From memory, I agree with most of the things the Professor explains there, though I probably understand some things differently than you, though of course that doesn't have to mean I'm correct.tiltbillings wrote:I would suggest, maybe, reading the essay concerning two truths linked at the bottom of my above quote.
Well, I agree, but I don't think that conclusion goes far enough, or rather it doesn't go in the right direction. Imo, the commentary quote is not concerned with the issue of superiority at all, but describes how the Buddha teaches. With that in mind, I find several important differences between how the Buddha teaches and how the rest of us teach/discuss Dhamma. E.g:tiltbillings wrote:I do not see the above quote saying that the paramattha-kathā is superior
-The Buddha knows the abilities of others, we (usually) don't.
-The Buddha will not get confused and conceive selves, things, etc. in the terms he uses, we (usually) will.
-The Buddha has the experience of dhammas through insight, we (usually) don't. Etc.
Hence why I feel we need to be careful no matter what terminology we employ. Imo, conventional terminology is suitable in most circumstances, but when insight is discussed and especially the very fine points, I find that ultimate terminology can cut through a lot of confusion and unnecessary arguments.
Well, people like philosphying, though imo dhammas offer much less room for that in comparison with other conventional notions.tiltbillings wrote:And the paramattha terms present their own very serious problems, such as the reification of the idea of dhamma as some sort of existing things, which opens all sorts of philosophical problems.
I think I disagree here because again imo it's not about whether one is more true than the other, but which one is more effective in particular circumstances. While it certainly depends on people and their abilities at a particular instance, I personally find that explanations in terms of dhammas (whether in sutta or abhidhamma pitakas) cut through confusion much more effectively when it comes to insight.tiltbillings wrote:Depends upon how one chooses to define dhamma. Dhamma theory itself is a conceptual construct, no less than what we find in conventional discourse. What the Abhidhamma offers, and here I am talking about the Pitaka texts, is a refined way of talking about practice, but it is not one that is somehow more true than conventional.
Again I feel this conclusion is partial, I mean, yes, we can conclude from the commentary passage that one of the two might be enough, so it could be either of the two that is not necessary. But even with such more politically-correct conclusion I feel we're still missing the point. I.e. to me it seems it's all about the actual circumstances and abilities, so in that sense I feel the ultimate terminology can help tremendously when it comes to insight in particular, because descriptions of insight experience in terms of dhammas seem to be closer to how it really happens than more conventional notions.tiltbillings wrote:Maybe, but it is not necessary for the practice of insight, as the commentarial passage makes clear.pt1 wrote:Hence, employing ultimate terminology might be very useful when talking about insight in particular so as to avoid confusion, even though such terminology will also essentially employ concepts. I mean, the description of moments of insight seems closer to how it really happens when it's described in ultimate, rather than in conventional terminology.
Best wishes