Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Locked
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by acinteyyo »

Ah... okay thanks Mike, Chris and Alex, finally I got it.
And yet already time for me to leave the fields of hairsplitting...

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by mikenz66 »

daverupa wrote: So it's used a lot in the abhidhamma, and not at all in the SuttaVinaya, is that the gist
If by "it" you mean the paricular words (paramattha/Sammuti), then yes, those originate in the abhidhamma.

To me the basic ideas are very clear in the suttas, so I can't actually see why there should be any controversy... :thinking:

: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:If by "it" you mean the paricular words (paramattha/Sammuti), then yes, those originate in the abhidhamma.

To me the basic ideas are very clear in the suttas, so I can't actually see why there should be any controversy...
Of course, there is discussion of the conventionality of language and such, but in every case the Buddha didn't see fit to explain things using these terms: this specific bifurcation is clearly absent from the Suttas. Therefore, that the later tradition felt the need to introduce them strikes me as intriguing. I'm not certain there is a controversy, but when "two truths" are brought up in the future, I shall be carefully noting the uses to which it is put, and the arguments which rely on it.

:toast:
  • "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]
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

:goodpost:

A decent summary, particularly when one takes account of the Simsapa Sutta etc.
SN 56.31 wrote:...why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.
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
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by mikenz66 »

Hi Dave,
daverupa wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:If by "it" you mean the paricular words (paramattha/Sammuti), then yes, those originate in the abhidhamma.

To me the basic ideas are very clear in the suttas, so I can't actually see why there should be any controversy...
Of course, there is discussion of the conventionality of language and such, but in every case the Buddha didn't see fit to explain things using these terms: this specific bifurcation is clearly absent from the Suttas.
I am not talking about discussion of the conventionality of language, I'm talking about the way experience is described is quite different ways.

I can only presume we are talking at cross purposes since what I'm concerned about (different ways of describing phenomena) is (to me) very clearly present in the suttas.

Since you've not addressed any of the sutta examples I gave http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 84#p155954" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I have no idea where we differ.

: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: Since you've not addressed...
Where you see ultimate truth and conventional truth, I see simile and metaphor. :shrug:
  • "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]
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by retrofuturist »

... and I see different frames of reference...

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 »

And it is not at all clear what rertro and daverupa are talking about.
>> 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
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by daverupa »

tiltbillings wrote:And it is not at all clear what rertro and daverupa are talking about.
Let's investigate this "two truths" idea, to see what sorts of things it supports.
Nyanaponika Thera wrote: The Suttas, serving mainly the purpose of offering guidance for the actual daily life of the disciple, are mostly (though not entirely) couched in terms of conventional language (//vohara-vacana//), making reference to persons, their qualities, possessions, etc. In the Abhidhamma, this Sutta terminology is turned into correct functional forms of thought, which accord with the true 'impersonal' and everchanging nature of actuality; and in that strict, or highest, sense (//paramattha//) the main tenets of the Dhamma are explained.

While vague definitions and loosely used terms are like blunt tools unfit to do the work they are meant for, while concepts based on wrong notions will necessarily beg the question to be scrutinized and will thus prejudice the issue, the use of appropriate and carefully tempered conceptual tools will greatly facilitate the quest for liberating knowledge, and is an indispensable condition of success in that quest.

Hence the fact that Abhidhamma literature is a rich source of exact terminology, is a feature not to be underestimated.
The bold portion I agree with: appropriate and carefully tempered conceptual tools are indeed greatly faciliatory.

Now, it's these orange bits which concern me. It seems the abhidhammikas needed to 'correct' the language of the Suttas? Are the Suttas here being referred to as "vague" and "wrong notions"? The 'appropriate and carefully tempered conceptual tools' are in fact perhaps not even to be sought the Suttas? We are... we are to prefer the language of the abhidhamma for its exactitude? Because it is... paramattha?

It is even admitted that the Buddha had command of this language, and yet the way he chose to teach for over four decades was second-best.

:jawdrop:
SN 16.13 wrote:But there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma, Kassapa, till a counterfeit Dhamma arises in the world; but when a counterfeit Dhamma arises, then there is a disappearance of the true Dhamma, just as there is no disappearing of gold so long as no counterfeit gold has arisen in the world...
:soap:

: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]
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by retrofuturist »

:jawdrop:

:goodpost:

Out of interest, what is the antonym of the "abhi" prefix... would it be "hina"?

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
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by mikenz66 »

tiltbillings wrote:And it is not at all clear what rertro and daverupa are talking about.
What seems odd to me is that, for all the bluster about the sutta-vinaya there seems to be little effort to discuss the suttas themselves.
daverupa wrote: Where you see ultimate truth and conventional truth, I see simile and metaphor. :shrug:
Which parts are the similes and metaphors: the khandhas/sense bases/elements or the "beings"?
retrofuturist wrote:... and I see different frames of reference...
An alternative terminology that means basically the same to me. Truths, frames of reference, modes of description, whatever...

:anjali:
Mike
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,

"Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?" (OP question)

“Truth is one and there is no second truth.” (Buddha, Sn 884)

So much for that "theory" then... well said, Buddha.

:buddha1:

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
cooran
Posts: 8503
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by cooran »

Hello Retrofuturist,

Could you please give a link to where you found this, and which Vagga it is from? Please also give the whole sutta.

with metta
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
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,

"Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?" (OP question)

“Truth is one and there is no second truth.” (Buddha, Sn 884)

So much for that "theory" then... well said, Buddha.

:buddha1:

Metta,
Retro. :)
Would you, now, be kind enough to tell us what you think the two truth notion is saying that you think that the Buddha would reject it, as you just tried to imply?
>> 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 »

daverupa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And it is not at all clear what rertro and daverupa are talking about.
Let's investigate this "two truths" idea, to see what sorts of things it supports. . . .
Still waiting for you to tell us just what the two truth notion actually is saying. The above stuff from Ven Nyanaponika does not do that. Basically, with the Ven N quote you are trying to tell us how the two truth notion is supposedly applied without telling what it is saying.
>> 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
Locked