Buddhist Doctrinal Classification refers to various systems used by MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhist traditions to classify and organize the numerous texts and teachings that have developed over the history of Buddhism. According to buddhologist Peter Gregory, these classification systems fulfill three interwoven roles for Buddhist traditions: hermeneutical, sectarian, and soteriological. From an hermeneutical standpoint, they function as a method of organizing Buddhist 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.
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 Indian MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhist framework for classifying and understanding the teachings of the Buddhist Sà «tras and the teachings of Buddha à ÂÃÂkyamuni. This classification system first appears in the Saá¹Âdhinirmocana Sà «tra and in the works of the YogÃÂcÃÂra school. According to the three turnings schema, the Buddha's first sermons, as recorded in the Tripiá¹Âaka of early Buddhist schools, constitute the "first turning" (which include all à ÂrÃÂvakayÃÂna texts). The sà «tras which focus on the doctrine of emptiness (à Âà «nyatÃÂ) like the PrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàSà «tra corpus, are considered to comprise the "second turning" (which in this schema is considered provisional), and the sà «tras which teach YogÃÂcÃÂra themes (especially the three natures doctrine), like the Saá¹Âdhinirmocana Sà «tra, comprise the final and ultimate "third turning".
This and other similar classification systems later became prevalent in various modified forms in Tibetan Buddhism as well as in East Asian Buddhism. In East Asian Buddhism, doctrinal classification systems, called "panjiao" (å¤æÂÂ), were developed in nearly all major Chinese Buddhist schools. Tibetan Buddhism generally uses the term "classification of tenets" (Sanskrit: siddhÃÂnta, Tibetan: grub mtha), which is also a name for a whole genre of literature that focuses on this topic.
The idea of classifying various doctrines and teachings has its antecedents in Early Buddhist texts such as the Tevijja sutta and the Brahmajala sutta. These early Buddhist sources discuss the various worldviews of brahmins, sramanas and ascetics during the Buddha's time, explaining why they are inadequate and why the Buddha's teaching is superior to them.
Earlier Mahayana Sutras mostly discuss the Buddha's teachings in two main categories: Hinayana ("Small" or "Lesser" vehicle) or à ÂrÃÂvakayÃÂna and the Mahayana or Vaipulya (Expansive) teachings. The schema of the three vehicles (yanas) is also another early classification scheme, which contains three main vehicles to awakening: à ÂrÃÂvakayÃÂna, PratyekabuddhayÃÂna and Mahayana. Some sutras complicate this classification however. Perhaps the most famous example is the Lotus Sutra, which teaches that the Buddha taught three vehicles only provisionally. In reality, they are ultimately a single teaching, the all inclusive One Vehicle (Skt.: ekayÃÂna, Ch.:ä¸Âä¹Â; yëchéng).
The Saá¹Âdhinirmocana Sà «tra is the first work to introduce the "three turnings of the wheel of Dharma" schema, which became the normative classification system in the YogÃÂcÃÂra school.
The first turning is traditionally said to have taken place at Deer Park in Sarnath near Varanasi in northern India. It consisted of the teaching of the four noble truths, dependent arising, the five aggregates, the sense fields, not-self, the thirty seven aids to awakening and all the basic Buddhist teachings common to all Buddhist traditions and found in the various Sutrapitaka and Vinaya collections. These teachings are known as the "Hinayana" teachings (lesser or small vehicle) in Mahayana. In East Asian Buddhism, it is called "the teaching of existence" (æÂÂç¸æ³Â輪) since it discusses reality from the point of view of phenomena (dharmas) which are explained as existing.
The Abhidharma teachings of the various à ÂrÃÂvakayÃÂna (i.e. non-Mahayana) traditions (such as Vaibhasika and Theravada) are generally also placed into this category.
The second turning is said to have taken place at Vulture Peak Mountain in Rajagriha, in Bihar, India. The second turning emphasizes the teachings of emptiness (Skt: à Âà «nyatÃÂ) and the bodhisattva path. The main sutras of this second turning are considered to be the PrajñÃÂpÃÂramitàsutras. 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" (ç¡ç¸æ³Â輪).
