So there can be two truths?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by Ceisiwr »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:18 pm You know... I thought about it some more. Maybe what this two truths thing is about is... on one side, perceiving with avijja, and on the other side, perceiving without avijja, i.e. vijja. One looks at the world through ignorance, e.g. grasping at perceptions, objectifying, etc., while the other doesn't.
:goodpost:
“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: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by auto »

Ontheway wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:33 pm Now the "Being" here and now, be it human, animal, ghost, Deva or Brahma, or Hell denizen, such term "Being" was used to describe them in conventional purpose. After seeing this "Being" as they really are (Yathabhutam), the so-called "Being" is merely Five Aggregates affected by Clinging. What are the five aggregates?

The Five Aggregates are Rupa, Vedana, Sanna, Sankhara, and Vinnana. The combination of these is known conventionally as "Being". And these aggregates, all exhibit Tilakkhana. Since they are Anicca, therefore they are Dukkha. Since they are Anicca, subject to change (viparinama dhamma) and Dukkha, therefore not fitting to think of these aggregates as such: "This is mine, this is me, and this is my Self."
Been there done that, you did wrong and can't accept it and throwing a fit. And you can't accept it, you ruined it for yourself just like Ceiswir have done, slandering everyday.
-
Asahi gets it, he even bolded it.
asahi wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 4:43 pm ..
auto
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by auto »

Mr. Seek wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 7:18 pm You know... I thought about it some more. Maybe what this two truths thing is about is... on one side, perceiving with avijja, and on the other side, perceiving without avijja, i.e. vijja. One looks at the world through ignorance, e.g. grasping at perceptions, objectifying, etc., while the other doesn't.
vijja is aroused from knowing the outcome of greed, hate, delusion. No-selfers are clinging to permanent position that there is no self, cutting themselves off from attaining path and its fruit and good destinies.
https://suttacentral.net/an3.34/en/sujato wrote:When an ignorant person acts
Lobhajaṁ dosajañceva,
out of greed, hate, or delusion,
mohajañcāpaviddasu;
any deeds they have performed
Yaṁ tena pakataṁ kammaṁ,
—whether a little or a lot—
appaṁ vā yadi vā bahuṁ;
are to be experienced right here,
Idheva taṁ vedaniyaṁ,
not in any other place.
vatthu aññaṁ na vijjati.

So a wise person,
Tasmā lobhañca dosañca,
a mendicant arousing knowledge
mohajañcāpi viddasu;
of the outcome of greed, hate, and delusion,
Vijjaṁ uppādayaṁ bhikkhu,
would cast off all bad destinies.”
sabbā duggatiyo jahe”ti.
SarathW
Posts: 21234
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by SarathW »

Ontheway wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:53 am I think there was a previous board dedicated for this topic...I don't think we need to start over again.

Anyway, a "Being" is conventional sense.
In ultimate sense, it is none other than "Five Aggregates". One who understands this, will not mess up with Sassata Ditthi and Uccheda Ditthi.

:anjali: :buddha2:
Can you give the link to the previous discussion, please?
Why did this discussion turn into a discussion about Atta?
My question is about Truths?
Did Buddha say there is only one truth?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by Coëmgenu »

I'm guessing this is the thread alluded to:

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=41128
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
auto
Posts: 4583
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by auto »

SarathW wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:12 am So there can be two truths!

Generally, we say that there is only one truth however it seems there are two truths.
The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit; Pali: sacca; word meaning truth or reality) in the teaching of the Buddha: the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
Khandhas are unmade, not-produced, limitless. Essentially khandha's nature(permanence) is the reality of khandhas. If to think khandha is self, is to course in sign(what is evident).
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by sphairos »

There can be 3 truths.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22405
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by Ceisiwr »

sphairos wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:14 pm There can be 3 truths.
3?
“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.”
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by Coëmgenu »

The "integrated middle" of Master Zhìzhě of the Tiāntāi sect?
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
sphairos
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:37 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by sphairos »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:16 pm
sphairos wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:14 pm There can be 3 truths.
3?
I'm just kidding :D Can't help myself in many Sarath's threads.
How good and wonderful are your days,
How true are your ways?
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 8150
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by Coëmgenu »

There is a sect that believes there are "three truths" that constitute an understanding of the "true intentions" of Ven Nāgārjuna in "founding" the Madhyamaka. There are two, technically.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
DiamondNgXZ
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:40 am

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by DiamondNgXZ »

Ontheway wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:34 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:29 pm
Ontheway wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:25 pm ...
Auto is one of our resident eternalists. He believes in an atta and that the Buddha taught such a thing.
Really? Auto believes that there is "Atta"? :o

Well, if that is the case, I don't know what to say.
It's just unfortunate for auto to have persistent wrong views. I tried, gave up on teaching him/her. One can take this as one of the evidence that some people have a lot of dust in their (wisdom) eyes.


