definitive because that final turning actually is the presentation which accords with their own particular view. That is that from the three characteristics that is of other powered entities, thoroughly established entities, and imputed entities, if it exists, it must be one of those three.
The Buddha in the final turning of the wheel stated that imputed entities do not exist by their characteristics, but other powered and thoroughly established entities do exist by their characteristics. And because that presentation conforms with the view of the mind only, then they accept that as being a definitive teaching. So, that in fact is the presentation asserted by the mind only school. On the other hand, the autonomous have a different presentation. So here for the autonomous school, they don’t accept the definition as presented by the, mind only school in terms of what is interpretive and what is definitive.
For the mind only school, they assert that a definitive sūtra is that which can be literally accepted as stated. And an interpretive sūtra is that which cannot be literally accepted as stated. But here they add further components to that definition. So for the autonomous, a sūtra that’s teaching relative or concealer truth, and also that cannot be accepted in a in a way that it is stated, is the meaning of what an interpretive sūtra is. On the other hand, for the autonomous, the definitive sūtra is that which teaches ultimate truth and which can be accepted as stated, in other words, as they’re stated.
Such a sūtra or such speech of the Buddha is regarded as a definitive sūtra or definitive speech. So therefore, for the autonomous, because they assert those definitions for interpretive and definitive sutras, the first turning of the wheel is relative, sorry, is, interpretive and the final turning of the wheel also is interpretive. And the intermediate wheel, the second turning of the wheel, has two parts that is an interpretive and a definitive part. So here, the for the second turning of the wheel, there are two parts, an interpretive and definitive. So the interpretive, well the definitive there is for instance the extensive Prajñāpāramitā sūtra, say in a hundred thousand verses and so on.
And the interpretive is the Heart Sūtra. So as before, if in fact it is an interpretive sūtra, for them it must have these three components. It must have an intention. There must be an intention there. There must be a need and there must be an element of harm that occurs in teaching in that particular way.
So initially, the intention of the Buddha in teaching the four noble truths in the first turning of the wheel, was that all with the intention that, things are truly established by the characteristics, he taught the four truths to be truly existent. Then the need is in order to bring in or attract those students of great exposition, sūtra, and mind only predisposition. So, with that intention, the first turning of the wheel was given teaching the Four Noble Truths to be truly established with the intention that they are established by their own characteristic. So the element there of harm in the way that that is stated is that in stating the four truths to be truly established, it goes against their actual mode of being not truly established because in fact they lack characteristics altogether. So since so therefore those three components are complete.
So in fact, for the autonomous, they assert that in fact, all objects are established by their characteristics, but not truly established. So this is the view of the Autonomous school. So then in the intermediate turning of the wheel, there are in fact two parts, the interpretive and the definitive. The example of the interpretive again is the Heart Sūtra. And that also possesses these three components that are required for an interpretive sūtra.
The Heart Sūtra itself, there are these three components that is the intention, the need, and an element of harm in that particular presentation. So here in the for the Heart Sūtra, the intention of the Buddha was in thinking with the intention that all objects lack true existence, then in the Heart Sūtra, characteristics. All objects lack characteristics was stated. So the intention there of the Buddha was that all objects lack true existence. So here the need is in order to teach those of consequent school predisposition in order to bring them into the teachings to tame those beings.
Therefore, the the sūtra was stated in that way. And so there is a harm in that presentation because in fact all objects are not lacking in characteristics. Is not that they’re not established by the characteristics. In fact, all objects are established by the characteristics. So in fact, there is a harm in that presentation.
On the other hand, the extensive, intermediate and the abbreviated perfection of wisdom sutras are in fact regarded as definitive. And the reason why they are regarded as being definitive is that those three particular sutras fulfill the definition or conform with the definition of a definitive sūtra. That is that they teach ultimate truth and they can be accepted literally in the way that they are stated. So then the third turning of the wheel also for the autonomous school is regarded as an interpretive sūtra. So therefore, it has an intention need and that there is also harm in that particular presentation from the point of view of the autonomous school.
