So there can be two truths?

[sunnat]

.


There are as many different, contradictory truths as are proclaimed by countless individuals which are judged as being correct or incorrect by various machinations, eg reason, law, science, and there is an Ultimate Truth, The Dhamma and Nibbana, which is proclaimed by The Buddha's and expressed in various ways according to the nature of various individuals and can be perceived to be correct by direct personal experience. At around or after entering the stream, faith in The Dhamma becomes increasingly pivotal. Truth begets faith which in turn reveals the truth.

[Ontheway]

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"?

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.

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.

[justindesilva]

.


There are as many different, contradictory truths as are proclaimed by countless individuals which are judged as being correct or incorrect by various machinations, eg reason, law, science, and there is an Ultimate Truth, The Dhamma and Nibbana, which is proclaimed by The Buddha's and expressed in various ways according to the nature of various individuals and can be perceived to be correct by direct personal experience. At around or after entering the stream, faith in The Dhamma becomes increasingly pivotal. Truth begets faith which in turn reveals the truth.

The flow of energy in the cosmos as explained by lord budda is shown as sammuti satya and arya satya. The objects around us that we see as forms (rupa) enter in to our brain as visualized by our consciousness, but not exactly the same and called as illusions. They are our interpretation of signals through nose, ears, eyes and skin contact. They are smell, sound,forms, and feeling (pottabba). We have conceptualised names as music or words, pictures or people streams, sea etc, based on our past. Yet they are different from its actual energy when an arya puggala will interpret the same as seen by their abingja or third eye. That same thing seen by
a putagjana as a conceopt is seen by an arya puggala in its element (dhatu) form to differentiate it as two truths called sammuti satya and arya satya.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

here we go again...

Already 5-pages again.

[un8-]

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.

A being is not the five aggregates. A being is craving and asavas that is bound to the five aggregates, it's the glue.

Arahants are not beings, even though they have the aggregates.

Hence the sutta that says an Arahant is like someone cutting the skin off a cow, removing the ligaments, and putting the skin back on the cow.

So a being is not the aggregates, a being is the binding.

[SteRo]

So there can be two truths!

By mere assertion there can be countless truths. Just assert the number that pleases you.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

...there can be countless truths...

Yes.

[zan]

here we go again...

Already 5-pages again.

Why is this standard teaching being discussed as if it is a very subjective, mysterious ideal that is totally vague and up for interpretation? Why are Mahayana answers being posted? Seriously, what is happening? The commentators who invented it also explained it perfectly and in depth. There is no mystery, and no interpretation needed. I understand the initial question by op, but it should have been finished by a few replies referencing where this question is already answered conclusively.

I would understand if there was a sutta or two where the Buddha said there are two truths, but didn't explain, and no other reference in the canon. But, quite the opposite, as I said above, the Buddha didn't teach it at all, and the commentarial Abhidhamma created it, and explained it in great detail. This is weird.

What's next? Someone asks "What are the four paramattha dhammas?" And we get five pages of people guessing and posting whatever they think this may mean, and ignoring that the paramatthas are another standardized Abhidhamma teaching with a clear answer? "I think four paramattha dhammas may be Buddha's way of saying four ways to be a nice happy person. Maybe each one is an idea like: 1.) 'Be nice.' 2.) 'Wear a fancy hat.' 3.) 'Eat your vegetables.' 4.) Avoid dragons."

And every time someone answers correctly, "mind, mental factors, matter and nibbana." it will be ignored and wild guesses and extrapolation will go on lol!

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

here we go again...

Already 5-pages again.

... There is no mystery, ...

Exactly. There is no mystery. It even literally solves many mysteries for me, regarding Dhamma.

[zan]

...

Auto is one of our resident eternalists. He believes in an atta and that the Buddha taught such a thing.

