Two "truths"/"descriptions" and meditation in the suttas

[mikenz66]

What does holding a two truths notion actually help you to understand?

Not so much a "notion" as the "approach" of breaking experience down into simpler bits.

By breaking experience down into simpler bits, can you give me an example of what you mean here? Are you suggesting that one is encouraged to see experience in terms of khandas, or ayatanas, or dhatus? That seeing this is what needs to be trained in, say, Tetrad IV of anapanasati? I want to be sure I understand how you see it.

I don't make much use of that particular sutta, but the instructions regarding how to do the fourth tetrad say:

On that occasion the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world.

So in this case it's talking about dhammas.

The most obvious "cutting and slicing" is in the Satipatthana Sutta:
http://www.acesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/ ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Furthermore...just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body — however it stands, however it is disposed — in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.'

Mike

[daverupa]

Well, the cutting and slicing seems to be a way of framing ones given experience... yet I'm uncertain what this has to do with two truths. It seems we could just as well discuss Satipatthana without it, since so far we haven't had to employ it at all. It seems like our discussion so far has rendered it a rather vestigial concept. Am I missing something?

[mikenz66]

Well, the cutting and slicing seems to be a way of framing ones given experience... yet I'm uncertain what this has to do with two truths.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "two truths". I see the connection that one sees through the illusion of "my self" and "my body" by examining how the experience that I interpret as "my body" is actually a series of simpler events.

What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?
Do you take a position?
This is purely a pile of fabrications.
Here no living being can be pinned down.

Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,
there's the word, chariot,
even so when aggregates are present,
there's the convention of living being.

For only stress is what comes to be;
stress, what remains & falls away.
Nothing but stress comes to be.
Nothing ceases but stress.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Mike

[daverupa]

But this is hardly two truths - it is avijja, or it is vijja. What are two truths, here?

[mikenz66]

But this is hardly two truths - it is avijja, or it is vijja. What are two truths, here?

I just see it as two ways of describing experience. Beings as opposed to khandhas, etc.

The concept of a being is still usefully used in the Suttas: Beings do this and that that, get reborn as this and that...


Mike

[DNS]

I have not posted in the "two truths" threads up to now, since it is not a burning issue for me, but thought I would add my opinion now and perhaps, hopefully, some balance.

A little about my background for my views: I am Suttanta, a Sutta-Wallah, Suttanika and my teacher is Suttanta.

I have the highest regard for the Suttas and about equally as high a regard for the Vinaya; a high regard for the Abhidhamma and Commentaries, but not nearly to the same status or level as the Suttas and Vinaya.

In spite of my Suttanta position, I find the two-truths to be helpful, for example, as Mike has shown in regard to 'what is a being'. In language we often refer to I, us, we, etc. which is conventional truth. Are those opposed to the two-truths concept saying that there are not some ultimate truths and some conventional truths? Or is the argument more over that there are no ultimate truths?

If it is simply because it is not explicitly stated in the Suttas (and no other reason), then that could be a literalist view which is at odds with:

“Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata.”

Anguttara Nikaya 2.25

In regard to the divide between Sutta-Wallahs and Classical Mahaviharas, I think the Middle Way is best, as eloquently put by Bhikkhu Bodhi:

Bhikkhu Bodhi from an interview with Inquiring Mind:

"To be brief, I would say there are two extreme attitudes one could take to the commentaries. One, often adopted by orthodox Theravadins, is to regard them as being absolutely authoritative almost on a par with the suttas. The other is to disregard them completely and claim they represent 'a different take on the Dhamma.' I find that a prudent middle ground is to consult the commentaries and use them, but without clinging to them. Their interpretations are often illuminating, but we should also recognize that they represent a specific systematization of the early teaching. They are by no means necessitated by the early teaching, and on some points even seem to be in tension with it."

Bhikkhu Bodhi is cool.

[daverupa]

Beings as opposed to khandhas, etc.

So "a being" is conventionally true, and "the khandas" are ultimately true, but they're talking about the same thing? Is that it? I don't think I understand how you're making this distinction, yet.

Hmm... if I could simply check something: the Dhamma doesn't deny individuality, it denies identity. Unless I'm mistaken, it seems the two truths idea is trying to explain this difference, but I don't think it does a good job of it...

Because understanding the difference hasn't got a thing to do with bhavana. Seeing this difference is a result, it's the fetter of sakkāyaditthi that drops upon stream-entry. Understanding it intellectually is a debating skill that can actually hamper the practical eradication of the fetter because one thinks one sees what one does not, in fact, see. Satipatthana is the preferred way of laying the foundation for being able to see this for oneself, but describing it isn't a part of bhavana instruction.

It's not part of Satipatthana instruction, Anapanasati instruction, or any such in the Samyutta Nikaya...

[tiltbillings]

Beings as opposed to khandhas, etc.

So "a being" is conventionally true, and "the khandas" are ultimately true, but they're talking about the same thing? Is that it? I don't think I understand how you're making this distinction, yet.

The question here is, then, what is meant by "conventional and "ultimate."

[daverupa]

Beings as opposed to khandhas, etc.

So "a being" is conventionally true, and "the khandas" are ultimately true, but they're talking about the same thing? Is that it? I don't think I understand how you're making this distinction, yet.

The question here is, then, what is meant by "conventional and "ultimate."

Yeah, I was hoping someone who employs this distinction themselves (I do not) would explain how they use it.

[tiltbillings]

]

Yeah, I was hoping someone who employs this distinction themselves (I do not) would explain how they use it.

That has been done already. It is a way of talking about the same thing from differing perspectives, and taking the commentarial passage I quoted elsewhere as the touchstone, one not being truer than the other, both separately or together leading to awakening.

[daverupa]

It is a way of talking about the same thing from differing perspectives,

Yeah, that's what I thought. A way of talking, not a way of meditating. So if using the two truths idea, one isn't meditating, one is talking to oneself.

[mikenz66]

Yeah, I was hoping someone who employs this distinction themselves (I do not) would explain how they use it.

I thought I did that. I don't really have anything to add. If it's not clear then feel free to ignore it.

... that's what I thought. A way of talking, not a way of meditating. So if using the two truths idea, one isn't meditating, one is talking to oneself about the Dhamma. That's how it looks from here.

And, as I tried to explain by quoting various suttas, it's not how it looks from here.

I therefore apologise for my poor and inadequate explanation.


Mike

[tiltbillings]

It is a way of talking about the same thing from differing perspectives,

Yeah, that's what I thought. A way of talking, not a way of meditating. So if using the two truths idea, one isn't meditating, one is talking to oneself about the Dhamma. That's how it looks from here.

Sadly, that is a rather myopically one-eyed way of looking at things. When one does the practice, bhavana is the central aspect of practice, but studying and understanding the Buddha's word is not without its importance as a guidance and framework for the bhavana.

[tiltbillings]

Also, keep in mind, daverupa, no one here is saying that you must, to truly understand the Dhamma, look at things this way or that.

[Alex123]

Hello Mike, all,

In which sutta does it say that a concept is an object of mind-conciousness?

And in which sutta does the Buddha splits concepts vs reality and teaches which is which?

In which sutta does the Buddha say that concepts are or are not object of mind-consciousness?


With best wishes,

Alex