Audio recorded at Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 47-minute talk, Kyabje Rinpoche establishes a systematic framework for understanding Buddhist philosophical schools by presenting three criteria that differentiate Buddhist from non-Buddhist systems: the qualification of the teacher, the nature of the teaching, and the understanding of reality. Buddha Śākyamūni, having overcome all mental faults and perfected all qualities through training in compassion and wisdom, taught a path rooted in bodhicitta—the commitment to attain enlightenment for all beings—and dependent origination, the understanding that nothing exists independently. Non-Buddhist systems, by contrast, present teachers lacking these qualifications, permit harm to sentient beings, and assert a permanent, independent self. Rinpoche traces how these principles generated the four Buddhist philosophical schools through Buddha’s three turnings of the wheel of dharma.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 1994-02-17 – 2A – KR.mp3
UUID: af5dc7ea-3d1d-416c-90b0-ded0f383cd13
Teacher: Kyabje Rinpoche
Collection: Tenets
Date: 1994-02-17
Recorded at: Tibetan Buddhist Institute, Adelaide
Words: ~3,355
Suffering of all beings. And in order to lead all beings to excellent happiness, I must do something. The Buddhist paths can be from one perspective of three kinds and they are called the three vehicles. The hearer’s vehicle, individual enlightenment vehicle and great vehicle. So from that perspective Buddhist system of developing developing the mind can be of those three types there cannot be any there cannot be any fourth vehicle and then from another perspective Buddhist practitioners practitioners and the system of practice can be seen as of four types belonging to the four tenets.
And they are the specific exponents, discourse groups, mind only, and the proponents of the entitylessness which means the middle way school and from that point it means Buddhist tenets can be any of the four there cannot be any fifth Buddhist tenets and this is in the in accordance to the teachings found in the discourses by the Buddha that Buddhist vehicles are of three types and Buddhist tenets are of four types. But also before one goes into the studies of tenets, the study of school of generally one needs to look what look at what types of tenets there are in general and as a Buddhist we can say from our perspective we can classify all schools of of thoughts or all tenets into two groups the Buddhist groups and the non-Buddhist groups and and within the non-Buddhist here speaking in the classical period the classical non-Buddhist and there were many different sub schools and so forth. And here in the series of teachings on tenets, it would be it would take a long time if we are to go into each and every detail of the non-Buddhist schools during the classical period but we can say briefly we can say we can look at them briefly by finding out what actually differentiates Buddhist tenets from non-Buddhist and when it comes to that we say there are three major criteria which differentiates the Buddhist from the non-Buddhist and the three criteria are from the qualification of the teacher and second being the general teaching by that teacher and third the view or the view which means the perspective about reality.
So those three criteria, through them, we can differentiate a Buddhist from non-Buddhist or the other way, non-Buddhist from the Buddhist. And on those three points, let’s look at the Buddhists. For them, the teacher, Buddhists have is the teacher Buddha Śākyamūni, the historically speaking, the historical Buddha. Now we can see that for Buddhists, from the part of their teacher there is a big difference when compared to the classical non-Buddhist because their teacher Buddha Śākyamūni is a teacher who has overcome all faults or all weaknesses of mind and who has attained or developed all excellent qualities of the mind. So it is a teacher who is freed of all weaknesses and who is complete with all excellent qualities.
Oh, well, if it is a teacher who has attained such a state of overcoming all weaknesses and being endowed with all excellent qualities, then we ask how would a teacher like that have made to that state? Well, the answer is that the teacher had trained perfectly through training the two principal aspects of mental development, the either or the method aspect of the mind and as well the second the wisdom aspect of the mind so it is through training on those two major aspects of the path that the teacher, in our case, Buddha Śākyamūni, has made to that state. And then we look we look at the teachers of the classical non-Buddhist schools of thought, the non-Buddhist tenets. Well, in their case, their teachers even factually speaking, their teachers would not have attained the similar similar state state of of having having overcome overcome all weaknesses of mind and being complete with all excellent qualities of mind because they would not have attained that state because they did not acquire the necessary causes and conditions which would produce the attainment of such state. And this is so because in those systems, the classical non-Buddhist systems, we don’t find a practice where the good heart aspect of the mind, the kind heart aspect of the mind through bodhicitta training is not found as well the wisdom understanding emptiness aspect of the path is also not found in those systems.
Now if these practices are absent in those systems then we can infer that it is definite that in those systems and one who preaches those systems there would not be any possibility of attaining that state. So as a brief conclusion from the first criteria we find that Buddhists have the criteria of a qualified teacher having overcome all weaknesses and complete with qualities whereas in the classical non-Buddhist system, from the part of the teacher, that qualification is not found. So this is the difference from the part of the teacher for whatever groups of practitioner following whatever systems of tenants. And then in the next two criteria, before we go into that, first, we need to have this established established that to be able to become a teacher who have attained that state one would have trained on the method and the wisdom aspect of the path which can also be called the conduct or behavior aspect of the path and the view or the perspective aspect of the path. So it is a case where a teacher has attained that state of having overcome all weakness and being with qualities through training on perfect behavior and perfect view or perfect perspective, perfect understanding.
