Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:That would be a problem, but luckily that is not what the double truth business is about.
What is the differentiation then, in your words? Is one set of designations somehow 'less designated' than the other?
Did you read the quote I gave in the Classical Theravada section? There is no sense in that commentarial quote one is higher than the other; rather, it is different ways of talking about the same thing -- one way is not better than the other. As I have said before, I have no idea what you think the two truth notion is about, since you have refused to say, which makes for contentious dialogue, or no real dialogue at all (and it is not for the lack of asking).
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:And that dhammas are mere designation need not touch the double truth notion in a negative way
The two truth theory explicitly attempts to set up a substantial and real division between mere designation (paññattimatta) and ultimate things (paramattha dhammā) which are posited as established independent of cognitions. This is the reification which creates all sorts of unnecessary problems.
tiltbillings wrote:It is easy to say but if you are unwilling to actually back it up, there is nothing here to take sertiously.
This has already been discussed at length, but it seems that you have a penchant for endless argumentation ad nausium. Ñāṇananda, Noa Ronkin, and others have extensively shown that the Suttapiṭaka and the Abhidhammapiṭaka don't teach a two truth theory. It's an unnecessary complication. In short, it's mental proliferation.
tiltbillings wrote:I do not disagree with that, but you have yet to show that this has anything to do with anything.
It's pretty simple really: The basis for all designations is merely appearances as they appear to non-impaired cognitions. Therefore, conventions are accepted, but without any misguided attempt to ultimately establish or prove anything. And by learning to rest the mind in this absence of reification (by uniting samatha & vipassanā), one realizes the complete pacification of mental proliferation (nippapañca), which is synonymous with nibbāna (i.e. the total extinguishment of passion, aggression, & delusion).
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
Did you read the quote I gave in the Classical Theravada section?
I will not comment on the quote for I find the comments therein slanderous to the Buddha's teaching, and do not wish to cause undue offence.

Discuss your topic in the sanctuary of the Mahavihara section and I shall not intrude.

:meditate:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And that dhammas are mere designation need not touch the double truth notion in a negative way
The two truth theory explicitly attempts to set up a substantial and real division between mere designation (paññattimatta) and ultimate things (paramattha dhammā) which are posited as established independent of cognitions. This is the reification which creates all sorts of unnecessary problems.
Show us that is so from Ven Y Karunadasa's essay, since we have that readily at hand.
tiltbillings wrote:It is easy to say but if you are unwilling to actually back it up, there is nothing here to take sertiously.
This has already been discussed at length, but it seems that you have a penchant for endless argumentation ad nausium. Ñāṇananda, Noa Ronkin, and others have extensively shown that the Suttapiṭaka and the Abhidhammapiṭaka don't teach a two truth theory. It's an unnecessary complication. In short, it's mental proliferation.
So you say, but you still have not shown it to be so.
tiltbillings wrote:I do not disagree with that, but you have yet to show that this has anything to do with anything.
It's pretty simple really: The basis for all designations is merely appearances as they appear to non-impaired cognitions. Therefore, conventions are accepted, but without any misguided attempt to ultimately establish or prove anything. And by learning to rest the mind in this absence of reification (by uniting samatha & vipassanā), one realizes the complete pacification of mental proliferation (nippapañca), which is synonymous with nibbāna (i.e. the total extinguishment of passion, aggression, & delusion).
Fine; however, that still say not a thing about the double truth notion as quoted in the commentarial passage I quoted.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
Did you read the quote I gave in the Classical Theravada section?
I will not comment on the quote for I find the comments therein slanderous to the Buddha's teaching, and do not wish to cause undue offence.

Discuss your topic in the sanctuary of the Mahavihara section and I shall not intrude.

:meditate:

Metta,
Retro. :)
Here it is here in all its offensive glory:
Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti-kathā [“relative truth”], whereas references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-kathā ["highest truth"].

One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-kathā.

One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-kathā.

To one who is capable of awakening to the truth through sammuti-kathā , the teaching is not presented on the basis of paramattha-kathā, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through paramattha-kathā, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-kathā.

There is this simile on this matter: Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect, which each pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-kathā.

It is by taking into consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, that the Buddha presents his teaching, either by way of sammuti, or by way of paramattha, or by way of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena.
AA. Vol. I, pp.54-55
Do show us us the terrible slanderous nature of this quote.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by retrofuturist »

:meditate:
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote::meditate:
Great. Good that you found nothing wrong with the quote in question.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by DarwidHalim »

Ñāṇa wrote: The two truth theory explicitly attempts to set up a substantial and real division between mere designation (paññattimatta) and ultimate things (paramattha dhammā) which are posited as established independent of cognitions. This is the reification which creates all sorts of unnecessary problems.
Although this thread is already very long :rofl: , I would like to comment on this statement.

