Two Truths

[Ceisiwr]

Please vote and explain your decision.

[cappuccino]

Addressing the disciple Ânanda, the Master said: "I have taught the Dhamma, Ânanda, without making any distinction between exoteric and esoteric doctrine; for in respect of the truths, Ânanda, the Tathâgata has no such thing as the closed fist of a teacher who hides some essential knowledge from the pupil."

Maha-parinibbana Sutta

[mjaviem]

The Buddha taught that there are Four Noble Truths.

[un8-]

While reductionisn can help see everything as merely a pile of aggregates, ven Bodhesako explains why it can't be applied to dependent origination here https://pathpress.wordpress.com/bodhesa ... overviews/

So there is no two truths, only something that needs to be seen which leads to dispassion for all conditioned things.

[Ontheway]

Buddha said that there are designations and worldly concepts that served as an illusion. That's why Buddha taught us to see things as they really are.

Or put in better phrase in Vajira Sutta from Samyutta Nikaya:

"Setting at Savatthi. Then, in the morning, the bhikkhuni Vajira dressed and, taking bowl and robe, entered Savatthi for alms. When she had walked for alms in Savatthi and had returned from her alms round, after her meal she went to the Blind Men's Grove for the day's abiding. Having plunged into the Blind Men's Grove, she sat down at the foot of a tree for the day's abiding.

Then Mara the Evil One, desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in the bhikkhuni Vajira, desiring to make her fall away from concentration, approached her and addressed her in verse:

By whom has this being been created?
Where is the maker of the being?
Where has the being arisen?
Where does the being cease?

Then it occurred to the bhikkhuni Vajira: "Now who is this that recited the verse — a human being or a non-human being?" Then it occurred to her: "This is Mara the Evil One, who has recited the verse desiring to arouse fear, trepidation, and terror in me, desiring to make me fall away from concentration."

Then the bhikkhuni Vajira, having understood, "This is Mara the Evil One," replied to him in verses:

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases.

Then Mara the Evil One, realizing, "The bhikkhuni Vajira knows me," sad and disappointed, disappeared right there."

From this Suttanta, we can understand that there is a Samutti concept (or Pannatti) and there is a Paramattha concept.

[Bundokji]

I voted 2

I doubt you would see a sutta explicitly says that there are two truths, but its a regular feature in his teachings. A clear example is the first chapter of the dhammapada which begins with "pairs". Unless saying the same thing twice is a complete waste of time, it is implied that he taught two truths. The four noble truths can be seen as a pair of two pairs.

[Ceisiwr]

If the Buddha taught that the world is empty of self, but then continued to say things such as “him over there” is that not adhering to two truths?

[cappuccino]

If the Buddha taught that the world is empty of self, but then continued to say things such as “him over there” is that not adhering to two truths?

just language

[Spiny Norman]

If the Buddha taught that the world is empty of self, but then continued to say things such as “him over there” is that not adhering to two truths?

I think so. Conventional v. ultimate truth.

[Ceisiwr]

I partly made the poll because Ven. Sujato has argued against the idea before, as do many of his followers over at SuttaCentral and I wondered if anyone here has the same view. I scratch my head somewhat because you me it’s rather obvious that the Buddha thought in this manner, and that even if he didn’t it’s an implication of his teachings (however we think of it). I believe every single Buddhist school and tradition also accepted the idea, it’s just they argued about what exactly is conventional and what is ultimate.

[auto]

Why now do you assume 'a being'?
..

From this Suttanta, we can understand that there is a Samutti concept (or Pannatti) and there is a Paramattha concept.

The assuming a being is assuming khandhas to be your identity, it is the opposite of concentration. The assuming is what is meant here, not the enquiry of khandhas being the the self or not.
The khandhas what act as a support are the sakkaya(identity), that support or bridge is cut with the sati. 5 tons of gold ingots, can be a pretty good support if there is a possibility to take some with you and sell them and have fun.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

If the Buddha taught that the world is empty of self, but then continued to say things such as “him over there” is that not adhering to two truths?

Voted 1. Buddha taught two truths. Quote above clearly points out that Buddha did teach that very concept.

[nirodh27]

Sujato approach seems very wise to me, I've had the occasion of reading it at suttacentral searching "absolute truth" @sujato:

Whether a theory such as “not-self” is true in any absolute sense is not really the point; the point is whether it leads to letting go.

Better to stick with the Buddha’s words in Snp 4.12 Culavyuha:

Ekañhi saccaṃ na dutīyamatthi,
For the truth is one, there is no second,
Yasmiṃ pajā no vivade pajānaṃ
regarding which people argue with each other.

[auto]

If the Buddha taught that the world is empty of self, but then continued to say things such as “him over there” is that not adhering to two truths?

Voted 1. Buddha taught two truths. Quote above clearly points out that Buddha did teach that very concept.

what quote is that?

[Ontheway]

Sujato approach seems very wise to me, I've had the occasion of reading it at suttacentral searching "absolute truth" @sujato:

Whether a theory such as “not-self” is true in any absolute sense is not really the point; the point is whether it leads to letting go.

Better to stick with the Buddha’s words in Snp 4.12 Culavyuha:

Ekañhi saccaṃ na dutīyamatthi,
For the truth is one, there is no second,
Yasmiṃ pajā no vivade pajānaṃ
regarding which people argue with each other.

Yet there are four noble Truths.

It wouldn't help if just reading the Sutta just from surface without penetrating the meaning of it.