You seem to find his position as invalid because it wasn't taught by the Buddha of the suttas. However, the Buddha taught atta (Sanskrit atman) as Buddha nature in the Mahayana sutras, just as he taught Prajnaparamita in the same sutras. Might your position on auto be unfair since you both accept Mahayana teachings?

I've recently begun taking the Prajñāpāramitā sutras seriously, and re-reading the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

The sutra presents the Buddha-nature or tathagatagarbha as a "Self". The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra refers to a true self. "The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self (ātman).
-Wikipedia page on Buddha Nature

The word Prajñāpāramitā combines the Sanskrit words prajñā "wisdom" with pāramitā "perfection". Prajñāpāramitā is a central concept in Mahāyāna Buddhism and is generally associated with the doctrine of emptiness (Śūnyatā) or 'lack of Svabhāva' (essence) and the works of Nāgārjuna. Its practice and understanding are taken to be indispensable elements of the Bodhisattva path.

...

According to Edward Conze, the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras are "a collection of about forty texts ... composed somewhere on the Indian subcontinent between approximately 100 BC and AD 600."[1] Some Prajnāpāramitā sūtras are thought to be among the earliest Mahāyāna sūtras.[2][3]
-Wikipedia page on Prajnaparamita

There's no reason for two on the same Bodhisattva path to be at odds.

I'd recommend either you both agree that each of your positions is valid as Mahayana, or, ideally, and the best path, both give up Mahayana and stick to strictly Theravada. In Theravada there is no self, and no prajnaparamita sutras, so your disagreement would cease to exist.

We don’t need Mahayana nonsense preaching here

[zan]

Already 5-pages again.

... There is no mystery, ...

Exactly. There is no mystery. It even literally solves many mysteries for me, regarding Dhamma.

Indeed. They are useful tools.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

...

The sutra presents the Buddha-nature or tathagatagarbha as a "Self". The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra refers to a true self. "The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self (ātman).
-Wikipedia page on Buddha Nature

Thanks.

I just quoted that wiki entry here:

[Ceisiwr]

You seem to find his position as invalid because it wasn't taught by the Buddha of the suttas. However, the Buddha taught atta (Sanskrit atman) as Buddha nature in the Mahayana sutras, just as he taught Prajnaparamita in the same sutras. Might your position on auto be unfair since you both accept Mahayana teachings?

Well I don’t think the Buddha taught the Mahāyāna sutras for one. That’s just ahistorical, but I do think they contain buddhavacana. I also don’t accept the Tathāgatagarbha idea. From what I know of it I think it’s wrong or simply unnecessary, and I don’t feel any compulsion to accept it. I don’t think someone needs to adopt that idea to follow the middle way of the Perfection of Wisdom and Ven. Nāgārjuna. I’m also not a follower of Mahāyāna.

I've recently begun taking the Prajñāpāramitā sutras seriously, and re-reading the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

There's no reason for two on the same Bodhisattva path to be at odds.

I’m not a bodhisattva and nor do I intend to take those vows.

I'd recommend either you both agree that each of your positions is valid as Mahayana, or, ideally, and the best path, both give up Mahayana and stick to strictly Theravada. In Theravada there is no self, and no prajnaparamita sutras, so your disagreement would cease to exist.

Not that I am one, but Mahāyānists don’t agree on everything. Buddha-nature being one of those points of disagreements, based on my rather limited understanding.

We don’t need Mahayana nonsense preaching here

It is the nature of conditioned things to change

[zan]

...

The sutra presents the Buddha-nature or tathagatagarbha as a "Self". The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra refers to a true self. "The Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṅa Sūtra, especially influential in East Asian Buddhist thought, goes so far as to speak of it as our true self (ātman).
-Wikipedia page on Buddha Nature

Thanks.

I just quoted that wiki entry here:

You are our resident expert on self refutation and I'm glad we have you!

[asahi]

Forget about how many Truths ! Asking this making you more deluded , you only need to end suffering . According to Gotama teachings you are only to follow the N8FP .