Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
Gena1480
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:36 am

Re: Double Truth aka Two Truths

Post by Gena1480 »

the way the Buddha teaches is not divided in two
Buddha teachings are great at the begging
Buddha teachings are great at the middle
Buddha teachings are great at the end.
dividing the teaching into two different classes
can cause schism in the Sangha
the Buddha does not teach the path to immortality (immortality is a view of eternalism) which is wrong view
that is my view
metta
Last edited by Gena1480 on Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Double Truth aka Two Truths

Post by tiltbillings »

Gena1480 wrote:the way the Buddha teaches is not divided in two
And the Double Truth notion does not divide the teaching in two. It is just an acknowledgement that there are two broad ways of talking about the same thing.
Gena1480 wrote: the Buddha does not teach the path to immortally (immortality is a view of eternalism) which is wrong view
that is my view
The word here is like likely amata, one of the epithets for nibbana. Best to criticize what you understand, not what you do not.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by Nyana »

retrofuturist wrote:I am criticising needless papanca, and the reification of that papanca.
Ven. Ñāṇananda criticized the two truth theory with a few more words before similarly dismissing it. In his Concept and Reality In Early Buddhist Thought, pp. 44-45:
  • [T]he word ‘paramattha’ in its earlier and non-technical usage, actually meant the Highest Goal as the object of realization, and any words tending towards that goal were called ‘paramatthasaṃhita’ (connected with the Highest Goal), irrespective of their precision or technicality. However, the Buddha, for his part, was content to treat all of them as ‘sammuti’. For him, they were ‘merely worldly conventions in common use, which he made use of, without clinging to them’ (DN I 202, Poṭṭhapāda Sutta).

    One wonders whether this simple though profound attitude of the Buddha towards concepts, has been properly handed down in tradition, when for instance one comes across the following verse quoted approvingly by Buddhaghosa (source unknown) in his commentary to the Anaṅgaṇa Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya:

    Duve saccāni akkhāsi, sambuddho vadataṃ varo;
    sammutiṃ paramatthañca, tatiyaṃ nūpalabbhati.
    Saṅketavacanaṃ saccaṃ, lokasammutikāraṇā;
    paramatthavacanaṃ saccaṃ, dhammānaṃ bhūtakāraṇā.
    Tasmā vohārakusalassa, lokanāthassa satthuno;
    sammutiṃ voharantassa, musāvādo na jāyati.

    If one can appreciate the significance of the term ‘nippapañca,’ one might realize that the Buddha could magnanimously afford to dispense with such naïve defenses as the above, against any charges of his having violated the fourth precept.
And also, in his The Mind Stilled, Nibbāna Sermon 13:
  • [Nibbāna] is not a paramattha in the sense of an absolute. It is a paramattha only in the sense that it is the highest good, parama attha. This is the sense in which the word was used in the discourses, though it has different connotations now. As exemplified by such quotations as āraddhaviriyo paramatthapattiyā, "with steadfast energy for the attainment of the highest good," the suttas speak of Nibbāna as the highest good to be attained.

    In later Buddhist thought, however, the word paramattha came to acquire absolutist connotations, due to which some important discourses of the Buddha on the question of worldly appellations, worldly expressions and worldly designations fell into disuse. This led to an attitude of dwelling in the scaffolding, improvised just for the purpose of constructing a building....

    t is not proper to relegate some sermons as discursive or conventional in style. Always it is a case of using concepts in worldly parlance. In the laboratory one uses a particular set of symbols, but on returning home he uses another. In the same way, it is not possible to earmark a particular bundle of concepts as absolute and unchangeable. As stated in the Poṭṭhapādasutta, already discussed, all these concepts are worldly appellations, worldly expressions, worldly usages, worldly designations, which the Tathāgata makes use of without tenacious grasping. However philosophical or technical the terminology may be, the arahants make use of it without grasping it tenaciously. What is of importance is the function it fulfills. We should make use of the conceptual scaffolding only for the purpose of putting up the building. As the building comes up, the scaffolding has to leave. It has to be dismantled. If one simply clings onto the scaffolding, the building would never come up.

retrofuturist wrote:See the anicca in all sankhara (incl. papanca), see the dukkha in that which is anicca, see anatta in that which is dukkha... abandonment, dispassion, cessation.

