Audio recorded at Buddha House Adelaide. Transcript auto-generated and AI-corrected; may contain errors.
About this talk. In this 21-minute teaching, Ven Jampa Ignyen addresses how to distinguish the Buddha’s definitive teachings—which can be taken literally—from interpretive ones taught for particular students and circumstances. He illustrates through vivid examples: the Vatsiputriya sect’s misreading of a teaching on “self,” and the story of Ajatasatru, whom the Buddha told it was “okay to kill your father and mother,” actually instructing him to destroy afflictions and karma instead. Teachings on emptiness and ultimate truth are definitive; many others must be interpreted according to context. To develop correct view, we must rely on a qualified teacher and on Nāgārjuna’s commentarial lineage, which clarifies the Buddha’s deepest intention. Understanding emptiness, he concludes, is the direct opponent of ignorance and the foundation of liberation.
File metadata (for organising)
File: 02 2001 07 26 LR.mp3
UUID: cbe22489-89e5-4aec-b66e-5f415bec8bc0
Teacher: Ven Jampa Ignyen
Collection: y Lam Rim 2001 Month 07-09 (Ven Jampa Ignyen)
Date: 2001-07-26
Recorded at: Buddha House Adelaide
Duration: 21.6 minutes
Words: ~2,080
Through listening to their explanation of stainless texts. The view comprehending that the view comprehending those texts, the meaning of the texts is developed. So initially, we need to depend on a teacher who properly understands the points of the Buddha’s discourse and then to think about those things, contemplate them, and in time the correct view is generated. Without the causal collection of insight, without that, in other words, it’s unsuitable to generate the correct view because In other words, one needs the reliance on a holy being in order to as Lama Tsongkhapa has mentioned in the three principles of the path, that one needs to rely on the insights of someone who has deeper understanding of oneself in order for one to progress. Otherwise, it’s not possible for us to progress.
And here we seek to develop deeper insight into the nature of reality, so therefore we rely, we depend on a holy being. And since one must assess such a view, dependent on the definitive meaning, not on the interpretive meaning, one must understand in the meaning of Buddhist discourses of definitive meaning through knowing the difference of interpretive and definitive meaning. So again, not only does one need a a holy being in the present as someone who can guide one through the discourses of the Buddha, one also needs to develop an understanding of which of those discourses were definitive and which of them are interpretive. What can be literally taken to be true and what cannot literally be taken to be true. Because within the discourses of the Buddha, there are eighty four thousand sections of teachings for the eighty four thousand afflictions.
Not all of those teachings are definitive in a sense. They can’t be accepted literally. We need to know which are literal, which are not literal, which are definitive, meaning that the words as they stand can be accepted at face value. So we rely on our teacher to understanding of that, but we ourselves, of course, must generate that understanding. So we need, in fact, to be able to differentiate what is definitive and what is not definitive or interpretive.
For instance, the Buddha on different occasions gave different teachings, such as on one occasion, taught that there is a self upon which the actions of one life mature in a future life. And because And through that teaching, certain followers of the Buddha then interpreted the Buddha to be saying there is a type of self that does exist. That in fact, there is a self. And in fact that sect is called the Vatsiputriya or Vātsīputrīya sect, who assert that there is an indescribable self because they interpret that teaching of the Buddha to be actually teaching the existence of an indescribable self. In another sūtra, the Buddha recommended that we It’s called killing our mother and father.
There’s a sūtra in which the Buddha says we should kill our mother and father. Or he speaks of the advantages of killing a mother and father. So, of course, if we accept that as being a literal teaching, then it’s problematic. Now that particular teaching was given to Ajatasatru, who was the son of Bimbasara. And Ajatasatru, through the advice of the monk Devadatta, decided that he would kill his father, the king, in order to become king himself.
Right? So then devised a plan, and he carried it through, and he killed his father. After killing his father, he had such great remorse for what he had done that he went to the Buddha and the Buddha was abiding not far away. And when he was approaching, the Buddha could see what had happened. And Ajatasatru sat down and then confessed that he killed his father, which of course is one of the five heinous acts.
Killing or wounding a Buddha, killing an arhat, killing one’s mother or father, and so on, creating a schism in the Sangha. So then he could see that Ajatasatru was really suffering great grief and regret. Then he could see that the Buddha could see that he needed to approach this subject very skillfully, you know, for the benefit of Ajatasatru. So then he said to Ajatasatru, it’s okay to kill your father. It’s okay to kill your mother.
Right? But when he said that, what he intended was one’s father and mother are like the, what, karma and the afflictions. It’s okay to destroy karma. It’s okay to destroy the afflictions Because in fact, they’re like our mother and father. Right?
And it’s from those two that we’re really born. We’re here at present. Our mind is here at present really from karma and afflictions. Our physical body comes from our parents of this mind. But, you know, our our actual experience, who we are as individuals, our mental stream is a product of karma and afflictions.
And so they’re really like our mother and father. So when he said this to Ajatasatra, he was in words, was saying, it’s okay to kill your father. It’s okay to kill your mother. And what he meant was that one must destroy karma, one must destroy the afflictions. But by saying that to Ajatasatru, he calmed down and he was able to receive instruction.
Later he became an arhat. Even though he killed his father, it’s almost inconceivable. So therefore, there’s a sūtra called killing killing one’s father and mother sūtra, something like that. So that particular teaching is interpretive. If it’s taken to be literally true, then then it’s it would be, you know, not reflecting the intention of the Buddha.
