What This Concept Is About
「善自他宗」(sva-para-siddhānta-kauśalya, "skill in one's own and others' tenets") is how the 瑜伽行派 (Yogācāra, "Yoga-Practice School")—the 唯识 (Vijñānavāda, "consciousness-only") tradition—characterizes the cognitive qualifications a competent practitioner, teacher of the Dharma, and 论师 (śāstrika, "master of treatises") should possess. The classical entry puts it in one sentence: "Skillfully penetrating the teachings of one's own tradition and of other traditions." Eight characters, two tasks, neither dispensable. It is not an exhortation to study, but a piece of cognitive engineering—a training that gives 承许 (pratijñā, "assertion") gravity and gives dialogue a ground.
First, take apart these three words:
- 「善」—this is 善巧 (kauśalya, skillfulness): proficient, penetrating, able to strike the vital point; it does not mean "kind," "fond of," or "in agreement with." - 「通」—this is 通达 (thorough penetration): able to thread from one assertion to the next, able to use this teaching to explain other things. Not "heard it," "seen it." - 「教理」—this is the complete system of teaching (教法): including scriptures, grounds, classification of teachings (判教), stages (次第), and methods of practice (修法); not some isolated golden maxim.
「自宗」and 「他宗」are symmetrical on the surface, but in fact they are two different exercises—sequential in order, different in weight. We treat them separately below.
1. Skill in One's Own Tradition: Penetrating the Complete Arc of One's Own Lineage
「自宗」is not "my personally preferred view," nor "the teaching of the monastery I was born into." 「自宗」is the complete system of teaching that you rely upon (依止)—its scriptures, grounds, classification, stages, and path of practice.
「善自宗」requires at least three levels:
1. Systematicity—not picking out a few favorite scriptures, but knowing how one's own tradition assembles the skeletons 苦集灭道 (duḥkha-samudaya-nirodha-mārga, "suffering, origin, cessation, path"), 三学 (triśikṣā, "the three learnings"), 四谛 (catvāri āryasatyāni, "the four noble truths"), 唯识 (Vijñānavāda, "consciousness-only"), 如来藏 (tathāgatagarbha, "the womb of the Tathāgata"), 真常 ("true permanence")—knowing where each bone is placed and how it articulates with the one beside it. 2. Truthful assertion (宗义, siddhānta, "established tenet")—knowing what one's own tradition explicitly "asserts" (承许, pratijñā) and what it explicitly "refutes" (遮遣). This is especially emphasized in Vijñānavāda learning—a śāstrika with a self-tradition must be able to state clearly: "I assert X; therefore I must refute non-X," and must be able to state the grounds of the assertion (因, hetu, "reason"; 喻, dṛṣṭānta, "example"). 3. Awareness of internal tensions and one's own difficulties—knowing the points within one's own system that have not yet been fully digested. For example, how to make coherent the relations among 种子 (bīja, "seeds"), 阿赖耶 (ālaya, "store consciousness"), and 三自性 (trisvabhāva, "three natures") in Vijñānavāda; how 禅宗 (Chan, the Zen school)'s 即心即佛 ("this very mind is the Buddha") and 离念 ("casting off thought") do not conflict; how 净土 (Pure Land)'s 他力 ("other-power") and 自力 ("self-power") are not distorted; and so on.
Taken together, "skill in one's own tradition" is not merely "identification"; it is "being able to stand inside the arc of one's own tradition and see everything from there." Identification is an emotional matter; skill in one's own tradition is a cognitive one.
2. Skill in Other Traditions: Penetrating the True Shape of Other Teachings
This is the half that is more often neglected, and more easily done wrong. 「他宗」refers to the systems of teaching other than the one you assert. Its range is wide:
- Other schools within Buddhism itself (if you are Vijñānavāda, then 中观 (Madhyamaka, "the Middle Way"), 如来藏 (tathāgatagarbha), 俱舍 (Abhidharmakośa), 成实 (Satyasiddhi) are all "other traditions"; if you are Madhyamaka, then Vijñānavāda, tathāgatagarbha, and Abhidharmakośa are all "other traditions"); - Practice schools of different traditions (the internal divisions within 禅 (Chan), 密 (esoteric/Vajrayāna), and 净土 (Pure Land)); - Non-Buddhist Indian philosophical schools (数论 (Sāṃkhya), 胜论 (Vaiśeṣika), 正理 (Nyāya), 吠陀 (Veda), etc.); - Various contemporary currents of thought in dialogue with Buddhism.