:focus:
SarathW wrote: Sun Sep 12, 2021 10:12 am So there can be two truths!

Generally, we say that there is only one truth however it seems there are two truths.
The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit; Pali: sacca; word meaning truth or reality) in the teaching of the Buddha: the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
The 2 truths is used differently in different traditions. For the Early Buddhist texts people, they rather not to employ this terminology, rather to distinguish between things which should be understood literally vs metaphorically. Which is most directly applied to the teaching of no self. Whenever the Buddha said all phenomenon are not self, it's to be regarded as literally, when Buddha refers to I, a being, you, etc, it's meant to be understood metaphorically, which is why the discussion above goes to discussing no self. Wise people sees this right view, fools inverts them and harm themselves as well as others.

In Theravada, with the Abhidhamma added, the ultimate truth is commonly referred to what's analysed, broken down, in Abhidhamma, like the 121 cittas, 52 cetasikas, a lot of rupas and Nibbana as the ultimates, the stuffs which citta, cetasikas and rupa group together to form are conventional truth, only given the label of a person for convenience. Basically, not that different from Early Buddhist Texts.

However, from Early Mahayana onwards, the Middle way doctrine by Nagajurna seems to be a push back against Sarvastivada Abhidhamma school which might had cling onto the smallest units of analysis listed above as ultimately real. So the Mahayana push back the ultimate truth to just be emptiness (no self), which includes emptiness of dhammas (not just self), which actually if you look back to Early Buddhist text, and the suttas, all phenomenon (dhammas) are not self, is already in there, but the Mahayana mistakenly thinks the "Hinayana" school they are correcting doesn't have it.

So ultimate truth is emptiness, nothing much could be said about it. Conventional truth remains the same of using the language of self, without mistakenly clinging onto self as truly existing.

We need both so that even after one awakened as arahant, one can still use conventional truth to function in the world, without being deluded by it.
SarathW
Posts: 21234
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by SarathW »

why it is called Truth?
What are the characteristics of the truth?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
zan
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by zan »

SarathW wrote: Mon Sep 13, 2021 1:45 am why it is called Truth?
What are the characteristics of the truth?
There is no such thing as two truths in the suttas to my knowledge. It is a commentarial Abhidhamma development. It is a standardized teaching that is clearly explained by multiple sources. There is a book called The Dhamma Theory by Y Karunadasa available from the Buddhist Publication Society's free library on their website. Chapter three is called Pannatti and the Two Truths. Below is an excerpt that may be useful, however I highly recommend reading the entire book, it's only sixty-five pages.

