A little information for consideration:
Digha Nikaya trans. By Maurice Walshe
On p.31 in his Introduction, Walshe states:
"An important and often overlooked aspect of the Buddhist teaching concerns the levels of truth, failure to appreciate which has led to many errors (see n.220).
Very often the Buddha talks in the Suttas in terms of conventional or relative truth (sammuti- or vohaara-sacca), according to which people and things exist just as they appear to the naive understanding.
Elsewhere, however, when addressing an audience capable of appreciating his meaning, he speaks in terms of ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca), according to which 'existence is a mere process of physical and mental phenomena within which, or beyond which, no real ego-entity nor any abiding substance can ever be found' (Buddhist Dictionary under Paramattha).
In the Abhidhamma, the entire exposition is in terms of ultimate truth. It may also be observed that many 'Zen paradoxes' and the like realyl owe their puzzling character to their being put in terms of ultimate, not of relative truth.
The full understanding of ultimate truth can, of course, only be gained by profound insight, but it is possible to become increasingly aware of the distinction.
There would seem in fact to be a close parallel in modern times in the difference between our naive world-view and that of the physicist, both points of view having their use in their own sphere. Thus, conventionally speaking, or according to the naive world-view, there are solid objects such as tables and chairs, whereas according to physics the alleged solidity is seen to be an illusion, and whatever might turn out to be the ultimate nature of matter, it is certainly something very different from that which presents itself to our senses. However, when the physicist is off duty, he or she makes use of solid tables and chairs just like everyone else.
In the same way, all such expressions as 'I', 'self' and so on are always in accordance with conventional truth, and the Buddha never hesitated to use the word attaa 'self' (and also with plural meaning: 'yourselves', etc.) in its conventional and convenient sense. In fact, despite all that has been urged to the contrary, there is not the slightest evidence that he ever used it in any other sense except when critically quoting the views of others, as should clearly emerge from several of the Suttas here translated.
In point of fact, it should be stressed that conventional truth is sometimes extremely important. The whole doctrine of karma and rebirth has its validity only in the realm of conventional truth. That is why, by liberating ourselves from the view point of conventional truth we cease to be subject to karmic law. Objections to the idea of rebirth in Buddhism, too, are sometimes based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the two truths. As long as we are unenlightened 'worldlings', our minds habitually operate in terms of 'me' and 'mine', even if in theory we know better. It is not until this tendency has been completely eradicated that full enlilghtenment can dawn.
At Samyutta Nikaaya 22.89 the Venerable Khemaka who is a Non-Returner, explains how 'the subtle remnant of the 'I'-conceit, or the 'I'-desire, an unextirpated lurking tendency to think: 'I am', still persists even at that advanced stage."
"these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations
in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without
A important reference to the two truths referred to in DA as ‘conventional speech’ (samuti-katha) and ‘ultimately true speech’ (paramattha-katha). See Introduction, p.31f. It is important to be aware of the level of truth at which any statements are made. In MA (ad MN5: Anangana Sutta), the following verse is quoted (source unknown): Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, Declared:
Conventional and ultimate – no third can be,
Terms agreed are true by usage of the world;
Words of ultimate significance are true
In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher,
Who’s skilled in this world’s speech, can use
It, and not lie.
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---