Indeed. Sustained recognition of impermanence will eventually shred all philosophical views.
User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Double Truth aka Two Truths

Post by DarwidHalim »

Gena1480 wrote:the way the Buddha teaches is not divided in two
Buddha teachings are great at the begging
Buddha teachings are great at the middle
Buddha teachings are great at the end.
dividing the teaching into two different classes
can cause schism in the Sangha
the Buddha does not teach the path to immortality (immortality is a view of eternalism) which is wrong view
that is my view
metta
Two truth or Double truth or whatever it is, will not cause the buddha teaching to be divided into two classes and cause schism in the Sangha. :rofl:

I think Sangha will in fact say thank you to this 2 truths. :rofl:
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:I am criticising needless papanca, and the reification of that papanca.
Ven. Ñāṇananda criticized the two truth theory with a few more words before similarly dismissing it. In his Concept and Reality In Early Buddhist Thought, pp. 44-45:
  • [T]he word ‘paramattha’ in its earlier and non-technical usage, actually meant the Highest Goal as the object of realization, and any words tending towards that goal were called ‘paramatthasaṃhita’ (connected with the Highest Goal), irrespective of their precision or technicality. However, the Buddha, for his part, was content to treat all of them as ‘sammuti’. For him, they were ‘merely worldly conventions in common use, which he made use of, without clinging to them’ (DN I 202, Poṭṭhapāda Sutta).
Dismnissed it? Not so clear that he really did. He certainly dismissed taking ‘paramattha’ as meaning some sort of absolute, which is fine. That really does not need to touch the double truth notion in general. One does not have to look very hard to see that there are differing ways within the suttas to say the same sort of thing, and the general division outlined by the double truth notion as outlined here is workable and can be useful a tool of investigation.

Is it needless papanca, word that all too often gets heedlessly thrown about here as a way of trying shut down any disagreement? I suppose, as it is with any Dhamma notion, it could be, but the double truth notion could also help prevent a lot of the mistakes we see made by taking the conventional language or the more percise langugae too seiously, without balance. As for reification of the double truth notion, there has been nothing to support that accusation of anyone here who finds the double truth notion useful. This unsupported accusation itself seems to be guilty of the very accusation it is making.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:He certainly dismissed taking ‘paramattha’ as meaning some sort of absolute, which is fine. That really does not need to touch the double truth notion in general.
Dhammas are mere designation (paññattimatta). The classical Mahāvihāra two truth hermeneutic is deeply flawed -- resulting in either an eternalistic or nihilistic view. We see variations on these extremes playing out all over this forum and amongst many Theravāda teachers as well. The aggregates are not to be taken as "the given." Nor is contact, etc. Nibbāna is the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion. End of story.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Ñāṇa wrote:Dhammas are mere designation (paññattimatta).
Well said, Geoff... all sankhata dhammas (i.e. all dhammas other than the unconditioned - nibbana) arise due to ignorance. To take self-appointed designations rooted in avijja as some variety of higher order of truth, is akin to regarding loka as that which 'exists' and foresaking the Dhamma (that teaches down the middle) in the process.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:He certainly dismissed taking ‘paramattha’ as meaning some sort of absolute, which is fine. That really does not need to touch the double truth notion in general.
Dhammas are mere designation (paññattimatta). The classical Mahāvihāra two truth hermeneutic is deeply flawed --
Maybe it is, but you have not yet shown it to be the case. And that dhammas are mere designation need not touch the double truth notion in a negative way -- anyway, not that you or anyone else here has shown.
We see variations on these extremes playing out all over this forum and amongst many Theravāda teachers as well.
It is easy to say but if you are unwilling to actually back it up, there is nothing here to take sertiously.
he aggregates are not to be taken as "the given." Nor is contact, etc. Nibbāna is the elimination of passion, aggression, and delusion. End of story.
I do not disagree with that, but you have yet to show that this has anything to do with anything. Let us have little bit more than crap on the commentaries and crap on Buddhaghosa.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,
Ñāṇa wrote:Dhammas are mere designation (paññattimatta).
Well said, Geoff... all sankhata dhammas (i.e. all dhammas other than the unconditioned - nibbana) arise due to ignorance. To take self-appointed designations rooted in avijja as some variety of higher order of truth, is akin to regarding loka as that which 'exists' and foresaking the Dhamma (that teaches down the middle) in the process.
That would be a problem, but luckily that is not what the double truth business is about.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:That would be a problem, but luckily that is not what the double truth business is about.
What is the differentiation then, in your words? Is one set of designations somehow 'less designated' than the other?

There is the designated, and the undesignated.
SN 22.3 (Bodhi translation) wrote:And how, householder, does one roam about without abode? Diffusion and confinement in the abode [consisting in] the sign of forms: these have been abandoned by the Tathagata, cut off at the root, made like a palm stump, obliterated so that they are no more subject to future arising. (so on with the sign of odours, sign of tastes, sign of tactile objects, sign of mental phenomena).
"Not the least of the dangers of the facile and fallacious notion 'truth in the highest sense' is its power to lull the unreflecting mind into a false sense of security. The unwary thinker comes to believe that he understands what, in fact, he does not understand, and thereby effectively blocks his own progress."
~Nanavira Thera
All the labels and designations applied are all nama-rupa (i.e. name-form)... and according to the Buddha, nama-rupa is to be extinguished, not cultivated.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
tiltbillings wrote:That would be a problem, but luckily that is not what the double truth business is about.
What is the differentiation then, in your words? Is one set of designations somehow 'less designated' than the other?
Did you read the quote I gave in the Classical Theravada section? There is no sense in that commentarial quote one is higher than the other; rather, it is different ways of talking about the same thing -- one way is not better than the other. As I have said before, I have no idea what you think the two truth notion is about, since you have refused to say, which makes for contentious dialogue, or no real dialogue at all (and it is not for the lack of asking).
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Nyana
Posts: 2233
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by Nyana »