The "善" of 「善他宗」 likewise has three strict requirements:
1. Understand from within the other tradition's own arc—not reading the other through one's own framework, but entering as far as possible into the other's own scriptures, grounds, classification, and stages. "What is the other saying" must come before "Is the other right." 2. Accurately reproduce the other tradition's assertion—able to state "the other tradition asserts X, therefore refutes non-X," and this statement is one the other tradition itself would agree to. If the other party, hearing you present their tenets, protests "that is not what we say," then you have not achieved skill in other traditions. 3. Discern the other's strengths and weaknesses without contempt—know the other's strong points and shortcomings, but not measure everything with the ruler of one's own tradition and dismiss it; rather, know that one's own tradition has its own limits, and the other tradition has its own brilliance.
Taken together, "skill in other traditions" is not as simple as "tolerance"—tolerance can be polite indifference; skill in other traditions is "I have done the work; I can, from its own roots, tell what it looks like, and I can tell where it holds together, where it does not, and where it is stronger than my own school."
3. Self and Other Together: The Two Wings of Complete Cognition
The Yogācāra school makes this capacity a basic skill of 闻思修 (śruta-cintā-bhāvanā, "hearing, reflecting, cultivating"), because within Buddhism itself there is the tradition of 判教 ("classification of teachings"), 会通 ("harmonization"), and 抉择 ("discernment")—you must know what "I am saying" at the same time as you know what "others are saying"; otherwise your "assertion" has no gravity.
In the śāstrika training of the 菩萨地 (Bodhisattvabhūmi, "the Bodhisattva Stages"), this two-sided capacity is repeatedly stressed: on the one hand, "regarding what one has realized oneself, whether by faith or by direct realization"; on the other, "regarding the tenets established by other disputants, knowing them as they truly are." Both sides require 如实 ("truthfulness to reality"), not agreement. Only when both sides come together is there an "I" that can stand firm and speak outward. Thus one's own tradition is the "standing," and other traditions are the precondition that makes this "standing" able to stand—not so that other traditions disappear, but so that one's own tradition does not float.
4. Several Faults of Not Being Skilled in Self and Other
To set out the difficulty of this matter, several faults must be named:
- Skilled only in one's own tradition, hostile to other traditions—demeaning others: eloquent about one's own tradition, but distorting and simplifying other traditions, lapsing into mockery. The result: "inside one's own circle one looks learned; step outside, and one cannot even take in the other's own words." - Skilled only in other traditions, negligent of one's own—lapsing into a cameo role: knowing a bit of everything, thin in everything, with no assertion and no root of one's own, ending as "knows a little of everything, stands for nothing," seeming tolerant but actually floating. - Skilled in neither—ignorant and arrogant: knowing neither oneself nor others, yet setting up positions everywhere. This state is especially common on today's internet.
—This level is not to make anyone ashamed, but to set out the difficulty of the matter.
Walking Through It in Daily Life
Below we walk this concept step by step through scenarios familiar to contemporary people, mapping strictly onto the definitions above, and in passing exposing where people most commonly map it wrong.
Scenario 1: Disputes Within a Faith
Suppose you are a lay practitioner (在家修行者) inheriting the tradition of some school (say Vijñānavāda, Chan, Pure Land, or some Tibetan school), and in a WeChat group you see someone criticizing another school (for example: "Pure Land is Buddhism's simplified version, not the ultimate" / "Chan's 'not relying on words' is mad-chan" / "Tibetan Buddhism is a variant of Hinduism").
