[JesikaFlpk]

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 ?



Two Truths in Buddhism

by Professor N. A. de S. Amaratunga

" Theravada Buddhism had described two Truths; Absolute Truth (Paramatha Sathya) and Conventional Truth (Sammuti Sathya).

Nagarjuna Thera of the Mahayana Tradition also identified two truths, but his theory was different from that of Theravada Buddhism.

Are there, in fact, two types of Truth in Theravada Buddhism? Do these two Truths vary in degree? Is Absolute Truth superior in anyway to the Conventional Truth? Some Buddhists commit the mistake that Absolute Truth is superior to the Conventional Truth and some go to the extent of saying that Nirvana is the Absolute Truth.

On the basis of this premise, they arrive at new interpretations of Nirvana, which could be misleading. In fact, there is only one Truth in Buddhism, but there are two ways of presenting it. This will be explained briefly.

Buddha and also the Abhidhamic theorists who based their discussions on the Buddha’s preaching have categorically said that the Absolute Truth is not superior to the Conventional Truth and that there is no difference in degree between the two.

More importantly, either of these two Truths could be made use of to gain insight and follow the path to Enlightenment. Buddha had used both in his preaching depending on the intellectual ability of the listener.

What then was the reason for identifying two Truths?"


Continued :

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index....6,7109,0,0,1,0

[kjanyeaz1]

On what basis is the writer making the following claims that the Buddha taught "two truths"?:


"Buddha and also the Abhidhamic theorists who based their discussions on the Buddha’s preaching have categorically said that the Absolute Truth is not superior to the Conventional Truth and that there is no difference in degree between the two. More importantly, either of these two Truths could be made use of to gain insight and follow the path to Enlightenment. Buddha had used both in his preaching depending on the intellectual ability of the listener."

[Dildos]

The Sun came up this morning. That is relative truth.
The Sun doesn't actually come up or go down. That is Ultimate truth.

[jojocomok]

The writer defers to later abhidhamma contrivances and errantly claims that the khandhas are an analysis of "all phemomena of human existence".

If there were a "need" to classify and explain all of existence, the Buddha would have recognized such a need and addressed it extensively in his forty-odd years of teaching.

[Pharmaciest2007]

The Sun came up this morning. That is relative truth.
The Sun doesn't actually come up or go down. That is Ultimate truth.

Just like the difference between the superstitious speculations of abhidhamahayanists, and the simple truths of the Buddha's liberative teachings: one is a collection of pretty though sometimes perhaps somewhat inspiring falsehoods, the other a fount of practical and useful truths.

Abhidhammahayana is the astrology to the astronomy of the Buddha's teachings.

[ArraryTauTDew]

The difference is that some of us admit to experiencing a "reality" in which appearances arise and exist on their own level of interaction regardless of the fact that they are without substance.

For example, I see a picture of what appears to be a chess set on my computer screen. That is true, relatively speaking. Ultimately, however, there is no picture, merely a collection of pixels.

Likewise, through our attachments to arising appearances we take for "real" things which ultimately are not and from this we like or dislike things and so forth, engaging in things which perpetuate suffering.

Some people go on and on about how others engage in pointless speculation, but when asked about what they themselves experience as real, they only hire Sakyamuni to do their talking for them.

Dhamma is truth, truth is absolute, it is pointless to question that which is absolute, and good buddhists do not engage in that which is pointless. Is this not true, comrade Sutka?
:hug:

[BorBitExatini]

LOL "admit"?? People admitthings that are true, and they claim absurd assertions.

So go step in front of a semi on the highway, and then come back and tell me all about how it was only ever just "appearances", ok?

...just make sure your insurance is paid up....


The fact that these words on the screen are really just pixels of light is irrelevant to, and contributes nothing towards, the problems the Buddha was addressing. Those pixels of light on your retinas are trying to tell you that you are about to be roadkill stew, for example.


Your theory of " taking appearances to be real" and liking or disliking them because we think they are real when they are not is advaitaist absurdity.


