[seodiary]

This confusion was occurred because we mixed up the levels of Dhamma and teachings. We did not understand the whole picture and do not know what level of Dhamma the speaker was talking. So, we confused why this jigsaw is different from another jigsaw (which in fact they need to be put in different places.)

In Buddhism, there are two types of truths, i.e. the conventional truth (‘Paramatthasacca’) and the ultimate truth (‘Paramatthasacca’).

Both are conflicted to each other. But each of them is true in its aspect and area. The problem will occur when we try to use the ultimate truth to overrule the conventional truth, or the other way round.

So, we need to consider firstly whether the speaker was talking about the ultimate truth or the conventional truth. Then, we discuss in such aspect/area, and do not mix up.

For example, if we say there is no ‘self’ (in the ultimate truth), someone does not understand and mix this with the conventional truth. He/she may view that as there is no ‘myself’, so there is no my dad and mom (in the conventional truth) and he/she does not need to do good things for his/her dad and mom (in the conventional truth)? If red and green are not ‘self’ (in the ultimate truth), we do not need to comply with green or red lights in the traffic signs (in the conventional truth).

The Buddha was enlightened and knew the ultimate truth. But, staying in the societies, the Buddha also accepted the conventional truth. He accepted the laws, the position of kings, the status of millionaires and poor people, the occupations of people etc.