The because that he yet to give us his understanding/definition of the two truth notion. He is taking around it, but not at all addressing it directly.mikenz66 wrote: 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.
Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
>> 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
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
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;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.
Seems to me to have little relevance to the OP, apart from the word "truth"."What some say is true
— 'That's how it is' —
others say is 'falsehood, a lie.'
Thus quarreling, they dispute.
Why can't contemplatives
say one thing & the same?"
"The truth is one,[1]
there is no second
about which a person who knows it
would argue with one who knows.
Contemplatives promote
their various personal truths,
that's why they don't say
one thing & the same."
Mike
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
The problem is that we have no idea how retro understands the two truth notion.mikenz66 wrote:. . . Seems to me to have little relevance to the OP, apart from the word "truth".retrofuturist wrote:. . . .
>> 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
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
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
Greetings Tilt,
"Of course, there is discussion [in the Sutta Pitaka] 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."
Since the Buddha didn't teach it, and didn't see fit to explain the Dhamma in this bifurcated way... I don't really care to know it and I certainly don't intend to take it upon myself to artificially bifurcate the Buddha's teachings on his behalf. There's been too much of this needless scholastic papanca (i.e. classification, reclassification) throughout the evolution of Buddhism already. It's that kind of endeavour which led to the prevalence of so many divergent and schismatic sects in the first place.
Therefore "how retro understands the two truth notion" is irrelevent, because Retro discards it and sees absolutely no danger or loss in doing so. If it was important or relevant, the Buddha would have made the distinction himself - he didn't, so it's not. Retro does not want to create more sects - rather, Retro rejoices in the Blessed One's words.
(and to pre-empt the inevitable, "you've dodged the question", "you haven't answered the question", "you're being unclear" etc. let me make it as blunt as blunt could be...)
the two truth notion = papanca
Metta,
Retro.
As Daverupa did earlier when he said (the bolding is mine)...tiltbillings wrote:The problem is that we have no idea how retro understands the two truth notion.
"Of course, there is discussion [in the Sutta Pitaka] 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."
Since the Buddha didn't teach it, and didn't see fit to explain the Dhamma in this bifurcated way... I don't really care to know it and I certainly don't intend to take it upon myself to artificially bifurcate the Buddha's teachings on his behalf. There's been too much of this needless scholastic papanca (i.e. classification, reclassification) throughout the evolution of Buddhism already. It's that kind of endeavour which led to the prevalence of so many divergent and schismatic sects in the first place.
Therefore "how retro understands the two truth notion" is irrelevent, because Retro discards it and sees absolutely no danger or loss in doing so. If it was important or relevant, the Buddha would have made the distinction himself - he didn't, so it's not. Retro does not want to create more sects - rather, Retro rejoices in the Blessed One's words.
(and to pre-empt the inevitable, "you've dodged the question", "you haven't answered the question", "you're being unclear" etc. let me make it as blunt as blunt could be...)
the two truth notion = papanca
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."
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
Again, we really do not have idea of what you are actually criticizing, since refuse to spell it out. Knowing, however, how you understand the two truth notion is directly to the point of understanding your dismissal of it, and whether or not your dismissal is well grounded or not. Let me make this simple and ask two questions:retrofuturist wrote:. . .
Are you saying that the two truth notion says there are two actual and distinct truths, as you seems to be saying? Yes or no?
And if they are two actual distinct truths, is one higher, more true than the other? Yes or no?
>> 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
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
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
... although one may find expressions in the suttas that may give rise to this notion.retrofuturist wrote:the two truth notion = papanca
Kind regards
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
Greetings,
See the anicca in all sankhara (incl. papanca), see the dukkha in that which is anicca, see anatta in that which is dukkha... abandonment, dispassion, cessation.
Metta,
Retro.
And the act of coming up with this notion would be conceptual proliferation.tmingyur wrote:.. although one may find expressions in the suttas that may give rise to this notion.
I am criticising needless papanca, and the reification of that papanca.tiltbillings wrote:we really do not have idea of what you are actually criticizing
See the anicca in all sankhara (incl. papanca), see the dukkha in that which is anicca, see anatta in that which is dukkha... abandonment, dispassion, cessation.
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."
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
Well yes. Every thinking about the suttas is conceptual proliferation.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
And the act of coming up with this notion would be conceptual proliferation.tmingyur wrote:.. although one may find expressions in the suttas that may give rise to this notion.
Kind regards
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
And so you claim again, papanca, but you have not actually made a reasoned, example argument for your claim, much less actually telling us what it is that you are actually objecting to. The latter you are simply avoiding doing. You were asked two simple "yes and no" questions that would have helped us understand your objections, but you ignored them, leaving us with no clearer of an idea of what it is you are calling papanca or why you think it is so.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
And the act of coming up with this notion would be conceptual proliferation.tmingyur wrote:.. although one may find expressions in the suttas that may give rise to this notion.
I am criticising needless papanca, and the reification of that papanca.tiltbillings wrote:we really do not have idea of what you are actually criticizing
Metta,
Retro.
>> 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
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
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
Greetings,
"Retro discards it and sees absolutely no danger or loss in doing so."
"Retro discards it and sees absolutely no danger or loss in doing so."
Metta,
Retro.
Are you saying that the two truth notion says there are two actual and distinct truths, as you seems to be saying? Yes or no?
"Retro discards it and sees absolutely no danger or loss in doing so."
And if they are two actual distinct truths, is one higher, more true than the other? Yes or no?
"Retro discards it and sees absolutely no danger or loss in doing so."
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."
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
[Editing this a bit] Basically, you are telling us with this response you cannot make a real argument here, and I think we can leave it there.retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Are you saying that the two truth notion says there are two actual and distinct truths, as you seems to be saying? Yes or no?
"Retro discards it and sees absolutely no danger or loss in doing so."
And if they are two actual distinct truths, is one higher, more true than the other? Yes or no?
"Retro discards it and sees absolutely no danger or loss in doing so."
Metta,
Retro.
>> 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
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
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
Two truths theory may be a stepping stone when initially approaching the dhamma to somehow conceptually smoothen the felt inconsistencies due to habitual reification of terms and terminology. However if the two truths theory is not abandoned in a timely manner due to being reified itself then this is actually an instance of an intermediary remedy having become a poison.
Kind regards
Kind regards
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
For a discussion of the double truth as taught in classical Theravada:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 22&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 22&start=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
>> 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
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
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
Greetings,
Metta,
Retro.
Well said.TMingyur wrote:However if the two truths theory is not abandoned in a timely manner due to being reified itself then this is actually an instance of an intermediary remedy having become a poison.
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."
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?
The double truth notion is like any Dhamma teaching. It can be a useful tool or a basis for spiritual materialism, and always the question, when to let go? But that really is answered by one's ongoing practice.TMingyur wrote:However if the two truths theory is not abandoned in a timely manner due to being reified itself then this is actually an instance of an intermediary remedy having become a poison.
>> 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
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