DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**picinaRefadia** · 05-30-2011, 07:56 AM

I found this article from 2008 at the Buddhist Channel and rather than tag it on the end of another thread, I thought I'd start a new one.

Do you agree or disagree with the writer ?

Aloka D, This is a very interesting article.
I am not familiar enough with Theravadin Buddhsim to know if the author's statement, "These definitions, however, do not mean there are two types of Truth in Theravada Buddhism, but rather two ways of presenting the Truth." --is accurate or not, but it would seem to makes sense.

The statement:

"All mental experiences and physical phenomena occur in this manner. An explanation of a phenomenon, mental or material, in terms of these Dhammas is said to be the Absolute Truth. When the same phenomenon is explained in terms of general agreement, that explanation is said to be the Conventional Truth. If for example, a human being is explained in terms of the five "skandhas", it is considered an Absolute Truth. On the other hand, if a human being is explained as a person who will goes through life and suffer and finally die in a process of endless "samsara", then it will be a Conventional Truth."

--reflects a viewpoint that I am more familiar with. I don't think that one automatically excludes the other, but that each view' is true for different reasons, and so they are referred to as two truths. I don't think that there is any assertion here that we exist in two simultaneous realities or anything like that. I think the author gave a good example in the paragraph above.

05-30-2011, 07:56 AM	#10
picinaRefadia Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 475 Senior Member	I found this article from 2008 at the Buddhist Channel and rather than tag it on the end of another thread, I thought I'd start a new one. Do you agree or disagree with the writer ? Aloka D, This is a very interesting article. I am not familiar enough with Theravadin Buddhsim to know if the author's statement, "These definitions, however, do not mean there are two types of Truth in Theravada Buddhism, but rather two ways of presenting the Truth." --is accurate or not, but it would seem to makes sense. The statement: "All mental experiences and physical phenomena occur in this manner. An explanation of a phenomenon, mental or material, in terms of these Dhammas is said to be the Absolute Truth. When the same phenomenon is explained in terms of general agreement, that explanation is said to be the Conventional Truth. If for example, a human being is explained in terms of the five "skandhas", it is considered an Absolute Truth. On the other hand, if a human being is explained as a person who will goes through life and suffer and finally die in a process of endless "samsara", then it will be a Conventional Truth." --reflects a viewpoint that I am more familiar with. I don't think that one automatically excludes the other, but that each view' is true for different reasons, and so they are referred to as two truths. I don't think that there is any assertion here that we exist in two simultaneous realities or anything like that. I think the author gave a good example in the paragraph above.
	Quote