Quoted from Kyle:

    The Āryākṣayamatinirdeśa-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra sets out the criteria for a sūtra of definitive meaning:

    'Any sūtrānta which explains in a variety of different terms a self, a sentient being, a living being, a personality, a person, an individual, one born from a human, a human, an agent, an experiencer — teaching an owner in what is ownerless — those sutras are called "of provisional meaning". Any sūtrānta which teaches emptiness, the signless, the wishless, the unconditioned, the non-arisen, the unproduced, the insubstantial, the non-existence of self, the non-existence of sentient beings, the non-existence of living beings, the non-existence of individuals, the non-existence of an owner up to the doors of liberation, those are called "definitive meaning". This is taught in the sūtrāntas of of definitive meaning but is not taught in the sūtrāntas of the provisional meaning.'


Also, taken from Malcolm's Dharmawheel signature:

[A]nything at all that is well spoken is the word of the Buddha.

-- Ārya-adhyāśaya-sañcodana-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra

The different sūtras in accord with the emptiness
taught by the Sugata are definitive in meaning;
One can understand that all of those Dharmas in
which a sentient being, individual, or person are taught are provisional in meaning.

-- Samadhirāja Sūtra


Kyle Dixon:

level 3
3 points · 2 years ago
I thought that some of the sutras were by advanced practicioners those who became bodhisatvas after the death of the Buddha.
Sure, but in Mahāyāna the "Buddha" is not relegated to the historical figure, Śākyamuni, and in fact the Mahāyāna sūtras state that the "Buddha" should not be seen as name and form at all. Which means the definition of the Buddha is not limited to the historical figure.
For this reason "buddhavacana" or "the word of the Buddha" in Mahāyāna becomes whatever is "said well", meaning an exposition that accords with the fundamental principles of karma, rebirth, dependent origination, bodhicitta, etc.
This is because the Buddha is not name and form, meaning the Buddha is not the rūpakāya, but rather the Buddha is the nature of your mind, the dharmakāya.


Kyle Dixon The so-called “third turning” is not Vajrayāna, rather it is the tathāgatagarbha and Yogācāra teachings within the context of common Mahāyāna.
Kyle Dixon At least that is how it is interpreted in Tibet and East Asia.

Kyle Dixon In actuality there is no basis for the “third turning” in Indian literature.

Meaning the tathāgatagarbha and Yogācāra never refer to themselves this way. No Indian adept ever mentions the third turning or tathāgatagarbha / Yogācāra being third turning.
0 Responses