So there can be two truths?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by SarathW »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:42 pm
SarathW wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:24 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:50 pm

"The Awakened One, the best of teachers, spoke of two truths, conventional and higher; no third is ascertained; a conventional statement is true because of convention and a higher statement is true as disclosing the true characteristics of events." - Khathāvatthu Aṭṭhakathā

Not in the canon, no. The commentaries, yes. It's in the commentaries because it's strongly implied in the suttas.
Thanks could you give me the link to this Kathavatthu, please?
It’s the commentary to it: https://thienvipassana.net/wp-content/u ... entary.pdf
Thanks.
Is there a direct Kathavattu relevant to this topic?

https://suttacentral.net/kv
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22383
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by Ceisiwr »

SarathW wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:03 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:42 pm
SarathW wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:24 pm

Thanks could you give me the link to this Kathavatthu, please?
It’s the commentary to it: https://thienvipassana.net/wp-content/u ... entary.pdf
Thanks.
Is there a direct Kathavattu relevant to this topic?

https://suttacentral.net/kv
Looking at the section the text is commenting upon might point you in the right direction.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by auto »

if dependent origination is the ultimate truth, then is there mundane and supramundane ultimate truth?
if so then what is the conventional truth? that there is no self??
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by auto »

Ontheway wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:39 pm What I said is clear.
Being (conventional sense) = Five Aggregates (ultimate sense)

And exhibits the Tilakkhana: Anicca, Dukkha, and Anatta.

Since these five aggregates are Anicca, they exhibit Dukkha. And since they are Anicca, subject to change, and Dukkha, therefore cannot think thus: "This is mine, this is me, this is my Self".

:smile:
akkhaṇa comes from a-khaṇa.
lakkhaṇakusalo= characteristic
https://suttacentral.net/an11.17/en/sujato wrote: And how is a mendicant skilled in characteristics?
Kathañca, bhikkhave, bhikkhu lakkhaṇakusalo hoti?
It’s when a mendicant understands that a fool is characterized by their deeds, and an astute person is characterized by their deeds.
Idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu ‘kammalakkhaṇo bālo, kammalakkhaṇo paṇḍito’ti yathābhūtaṁ pajānāti.
kamma characterizes the attabhāva by its own deeds it made, and these characteristics take shape where this new attabhāva takes birth
https://suttacentral.net/an3.34/en/sujato wrote:Any deed that emerges from greed—born, sourced, and originated from greed—ripens where that new life-form is born.
Yaṁ, bhikkhave, lobhapakataṁ kammaṁ lobhajaṁ lobhanidānaṁ lobhasamudayaṁ, yatthassa attabhāvo nibbattati tattha taṁ kammaṁ vipaccati.
Anatta-lakkhana sutta might be talking about the characteristics of the ripened(vipaccati) kamma. Distinguishing itself from the unborn, unmanifested.
https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html wrote: "Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by PeterC86 »

If there is a conventional (mundane) truth, then there must be an ultimate (supramundane) truth.

For how can something be, without it not being.

;)
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by auto »

PeterC86 wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:46 pm If there is a conventional (mundane) truth, then there must be an ultimate (supramundane) truth.

For how can something be, without it not being.

;)
supramundane, are the path(moral) and fruit(resultant) consciousnesses what are capable of seeing nibbana. I can speculate that the 'truth' refers to what one perceives and accordingly is either conventional or ultimate.
abhidhamma lokkuttara cittas wrote:This person, if successful to the end, will acquire
the 4 Paths and the 4 Fruitions. So in this route there are only 8
supramundane cittas, namely, the four lokuttara kusala cittas
(supramundane moral consciousness) and the four lokuttara vipàka
cittas (supramundane resultant consciousness).
abhidhammattha wrote:7. Loka + Uttara = Lokuttara. Here Loka, means the five aggregates. Uttara means above,
beyond or that which transcends. It is the supra-mundane consciousness that enables one to
transcend this world of mind-body
ultimate,
abhidhammattha wrote:Ultimate reality is abstract truth (paramattha-sacca).
For instance, the smooth surface of the table we see is apparent reality. In an ultimate sense the
apparent surface consists of forces and qualities or in other words, vibrations.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by PeterC86 »

I cannot help you, or anyone else for that matter.