So the intention for the final turning of the wheel is the intention to teach in accordance with the mind only presentation. That is to teach the three characteristics that is imputed entities, lack of being established by their own characteristics, and other powered and thoroughly established entities are in fact established by their characteristics is the intention that the Buddha had when he taught the third turning of the wheel. So in fact, so within those three characteristics, the fact that here other powered and thoroughly established entities are established by their own characteristics in accordance with the mind only presentation. They are here taught with that intention by the Buddha at the time of the third turning of the wheel. The need for actually teaching in this way is in order to conform with the interests and the capacity and the the view of the Cittamatrin students, the mind only students.
And there’s harm in that presentation because in teaching that the other powered and the thoroughly established entities are truly existent, then it harms the beliefs of the autonomous school themselves so that there is harm in that presentation from the point of view of the autonomous. So that in brief is the presentation of the the autonomous in relation to the three turning to the wheel. Is that okay? It is very difficult to understand the presentation. And in fact, actually gaining an idea of the presentation of the three turnings of the wheel from the points of view of the different schools is not easy at all because it’s a very difficult area to comprehend.
But still so far we’ve only done the mind only and the autonomous. And the Prāsaṇgika way of assessing the three turnings of the wheel is still yet to come. So here from the Prāsaṇgika point of view, those sutras directly teach ultimate truth are regarded as definitive and those which directly teach relative truth are regarded as interpretive. So therefore, the first turning of the wheel and the third turning of the wheel for them are interpretive, but the second turning of the wheel is definitive. So here for the Prāsaṇgika, the middle turning, that is the second turning of the wheel of dharma, all the sutras that are subsumed within the second turning of the wheel, that is the hundred thousand, the eighteen thousand, the eight thousand, as well as the Heart Sūtra and so on.
All of these are regarded as definitive sutras because they’re teaching that all entities lack true existence, lack being established by their own characteristics, which is exactly how they do exist. But the first turning of the wheel is regarded by them as an interpretive sūtra and that’s because again, there are these three elements, these three components, that is there is an intention for stating that particular sūtra in that way. There’s a need for stating it in that way. And there’s harm in presenting it in that way as well. So here in the first turning of the wheel, the four truths are taught and they’re taught to exist, to truly exist.
But the intention there was that in holding that everything exists by convention or conventionally, designation, then there was that intention underlying the presentation by the Buddha at the time of the first turning of the wheel. And the need for that particular presentation was in order to tame or interest those of autonomous school capacity and below. Autonomous interest or autonomous, capacity and below. All of those from autonomous and below in order to tame those beings, then there was a need to make that particular presentation. And so there is harm in that presentation because, it’s not the case that all entities, truly exist.
So those three components being complete, then we can establish the first turning of the wheel as being interpreted. So similarly, the final turning of the wheel also is regarded as being interpreted. So the final wheel also being interpreted means that it therefore required a specific intention by the Buddha, a particular need, and a particular harm that arises or through that particular presentation. So here the intention the Buddha had in teaching about the three characteristics that is other powered, thoroughly established, and imputed entities was that thoroughly established and other powered entities are conventionally existent. With that intention, the Buddha taught them to be truly existent or existent by their characteristics.
And the need there was in order to in order to teach those of the mind only, specifically of the mind only predisposition. And there is a harm in that presentation because other powered entities and thoroughly established entities are not truly existent. They lack true existence. They’re not established by their characteristics. So therefore, these three particular schools of the great vehicle, that is the mind only, the autonomous, and the Consequentialists, then they have, in fact, these three different presentations the three turnings of the wheel.
So therefore, it can be established that the Buddha taught the three turnings of the wheel for beings of different predisposition, different interests, different capacity and so on. So in fact, the definition of the first turning of the wheel is the specific lesser vehicle sūtra which teaches the four truths to be truly established. So the definition of the intermediate wheel of Dharma is that the speech which directly teaches ultimate truth. The definition of the final wheel of Dharma is the specific mind only sūtra, which presents the three characteristics in accordance with the assertions of the mind only characteristics in accordance with the assertions of the mind only school. So here, in terms of the the definitive and interpretive sutras, they’re to be established in relation to these three turnings of the wheel.
So there in establishing what is definitive and what is interpretive, that is established not only in terms of the words of the sūtra, but also on the subject matter of those words. So firstly, they’re dealing with the actual words of the sutras themselves, in general, one can differentiate interpretive and definitive in terms of whether the words can be accepted as they are stated or not. So that’s a general way of interpreting definitive and interpretive in terms of the words themselves. Is it?