| Part ofa series on |
| Buddhism |
|---|
 |
TheThree Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma (Sanskrit:tridharmacakra-pravartana,Tibetan:chos kyi 'khor lo gsum) is aMahāyāna Buddhist framework for classifying and understanding the teachings of theBuddhist Sūtras and the teachings ofBuddha Śākyamuni in general.[1][2] This classification system first appears in theSaṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and in the works of theYogācāra school.[1] This classification system later became prevalent in various modified forms inTibetan Buddhism as well as inEast Asian Buddhism.
According to the three turnings schema, the Buddha's first sermons, as recorded in theTripiṭaka ofearly Buddhist schools, constitute the "first turning" (which include allśrāvakayāna texts). The sūtras which focus on thedoctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā) like thePrajñāpāramitā Sūtra corpus, are considered to comprise the "second turning" (which in this schema is considered provisional), and the sūtras which teach Yogācāra themes (especially thethree natures doctrine), like theSaṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, comprise the final and ultimate "third turning".[2]
InEast Asian Buddhism, this classification system was expanded and modified into different doctrinal classifications called "panjiào" (判教), which were developed by differentChinese Buddhist schools.[3][4]
The first turning is traditionally said to have taken place at Deer Park inSarnath nearVaranasi in northernIndia. It consisted of the teaching of thefour noble truths,dependent arising, thefive aggregates, thesense fields,not-self, thethirty seven aids to awakening and all the basic Buddhist teachings common to all Buddhist traditions and found in the variousSutrapitaka andVinaya collections.[5][6][7][8] These teachings are known as the "Hinayana" teachings (lesser or small vehicle) in Mahayana.[8] InEast Asian Buddhism, it is called "the teaching of existence" (有相法輪) since it discusses reality from the point of view of phenomena (dharmas) which are explained as existing.[9]
TheAbhidharma teachings of the variousśrāvakayāna (i.e. non-Mahayana) traditions (such asVaibhasika andTheravada) are generally also placed into this category.
The second turning is said to have taken place atVulture Peak Mountain inRajagriha, inBihar, India. The second turning emphasizes the teachings ofemptiness (Skt:śūnyatā) and thebodhisattva path.[8][5] The main sutras of this second turning are considered to be thePrajñāpāramitā sutras.[5] In East Asian Buddhism, the second turning is referred to as "the teaching that the original nature of all things is empty, that signs are not ultimately real" (無相法輪).[9]
The second turning is also associated with the bodhisattvaManjushri.[5] The analytical texts of theMadhyamaka school ofNagarjuna are generally included under the second turning.[10]
The first sutra source which mentions the "three turnings" is theĀrya-saṃdhi-nirmocana-sūtra (Noble sūtra of the Explanation of the Profound Secrets), the foundational sutra of theYogācāra school.[1] Major ideas in this text include the storehouse consciousness (ālayavijñāna), and the doctrine of cognition-only (vijñapti-mātra) and the "three natures" (trisvabhāva). TheSaṃdhinirmocana affirms that the teachings of the earlier turnings authentic but are also incomplete and require further clarification and interpretation.[11] According to theSaṃdhinirmocana, the previous two turnings all had an "underlying intent" which refers to the three natures (and their threefold lack of essence), the central doctrine of the third turning.[12]
TheSaṃdhinirmocana also claims that its teachings are the ultimate and most profound truth which cannot lead to a nihilistic interpretation of the Dharma which clings to non-existence (unlike the second wheel, which can be misinterpreted in a negative way) and is also incontrovertible and irrefutable (whereas the second wheel can be refuted).[13] As such, the third turning is also called "the wheel of good differentiation" (suvibhakta), and "the wheel for ascertaining the ultimate" (paramartha-viniscaya).[14] In East Asian Buddhism, the third turning is referred to as “ultimate turn of the Dharma wheel” (無上法輪).[9]
OtherMahāyāna sutras are considered to be associated with theYogācāra school, and thus, with the third turning (though these sutras themselves do not mention "three turnings"). These include theLaṅkāvatāra Sūtra and theGhanavyūha Sūtra, both of which discuss Yogācāra topics like theālayavijñāna, the three natures and mind-onlyidealism as well astathāgatagarbha ideas.[15][16][17][18]
The teachings of the third turning are further elaborated in the numerous works of Yogācāra school masters likeAsaṅga,Vasubandhu,Sthiramati,Dharmapāla,Śīlabhadra,Xuanzang,Jñānaśrīmitra andRatnākaraśānti.