But I can speak.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by auto »

PeterC86 wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 4:27 pm I cannot help you, or anyone else for that matter.

But I can speak.
People here tell that the self is conventional, based on the definition then the self or person ultimately consists of vibrations. To me it is a reference to psychic centers and channels.

I think its the best pwn towards no-selfers today.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by PeterC86 »

People here tell a lot. Ultimately, you can only help yourself. But in a conventional sense, I can point you in the right direction, depending on where you want to go. Whether or not you understand my pointers is not up to me or you.

Do you want to go somewhere?
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by auto »

PeterC86 wrote: Wed Sep 15, 2021 8:11 pm People here tell a lot. Ultimately, you can only help yourself. But in a conventional sense, I can point you in the right direction, depending on where you want to go. Whether or not you understand my directions is not up to me or you.

Do you want to go somewhere?
Three trainings: sīla, samādhi, pañña. Is what does me the "help yourself". But to me it seem most people are ok with relying on doing menial tasks.
You can explain, it is a quite free forum.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by PeterC86 »

In this post viewtopic.php?p=644291#p644291 I explained indisputably, for those who can understand it, that Ananda did not complete the path.

This faces the one who believes Ananda to have completed the path with two intertwining problems;

The first is, that in order to really understand my explanation, as to how Ananda did not complete the path, one has to have the knowledge, gained through experience, as to how Ananda's words are not in line with that of the Buddha.

So in order to see that Ananda's words are not the Buddha's words, one has to fully self-awaken, or be able to understand the teaching from someone who is fully self-awoken to which one can turn to.

If there is someone allegedly fully self-awoken to which one can turn to, how can one know, before the one turns to the allegedly self-awoken, that the allegedly self-awoken is truly self-awoken?

One cannot.

Which brings me to the second problem. If the one who believes that Ananda has completed the path, has sought refuge in a dhamma based on the words of Ananda, believing this dhamma will lead one to Nibbana, one got stuck.
PeterC86
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:06 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by PeterC86 »

I can give one more pointer;

In order to understand my previous posts, if one does not understand them, there has to occur a shift in one's concentration.

In line with the teaching of Ananda, one has to set the right intention to get to the right concentration, but what is intention if empty of self?


Goodbye and farewell.


_/|\_
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by auto »

PeterC86 wrote: Thu Sep 16, 2021 4:10 pm .
In my opinion, at least what i want to believe, is that you have misread the Sutta
You seem telling that there is this conventional desire and whatever practice is done is thus endless.
You are simply adding to the equation one more desire.
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:18 pmBy the words of Ananda, Ananda does not know that Ananda's path is an endless path; Ananda desired to abandon desire by means of desire.
Stream-entrant has got the taste of nibbana or at the very least has faith in it and get the taste at the moment of death, so you can assume ananda have had the glimpse of nibbana and knows what he is talking about. Nibbana being getting rid of the desire.
PeterC86 wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 10:18 pmHow can Ananda have knowledge of the path, outside of Ananda's desire to have knowledge? For Ananda said:
desire is abandoned by means of a desire.
https://suttacentral.net/sn51.15/en/sujato wrote:“It’s when a mendicant develops the basis of psychic power that has immersion due to enthusiasm …
“Idha, brāhmaṇa, bhikkhu chandasamādhippadhānasaṅkhārasamannāgataṁ iddhipādaṁ bhāveti,
and active effort
Can figure what could possible this compound means.. An affliction is gotten rid of by the means of an affliction, the latter being an fabrication(saṅkhāra) of an effort.
You do not need the option of my-desire or third desire - implying there is a being or watcher outside of the deeds.

no-selfers coming out of their closets being the believers of selves - to avoid practice.
Post Reply