A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of Theravāda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
If by "it" you mean the paricular words (paramattha/Sammuti), then yes, those originate in the abhidhamma.daverupa wrote: So it's used a lot in the abhidhamma, and not at all in the SuttaVinaya, is that the gist
Of course, there is discussion of the conventionality of language and such, but in every case the Buddha didn't see fit to explain things using these terms: this specific bifurcation is clearly absent from the Suttas. Therefore, that the later tradition felt the need to introduce them strikes me as intriguing. I'm not certain there is a controversy, but when "two truths" are brought up in the future, I shall be carefully noting the uses to which it is put, and the arguments which rely on it.mikenz66 wrote:If by "it" you mean the paricular words (paramattha/Sammuti), then yes, those originate in the abhidhamma.
To me the basic ideas are very clear in the suttas, so I can't actually see why there should be any controversy...
Metta,SN 56.31 wrote:...why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.
I am not talking about discussion of the conventionality of language, I'm talking about the way experience is described is quite different ways.daverupa wrote:Of course, there is discussion of the conventionality of language and such, but in every case the Buddha didn't see fit to explain things using these terms: this specific bifurcation is clearly absent from the Suttas.mikenz66 wrote:If by "it" you mean the paricular words (paramattha/Sammuti), then yes, those originate in the abhidhamma.
To me the basic ideas are very clear in the suttas, so I can't actually see why there should be any controversy...
Where you see ultimate truth and conventional truth, I see simile and metaphor.mikenz66 wrote: Since you've not addressed...
Let's investigate this "two truths" idea, to see what sorts of things it supports.tiltbillings wrote:And it is not at all clear what rertro and daverupa are talking about.
The bold portion I agree with: appropriate and carefully tempered conceptual tools are indeed greatly faciliatory.Nyanaponika Thera wrote: The Suttas, serving mainly the purpose of offering guidance for the actual daily life of the disciple, are mostly (though not entirely) couched in terms of conventional language (//vohara-vacana//), making reference to persons, their qualities, possessions, etc. In the Abhidhamma, this Sutta terminology is turned into correct functional forms of thought, which accord with the true 'impersonal' and everchanging nature of actuality; and in that strict, or highest, sense (//paramattha//) the main tenets of the Dhamma are explained.
While vague definitions and loosely used terms are like blunt tools unfit to do the work they are meant for, while concepts based on wrong notions will necessarily beg the question to be scrutinized and will thus prejudice the issue, the use of appropriate and carefully tempered conceptual tools will greatly facilitate the quest for liberating knowledge, and is an indispensable condition of success in that quest.
Hence the fact that Abhidhamma literature is a rich source of exact terminology, is a feature not to be underestimated.
SN 16.13 wrote:But there is no disappearance of the true Dhamma, Kassapa, till a counterfeit Dhamma arises in the world; but when a counterfeit Dhamma arises, then there is a disappearance of the true Dhamma, just as there is no disappearing of gold so long as no counterfeit gold has arisen in the world...
What seems odd to me is that, for all the bluster about the sutta-vinaya there seems to be little effort to discuss the suttas themselves.tiltbillings wrote:And it is not at all clear what rertro and daverupa are talking about.
Which parts are the similes and metaphors: the khandhas/sense bases/elements or the "beings"?daverupa wrote: Where you see ultimate truth and conventional truth, I see simile and metaphor.
An alternative terminology that means basically the same to me. Truths, frames of reference, modes of description, whatever...retrofuturist wrote:... and I see different frames of reference...
Would you, now, be kind enough to tell us what you think the two truth notion is saying that you think that the Buddha would reject it, as you just tried to imply?retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
"Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?" (OP question)
“Truth is one and there is no second truth.” (Buddha, Sn 884)
So much for that "theory" then... well said, Buddha.
Metta,
Retro.
Still waiting for you to tell us just what the two truth notion actually is saying. The above stuff from Ven Nyanaponika does not do that. Basically, with the Ven N quote you are trying to tell us how the two truth notion is supposedly applied without telling what it is saying.daverupa wrote:Let's investigate this "two truths" idea, to see what sorts of things it supports. . . .tiltbillings wrote:And it is not at all clear what rertro and daverupa are talking about.