Of course, the Buddha wouldn’t recommend killing one’s mother and father. And so there are many teachings that are interpreted. They need to be interpreted because the Buddha taught them at a particular time and place in relation to a particular set of people or particular person that are not necessary. And therefore, teachings are not necessarily intended for everyone. But in general, those teachings on emptiness are regarded as definitive.
Teachings on ultimate truth are definitive. The teachings on relative or concealer truth are interpretive. Teachings on emptiness are definitive teachings. And the teachings on relative truth or concealer truth are interpreted. Is this heavy going?
So in fact, we should eventually, gradually come to an understanding of which of the teachings are definitive and which of them are interpretive. Can anyone give an example of a definitive teaching given by the Buddha? Well, here, the easiest one, I’d say, one hundred thousand verse Prajñāpāramitā, the perfection of wisdom sutras are generally regarded as being definitive because they are teaching emptiness. The main purpose is teaching emptiness as it is. Those teachings that teach emptiness as it is are definitive.
And as so therefore, because ultimately we need to understand the definitive teachings, the teachings that are explaining things exactly as they are. The final mode of abidance of ourselves and everything. And because it’s those teachings that are really like the medicine that will be of greatest to us? Ultimate benefit. Heart Sūtra is a perfection of wisdom sūtra.
It’s yes, it’s different. There’s a little bit of debate about that. No, those that teach ultimate truth as it is, then they are definitive. Also those that can be literally accepted are said also to be definitive. And there are many sutras like that, or there are many statements by the Buddha which, although they don’t teach emptiness, are also definitive.
Like, a lot of the teachings on ethics can be accepted literally. One shouldn’t steal, one shouldn’t kill. But there’s other teachings that are interpretive. Like, the teachings that everything is of the nature of the mind is an interpretive teaching. Everything is of the essence of the mind itself.
The same substance as the mind, which the Buddha stated on different occasions. They’re teachings that are taught to a particular type of student. But they are not definitive. They can’t be taken literally. They are taught with a particular intention, in other words.
Yes, that’s supposed to be. But they’re not truly existent. They exist, but they’re not truly existent. They don’t exist in a way they appear to exist. So, therefore, we have this vast massive teachings that exist.
And it’s not easy for us to differentiate which are the definitive and which are not. And so in the text, it goes on to say that we rely therefore on Nāgārjuna, who is famous in the three realms and who is clearly predicted in many sutras and tantras as the one who would explain the profound meaning, which is free of all extremes of existence and non existence and which is the heart of the teachings of the Bhagavan. He was predicted to be the one who would clearly and definitively teach the inner intention of the Buddha. So therefore we depend on Nāgārjuna. And then also we depend on Āryadeva and Buddhapālita, Bhaviveka, Candrakīrti, Candrakīrti, Shāntarakshita and so forth.
So, in other words, there’s this lineage of teachers after the Buddha in India who maintained the pure view. And so we rely on those beings. And what they’ve stated about the ultimate mode of reality, the final mode of abidance of anything. We rely on them in order to generate correct view. So we might wonder, well, why is all this so important?
It seems very difficult. And we function okay with the current view that we have. We have a view at present, don’t we? What is our view? We generally have a mixture of views or ways of interpreting the world.
And of course, we do have grasping at true existence and grasping at inherent existence, and so forth. In order to overcome those, we need to develop correct view. And therefore we rely on Nāgārjuna and others. Otherwise, it’s not easy for us from our own side to develop correct view. It’s true, isn’t it?
Just sitting there looking at things and thinking about things, it’s hard to actually work out how things exist. Then the question also arises: Is this really such a big issue? Does it make so much difference how things exist or don’t exist? Does that really affect us that much? You know, still get up in the morning, have to eat, we have to go out and work, we have to wash our clothes and so on.
The view that we have of ourselves and the world around us, does that make so much difference to It’s not always easy to see actually. Does it make much difference to our emotions? Sorry? I think that’s much Absolutely. Absolutely.
Actually, before we get onto transcendent view, I mean, we’re still at mundane view. And what correct mundane view is, is the view of virtue. Is the view that is informed or wishes to practice virtue. That’s correct mundane view. I’m going to say there are eight types of view.
The first five are the afflictive views. That is the view of the transient collection, extreme view, wrong view, and so forth. We did those, didn’t we, briefly? We’re the first five. And then we have correct mundane views, the sixth.
And that’s the view of virtue. The view that looks at the world and seeks to practice virtue, wants to practice virtue, knows we must practice virtue, meaning we must generate positive mental factors in relation to any object. That’s correct mundane view. Absolutely essential. Then above that we have the two levels of transcendent view.
The learner transcendent view and the non learner transcendent view. So presently we’re wobbling a little bit between correct mundane view and the afflicted views. It’s a bit of a mixture there, let alone the view of non virtue that we also generate from time to time, which are in fact products of these five afflicted views. Generating a correct view, personally on a mundane level, then a transcendent level is absolutely essential. Now, what is view?
View is simply the way we’re interpreting things. Transcendent view is the view comprehending emptiness. It’s transcending. It’s transcendent. That’s perceptually comprehending emptiness.
So that view is transcendent because it’s transcending the afflictions, transcending saṃsāra. Why is it transcending the afflictions? Because it’s the direct opponent of ignorance which is the root of all the afflictions. Understanding emptiness overcomes the ignorance holding to true existence. So from that point of view it’s transcendent.