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 treesbut 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 karmathat good and bad actions as causes
invariably lead to the results of happiness and sufferingmust 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
/\