Understanding. And this then would mean when such teacher teaches the teachings, the teaching would involve oh, sorry, the teaching would include these two topics and the instructions on these two topics because that is the way how the teacher itself had trained in the past to achieve the state of to achieve that state. So in the case of Buddhist we find the teachings taught by that teacher is where the behavior of a practitioner is not incorrect, not mistaken and perspective or the view of the practitioner is also not mistaken is not incorrect. Oh, well, with the not incorrect behavior, it means the practice of bodhicitta, the mind wishing to attain enlightenment in order to help all other sentient beings. Now now if one practices bodhicitta then it is inevitable that such practitioner’s behavior would be not incorrect.
It would be correct behavior because bodhicitta or mind of enlightenment is the supreme of all kind heart. And when someone behaves in any activity with such pure st of kind heart, then such behavior by the practitioner would be something which is not going to hurt anyone. And because it’s not going to hurt any so anyone in the case or any sentient beings. Therefore it is bound to be a correct behavior. It won’t it won’t hurt any sentient beings.
And now when there is a term of one would not hurt others, by that hurt it means, say, one one major circumstances one would not hurt a human, and from minor circumstances one would not hurt other species of beings other than humans, say horse, any types of birds, pigs, and then as minor, apparently as minor as an ant on the ground. And that’s how a practitioner of bodhicitta would behave that the practitioner would try not to hurt any sentient beings at all. So this in brief then we can say is the second criteria where the teachings of Buddha Śākyamūni teaches correct behavior in relation with others. In the case of the classical non-Buddhist schools of thought, we find their behavior is incorrect because they encourage blood sacrifice where they preach to kill animals and particular species of beings through that to make offerings of blood to the gods and deities in their system of belief. And then in some classical non-Buddhist schools of thought we find although they make distinction between killing that they in some cases would not permit to kill any major species of of beings but they would actively encourage to kill small species of beings and then in some other cases of classical non-Buddhist schools we find that their conduct of behavior instruction is where they make discrimination amongst different types of species so it is a behavior although maybe appeasing and flattering and thereby helpful to some group of species of beings but very hurting and violent towards other species of beings and in brief therefore we don’t find in their behavior instructions and practice any mention and any practice of unconditional non hurting behavior to all sentient beings.
So this then in brief we can say from the behavior criteria of the Buddhist and non-Buddhist, we find such difference. And then we look at the perspective on the view criteria between the Buddhist tenets and the classical non-Buddhist. Now in the case of Buddhist, we find that the view or the understanding or the perspective about reality is the perspective of dependent arising, dependent origination. Now this view of dependent origination explains that in the case of a thing, functioning thing, in the case of functioning thing everything exists or is formed with dependent on their causes and conditions and in the case of a non functioning thing such as existing permanent thing they are dependent arising phenomena from the point that they still depend on their parts and portion for their existence, their formation. And then on top of that there is the dependence or there is the existence as a dependent phenomena through being dependent on label name and so forth.
So all things whether functioning thing or non functioning thing whether oneself or others are all dependent originate dependent originated phenomena. There is not any thing or phenomena which exist by its own right independently and so forth. So this is the Buddhist perspective of view and of view of dependent origination. And the meaning of dependent origination if it is explained in a very subtle way then each four Buddhist tenets understand it differently on levels of understanding. For example, highest Buddhist school, the consequence reasoner or the Prāsaṇgika Madhyamaka in their perspective dependent arising or dependent origination view explains that there is not any phenomena or thing which exist inherently.
So everything lacks inherent existent existence. And then the school below that is the Svatāntrika school or the autonomous school in popular translation or Svatāntrika Madhyamaka or independent reasoner in their case dependent arising connotes the understanding that there is not anything which exists truly so everything lacks true existence and in the case of the third school the mind only school it means that there is not anything which is devoid of the form and the mind apprehending the form so the two are not separate substance. Are so the form and the mind perceiving the form are of one substance and lacking separate substance is the understanding of emptiness or emptiness in their case and in the two lower schools the discourse groups and the specific exponents in their case it means there is not any phenomena or thing which exist as permanent single and independently so the very lack of permanent permanent single single and independent existence is the subtle meaning of dependent origination. So to point out backward in brief, therefore, in Buddhist, the view or the perspective of reality is the perspective that everything originates and everything exist as dependent thing. And then as a summary, meaning we can say Buddhist perspective explains there is no independently existing identity or self whether referred to a person or a non person inanimate thing.
So it explains selflessness, identitylessness of all things. And then when we compare it with the classical non Buddhists, find that in their case not only they comprehend the understanding of the higher Buddhist tenets they even could not understand the perspective of reality which is held by the lower non-Buddhist schools and as opposed to all the Buddhist schools they believe their view or understanding of understanding of reality is something which believes in an independently existing self or ego or identity. So they they so they propound or explain theory of ego theory of self and on top of that their ego or self the ego or self explained but then is explained to be permanent in its nature. So it is permanently existing thing. Because they explained the self is permanent, therefore, it is is not possible for them to come to understand that there isn’t that there isn’t a self which does not exist truly.