tiltbillings wrote:And that dhammas are mere designation need not touch the double truth notion in a negative way
The two truth theory explicitly attempts to set up a substantial and real division between mere designation (paññattimatta) and ultimate things (paramattha dhammā) which are posited as established independent of cognitions. This is the reification which creates all sorts of unnecessary problems.
tiltbillings wrote:It is easy to say but if you are unwilling to actually back it up, there is nothing here to take sertiously.
This has already been discussed at length, but it seems that you have a penchant for endless argumentation ad nausium. Ñāṇananda, Noa Ronkin, and others have extensively shown that the Suttapiṭaka and the Abhidhammapiṭaka don't teach a two truth theory. It's an unnecessary complication. In short, it's mental proliferation.
tiltbillings wrote:I do not disagree with that, but you have yet to show that this has anything to do with anything.
It's pretty simple really: The basis for all designations is merely appearances as they appear to non-impaired cognitions. Therefore, conventions are accepted, but without any misguided attempt to ultimately establish or prove anything. And by learning to rest the mind in this absence of reification (by uniting samatha & vipassanā), one realizes the complete pacification of mental proliferation (nippapañca), which is synonymous with nibbāna (i.e. the total extinguishment of passion, aggression, & delusion).
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Tilt,
Did you read the quote I gave in the Classical Theravada section?
I will not comment on the quote for I find the comments therein slanderous to the Buddha's teaching, and do not wish to cause undue offence.

Discuss your topic in the sanctuary of the Mahavihara section and I shall not intrude.

:meditate:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

Ñāṇa wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And that dhammas are mere designation need not touch the double truth notion in a negative way
The two truth theory explicitly attempts to set up a substantial and real division between mere designation (paññattimatta) and ultimate things (paramattha dhammā) which are posited as established independent of cognitions. This is the reification which creates all sorts of unnecessary problems.
Show us that is so from Ven Y Karunadasa's essay, since we have that readily at hand.
tiltbillings wrote:It is easy to say but if you are unwilling to actually back it up, there is nothing here to take sertiously.
This has already been discussed at length, but it seems that you have a penchant for endless argumentation ad nausium. Ñāṇananda, Noa Ronkin, and others have extensively shown that the Suttapiṭaka and the Abhidhammapiṭaka don't teach a two truth theory. It's an unnecessary complication. In short, it's mental proliferation.
So you say, but you still have not shown it to be so.
tiltbillings wrote:I do not disagree with that, but you have yet to show that this has anything to do with anything.
It's pretty simple really: The basis for all designations is merely appearances as they appear to non-impaired cognitions. Therefore, conventions are accepted, but without any misguided attempt to ultimately establish or prove anything. And by learning to rest the mind in this absence of reification (by uniting samatha & vipassanā), one realizes the complete pacification of mental proliferation (nippapañca), which is synonymous with nibbāna (i.e. the total extinguishment of passion, aggression, & delusion).
Fine; however, that still say not a thing about the double truth notion as quoted in the commentarial passage I quoted.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Two truths theory. Did Buddha teach it?

Post by tiltbillings »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Tilt,
Did you read the quote I gave in the Classical Theravada section?
I will not comment on the quote for I find the comments therein slanderous to the Buddha's teaching, and do not wish to cause undue offence.

Discuss your topic in the sanctuary of the Mahavihara section and I shall not intrude.

:meditate:

Metta,
Retro. :)
Here it is here in all its offensive glory:
Herein references to living beings, gods, Brahma, etc., are sammuti-kathā [“relative truth”], whereas references to impermanence, suffering, egolessness, the aggregates of the empiric individuality, the spheres and elements of sense perception and mind-cognition, bases of mindfulness, right effort, etc., are paramattha-kathā ["highest truth"].

One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of generally accepted conventions, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on sammuti-kathā.

One who is capable of understanding and penetrating to the truth and hoisting the flag of Arahantship when the teaching is set out in terms of ultimate categories, to him the Buddha preaches the doctrine based on paramattha-kathā.

To one who is capable of awakening to the truth through sammuti-kathā , the teaching is not presented on the basis of paramattha-kathā, and conversely, to one who is capable of awakening to the truth through paramattha-kathā, the teaching is not presented on the basis of sammuti-kathā.

There is this simile on this matter: Just as a teacher of the three Vedas who is capable of explaining their meaning in different dialects might teach his pupils, adopting the particular dialect, which each pupil understands, even so the Buddha preaches the doctrine adopting, according to the suitability of the occasion, either the sammuti- or the paramattha-kathā.

It is by taking into consideration the ability of each individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, that the Buddha presents his teaching, either by way of sammuti, or by way of paramattha, or by way of both. