Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths. What can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by Coëmgenu » Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:01 pm

From Ven Jízàng, from Taishō 1854, 二諦義, The Two Truths Exegesis, Scroll 1 @ 81c28:

次說二諦令離二見者。此二諦竝是失。何者。爲著有衆生說第一義。爲著空衆生說世諦。此有無竝是衆生所著。是故皆失也。次說二悟不二。此二諦竝得。何者。因二悟不二。二卽是理教。不二卽是教理。二卽中假。不二卽假中。二卽體用。不二卽用體。

It is time to speak of two truths made of the difference of two views. These two truths equally are missed. How? To those who grasp at existence, sentient beings, speak the absolute truth. To those who grasp at emptiness, sentient beings, speak the relative truth. In this way through is and is not equally sentient beings are grasping. Consequently all misconceive. It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two. These two truths equally attained. How? Because these two comprehensions are not two. Two is the principle's teaching. Not two is the teaching's principle. Two is the middle's designation. Not two is the designation's middle. Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.


I find this part particularly interesting: 二卽體用。不二卽用體。("Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.")

Thoughts? Makes sense? Common sense? Too far? Gibberish?
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.

吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

User avatar
JamesTheGiant
Posts: 330
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2015 8:41 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by JamesTheGiant » Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:40 pm

It's probably simple, if expressed in plain language. But it's presented so obscurely as to be almost impossible to understand.
Just like Zen often deliberately makes things more difficult than they need to be. What could be clearly explained in a paragraph, is instead compressed into an impenetrable sentance, which needs to be parsed and explained.
I really like how Theravada tries to be plain-language, and as clear as possible. For the common people, instead of directed at buddhist scholars and monks who know a specialised language and way of reading.

Saengnapha
Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:13 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:01 pm
From Ven Jízàng, from Taishō 1854, 二諦義, The Two Truths Exegesis, Scroll 1 @ 81c28:

次說二諦令離二見者。此二諦竝是失。何者。爲著有衆生說第一義。爲著空衆生說世諦。此有無竝是衆生所著。是故皆失也。次說二悟不二。此二諦竝得。何者。因二悟不二。二卽是理教。不二卽是教理。二卽中假。不二卽假中。二卽體用。不二卽用體。

It is time to speak of two truths made of the difference of two views. These two truths equally are missed. How? To those who grasp at existence, sentient beings, speak the absolute truth. To those who grasp at emptiness, sentient beings, speak the relative truth. In this way through is and is not equally sentient beings are grasping. Consequently all misconceive. It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two. These two truths equally attained. How? Because these two comprehensions are not two. Two is the principle's teaching. Not two is the teaching's principle. Two is the middle's designation. Not two is the designation's middle. Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.


I find this part particularly interesting: 二卽體用。不二卽用體。("Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.")

Thoughts? Makes sense? Common sense? Too far? Gibberish?
Zen and Chan dialectic took the Mahayana teachings of two truths, relative and ultimate truth, and labeled them function or characteristic, and essence. Essence is not describable. Function is what we can see and experience.

chownah
Posts: 7327
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by chownah » Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:34 am

I think there is always a translation problem when "ultimate" or "absolute" is used as a modifier for the word "truth"....or maybe it is not the translation but the way people interpret those words.

The truth is something which is known....we say "do you know the truth?". Truth is a kind of knowledge. As a kind of knowledge it is conditioned....its meaning is derived from the mental constructs from which it is realized.

I think it is better to use the terms "worldly truth" and "phenomonological truth" if one wants to talk about the two most common kinds of truths....thus it would be seen that one truth deals with mental constructs based on the view of the world and one deals with truth with mental constructs based on phenomena. Maybe "pheomonological truth" could be called "experiential truth" or "inner truth" or "spiritual truth" or (etc.) to suite various people's way of identifying that realm which is seperate from the usual worldly view.
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:38 am

chownah wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:34 am
I think there is always a translation problem when "ultimate" or "absolute" is used as a modifier for the word "truth"....or maybe it is not the translation but the way people interpret those words.