- The unskilled-in-other response: immediately pulling out a line or two of "what the scriptures say" and pasting it back in rebuttal—in fact simplifying the other's tradition into the one facet you most detest and attacking that. You think you are defending your own tradition; in fact you are fighting a straw man. - The skilled-in-self response: you can explain, from your own tradition's classification, stages, and methods, "why my own tradition says this," and you can name the limits your own tradition internally admits (say, a controversy in one of your own treatises at some point, or your tradition's accommodation when facing a certain class of faculties (根机)). - The skilled-in-other response: you can, along the other's own lineage, find the other tradition's most classical assertions—"Pure Land asserts X, therefore Y" / "Chan asserts X, therefore Y"—rather than making the other into a straw man. You can quote the other tradition's own scriptures and its own patriarchs' own words. - The skilled-in-both response: the view you finally express is such that a Pure Land practitioner reading it says "this person truly understands us," and your own tradition's teachers and peers reading it say "this person truly understands us"—for both to hold at once is extremely difficult, but this is what "skill in self and other" is for.
The most common mapping error: taking "skill in other traditions" to mean "I go and study the other tradition" is enough. In fact the key test of "skill in other traditions" is—whether the other party, hearing your account, would protest.
Scenario 2: Workplace / Academia / the Knowledge Sphere
You are a professional in some field (say, an engineer, but you have to deal with designers, product managers, operations, and marketing).
- 「自宗」= your engineering mindset, your engineering language, your assertions about technical quality. - 「他宗」= the designer's assertions about user experience, the product manager's assertions about the business model, marketing's assertions about growth, the boss's assertions about responsibility to shareholders. - Unskilled in other: "they don't understand technology" / "they only talk PPT" / "they only shout slogans"—this is skilled-in-self-only, hostile-to-other. Your judgment is true, but your expression has flattened every other department. - Skilled in other only: "whatever you say is right" / "I agree with everything"—this turns skillfulness into 乡愿 (xiāngyuàn, "the village worthy's all-pleasing goody-goodness"). The self-tradition thereby grows thin. - Skilled in both: you can explain, in the designer's language, why this architecture is done this way; you can explain, in the product manager's language, technology's constraints on business; you can explain, from your own engineering assertions, why a certain proposal better fits your "tradition." This is the true purpose of skill in other traditions—to make your own tradition, in the other's context, also intelligible and load-bearing.
The most common mapping error: thinking "skill in other traditions" equals "learning from them." In fact the first meaning of "skill in other traditions" is being able to explain one's own assertions to them—and to make them heard.
Scenario 3: Intimate Relations and Intergenerational Communication
Among partners, parents, children, and friends, each party has its own "tradition"—that is, what *ta* has, over a lifetime, asserted in psychology, social identity, values, and self-esteem.
- When you can understand the other with "skill in other traditions"—not agreeing with him, but truly able, from his own arc, to tell "why he thinks, feels, and reacts this way"—you step out of the "I'm right, you're wrong" quarrel. - When you at the same time are "skilled in your own tradition"—clear about what you assert, and therefore what you can insist on and what you can yield—you have a boundary to hold. - Without these two layers, all "communication skills" in a relationship float, because the assertions underneath are in chaos.
The most common mapping error: taking "skill in other traditions" as "I accommodate him." In fact "skill in other traditions" is I can, from his own roots, tell what he looks like—and the telling is such that he would nod on hearing it. That has nothing to do with accommodation.
Scenario 4: Scrolling Phones and Information Cocoons
The most everyday scene of "unskilled in self and other" today.
- The algorithm feeds you content based on your preferences—the "other traditions" you see are all simplified, mocked, cropped versions. - You scroll to a criticism of your own tradition (or of someone you like within it), usually without context, without the other's complete assertion; you scroll to a critique of another tradition, usually also without the other's complete assertion. - In this state, "skill in other traditions" is nearly impossible—you have not even seen the other's own words before being pushed to the opposite side. - Therefore "skill in self and other" is, in the contemporary world, first of all a practical matter: actively going to read the complete original texts, the original contexts, the other side's best-version statement, rather than secondhand retellings.
The most common mapping error: thinking that having read a few opposing opinions is skill in other traditions. In fact opposing opinions are often the other tradition's weakest version—skill in other traditions requires seeing the other tradition's strongest defense.
Scenario 5: Self-Knowledge—the Past Self as "Other Tradition"
The most easily overlooked "other tradition"—the past you.
- You have past assertions, a past self. - When you can understand the past self with "skill in other traditions"—not disdain, not defense, but truly able, from that time's arc, to tell "why I then thought, felt, and acted that way"—you are not kidnapped by past reaction patterns. - And when you can see clearly, with "skill in your own tradition," your present assertions, you can have a place to stand between present and past. - "Skill in self and other" operates not only in debate, but also in self-integration.
