Buddhist Doctrinal Classification refers to various systems used byMahāyāna Buddhist traditions to classify and organize the numerous texts and teachings that have developed over thehistory of Buddhism. According tobuddhologist Peter Gregory, these classification systems fulfill three interwoven roles for Buddhist traditions:hermeneutical,sectarian, andsoteriological. From an hermeneutical standpoint, they function as a method of organizingBuddhist texts both chronologically and hierarchically, thereby producing a doctrinal structure that is internally coherent and logically consistent. In its sectarian application, different Buddhist schools evaluate and order scriptures based on their own doctrinal priorities, using this to legitimize their specific traditions. From a soteriological perspective, classification schemas map out a graded path of spiritual development, wherein the practitioner’s insight evolves from basic teachings toward the most advanced and profound realizations.[1]
One of the earliest such systems was the "Three Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma" (Sanskrit:tridharmacakra-pravartana,Tibetan:chos kyi 'khor lo gsum), an IndianMahāyāna Buddhist framework for classifying and understanding the teachings of theBuddhist Sūtras and the teachings ofBuddha Śākyamuni.[2][3] This classification system first appears in theSaṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and in the works of theYogācāra school.[2] 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".[3]
This and other similar classification systems later became prevalent in various modified forms inTibetan Buddhism as well as inEast Asian Buddhism. In East Asian Buddhism, doctrinal classification systems, called "panjiao" (判教), were developed in nearly all majorChinese Buddhist schools.[4][5]Tibetan Buddhism generally uses the term "classification of tenets" (Sanskrit:siddhānta,Tibetan:grub mtha'), which is also a name for a whole genre of literature that focuses on this topic.[6]
The idea of classifying various doctrines and teachings has its antecedents inEarly Buddhist texts such as theTevijja sutta and theBrahmajala sutta. These early Buddhist sources discuss the various worldviews ofbrahmins,sramanas andascetics during the Buddha's time, explaining why they are inadequate and why the Buddha's teaching is superior to them.[7]
EarlierMahayana Sutras mostly discuss the Buddha's teachings in two main categories:Hinayana ("Small" or "Lesser" vehicle) orŚrāvakayāna and theMahayana or Vaipulya (Expansive) teachings. The schema of thethree vehicles (yanas) is also another early classification scheme, which contains three main vehicles to awakening:Śrāvakayāna,Pratyekabuddhayāna and Mahayana. Some sutras complicate this classification however. Perhaps the most famous example is theLotus Sutra, which teaches that the Buddha taught three vehicles only provisionally. In reality, they are ultimately a single teaching, the all inclusiveOne Vehicle (Skt.:ekayāna, Ch.:一乘;yīchéng).[8]
TheSaṃdhinirmocana Sūtra is the first work to introduce the "three turnings of the wheel of Dharma" schema, which became the normative classification system in theYogācāra school.[2]
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.[9][10][11][12] These teachings are known as the "Hinayana" teachings (lesser or small vehicle) in Mahayana.[12] 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.[13]
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.[12][9] The main sutras of this second turning are considered to be thePrajñāpāramitā sutras.[9] 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).[13]
The second turning is also associated with the bodhisattvaManjushri.[9] The analytical texts of theMadhyamaka school ofNagarjuna are generally included under the second turning.[14]
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.[2] 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.[15] 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.[16]
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).[17] As such, the third turning is also called "the wheel of good differentiation" (suvibhakta), and "the wheel for ascertaining the ultimate" (paramartha-viniscaya).[18] In East Asian Buddhism, the third turning is referred to as “ultimate turn of the Dharma wheel” (無上法輪).[13]
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.[19][20][21][22]
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.[23]
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:[24][25]
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).[26][27]
The Indian Yogācāra tradition eventually developed various works which synthesized Yogācāra with thetathāgatagarbha thought found in various Mahayana sutras.[28] 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.[28][21]
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.[29]
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.[30]
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."[31]
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.[32] Dölpopa's classification of Tathāgatagarbha sutras was influential on numerous later Tibetan authors.[33] TheRime masterJamgon Kongtrul (1813–1899) also held that these buddha-nature sutras belonged to the definitive third turning.[34]
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.[35]
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.[36]
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.[37] 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.[38] TheJonang school on the other hand, see only the third turning sutras as definitive, and hold the texts of the second turning as provisional.[12]
