So, what is the difference between the Second Turning and the Third Turning of the Dharma Wheel? Ultimately, what they point to is actually the same reality; the difference lies only in the angle of explanation, with the Third Turning presenting it in a more complete way. It is like describing the same object from different perspectives.
Take this cup, for example: the Second Turning would say that it has “no inherent essence,” while the Third Turning would say, “Although it has no inherent essence, it is a manifestation of luminosity.” This is how Buddhism would speak of the cup. Likewise, even ordinary people may describe the same object differently—one person says it is round, another says it is silver-colored. Neither is wrong. It is one thing described in two ways.
Our true nature is the same in this respect. Of course, we cannot say that true nature either is or is not a “thing,” because it lies beyond dualistic judgments such as existence and nonexistence. Yet there are two characteristics that ordinary people may speak of. First is emptiness (śūnyatā): its essence cannot be found. Second is luminosity: it possesses the pure capacity, as seen in the pure perception of Buddha and Bodhisattvas.
We ordinary people, however, defile this pure capacity, and it becomes impure manifestation: our own bodies and and all various phenomena we perceive, such as mountains, rivers and the earth.
This is the difference between the Second and Third Turnings of the Dharma Wheel. Though they speak of the same reality, they do so from different perspectives, with the Third Turning offering a more comprehensive presentation.
—Excerpted and compiled from The Relationship Between Buddhist Theory and Practice
This article is a preliminary translation draft and has not yet been reviewed or proofread by the speaker.
Comments (0)