The second turning is also associated with the bodhisattva Manjushri. The analytical texts of the Madhyamaka school of Nagarjuna are generally included under the second turning.
The first sutra source which mentions the "three turnings" is the ÃÂrya-saá¹Âdhi-nirmocana-sà «tra (Noble sà «tra of the Explanation of the Profound Secrets), the foundational sutra of the YogÃÂcÃÂra school. Major ideas in this text include the storehouse consciousness (ÃÂlayavijñÃÂna), and the doctrine of cognition-only (vijñapti-mÃÂtra) and the "three natures" (trisvabhÃÂva). The Saá¹Âdhinirmocana affirms that the teachings of the earlier turnings authentic but are also incomplete and require further clarification and interpretation. According to the Saá¹Âdhinirmocana, 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.
The Saá¹Âdhinirmocana 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). As such, the third turning is also called "the wheel of good differentiation" (suvibhakta), and "the wheel for ascertaining the ultimate" (paramartha-viniscaya). In East Asian Buddhism, the third turning is referred to as âÂÂultimate turn of the Dharma wheelâ (ç¡ä¸Âæ³Â輪).
Other MahÃÂyÃÂna sutras are considered to be associated with the YogÃÂcÃÂra school, and thus, with the third turning (though these sutras themselves do not mention "three turnings"). These include the Laá¹ kÃÂvatÃÂra Sà «tra and the Ghanavyà «ha Sà «tra, both of which discuss YogÃÂcÃÂra topics like the ÃÂlayavijñÃÂna, the three natures and mind-only idealism as well as tathÃÂgatagarbha ideas.
The teachings of the third turning are further elaborated in the numerous works of YogÃÂcÃÂra school masters like Asaá¹ ga, Vasubandhu, Sthiramati, DharmapÃÂla, à Âëlabhadra, Xuanzang, JñÃÂnaà Ârëmitra and RatnÃÂkaraà ÂÃÂnti.
In his Commentary on Distinguishing the Middle from the Extremes (MadhyÃÂntavibhÃÂga-bhÃÂá¹£ya), 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 the five aggregates. The second turning then establishes how the very (false) appearance of a (non-existent) self comes about from its aggregate parts through dependent 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.
In his Commentary on the Cheng weishi lun (æÂÂå¯è è«Âè¿°è¨Â; Taishà  no. 1830), Kuiji (a student of Xuanzang), lists the following as the most important sutras for the YogÃÂcÃÂra school:
In Chinese YogÃÂcÃÂra, important treatises for the third turning included the YogÃÂcÃÂrabhà «mi-à Âastra, Xuanzang's Cheng Weishi Lun, and the Daà Âabhà «mikasà «traà ÂÃÂstra (Shidi jing lun Ã¥ÂÂå°ç¶Âè«Â, T.26.1522, also called Dilun), which is Vasubandhu's commentary on the Daà Âabhà «mika-sà «tra (Shidi jing Ã¥ÂÂå°ç¶Â).
The Indian YogÃÂcÃÂra tradition eventually developed various works which synthesized YogÃÂcÃÂra with the tathÃÂgatagarbha thought found in various Mahayana sutras. This synthesis merged the tathÃÂgatagarbha teaching with the doctrine of the ÃÂlayavijñÃÂna and the three natures doctrine. Some key sources of this Indian tendency are the Laá¹ kÃÂvatÃÂra Sà «tra, Ghanavyà «ha Sà «tra, and the RatnagotravibhÃÂga.
This YogÃÂcÃÂra-TathÃÂgatagarbha tradition became influential in East Asian Buddhism and in Tibet. The translator ParamÃÂrtha (499-569 CE) was known for promoting this syncretic YogÃÂcÃÂra and for defending the theory of the "stainless consciousness" (amala-vijñÃÂna), which is revealed once the ÃÂlaya-vijñÃÂna is purified.
