Four reliances

• sinweiy

  4 Jan 08, 09:00

  As set forth by His Holiness the XIV Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyamtso, the four reliances are:
  
  1. "Do not rely on the person but on the doctrine.
  2. Then, with respect to the doctrine, rely not on the word [or words] but on the meaning.
  3. Then, with respect to the meaning, rely not on the interpretable meaning but on the definitive meaning.
  4. And with respect to the definitive meaning, rely not on ordinary consciousness but on an exalted wisdom consciousness." If one understands consciousness always to be dualistic and awareness to be non-dualistic, then this last reliance should read "exalted wisdom awareness."
  
  The first reliance is not to rely on the person teaching, but on the doctrine being taught. The Buddha enjoined his followers to apply this standard even to himself when he said, "Oh monks and scholars, you should not accept my word out of respect for me but rather upon analyzing and investigating it in the way that a gold-smith analyses gold by scorching, cutting, and rubbing it." This means that regardless of the greater experience or perceived level of realization of the teacher, one should still rely on the teachings, ascertaining for oneself their truthfulness or lack thereof, rather than accept them simply because of the profound impression the teacher may have made on one or because of his or her reputation or hierarchical status.
  
  The second reliance is, with respect to the doctrine or teaching, not to rely on the words of the teaching, but on the meaning. One should not, for instance, accept a teaching simply because the words are eloquent— as we know even the devil can quote scriptures and charm the birds out of the trees—but because the meaning is truthful and conducive to happiness, personal liberation, and the benefit and liberation of others. This second injunction is very important when it conies to translating the teachings from one language into another. Oftentimes, for example, there does not seem to be any word in the recipient language exactly equivalent to the word used in the language from which the teachings are being translated. In determining whether the Tibetan word dampa should be translated as genuine or as holy or even as venerable; whether the Tibetan word se should be translated as sons and daughters, daughters and sons, children, offspring, progeny, heirs, spiritual heirs, heirs apprentice, or whatever; or whether the term dharmakaya, which is given eight different meanings in the Mahayana Uttara Tantra Shastra, should be translated at all, translators and students alike must rely on the meaning of the teaching rather than exclusively on the words themselves. Similarly, when we pray that Karmapa remain forever in the vajra nature, we have to understand that we are not praying for him magically to transform himself into a five-pronged iron ritual instrument, similar to what is used in advanced vajrayana practice, and remain that way in perpetuity.
  
  The third reliance is, with respect to the meaning, not to rely on the interpretable meaning, but on the definitive meaning. This injunction is very important when it comes to distinguishing the various levels of the Buddhist teachings, understanding which teachings supersede which other teachings when it comes to understanding absolute truth, and understanding when certain teachings should be applied and when they should not. For example, the Buddha's teachings on karma—that good and bad actions as causes invariably lead to the results of happiness and suffering—must be interpreted in the light of his subsequent teachings in the Heart Sutra that all dharmas (phenomena) are emptiness and his teaching that there is "no suffering, no origin of suffering, no cessation of suffering, no path, no wisdom, no attainment, and no non-attainment." The teachings on karma are thus interpreted to mean that, given the rather coarse, common-place level of understanding of things that we have at the beginning of our path, it is important to understand and live in accordance with the law of cause and effect. It may be all well and good to understand that suffering is empty of true nature or of inherent existence, but if you have not realized that, the "you" that does not truly exist will still experience the immense suffering which also does not truly exist, and will take it all to be very real. Therefore, when one has not realized emptiness, and even after one has developed the ability skillfully to meditate on emptiness but not the ability to maintain that realization when not meditating, it is still important to accept such an interpretable meaning in one's post-meditation or between-meditations experience. But in meditation, because it is the realization of emptiness or the true nature that liberates one from suffering and its causes, one should try to understand, meditate upon, and realize the definitive meaning, which in this example is that all phenomena, including suffering and its causes, are empty of true existence.
  http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=10723
  
  /\
  
• sinweiy

  4 Jan 08, 09:10

  with that said.."hinayana" thinking is the one that rely on the opposite of Four reliances. (also have four level of hinayana thinking).
  i.e. :-
  
  (1) they rely more on person than on the doctrine;
  (2) then with respect to doctine, they rely more on words than on the meaning of the teaching;
  (3) then with respect to meaning, they rely more on interpretable/discriminative meaning than on definitive meaning; and
  (4) then with respect to definitive meaning, they rely more on ordinary consciousness than on exalted wisdom awareness.
  
  /\