As pointed out by K.N. Jayatilleke in his Early Buddhist
Theory of Knowledge, one misconception about the Theravāda
version of double truth is that paramattha-sacca is superior to
sammuti-sacca and that “what is true in the one sense is false
in the other.”
[144] This observation that the distinction in
question is not based on a theory of degrees of truth will
become clear from the following free translation of the
relevant passages contained in three commentaries:
Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahmā, etc.,
are sammuti-kathā, whereas references to
impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates
of the empiric individuality, the spheres and
elements of sense perception and mind-cognition,
bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramatthakathā. One who is capable of understanding and
penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of
arahatship when the teaching is set out in terms of
generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha
preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-kathā. One
who is capable of understanding and penetrating to
the truth and hoisting the flag of arahatship when the
teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to
him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on
paramattha-kathā. To one who is capable of awakening
to the truth through sammuti-kathā, the teaching is not
presented on the basis of paramattha-kathā, and
conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to
51
the truth through paramattha-kathā, the teaching is not
presented on the basis of sammuti-kathā.
There is this simile on this matter. Just as a teacher of
the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their
meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils,
adopting the particular dialect which each pupil
understands, even so the Buddha preaches the
doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the
occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-kathā.
It is by taking into consideration the ability of each
individual to understand the Four Noble Truths that
the Buddha presents his teaching either by way of
sammuti or by way of paramattha or by way of both.
Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the
same, to show the way to Immortality through the
analysis of mental and physical phenomena.
[145]
As shown from the above quotation, the penetration of the
truth is possible by either teaching, the conventional or the
ultimate, or by the combination of both. One method is not
singled out as superior or inferior to the other. It is like
using the dialect that a person readily understands, and
there is no implication that one dialect is either superior or
inferior to another. What is more, as the commentary to the
Aṅguttara Nikāya states specifically, whether the Buddhas
preach the doctrine according to sammuti or paramattha, they
teach only what is true, only what accords with actuality,
without involving themselves in what is not true
52
(amusā’va).
[146] The statement: “The person exists” (=
sammuti-sacca) is not erroneous, provided one does not
imagine by the person a substance enduring in time.
Convention requires the use of such terms, but as long as
one does not imagine substantial entities corresponding to
them, such statements are valid.
[147] On the other hand, as
the commentators observe, if for the sake of conforming to
the ultimate truth one would say, “The five aggregates eat”
(khandhā bhuñjanti), “The five aggregates walk” (khandhā
gacchanti), instead of saying: “A person eats,” “A person
walks,” such a situation would result in what is called
vohārabheda, i.e. a breach of convention resulting in a
breakdown in meaningful communication.
[148]
Hence in presenting the teaching the Buddha does not
exceed linguistic conventions (na hi Bhagavā samaññaṃ
atidhāvati),
[149] but uses such terms as “person” without
being led astray by their superficial implications
(aparāmasaṃ voharati).
[150] Because the Buddha is able to
employ such linguistic designations as “person” and
“individual” without assuming corresponding substantial
entities, he is called “skilled in expression” (vohārakusala).
[151] The use of such terms does not in any way
involve falsehood.
[152] Skilfulness in the use of words is the
ability to conform to conventions (sammuti), usages (vohāra),
designations (paññatti), and turns of speech (nirutti) in
common use in the world without being led astray by
them.
[153] Hence in understanding the teaching of the
Buddha one is advised not to adhere dogmatically to the
53
mere superficial meanings of words.
[154]
The foregoing observations should show that according to
the Theravāda version of double truth, one kind of truth is
not held to be superior to the other. Another interesting
conclusion to which the foregoing observations lead is that
as far as the Theravāda is concerned, the distinction
between sammuti-sacca and paramattha-sacca does not refer to
two kinds of truth as such but to two ways of presenting the
truth. Although they are formally introduced as two kinds
of truth, they are explained as two modes of expressing
what is true. They do not represent two degrees of truth of
which one is superior or inferior to the other. This explains
why the two terms, kathā (speech) and desanā (discourse),
are often used with reference to the two kinds of truth.
[155]
In this respect the distinction between sammuti and
paramattha corresponds to the distinction made in the earlier
scriptures between nītattha and neyyattha. For, as we saw
earlier, no preferential value-judgement is made between
nītattha and neyyattha. All that is emphasised is that the two
kinds of statement should not be confused. The great
advantage in presenting sammuti and paramattha in this way
is that it does not raise the problem of reconciling the
concept of a plurality of truths with the well-known
statement of the Suttanipāta: “Truth is indeed one, there is
no second” (ekaṃ hi saccaṃ na dutīyam atthi).
-The Dhamma Theory, Y Karunadasa, pages 51-54
Last edited by zan on Mon Sep 13, 2021 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Assume all of my words on dhamma could be incorrect. Seek an arahant for truth.


"If we base ourselves on the Pali Nikayas, then we should be compelled to conclude that Buddhism is realistic. There is no explicit denial anywhere of the external world. Nor is there any positive evidence to show that the world is mind-made or simply a projection of subjective thoughts. That Buddhism recognizes the extra-mental existence of matter and the external world is clearly suggested by the texts. Throughout the discourses it is the language of realism that one encounters.
-Y. Karunadasa
circuit
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 1:00 am

Re: So there can be two truths?

Post by circuit »

Imho,

When the Upatissa (then Sariputta) hears the Buddha teaching recited by monk Assaji, the Upatissa mind saw truth :

Nibbāna

It is called truth because Nibbāna is true, just like Dhamma, Nibbāna can be discerned as:

Svakkhato, sanditthiko, akaliko, ehipassiko, opanayiko, paccatam veditabbo vinnuhi....
Post Reply