Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

[cooran]

Hello Qtt, all,

This might help:

THERAVADA VERSION OF THE TWO TRUTHS
Y. KARUNADASA Visiting Professor Centre of Buddhist Studies, University of Hong Kong
(Emeritus Professor, University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka)
http://skb.or.kr/down/papers/094.pdf

with metta
Chris

[daverupa]

This might help:

This was already linked...

[tiltbillings]

Just out of curiosity, you two-truth pooh-pooh-ers (Alex123, Daverupa, retro)) what do you see is wrong with the two-truth notion? Gives us a bit more than simple pooh-poohing.

[daverupa]

Just out of curiosity, you two-truth pooh-pooh-ers (Alex123, Daverupa, retro)) what do you see is wrong with the two-truth notion? Gives us a bit more than simple pooh-poohing.

As for me, the question goes the other way, tilt - of what use is such an idea? What, from the SuttaVinaya, is made clearer?

[tiltbillings]

Just out of curiosity, you two-truth pooh-pooh-ers (Alex123, Daverupa, retro)) what do you see is wrong with the two-truth notion? Gives us a bit more than simple pooh-poohing.

As for me, the question goes the other way, tilt - of what use is such an idea? What, from the SuttaVinaya, is made clearer?

As usual no heavy lifting from you.

[daverupa]

As usual no heavy lifting from you.

What an odd thing to say.

[tiltbillings]

As usual no heavy lifting from you.

What an odd thing to say.

You were asked as simple question, and I got dodge in response. You tend make snide and dismissive remarks about various teachings with which you disagree and when asked about what you are saying you just refuse to explain your remarks, and so it goes here, again.

[daverupa]

You were asked as simple question, and I got dodge in response.

You were asked a simple question as well - which isn't a dodge, it actually cuts to the chase, but you'll see what you want.

snide and dismissive remarks

you two-truth pooh-pooh-ers

Indeed.

[Alex123]

Tilt,

Just out of curiosity, you two-truth pooh-pooh-ers (Alex123, Daverupa, retro)) what do you see is wrong with the two-truth notion? Gives us a bit more than simple pooh-poohing.

If it was very important, then the Buddha would frequently and clearly teach about it and there would be no doubt if He taught it.

nītattha and neyyattha are mentioned in two similar suttas out of thousands of suttas.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

And these terms do not even need to be interpreted as saying about two truths.

[tiltbillings]

You were asked as simple question, and I got dodge in response.

You were asked a simple question as well - which isn't a dodge, actually, but you'll see what you want.

I'll be happy to answer the question, but I asked you first, and as matter of curtesy, your answering the question would be the way to go, and in turn then asking me question.

Basically, I would like to know what it is that you guys think the two truth notion is actually saying and why it is wrong, as your dismissals seem to suggest..

[tiltbillings]

Tilt,

Just out of curiosity, you two-truth pooh-pooh-ers (Alex123, Daverupa, retro)) what do you see is wrong with the two-truth notion? Gives us a bit more than simple pooh-poohing.

If it was very important, then the Buddha would frequently and clearly teach about it and there would be no doubt if He taught it.

So, if it is not clearly spelled out in the suttas, then drawing out any implication found in the suttas is an inappropriate thing to do, so it would seem. It that what you are saying.

But what I would like to know for you dismissal guys is what you think the two truth doctrine is actually saying, and then why it is wrong, as your dismissals seem to suggest.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Tilt,

Just out of curiosity, you two-truth pooh-pooh-ers (Alex123, Daverupa, retro)) what do you see is wrong with the two-truth notion? Gives us a bit more than simple pooh-poohing.

I won't be engaging with such an immature question, thank you.

Metta,
Retro.

[daverupa]

I asked you first, and as matter of curtesy, your answering the question would be the way to go, and in turn then asking me question.

"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."

[tiltbillings]

Greetings Tilt,

Just out of curiosity, you two-truth pooh-pooh-ers (Alex123, Daverupa, retro)) what do you see is wrong with the two-truth notion? Gives us a bit more than simple pooh-poohing.

I won't be engaging with such an immature question, thank you.

Metta,
Retro.

If you do not like the legitimate word pooh-pooh, the substitute the word dismiss.

You stated:

Yes - have heard the distinction between these two modes being regarded by some as "conventional language" and "Dhamma language".

One does not negate the other of course, but only one communicates the unique, deep and original Dhammic insights that the Buddha brought to the table.

That's a slightly different spectrum though to the distinction between sutta language and paramattha dhammas.

Are we to read this as a dismissal? It seems to be, but it is unclear what you actually think two truth notion is saying and why it is wrong, as seems to be implied in this not very clear msg.

[tiltbillings]

I asked you first, and as matter of curtesy, your answering the question would be the way to go, and in turn then asking me question.

"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."

Okay, then let mne simply say that I'll be happy to address your question when I understand what your objection is to the tweo truth notion. That is what I want to address. It may be that your objection is quite valid. I do not think that one must accept the two truths notion, but I a curious about the dismissal of it beyond what very little that has been said here by those are dismissing it.

[mikenz66]

As for me, the question goes the other way, tilt - of what use is such an idea? What, from the SuttaVinaya, is made clearer?

As I said above: viewtopic.php?f=29&t=10184#p155954 I think the contrast between "slicing up experience into bits" and "talking about beings" is rather obvious in the Suttas.

So, I can't really agree with this statement:

That's a slightly different spectrum though to the distinction between sutta language and paramattha dhammas.

since I see paramattha dhamma as simply an extension of the khandha/sense bases/elements/etc slicing of phenomenological experience. Just a more thorough classification of phenomenology (which may or may not be particularly necessary, but that's a different issue).


Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

Keep in mind that I was

1. responding with reference to the OP's question,
2. in the context of the Early Buddhism sub-forum,
3. in a topic entitled "Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?"

Accordingly I'm not in this sub-forum to talk about the merits or usefulness (or otherwise) of that which clearly isn't "early" and what the Buddha didn't teach. That would be...



... so the different issues will be left to the side.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

Accordingly I'm not in this sub-forum to talk about the merits or usefulness (or otherwise) of that which clearly isn't "early" and what the Buddha didn't teach.

I beg to differ:

1. I've explained how I see the "two truth" thing plays out very obviously (to me) in the suttas, so I don't agree with your assertion that "The Buddha didn't teach it."
2. "Early Buddhism" is (to me) about the various early schools. So the various Abhidhammas/Abhidharmas and commentaries are relevant.

Mike

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Mike,

FYI, "What the Buddha didn't teach" was with specific reference to "paramattha dhamma", not 'two truths theory".

I see paramattha dhamma as simply an extension of the khandha/sense bases/elements/etc slicing of phenomenological experience.

Metta,
Retro.

[mikenz66]

Hi Retro,

Greetings Mike,

FYI, "What the Buddha didn't teach" was with specific reference to "paramattha dhamma", not 'two truths theory".

I see paramattha dhamma as simply an extension of the khandha/sense bases/elements/etc slicing of phenomenological experience.

Metta,
Retro.

OK, I agree that the Buddha didn't use the actual words "paramattha dhamma".

However, I see the paramattha/two truths ideas in the suttas, as I have explained.


Mike