I took the term "standpoints" from here
. Does the "Three Standpoints" sound OK?
Looking at the reference provided, I agree with the commentators that these "three standpoints" may be tied back to the Four Noble Truths. (see that reference for more information... it won't let me copy and paste here)
Perhaps you could treat them as an alternative rendering of the 4NT?
Calling them "three standpoints" alone doesn't seem at all intuitive to me, since awareness and recognition of the true nature of these things seems wise, whereas "standpoints" has ignorant connotations in the suttas. For example...SN 1.20: Samiddhi Suttahttp://www.vipassana.com/canon/samyutta/sn1-20.php
Perceiving in terms of signs, beings
take a stand on signs.
Not fully comprehending signs, they
come into the bonds
But fully comprehending signs, one
Yet nothing exists for him
by which one would say,
'To him no thought occurs.'
"Having understood name-and-form, which is a product of prolificity,
And which is the root of all malady within and without,
He is released from bondage to the root of all maladies,
That Such-like-one is truly known as 'the one who has understood'." (Snp 3.6)
"Whether I were to preach in brief, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach in detail, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach both in brief or in detail, Sāriputta, rare are those who understand." (A I 333, Sāriputtasutta)