The most common mapping error: treating the past self as a "stupid other tradition" to be disdained. In fact the past self has its own assertions, its own limits, its own wisdom. See it with skill in other traditions, and it will be seen—and you will be whole.
Why Contemporary People Need It
Contemporary life has four features that turn "skill in self and other" from a "professional training for śāstrikas" into a necessary practice for ordinary people.
1. Abundance and Shallowness of Information Happen at the Same Time
We live in an age in which every view can be retrieved, and secondhand retellings of every tradition are in surplus. This sounds good; in fact it is a trap:
- You easily come to believe, "I've watched a few three-minute videos / read a few web posts / a few comments, so I understand the other tradition"—in fact you have only seen the other tradition's weakest, most mockable version. - You easily come to believe, "I've quoted a few passages of scripture, so I am skilled in my own tradition"—in fact you are quoting golden maxims picked out for you by others, not the overall arc of your own tradition.
"Skill in self and other" is the antidote to this state of abundant information and shallow cognition. Its key is not "knowing more," but "knowing accurately, completely, with internal context."
2. The Possibility of Dialogue Is Severely Depleted
In the realms of faith, politics, profession, and family alike, "dialogue" is a scarce good. What is called dialogue is not persuasion, not debate; it is two sets of assertions each presenting itself completely, and each able to be understood by the other.
- Without "skill in one's own tradition," the "I" in the dialogue is empty; you cannot say what you truly assert. - Without "skill in other traditions," the "you" in the dialogue is a straw man; what you hear is not the other. - Therefore precisely when dialogue is scarcest, "skill in self and other" is most needed—it is not a technique; it is the precondition that makes dialogue possible at all.
3. A Stable Sense of Identity Comes from Clear Assertions
One of the deepest anxieties of our time is "I don't know who I am" / "my views keep changing" / "I seem to agree with everything and assert nothing."
- "Skill in one's own tradition" gives you an anchor: what you assert, and therefore what you can not-assert; what you do not assert, and therefore where you can loosen. - "Skill in other traditions" gives you a field: you need not co-opt the other into your own assertions, but you can remain stable before the other's assertions—neither carried away nor frightened. - Without these two, "openness" becomes "floating," and "firmness" becomes "rigidity." "Skill in self and other" makes both stand, in between.
4. As a Mind-Practice: Listening Widely Without Having One's Resolve Stolen
Finally, the root of "skill in self and other" is not ability; it is the training of the mind (修心).
- It trains you not to be hijacked by your own likes and dislikes—I love my tradition, so I refuse to look at the other tradition's strongest defense. - It trains you not to be hijacked by the other's sharpness—that piece by the other tradition was so brilliant that I defect on the spot. - It trains you not to be hijacked by secondhand simplification—whatever the commentators say, I believe it.
This is continuous with Vijñānavāda's 如实知见 (yathābhūtadarśana, "seeing things as they are"), Madhyamaka's 离四边 ("freeing oneself from the four extremes"), and Chan's 不随境转 ("not being turned by objects")—different formulations within the same lineage of mind-practice. Skill in self and other is the entry exercise of this lineage—without it, deeper mind-practice has nothing to attach to.
Contemporary brain science has a large body of research on 确认偏误 ("confirmation bias"), 刻板印象 ("stereotyping"), and 观点极化 ("attitude polarization"); these studies observe several tendencies of the human brain when facing the "other tradition": selective attention, motivated reasoning, group categorization. These studies echo, at the phenomenal level, the difficulty of the 如实 ("truthfulness to reality") that Yogācāra speaks of—but we cannot therefore claim that science has "proved" the Dharma; we can only say that both, in describing human cognitive biases, point to similar structures. On this point we must be honest: science can describe the mechanisms of the brain; it cannot directly tell us "how assertions ought to be established." And that is precisely the thing "skill in self and other" asks a person to do in person.
Common Misreadings and Clarifications
Misreading 1: "Skill in Self and Other" Means "Knowing Other Religions"
Clarification: in the classical context, 「他宗」refers first of all to the different schools within Buddhism, and only secondarily extends to non-Buddhist traditions. In contemporary usage, 「他宗」can also mean any system of assertions opposed to "you"—a colleague's department, a partner's family, a rival's school, the past self. Narrowing it to "knowing other religions" misses its most original meaning: it is first of all a need of dialogue within Buddhism.