The truth is something which is known....we say "do you know the truth?". Truth is a kind of knowledge. As a kind of knowledge it is conditioned....its meaning is derived from the mental constructs from which it is realized.

I think it is better to use the terms "worldly truth" and "phenomonological truth" if one wants to talk about the two most common kinds of truths....thus it would be seen that one truth deals with mental constructs based on the view of the world and one deals with truth with mental constructs based on phenomena. Maybe "pheomonological truth" could be called "experiential truth" or "inner truth" or "spiritual truth" or (etc.) to suite various people's way of identifying that realm which is seperate from the usual worldly view.
chownah
Relative and Ultimate are good words for me. Most of the texts use this terminology to explain things. Of course, they can be changed to suit one's temperament. Ultimate truths are not 'knowable' in the sense of experiential truths where one uses logic and mental processes to induce and infer. There is enough literature to keep one busy for many lifetimes if you are on the path of accumulating knowledge, which some think is the way. In Mahayana, the ultimate is not really discussed because of its 'unknowability'. Only the relative is broken down and shown to be the way things are.

chownah
Posts: 7327
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by chownah » Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:16 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:38 am
chownah wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:34 am
I think there is always a translation problem when "ultimate" or "absolute" is used as a modifier for the word "truth"....or maybe it is not the translation but the way people interpret those words.

The truth is something which is known....we say "do you know the truth?". Truth is a kind of knowledge. As a kind of knowledge it is conditioned....its meaning is derived from the mental constructs from which it is realized.

I think it is better to use the terms "worldly truth" and "phenomonological truth" if one wants to talk about the two most common kinds of truths....thus it would be seen that one truth deals with mental constructs based on the view of the world and one deals with truth with mental constructs based on phenomena. Maybe "pheomonological truth" could be called "experiential truth" or "inner truth" or "spiritual truth" or (etc.) to suite various people's way of identifying that realm which is seperate from the usual worldly view.
chownah
Relative and Ultimate are good words for me. Most of the texts use this terminology to explain things. Of course, they can be changed to suit one's temperament. Ultimate truths are not 'knowable' in the sense of experiential truths where one uses logic and mental processes to induce and infer. There is enough literature to keep one busy for many lifetimes if you are on the path of accumulating knowledge, which some think is the way. In Mahayana, the ultimate is not really discussed because of its 'unknowability'. Only the relative is broken down and shown to be the way things are.
If there is any way that one can know the truth then it is knowable. If "ultimate truths" are knowable in some way other than where one "uses logic and mental processes to induce and infer" then "ultimate truths" are knowable. If someone knows the ultimate truth then it is knowledge regardless of how that truth was arrived at....have you noticed how "know", "what is known", and "knowledge" all have something in common?
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:52 am

chownah wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:16 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:38 am
chownah wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:34 am
I think there is always a translation problem when "ultimate" or "absolute" is used as a modifier for the word "truth"....or maybe it is not the translation but the way people interpret those words.

The truth is something which is known....we say "do you know the truth?". Truth is a kind of knowledge. As a kind of knowledge it is conditioned....its meaning is derived from the mental constructs from which it is realized.

I think it is better to use the terms "worldly truth" and "phenomonological truth" if one wants to talk about the two most common kinds of truths....thus it would be seen that one truth deals with mental constructs based on the view of the world and one deals with truth with mental constructs based on phenomena. Maybe "pheomonological truth" could be called "experiential truth" or "inner truth" or "spiritual truth" or (etc.) to suite various people's way of identifying that realm which is seperate from the usual worldly view.
chownah
Relative and Ultimate are good words for me. Most of the texts use this terminology to explain things. Of course, they can be changed to suit one's temperament. Ultimate truths are not 'knowable' in the sense of experiential truths where one uses logic and mental processes to induce and infer. There is enough literature to keep one busy for many lifetimes if you are on the path of accumulating knowledge, which some think is the way. In Mahayana, the ultimate is not really discussed because of its 'unknowability'. Only the relative is broken down and shown to be the way things are.
If there is any way that one can know the truth then it is knowable. If "ultimate truths" are knowable in some way other than where one "uses logic and mental processes to induce and infer" then "ultimate truths" are knowable. If someone knows the ultimate truth then it is knowledge regardless of how that truth was arrived at....have you noticed how "know", "what is known", and "knowledge" all have something in common?
chownah
For me, such speculation leads nowhere.

