Buddhist thought also takes up the distinction between kinds of meaning in its approach to hermeneutics, with regard to the interpretation of sūtra passages, not unlike the way in which Vedic hermeneutics both informs and is informed by Mīmāṃsā philosophical reflection on language. Buddhist hermeneutics, despite its being positioned “outside” of the orthopraxy, employs lists of figures which pre-date the rise of the textual tradition of Sanskrit poetics, in a way which demonstrates that there were links between the Grammarian, Nyāya, Mīmāṃsā, and Buddhist theories of meaning (Tzohar 2018). A crucial concept in Buddhist hermeneutics, which approaches a distinction between literal and non-literal, is that of upāya or “skillful means.” With the assumption that the Buddha speaks both truthfully and with an eye towards the abilities of his particular audience, the notion of “skillful means” allows Buddhist hermeneuticists to explain apparently contradictory elements within Buddhist texts. As with Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā use of secondary meaning for Vedic interpretation, recourse to secondary meaning in the face of apparent contradiction, skillful means allowed for truth-preservation while constraining the interpretive process.