Misreading 2: "Skill in Other Traditions" Means "Abandoning One's Own Position"
Clarification: what skill in other traditions demands is precisely "I can accurately, completely, and faithfully set out the other tradition's assertions, in terms the other tradition itself would agree to"—this precisely requires you to have a clear position, so as not to be swallowed by the other tradition. A person without a position cannot achieve skill in other traditions, because not knowing where "I" is, he does not know where "he" is either. The precondition of "skill in other traditions" is "skill in one's own tradition"—this is why the two terms must be spoken together.
Misreading 3: "Penetrating" (通) Means "Seen" or "Heard"
Clarification: in Yogācāra, 「通」means establishment (证成)—you can run through, in your own mind, the grounds on which this teaching stands (in 因明 (hetuvidyā, "the science of reasons"), the 宗因喻, "thesis, reason, example"), making it stand; you can use it to explain the tensions between your own tradition and other traditions; you can use its assertions in debate to respond to others' challenges. "I've seen it," "I've heard it," "I roughly know it" fall far short.
Misreading 4: "Skill in Self and Other" Equals "Every School Is Right"
Clarification: Yogācāra emphasizes "knowing as they are" (如实了知) and "discriminating according to reason" (如理抉择) equally—you can be skilled in other traditions, but you must still make the choice (抉择) of your own tradition. This choice need not knock down all other traditions, but it must be clear about "why I stand in my own tradition." "Skill in self and other" without choice becomes academic spectatorship, lacking the force of practice. Skill in other traditions is to make the standing of one's own tradition firmer, not to make its standing disappear.
Misreading 5: "Skill in Self and Other" Belongs Only to Disputants or Scholars
Clarification: as a cognitive capacity and a mind-practice training, it belongs to everyone who must deal with "other people," "other schools," "other traditions," "other possibilities"—it is a basic skill needed by every ordinary practitioner, every modern citizen, everyone who wants an intimate relationship. Abstract 「自宗」and 「他宗」into "the worldview I assert" and "the worldview others assert," and its universality becomes visible.
Misreading 6: "Skill in Self and Other" Is for Winning Debates
Clarification: debate is only its byproduct, not its purpose. Its true purpose is to give you a clear position, neither floating nor rigid, between "oneself" and "others." People who win debates are often skilled in self and other, but people skilled in self and other do not necessarily need to win debates. Instrumentalizing it as "winning" will dirty it—you will unconsciously begin to simplify the other tradition into its weakest version in order to knock it down, and that is precisely "hostility to other traditions under the guise of skill."
Misreading 7: Thinking "Skill in Self and Other" Means Going to "Persuade" Others
Clarification: in the Yogācāra tradition, "skill in self and other" is often spoken together with 无染净心 ("a mind free from defilement, pure") and 不舍众生 ("not abandoning sentient beings")—its spirit is to acknowledge the completeness of the other's existence, not to co-opt the other in. A person truly skilled in other traditions does not rush to make others convert; he lets the other be fully seen within his own arc. "Persuasion" is a result, not a goal; and "persuasion" is often not what a truly skilled person is best at—what such a person is best at is making people understand, including making himself understand the other.
Misreading 8: Treating "Skill in Self and Other" as a One-Time Exercise
Clarification: the content of both self-tradition and other traditions keeps changing—scriptures are re-annotated, contemporary issues keep arising, and other traditions themselves differentiate from within. "Skill in self and other" is not a qualification certificate earned once; it is something to be redone for a lifetime. A person who reads 《成唯识论》 (Cheng Weishi Lun, Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, "The Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only") and rereads it ten years later will understand "self-tradition" differently; social issues change every decade, and "other traditions" change too. This matter has no graduation day.
One last sentence: "Skill in self and other" is not a posture of "openness" but a practice of "truthfulness to reality" (如实). What it demands is not seeing more, but seeing more accurately; not being more tolerant, but being less floating; not abandoning one's position, but giving one's position gravity. A person in whom these three hold at once—able to stand firm, able to hear others, able to say what one asserts—is the scarcest kind of practitioner in this age.