chownah
Posts: 7327
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by chownah » Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:37 am

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:52 am
chownah wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:16 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 5:38 am

Relative and Ultimate are good words for me. Most of the texts use this terminology to explain things. Of course, they can be changed to suit one's temperament. Ultimate truths are not 'knowable' in the sense of experiential truths where one uses logic and mental processes to induce and infer. There is enough literature to keep one busy for many lifetimes if you are on the path of accumulating knowledge, which some think is the way. In Mahayana, the ultimate is not really discussed because of its 'unknowability'. Only the relative is broken down and shown to be the way things are.
If there is any way that one can know the truth then it is knowable. If "ultimate truths" are knowable in some way other than where one "uses logic and mental processes to induce and infer" then "ultimate truths" are knowable. If someone knows the ultimate truth then it is knowledge regardless of how that truth was arrived at....have you noticed how "know", "what is known", and "knowledge" all have something in common?
chownah
For me, such speculation leads nowhere.
This is less speculation and more the meaning of the english language. Knowledge is "things that are knowable". If you know a truth then that truth is knowledge.

So, tell me something about your idea about what the "ultimate truth" is or does....is it possible to know the ultimate truth?
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by Saengnapha » Sat Apr 07, 2018 2:41 pm

chownah wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 10:37 am
Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:52 am
chownah wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:16 am

If there is any way that one can know the truth then it is knowable. If "ultimate truths" are knowable in some way other than where one "uses logic and mental processes to induce and infer" then "ultimate truths" are knowable. If someone knows the ultimate truth then it is knowledge regardless of how that truth was arrived at....have you noticed how "know", "what is known", and "knowledge" all have something in common?
chownah
For me, such speculation leads nowhere.
This is less speculation and more the meaning of the english language. Knowledge is "things that are knowable". If you know a truth then that truth is knowledge.

So, tell me something about your idea about what the "ultimate truth" is or does....is it possible to know the ultimate truth?
chownah
It is not my 'idea' that means anything relative to ultimate truth. Let's take Nibbana. All ideas will fall short of what it is and its description, if it exists. Since men like the Buddha have somehow come face to face with truth throughout history, we try to imagine what it is. It is not a 'thing', that is for sure and it is not a bit of knowledge. I don't think it is possible to 'know' ultimate truth since the experiencer, the knower seems to absent in cases like the Buddha and UG, amongst others. We can only know relative truth, seeing things the way they are. They say ultimate truth is not different from this, yet not the same. Nothing wrong with being literal.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:13 pm

JamesTheGiant wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:40 pm
It's probably simple, if expressed in plain language. But it's presented so obscurely as to be almost impossible to understand.
Its rather funny. I am the translator, and I found myself trying my best to go out of the way to try to copy the simple sparsity of the Chinese source text. Alas, if there is issue with the wording, it is likely my own fault! :spy:
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.

吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

User avatar
Coëmgenu
Posts: 1715
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:55 pm
Location: Whitby, Canada

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by Coëmgenu » Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:23 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Sat Apr 07, 2018 4:13 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:01 pm
From Ven Jízàng, from Taishō 1854, 二諦義, The Two Truths Exegesis, Scroll 1 @ 81c28:

次說二諦令離二見者。此二諦竝是失。何者。爲著有衆生說第一義。爲著空衆生說世諦。此有無竝是衆生所著。是故皆失也。次說二悟不二。此二諦竝得。何者。因二悟不二。二卽是理教。不二卽是教理。二卽中假。不二卽假中。二卽體用。不二卽用體。

It is time to speak of two truths made of the difference of two views. These two truths equally are missed. How? To those who grasp at existence, sentient beings, speak the absolute truth. To those who grasp at emptiness, sentient beings, speak the relative truth. In this way through is and is not equally sentient beings are grasping. Consequently all misconceive. It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two. These two truths equally attained. How? Because these two comprehensions are not two. Two is the principle's teaching. Not two is the teaching's principle. Two is the middle's designation. Not two is the designation's middle. Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.