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."[39] Tibetan exegesis has generally seen this passage as referring to the three turnings (though the sutra itself does not use this terminology).[39] TheDhāraṇīśvararāja is also important because it is a key source for theRatnagotravibhāga, an influential buddha-nature focused treatise.[39]
TheMahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states that its teachings are the highest and ultimateDharma.[40] It also states that teachings onnot-self and emptiness are provisionalskillful means.[41] 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."[42]
The sutra also contains a passage which outlines a rough system of teachings from coarse to subtle, comparing the teachings to the process of making ghee from milk. This passage was influential in East Asian Buddhist classification systems, entering mainstream Chinese Buddhist scholarship with work ofZhiyi.[43] The passage states:
From the cow there comes milk, from milk comes cream, from cream come butter curds, from butter curds comes butter, and from butter comes ghee. . . . Oh sons of good family, it is also thus with the Buddha [and his teaching]. From the Buddha come the twelve divisions of scripture, from the twelve divisions of scripture come the sūtras, from the sūtras come thevaipulya [Mahāyāna] sūtras, from thevaipulya sūtras comes Perfection of Wisdom, and from Perfection of Wisdom comesMahāparinirvāṇa, which is to be compared to ghee. Ghee is analogous to the Buddha-nature.[43]
Buddhist scholastic literature also discusses and classifies numerous Buddhist and non-Buddhist views. Indian works which discuss and classify various competing doctrines include theKathavatthu, theMahavibhasa,Bhaviveka'sBlaze of Reasoning andShantaraksita'sTattvasamgraha.[44]
The classification of Buddhist teachings or "doctrinal taxonomies" (Chinese: 判教panjiao) became a central feature ofEast Asian Buddhist scholasticism and doctrinal debate. By 600 AD there were 10 main classifications.[45][46][47][48] The term is a shortened form ofjiāoxiāng pànshì 教相判釋, referring to the systematic classification of Buddhist teachings based on factors such as thematic content and historical period. This form of doctrinal organization was typically carried out by exegetes who aimed to reconcile the wide variety of Buddhist scriptures by integrating them into a unified doctrinal framework.[49]
However, these classifications often reflected the exegete’s own institutional affiliations, with commentators generally promoting the teachings of their own tradition as central or supreme. The practice of doctrinal classification was a central feature of scriptural interpretation among the scholastic Buddhist traditions in China during the 5th to 8th centuries, particularly within schools such asFaxiang (法相),Tiantai (天台), andHuayan (華嚴). Notable figures associated with this method include Huiyuan (慧遠),Zhiyi (智顗),Fazang (法藏), andZongmi (宗密).[49]
TheSanlun (Madhyamaka) school divided the teaching into three turnings of the wheel of Dharma, but with different definitions for each. This system was outlined byJizang and consists of the following schema:[50]
The ChineseTiantai school developed a doctrinal classification schema (panjiao) which organized the Buddhas teachings into five periods (五時) and Eight teachings:[51]
The Fourfold Teachings:
The Fourfold Method classifies four different ways that the Buddha uses to guide sentient beings of different capacities:
Likewise, theHuayen school had a five period panjiao of dharma teachings as taught by patriarchFazang:[52]
The Chan and Huayan masterZongmi developed his own panjiao in hisInquiry into the Origin of Humanity. One influential and innovative change to Zongmi's panjiao is the fact that he included non-buddhist religions in it. This schema is as follows:[53]
Kukai inJapan wroteHimitsumandara jūjūshinron (祕密曼荼羅十住心論, Treatise on The Ten Stages of the Development of Mind) andEnchin also developed a Tendai classification system.[54][55]
TibetanVajrayana schools sometimes refer toBuddhist tantra as a "fourth turning", adding it to the classic Indian "three turnings model". As explained byLama Surya Das, some traditions considerDzogchen as a fourth turning.[56]
The most common style of doctrinal classification system in Tibetan Buddhism however is found in a genre called "tenets" (Tibetan:grub mtha'), from the Sanskrit termSiddhānta (established doctrine, accepted conclusion). This genre of scholastic study and texts evolved from Indian doctrinal works, such as theMahavibhasa,Bhaviveka'sBlaze of Reasoning andShantaraksita'sTattvasamgraha. These works categorized and discussed various Buddhist and non-Buddhist doctrines in a hierarchical fashion, refuting opposing doctrinal systems and culminating with the exposition of the proper correct "established doctrine" ("Siddhānta").[57]
Tibetan Buddhists developed the genre further and numerous tenet works were written by figures such asRongzompa,Chekawa Yeshe Dorje,Sakya Pandita,Longchenpa,Jamyang Shéba, andChangkya Rölpé Dorjé.[57] The most common outline of basic tenets discussed in these works are four main schools of Indian Buddhist philosophy, which comprise twoHinayana schools:Vaibhāṣika, andSautrāntika, and twoMahayana schools:Cittamātra (Mind-only), andMadhyamaka (which is sub-divided into thePrasaṅgika and Svatantrika camps).[58]
When discussingVajrayana Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism also contains doctrinal classification systems for the variousclasses of Tantra. Vajrayana is thus considered to be a distinct esoteric category, apart from "exoteric" Mahayana Buddhism, also labeled "sutric" Mahayana.
TheNyingma school'sDzogchen tradition contains a unique classification system withnine types of teachings (or vehicles).
.svg)