In hisCommentary on Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (Madhyāntavibhāga-bhāṣya), Vasubandhu comments on the three turnings and how they relate to the three natures. According to Vasubandhu, the first turning teaches the non-existence of the self (atman) through an analysis of thefive aggregates. The second turning then establishes how the very (false) appearance of a (non-existent) self comes about from its aggregate parts throughdependent arising. The third turning then, explains the fundamental nature of emptiness itself, which is how the non-existence of the self exists, i.e. the existence of the non-existent as explained by the three natures. In this sense, the ultimate truth in the third turning is said to be both existent and non-existent.[19]
In hisCommentary on theCheng weishi lun (成唯識 論述記;Taishō no. 1830),Kuiji (a student of Xuanzang), lists the following as the most important sutras for the Yogācāra school:[20][21]
InChinese Yogācāra, important treatises for the third turning included theYogācārabhūmi-śastra, Xuanzang'sCheng Weishi Lun, and theDaśabhūmikasūtraśāstra (Shidi jing lun 十地經論, T.26.1522, also calledDilun), which isVasubandhu's commentary on theDaśabhūmika-sūtra (Shidi jing 十地經).[22][23]
The Indian Yogācāra tradition eventually developed various works which synthesized Yogācāra with thetathāgatagarbha thought found in various Mahayana sutras.[24] This synthesis merged thetathāgatagarbha teaching with the doctrine of theālayavijñāna and the three natures doctrine. Some key sources of this Indian tendency are theLaṅkāvatāra Sūtra,Ghanavyūha Sūtra, and theRatnagotravibhāga.[24][17]
This Yogācāra-Tathāgatagarbha tradition became influential inEast Asian Buddhism and in Tibet. The translatorParamārtha (499-569 CE) was known for promoting this syncretic Yogācāra and for defending the theory of the "stainless consciousness" (amala-vijñāna), which is revealed once theālaya-vijñāna is purified.[25]
As noted byJan Westerhoff, the identification of buddha-nature teachings with the Yogācāra's third turning happened not only because several sutras (like theLaṅkāvatāra) explicitly synthesized the two doctrines, but also because:
the notion of thetathāgatagarbha lines up more naturally with the characterization of ultimate reality we find in Yogācāra than with what we find inMadhyamaka. The latter's characterization of ultimate reality in terms of emptiness is primarily a negative one, it describes it in terms of what is not there (a substantially existent core,svabhava), while the former's is more positive, postulating a foundational consciousness that is the source of all appearance.[26]
Due to the influence of Yogācāra-Tathāgatagarbha thought, some Buddhist traditions also consider thetathāgatagarbha (also known asbuddha-nature) teachings as part of the third turning. For example, theJonang masterDölpopa Shérap Gyeltsen (1292-1361) held that theTathāgatagarbha sutras contained the "final definitive statements on the nature of ultimate reality, the primordial ground or substratum beyond the chain of dependent origination."[27]
For Dölpopa, some of the key “sutras of definitive meaning” included: theŚrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra,Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra,Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra,Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra,Ghanavyūha Sūtra,Buddhāvataṃsakasūtra,Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, and theSaṃdhinirmocana Sūtra.[28] Dölpopa's classification of Tathāgatagarbha sutras was influential on numerous later Tibetan authors.[29] TheRime masterJamgon Kongtrul (1813–1899) also held that these buddha-nature sutras belonged to the definitive third turning.[30]
The teachings found in several of the "treatises ofMaitreya", such as theMadhyāntavibhāgakārikā,Ratnagotravibhāga and theDharmadharmatāvibhāga are also considered to be part of the third turning by several schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Furthermore, inTibetan Buddhism,Buddhist tantra and itsassociated scriptures are sometimes considered to also be part of the third turning.[31]
The schema of the three turnings found in Yogācāra texts identify Yogācāra teachings as the final and definitive interpretation of the Buddha's teaching. However, the schema was later adopted more widely, and differentschools of Buddhism, as well as individual Buddhist thinkers, give different explanations as to whether the second or third turnings are "definitive" (Skt:nītārtha) or "provisional" or "implicit" (Skt:neyārtha, i.e. requiring interpretation). In the context ofBuddhist hermeneutics, "definitive" refers to teachings which need no further explanation and are to be understood as is, while "implicit" or "provisional" refers to teachings which are expedient and useful but must be further interpreted and drawn out.[32]
In the Tibetan tradition, some schools likeNyingma hold that the second and third turnings are both definitive. Nyingma works tend to emphasize the complementarity of the second and third turning teachings.[33] Meanwhile, theGelug school considers only the second turning as definitive. The Gelug founderTsongkhapa rejected the definitive nature of theYogācāra texts and instead argued that the definitive sutras are only those which teachemptiness as the ultimate meaning. On this, he relies on theTeachings of Akshayamati Sutra.[34] TheJonang school on the other hand, see only the third turning sutras as definitive, and hold the texts of the second turning as provisional.[8]
Other Mahāyāna sutras also mention a similar idea of the Buddha teaching in different phases, some which are provisional and others which are considered final.
TheDhāraṇīśvararāja sūtra (also known as theTathāgatamahākaruṇānirdeśa), mentions that it is part of the “irreversible turning” and uses the metaphor of the gradual process of refiningberyl to describe the way the Buddha teaches in three phases of teaching: 1. "discourses on impermanence, suffering, no self, and unattractiveness, which provoke revulsion", 2. "discourses on emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness" and finally 3. "discourses known asThe Irreversible Wheel of the Dharma andThe Purification of the Triple Sphere."[35] Tibetan exegesis has generally seen this passage as referring to the three turnings (though the sutra itself does not use this terminology).[35] TheDhāraṇīśvararāja is also important because it is a key source for theRatnagotravibhāga, an influential buddha-nature focused treatise.[35]
TheMahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states that its teachings are the highest and ultimateDharma.[36] It also states that teachings onnot-self and emptiness are provisionalskillful means.[37] TheMahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra considers the highest teachings to be those of the "vaitulya" ("well-balanced", or "extensive") Mahāyāna sūtras (such as theMahāparinirvāṇa itself) which teach the eternal nature of theTathagata, and how "all living beings possess buddha-nature."[38]
Vajrayana schools sometimes refer toBuddhist tantra as the "fourth turning." As explained byLama Surya Das, some traditions considerDzogchen as a fourth turning.[39]
According to Japanese scholarJunjirō Takakusu, theSanron (Sanlun)Madhyamaka school divided the teaching into threedharmacakras as well, but with different definitions for each:[40]
The ChineseTiantai school developed a doctrinal classification schema (panjiào) which organized the Buddhas teachings into five periods (五時):[41]
Likewise, theHuayen school had a five period panjiào of dharma teachings. According to patriarchZongmi:[42]
.svg)