I find this part particularly interesting: 二卽體用。不二卽用體。("Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.")

Thoughts? Makes sense? Common sense? Too far? Gibberish?
Zen and Chan dialectic took the Mahayana teachings of two truths, relative and ultimate truth, and labeled them function or characteristic, and essence. Essence is not describable. Function is what we can see and experience.
This is an earlier source than this discourse you are describing. Ven Jizang predates these movements. But these later movements are hugely indebted this subschool of Madhyamaka. IMO Zen inherits this Madhyamaka discourse by way of influence from Tiantai.

He is speaking of the relation of two truths. An absolute relation and a provisional relation. Two modalities of relation produce a function's essence and an essence's function. Very interesting.
世尊在靈山會上拈華示眾眾皆默然唯迦葉破顏微笑世尊云
The Lord dwelt at the Vulture Peak with the assembly and plucked a flower as a teaching. The myriad totality were silent, save for Kāśyapa, whose face cracked in a faint smile. The Lord spoke.

吾有正法眼藏涅槃妙心實相無相微妙法門不立文字教外別傳付囑摩訶迦葉。
I have the treasure of the true dharma eye, I have nirvāṇa as wondrous citta, I know signless dharmatā, the subtle dharma-gate, which is not standing on written word, which is external to scriptures, which is a special dispensation, which is entrusted to Mahākāśyapa.

chownah
Posts: 7327
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by chownah » Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:37 am

Coëmgenu wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:01 pm
From Ven Jízàng, from Taishō 1854, 二諦義, The Two Truths Exegesis, Scroll 1 @ 81c28:

次說二諦令離二見者。此二諦竝是失。何者。爲著有衆生說第一義。爲著空衆生說世諦。此有無竝是衆生所著。是故皆失也。次說二悟不二。此二諦竝得。何者。因二悟不二。二卽是理教。不二卽是教理。二卽中假。不二卽假中。二卽體用。不二卽用體。

It is time to speak of two truths made of the difference of two views. These two truths equally are missed. How? To those who grasp at existence, sentient beings, speak the absolute truth. To those who grasp at emptiness, sentient beings, speak the relative truth. In this way through is and is not equally sentient beings are grasping. Consequently all misconceive. It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two. These two truths equally attained. How? Because these two comprehensions are not two. Two is the principle's teaching. Not two is the teaching's principle. Two is the middle's designation. Not two is the designation's middle. Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.


I find this part particularly interesting: 二卽體用。不二卽用體。("Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.")

Thoughts? Makes sense? Common sense? Too far? Gibberish?
The part I can relate to the most is:
Consequently all misconceive. It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two. These two truths equally attained. How? Because these two comprehensions are not two.
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.
chownah

Saengnapha
Posts: 1188
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by Saengnapha » Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:10 am

chownah wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:37 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:01 pm
From Ven Jízàng, from Taishō 1854, 二諦義, The Two Truths Exegesis, Scroll 1 @ 81c28:

次說二諦令離二見者。此二諦竝是失。何者。爲著有衆生說第一義。爲著空衆生說世諦。此有無竝是衆生所著。是故皆失也。次說二悟不二。此二諦竝得。何者。因二悟不二。二卽是理教。不二卽是教理。二卽中假。不二卽假中。二卽體用。不二卽用體。

It is time to speak of two truths made of the difference of two views. These two truths equally are missed. How? To those who grasp at existence, sentient beings, speak the absolute truth. To those who grasp at emptiness, sentient beings, speak the relative truth. In this way through is and is not equally sentient beings are grasping. Consequently all misconceive. It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two. These two truths equally attained. How? Because these two comprehensions are not two. Two is the principle's teaching. Not two is the teaching's principle. Two is the middle's designation. Not two is the designation's middle. Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.