This is not true.

The two truth theory DOES NOT explicitly attempts to set up a substantial and real division.

One of Buddhist master said, (which I cannot quote here :ban: )

If we see two truth as 2, it means we don't understand what is 2 truths.
If we see two truth as actually 1, it also means we don't understand what is 2 truths.

However, if we can see that 2 truths is actually not 1 nor 2, it means we have correctly understood it.

Our body consists of so many parts.

Do you see your body as 1 or 2? Or this body is not 1 nor 2?

:heart: :jumping: :bow: :rofl:
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:Show us that is so from Ven Y Karunadasa's essay, since we have that readily at hand.... So you say, but you still have not shown it to be so....
We've already discussed this in detail here, and here, and here, etc., etc. In the first thread I quoted the relevant passages from Karunadasa's essay on the commentarial dhamma theory.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Show us that is so from Ven Y Karunadasa's essay, since we have that readily at hand.... So you say, but you still have not shown it to be so....
We've already discussed this in detail here, and here, and here, etc., etc. In the first thread I quoted the relevant passages from Karunadasa's essay on the commentarial dhamma theory.
I am not going to rummage through that thread. You can far more easily quote what you think is necessary; however, the dhamma theory, as Ven Karunadasa makes quite clear, goes through a wide range of permutations, all of which I do not need to buy into to see value in the double truth notion.

And this is particularly so taking the above slanderous commentarial quote as being the expression of the double truth notion that I would work with. What is interesting about this slanderous quote is that neither the supposed "conventional" and expressions and the supposed "ultimate" expressions of the Dhamma are held to be anything other than of equal standing. This nicely negates the hierarchy problem, putting the teachings into a utilitarian and pragmatic framework, where they belong.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:I am not going to rummage through that thread.
It's actually three threads, and there are others as well.
tiltbillings wrote:And this is particularly so taking the above slanderous commentarial quote as being the expression of the double truth notion that I would work with. What is interesting about this slanderous quote is that neither the supposed "conventional" and expressions and the supposed "ultimate" expressions of the Dhamma are held to be anything other than of equal standing. This nicely negates the hierarchy problem, putting the teachings into a utilitarian and pragmatic framework, where they belong.
You're certainly free to invent your own version of a nominal two truth theory, but that basically negates the entire premise. At any rate, it's far easier to avoid this paramattha notion altogether. In this way one is less prone to tacitly condoning errant views -- views which you know still permeate much modern Theravāda discourse where the "big four" are taken as sacred cows. Ven. Ñāṇananda:
  • If there is no sub­stance in any­thing, what is left is empti­ness. But many peo­ple are afraid of words like śūnyatā. They want to pro­tect their four.
And:
  • If one does not approach the com­men­tar­ial lit­er­a­ture with a crit­i­cal eye, one would be trapped. Unfor­tu­nately many are.
Word.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by kirk5a »

Ñāṇa wrote: views which you know still permeate much modern Theravāda discourse where the "big four" are taken as sacred cows. Ven. Ñāṇananda:
  • If there is no sub­stance in any­thing, what is left is empti­ness. But many peo­ple are afraid of words like śūnyatā. They want to pro­tect their four.
What are the "big four" referred to there?
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by Nyana »

kirk5a wrote:What are the "big four" referred to there?
The four so-called "paramattha dhammas" -- mind (citta), mental factors (cetasikā), form (rūpa), and nibbāna, considered as ultimate realities.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Geoff,
Ñāṇa wrote: You're certainly free to invent your own version of a nominal two truth theory, but that basically negates the entire premise. .
You have a point there. Different people clearly have different definitions.

On the other hand, this whole discussion (long before you joined it) seems to revolve around criticising a particular interpretation that some have decided is what "two truths" has to mean. This basically shuts down any attempts at discussing some of the interesting issues. It drowns out any attempt at conversation by forcing it into the "Commentators bad, one or two modern scholars good" dichotomy.

Which isn't even relevant to the points I tried to make earlier in the thread, which were entirely sutta based:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=4807" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Mike
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by daverupa »

mikenz66 wrote:On the other hand, this whole discussion (long before you joined it) seems to revolve around criticising a particular interpretation that some have decided is what "two truths" has to mean.
That's quite disingenuous, but perhaps you really don't see the problem yet.

The issue is not one particular interpretation or another, it is the idea altogether; in other words, the idea is being extracted from the Suttas for no apparent reason. It does not add anything to our understanding of the Dhamma.

I shall be precise: the bifurcation of sammuti sacca and paramattha sacca (which is precisely this double truth idea under discussion) is papañca-saññā-sankhā.

:heart:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
Locked