Some people go on and on about how things are not real, yet they quail and crawfish when asked to prove their theory by stepping in front of a bus. LOL. Nice straw man, though. You havent asked me what I have experienced, though I can see why you would not want to know what the Buddha had to say, as it contradicts the superstitious mahayana assertions you are pushing in this Theravada forum.

There are lots of "Dhammas", including those of the mahayanists, the Brahmins, the xtians, and the Pastafarians. The Buddha did not claim, "This Dhamma is absolute, do not question it, it is pointless to question it". Not by a long shot.

[JaK_MarkoV_Pi]

I said, "appearances arise and exist on their own level of interaction" meaning that relatively speaking, yes, if I walk out and get hit by a car I will get smashed. "I" will no longer exist, "my" life will be over. So, in one sense that is true.

However, My understanding of what The Buddha taught is that truly there is nothing that exists which can be called "me" or "mine", merely the temporary coming together of aggregates. No self, no atman, no soul. So, that is also true. So, how can "I" get hit by a car? (and I have, by the way)

You seem like an intelligent person. So, you can go on and on about how I am wallowing in speculative mahayana superstition if you want, or you can explain to me why I shouldn't see this as two truths.

I am very interested in learning about the Theravadin view. I am not so interested in overly verbose rants about what essentially amounts to a mahayanist conspiracy.

By the way, Don't I get a smilie?

[bWn4h8QD]

Don't I get a smilie?

Aaawh, poor dear, you can have these two I made earlier.

[picinaRefadia]

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.

[ecosportpol_ru]

THANK YOU!



---I guess you would call this the 'two tooths'

[scemHeish]

I said, "appearances arise and exist on their own level of interaction"

I know what you said.

meaning that relatively speaking, yes, if I walk out and get hit by a car I will get smashed. "I" will no longer exist, "my" life will be over. So, in one sense that is true. Ultimately speaking, you will get smashed too.

However, My understanding of what The Buddha taught is that truly there is nothing that exists which can be called "me" or "mine", He didn't say "there is nothing that exists...", which you (along with your mahavajrya brethren) are twisting into a statement of non-existence that the Buddha refused to endorse.


...merely the temporary coming together of aggregates. No self, no atman, no soul. So, that is also true. So, how can "I" get hit by a car? (and I have, by the way) And you didn't learn anything by it? Jeeez...

You seem like an intelligent person. Your attempt at condescension is quite amusing.

So, you can go on and on about how I am wallowing in speculative mahayana superstition if you want, Which you are. In a Theravada forum. I believe that the tibetan-types here threw a big hissy fit at the mere mention of a teaching of the Buddha in their forum recently.


....or you can explain to me why I shouldn't see this as two truths. I have plenty of other options, as well, none of which you dictate for me. You are free to see your superstitious contrivance as "two truths" as much as you want. What you will be unable to do is to stuff that superstitious contrivance in the Buddha's mouth.


I am very interested in learning about the Theravadin view. It appears that what you are interested in doing is to push mahayana superstition in the Theravada forum. You learn nothing until you take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth.

I am not so interested in overly verbose rants about what essentially amounts to a mahayanist conspiracy.
You won't get any of that here. But you also won't be pushing tibetan superstitions here, either.


By the way, Don't I get a smilie?
What do you think you deserve a smiley for?

[eskimosik]

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.

There is the way of presenting ideas to superstitious people: through parables and analogies to their own superstitions they cannot let go of. And then there is the teaching of the Dhamma as it is to those who are not fettered by superstition.

[Casyimipist]

Some people go on and on about how others engage in pointless speculation, but when asked about what they themselves experience as real, they only hire Sakyamuni to do their talking for them.
:

BTW when you asked the question, my reply was that your question was loaded with mahayana speculations and assumptions:


Originally Posted by fojiao2
stuka, do you deny that you are experiencing the sensation of a continuing stream of consciousness (whether such a continuity truly exists or not) which, for example, manifests as reading this post, or might manifest later as responding to it? Your question is loaded with irrelevant mahayana speculations and assumptions.
I spoke for myself. And I can't hire the Buddha to speak for me; he is dead.

[Nupbeaupeteew]

some of us admit to experiencing a "reality" in which appearances arise and exist on their own level of interaction

Hi fojiao,
Everyone does that whether they want to or not.

regardless of the fact that they are without substance. Here's the speculative bit. Even if we accept that the designation of a chariot is not found within its parts nor separate from them, what difference does that make?

Even if we conclude things are empty of inherent existence, that bit of logical footwork won't tell you anything about stress and its release. The afflictions remain untouched by anything the intellect cooks up because it tells you nothing about how the afflictions arise and how they can be subdued.

This has to be experienced directly. Expecting the discursive mind to do it is like expecting a disease to cure itself.

But, just a moment you may protest... lack of inherent existence is directly seen by the omniscient ones. Indeed it is their defining achievement. To assert else is heresy!

Well, good for them I say but how does it stand with you?

[blogforlovxr]

Hello Srivijara. I don't think everyone ADMITS to experiencing a "reality" in which appearances arise and exist on their own level of interaction. What I mean is, in the context of a previous post, people experience the sensation of a continuously existing "self" but not everybody admits it.

I think you CAN test this "things are empty of inherent existence" theory out all the time and see it for yourself.
Whenever conditions arise, you can try it. Having "Inherent existence" means arising unconditionally. That means that its qualities arise independently, not conditionally.

For example, if it is raining, rain occurs because of interconnected events. So, it starts raining and then it stops. While it is raining, the umbrella seller says rain is good. The soccer player says it is bad. But the rain is neither good nor bad. it is just rain. It is empty of having any inherent qualities.

Likewise, when the sun is shining the umbrella vendor says the weather is terrible and the soccer player says it is a beautiful day. But the sunny weather by itself is neither good nor bad, it is just sunny. When we say that the weather is good or bad, we are attributing an inherent quality to it. We do that because of attachment to what we like and don't like, or what we want or don't want.

So, these things are empty of any inherent existence. They do not arise independently and they do not last. That is one truth.

But to the umbrella vendor, a sunny day IS bad because he won't sell any umbrellas and his family will go hungry. To the soccer player, playing in the rain is not much fun and he could slip on wet grass and injure himself. So, the fact that these temporary conditions interact in a way that is very real to these people is also true.

When we see that the weather is just weather, and that outside of 'whether' we like it or not it is empty of any intrinsically existing quality, we start to see beyond our attachments to it, realizing that it is changing all the time. When you start to let go of attachments to passing phenomena, you start to cut away at the causes of suffering, which is clinging and so forth.

Really, there is no speculation. You can try this out all the time. I don't understand why people insist that this is speculative.

what do you think, friend?

[enfoires]

Hello Srivijara. I don't think everyone ADMITS to experiencing a "reality" in which appearances arise and exist on their own level of interaction. What I mean is, in the context of a previous post, people experience the sensation of a continuously existing "self" but not everybody admits it.

You are confusing self-view with awareness, and equivocating the two into an irrelevant wilderness of confusion.



I think you CAN test this "things are empty of inherent existence" theory out all the time and see it for yourself.
Whenever conditions arise, you can try it. Having "Inherent existence" means arising unconditionally. Again, this is simply irrelevant equivocation. You can certainly define your "inherent existence of phenomena" as "arising unconditionally", but it is irrelevant to the Buddhadhamma.

Blah blah blah....

I don't understand how people find this speculative at all. Defining "inherent existence" with this equivocation of "arising unconditionally" is a speculative view. It is also completely irrelevant to the Dhamma. And to this subforum.

[gusecrync]

You are confusing self-view with awareness, and equivocating the two into an irrelevant wilderness of confusion.

YEAH! That's me...meditating in the wilderness!

[DevaRextusidis]

YEAH! That's me...meditating in the wilderness!

....a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Nibbana.

[Amoniustauns]

....a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Nibbana.

Well that IS interesting. I must have things all backwards then, because from my thicket of views, suffering, distress, despair, & fever is not what I experience at all, and in fact, disenchantment, dispassion, cessation & calm, is what seems to be increasing constantly. Plus feeling really happy most of the time. As for direct knowledge, full Awakening and Nibbana, I guess I'll just have to wait and see.