I find this part particularly interesting: 二卽體用。不二卽用體。("Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.")

Thoughts? Makes sense? Common sense? Too far? Gibberish?
The part I can relate to the most is:
Consequently all misconceive. It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two. These two truths equally attained. How? Because these two comprehensions are not two.
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.
chownah
Please 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
Posts: 7327
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by chownah » Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:56 pm

Saengnapha wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 6:10 am
chownah wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:37 am
Coëmgenu wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:01 pm
From Ven Jízàng, from Taishō 1854, 二諦義, The Two Truths Exegesis, Scroll 1 @ 81c28:

次說二諦令離二見者。此二諦竝是失。何者。爲著有衆生說第一義。爲著空衆生說世諦。此有無竝是衆生所著。是故皆失也。次說二悟不二。此二諦竝得。何者。因二悟不二。二卽是理教。不二卽是教理。二卽中假。不二卽假中。二卽體用。不二卽用體。

It is time to speak of two truths made of the difference of two views. These two truths equally are missed. How? To those who grasp at existence, sentient beings, speak the absolute truth. To those who grasp at emptiness, sentient beings, speak the relative truth. In this way through is and is not equally sentient beings are grasping. Consequently all misconceive. It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two. These two truths equally attained. How? Because these two comprehensions are not two. Two is the principle's teaching. Not two is the teaching's principle. Two is the middle's designation. Not two is the designation's middle. Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.


I find this part particularly interesting: 二卽體用。不二卽用體。("Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.")

Thoughts? Makes sense? Common sense? Too far? Gibberish?
The part I can relate to the most is:
Consequently all misconceive. It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two. These two truths equally attained. How? Because these two comprehensions are not two.
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.
chownah
Please 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.
I'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.

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:
In Madhyamaka the two truths are two epistemological truths: two different ways to look at reality.
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.

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.
chownah

auto
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Venerable Jízàng on the Two Truths

Post by auto » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:07 pm

Coëmgenu wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 11:01 pm
From Ven Jízàng, from Taishō 1854, 二諦義, The Two Truths Exegesis, Scroll 1 @ 81c28:

次說二諦令離二見者。此二諦竝是失。何者。爲著有衆生說第一義。爲著空衆生說世諦。此有無竝是衆生所著。是故皆失也。次說二悟不二。此二諦竝得。何者。因二悟不二。二卽是理教。不二卽是教理。二卽中假。不二卽假中。二卽體用。不二卽用體。

It is time to speak of two truths made of the difference of two views. These two truths equally are missed. How? To those who grasp at existence, sentient beings, speak the absolute truth. To those who grasp at emptiness, sentient beings, speak the relative truth. In this way through is and is not equally sentient beings are grasping. Consequently all misconceive. It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two. These two truths equally attained. How? Because these two comprehensions are not two. Two is the principle's teaching. Not two is the teaching's principle. Two is the middle's designation. Not two is the designation's middle. Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.


I find this part particularly interesting: 二卽體用。不二卽用體。("Two is the essence's function. Not two is the function's essence.")

Thoughts? Makes sense? Common sense? Too far? Gibberish?
....
It is time to speak of two comprehensions which are not two.
i think it refers to four line gatha, diamond sutra.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Sutra

The Buddha continues his exposition with similar statements which use negation to point out the emptiness of phenomena, merit, the Dharma (Buddha's teaching), the stages of enlightenment and the Buddha himself. Japanese Buddhologist, Hajime Nakamura, calls this negation the 'logic of not' (Sanskrit: na prthak).[20] Further examples of the Diamond sutra's via negativa include statements such as:[21]

As far as ‘all dharmas’ are concerned, Subhuti, all of them are dharma-less. That is why they are called ‘all dharmas.’
Those so-called ‘streams of thought,’ Subhuti, have been preached by the Tathagata as streamless. That is why they are called ‘streams of thought.’
‘All beings,’ Subhuti, have been preached by the Tathagata as beingless. That is why they are called ‘all beings.’

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests