Like I said, this is a difficult subject to talk about as there is so much room for interpretation. What I am trying to get at, and it only refers to the ordinary mind that is trying to understand this intellectually, that the only knowable truths are relative ones because that is what the intellect can understand. The system of negation is designed to stop this intellect from settling on a view of both these truths. Intellectually understanding is not the same as realization of emptiness, or lack of inherent being. That state of emptiness is not 'knowable' in the sense of knowing the table is green. It is probably more like 'knowingness', an essence, rather than a subject object experience.chownah wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:56 pmI've been looking around and found alot of stuff talking about absolute truth an ultimate truth and it really does seem that everything I have found seems to be describing it the way I concieve of it. You probably think that I am biased in my search or in my interpretation so I invite you to bring something for us to look at.Saengnapha wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:10 amPlease show us an absolute truth that is knowable and a mental object? Is that what Nibbana is for you? You are trying to make the form fit the function of your mind, but it doesn't. This conventional mind can only know relative things. Thoughts are objects. Absolute truth cannot be an object or a thought. Both dissolve with the senses at death of the body. What is being put forth here is transcendental understanding, which may happen according to some, when the mind is negated. You have not negated anything with a logical refutation. Try reading Nagarjuna or some of the Madhyamaka masters like Chandrakirti. You seem to want to affirm something where the prescribed understanding is through negation. This is a difficult subject to talk about.chownah wrote: ↑Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:37 am
The part I can relate to the most is:
This seems to support what I have been posting so far;;;that is that both truths are just kinds of truth....that is to say, both are what is knowable and are mental objects and it is only the domain of their application which sets them apart from each other.
Here is an example of what I found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine. I don't consider wikipedia to be a great source of information on these sorts of things. There are lots of things not from wikipedia but I brought this one because it relates to your suggestion of a maddhyamaka take on the two truths:Note that epistemological means "relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion."....which I took from a google search. I think this is saying that "truths" are knowledge based or something similar.In Madhyamaka the two truths are two epistemological truths: two different ways to look at reality.
I think that you are using a meaning for "truth" which is not commonly held in buddhism of most types. I think that truth is something that is determined after a period of discernment.....one examines an idea with discernment to determine if it is truth....thus it is a sort of value statement about an idea....thus it is idea based and thus conditioned.
I am not trying to negate your concept that there are things beyond the rational mind....just that they are not in and of themselves thruth.....only that truth is an evaluation of whether those things are actually beyond the rational mind......and that those exact things are not in and of themselves "truth"...."truth" is a value which we ascribe to an idea meant to express that thing which is beyond the rational mind....etc.
If I explain anatta then the explanation is judged as to whether it is true or not.....my explanation is likely to judged true by some and not true by others but the idea of anatta if properly presented and rightly discerned would be judged to be true....but it is the explanation that is the utimate truth and not anatta itself (pun intended)....
as I understand it.
The subject has a lot of interest for me, but I find discussion of it tedious and unproductive because it is just ideas being bandied about. Much better to read the Masters of Madhyamaka as I've suggested.