[secondmortgagek]

Hi Aloka,

Aloka wrote: I'd be interested to know if you think that any of the Buddhist teachings should be interpreted metaphorically, or if you prefer to interpret them all literally. I think the Buddhist teachings help us to understand the difference between Sammati-sacca (conventional truth) and Paramattha-succa (absolute truth.) Though Sammati-sacca is the (conventional) truth accepted by everyone (that this is a man, an animal, a table, a book etc.) it’s still just a make-believing truth, not absolute truth. Paramattha-succa is the truth beyond Sammati-sacca. This is not really a man, an animal, a table, a book etc. in the absolute truth.

Sammati-sacca itself is only a metaphor (This is “I” “my” etc.) Paramattha-succa itself is literal truth. (This is “form”, “feeling” “mental factors” etc.) I don’t think we should interpreted Paramattha-succa in the Buddhist teachings metaphorically.

But again, before and after Buddha died the misinterpretation already had begun (Hence Hinayana versus Mahayana.) So not to mention after 2,555 years past. Besides I believe it’s evitable that the Buddhist teachings have been inaccurate after they were translated from original Pali (or even Sanskrit) to another language (Tibetan, English, Thai etc.)

Back to your question, yes, I think because of that natural inaccurateness we cannot help but have to approach the Buddhist teachings either metaphorically or literally. We have a lot of work to do more than people of the Buddha’s era. :-)