So they cannot accept or come to understanding the theory of selflessness. So in this way, we find such difference between the Buddhists and the classical non Buddhists that the difference also can be seen from the difference of the view understanding of reality and this then for us as practitioner is inspiration to really have a clear direction that one the path one follows has such qualification when compared when compared with other systems and This is important because in normal cases what would happen is one may claim to be a practitioner in this system meaning as a Buddhist and one may receive teachings on bodhicitta and as well on emptiness but apart from that one doesn’t have any idea what really matters or what really differentiates path which leads to Buddhahood as compared with those which doesn’t lead to Buddhahood through such criteria and therefore it is very important and if one one applies this perspective of criteria to differentiate then not only it will remove one’s one’s clouded mind as to the credibility credibility of of the the path one is following but it will also increase one’s faith, a belief of purity in the path one is following.
So it can be very beneficial from those point of view as well. There are four tenets, four schools of thoughts. First, the lowest is the specific exponents, the Vaibhāṣikas. After that, higher to them is the second, the discourse groups, the Sautrantikas, and above them is the third mind only, Cittamātra, and above them are the middle way school which is literally here called the one those who explain identitylessness, in the Madhyamikas. So in brief, there are those four tenets.
Schools of thought in Buddhism came about? Oh, well, in the first when Buddha Śākyamūni assumed enlightenment or got enlightened, he then went to the place called Varanasi, which was as well called in recent times as Banaras. And near there near that city, Buddha gave teachings to the five the group to the group of five good disciples, and he taught the subject the four truths or the four ārya truths. So to call these four noble truths would be mistranslation, wrong. So they are called the four truths of the aryas, four truths of those who have realized emptiness because that to interpret has big implications.
So Buddha taught the four truths at that time and the disciples who later followed followed the teachings of the four truths by Buddha at that time formed the school called the first two schools the specific exponents and the discourse groups. So they were the first two schools of thoughts. And Then after that, in the second series of teachings, Buddha went to a place in present day India, a place called Rajagir, there on the hill called Vultures Peak. On that hill, Buddha gave teachings, a series of teachings, and the topic of those teachings were the three types of mothers, the extensive, middle and short versions, which to interpret mother is the term used for wisdom because it produces the understanding to overcome all sufferings, to overcome all dissatisfactions and so forth. So Buddha gave teachings on the three versions of the Perfection of Wisdom in extensive explanation, medium explanation and brief explanation and the disciples who qualified to receive teachings at that time where the disciples now form the highest schools of thought in Buddhism, the middle way schools.
And following that, then in a place called Vaishali or near around that place in present India, there Buddha gave the third series of teachings, and and it is as well called the third turning of wheel of Dharma and the teachings during this time were given specifically for disciples who did not or who either did not understand or who need who needed clarification on what Buddha had already taught during his first series of teachings as well during his second series of teachings, the first wheel of Dharma and second wheel of Dharma. And these disciples later came to be called as the mind only followers or the those who came to form the school of thought, the mind only school. And that’s how this third school came into being. Disciples of the second series of teachings and the disciples of the third series of teachings by the Buddha, those disciples were those who qualified to be great vehicle practitioners. And in a way, we can say that they were were followers of tenets belonging to the great vehicle, whereas the disciples of the first series of teachings, they belong to the lower vehicle and that is how we can as well see the difference between the two vehicles.
Those who belong to the first the lower vehicle, the two lower schools are specific exponents and discourse groups they were inferior in the capacity to absorb the higher teachings whereas the two higher schools will belong to the to the great vehicle where the disciples who were able to understand, absorb the teachings of the higher levels. So the point is, in brief, that is how as well the classification into two vehicles came into And then we ask what actually qualifies a person to be called as a proponent of great vehicle tenets, a person who explains great vehicle tenets. Well the answer is a person whoever does analysis on the great vehicle great vehicle tenets and through analysis who understands it well and afterwards who then as well explains to others in helping such person is a person who explains the great vehicle tenets. In the same way, we can can describe a person who explains the lower vehicle tenets tenets as a person who studies himself or her self the lower vehicle tenets and and understands it and for and having understood it then explains the lower vehicle tenets to others. And as well the the other emphasis is one very genuinely one very genuinely explains to others so meaning out of principle such person is bound by principle to stick their perspective on such subjects.
So we can call such person the one who explains the lower vehicle tenets. And within the lower vehicle tenets, we have two two levels which becomes the two lower Buddhist tenets and they are the specific exponents and the discourse groups. So these names are actually in the handbook distributed earlier with their definitions and the first school, the lowest school within Buddhism, the specific exponent, well, they’re they they are of various sub schools but in general we can describe the person person who who belong belong to to this this tenets as someone who does not believe in an own knower and who believes in external things as truly existent. So it may be explained later on but to interpret own knower means in mind only school it believes that there is a mind behind the mind which knows the mind itself. So that’s in higher that school it believes in that own knower, a mind knowing itself.
So in this case the specific exponent is a person who does not believe in a mind knowing itself, an own-knower mind, but who believes external things as truly existent.