As noted by Jan Westerhoff, the identification of buddha-nature teachings with the YogÃÂcÃÂra's third turning happened not only because several sutras (like the Laá¹ kÃÂvatÃÂra) explicitly synthesized the two doctrines, but also because:<blockquote>the notion of the tathÃÂgatagarbha lines up more naturally with the characterization of ultimate reality we find in YogÃÂcÃÂra than with what we find in Madhyamaka. 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.</blockquote>Due to the influence of YogÃÂcÃÂra-TathÃÂgatagarbha thought, some Buddhist traditions also consider the tathÃÂgatagarbha (also known as buddha-nature) teachings as part of the third turning. For example, the Jonang master Dölpopa Shérap Gyeltsen (1292âÂÂ1361) held that the TathÃÂgatagarbha sutras contained the "final definitive statements on the nature of ultimate reality, the primordial ground or substratum beyond the chain of dependent origination."
For Dölpopa, some of the key âÂÂsutras of definitive meaningâ included: the à ÂrëmÃÂlÃÂdevë Siá¹ÂhanÃÂda Sà «tra, TathÃÂgatagarbha Sà «tra, MahÃÂyÃÂna MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa Sà «tra, Aá¹ gulimÃÂlëya Sà «tra, Ghanavyà «ha Sà «tra, BuddhÃÂvataá¹Âsakasà «tra, Laá¹ kÃÂvatÃÂra Sà «tra, and the Saá¹Âdhinirmocana Sà «tra. Dölpopa's classification of TathÃÂgatagarbha sutras was influential on numerous later Tibetan authors. The Rime master Jamgon Kongtrul (1813âÂÂ1899) also held that these buddha-nature sutras belonged to the definitive third turning.
The teachings found in several of the "treatises of Maitreya", such as the MadhyÃÂntavibhÃÂgakÃÂrikÃÂ, RatnagotravibhÃÂga and the DharmadharmatÃÂvibhÃÂga are also considered to be part of the third turning by several schools of Tibetan Buddhism. Furthermore, in Tibetan Buddhism, Buddhist tantra and its associated scriptures are sometimes considered to also be part of the third turning.
The schema of the three turnings found in YogÃÂcÃÂra texts identify YogÃÂcÃÂra teachings as the final and definitive interpretation of the Buddha's teaching. However, the schema was later adopted more widely, and different schools of Buddhism, as well as individual Buddhist thinkers, give different explanations as to whether the second or third turnings are "definitive" (Skt: nëtÃÂrtha) or "provisional" or "implicit" (Skt: neyÃÂrtha, i.e. requiring interpretation). In the context of Buddhist 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.
In the Tibetan tradition, some schools like Nyingma hold that the second and third turnings are both definitive. Nyingma works tend to emphasize the complementarity of the second and third turning teachings. Meanwhile, the Gelug school considers only the second turning as definitive. The Gelug founder Tsongkhapa rejected the definitive nature of the YogÃÂcÃÂra texts and instead argued that the definitive sutras are only those which teach emptiness as the ultimate meaning. On this, he relies on the Teachings of Akshayamati Sutra. The Jonang school on the other hand, see only the third turning sutras as definitive, and hold the texts of the second turning as provisional.
Other MahÃÂyÃÂna sutras also mention a similar idea of the Buddha teaching in different phases, some which are provisional and others which are considered final. The DhÃÂraá¹Âëà ÂvararÃÂja sà «tra (also known as the TathÃÂgatamahÃÂÃÂkaruá¹ÂÃÂÃÂnirdeà Âa), mentions that it is part of the âÂÂirreversible turningâ and uses the metaphor of the gradual process of refining beryl 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 as The Irreversible Wheel of the Dharma and The Purification of the Triple Sphere." Tibetan exegesis has generally seen this passage as referring to the three turnings (though the sutra itself does not use this terminology). The DhÃÂraá¹Âëà ÂvararÃÂja is also important because it is a key source for the RatnagotravibhÃÂga, an influential buddha-nature focused treatise.
The MahÃÂyÃÂna MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa Sà «tra states that its teachings are the highest and ultimate Dharma. It also states that teachings on not-self and emptiness are provisional skillful means. The MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa Sà «tra considers the highest teachings to be those of the "vaitulya" ("well-balanced", or "extensive") MahÃÂyÃÂna sà «tras (such as the MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa itself) which teach the eternal nature of the Tathagata, and how "all living beings possess buddha-nature."
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 of Zhiyi. The passage states:<blockquote>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 sà «tras, from the sà «tras come the vaipulya [MahÃÂyÃÂna] sà «tras, from the vaipulya sà «tras comes Perfection of Wisdom, and from Perfection of Wisdom comes MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa, which is to be compared to ghee. Ghee is analogous to the Buddha-nature. </blockquote>Buddhist scholastic literature also discusses and classifies numerous Buddhist and non-Buddhist views. Indian works which discuss and classify various competing doctrines include the Kathavatthu, the Mahavibhasa, Bhaviveka's Blaze of Reasoning and Shantaraksita's Tattvasamgraha.
The classification of Buddhist teachings or "doctrinal taxonomies" (Chinese: å¤æ panjiao) became a central feature of East Asian Buddhist scholasticism and doctrinal debate. By 600 AD there were 10 main classifications. The term is a shortened form of jiÃÂoxiÃÂng pànshì æÂÂç¸å¤éÂÂ, 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.
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 as Faxiang (æ³Âç¸), Tiantai (天å°), and Huayan (è¯å´). Notable figures associated with this method include Huiyuan (æ §é ), Zhiyi (æºé¡Â), Fazang (æ³ÂèÂÂ), and Zongmi (å®Âå¯Â).
The Sanlun (Madhyamaka) school divided the teaching into three turnings of the wheel of Dharma, but with different definitions for each. This system was outlined by Jizang and consists of the following schema:
The Chinese Tiantai school developed a doctrinal classification schema (panjiao) which organized the Buddhas teachings into five periods (äºÂæÂÂ) and Eight teachings:
The Fourfold Teachings:
The Fourfold Method classifies four different ways that the Buddha uses to guide sentient beings of different capacities:
Likewise, the Huayen school had a five period panjiao of dharma teachings as taught by patriarch Fazang:
The Chan and Huayan master Zongmi developed his own panjiao in his Inquiry 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:
Kukai in Japan wrote Himitsumandara jà «jà «shinron (ç¥Âå¯Âæ¼è¼羠åÂÂä½Âå¿Âè«Â, Treatise on The Ten Stages of the Development of Mind) and Enchin also developed a Tendai classification system.
Tibetan Vajrayana schools sometimes refer to Buddhist tantra as a "fourth turning", adding it to the classic Indian "three turnings model". As explained by Lama Surya Das, some traditions consider Dzogchen as a fourth turning.
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 term SiddhÃÂnta (established doctrine, accepted conclusion). This genre of scholastic study and texts evolved from Indian doctrinal works, such as the Mahavibhasa, Bhaviveka's Blaze of Reasoning and Shantaraksita's Tattvasamgraha. 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" ("SiddhÃÂnta").
Tibetan Buddhists developed the genre further and numerous tenet works were written by figures such as Rongzompa, Chekawa Yeshe Dorje, Sakya Pandita, Longchenpa, Jamyang Shéba, and Changkya Rölpé Dorjé. The most common outline of basic tenets discussed in these works are four main schools of Indian Buddhist philosophy, which comprise two Hinayana schools: VaibhÃÂá¹£ika, and SautrÃÂntika, and two Mahayana schools: CittamÃÂtra (Mind-only), and Madhyamaka (which is sub-divided into the Prasaá¹ gika and Svatantrika camps).
When discussing Vajrayana Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism also contains doctrinal classification systems for the various classes of Tantra. Vajrayana is thus considered to be a distinct esoteric category, apart from "exoteric" Mahayana Buddhism, also labeled "sutric" Mahayana.
The Nyingma school's Dzogchen tradition contains a unique classification system with nine types of teachings (or vehicles).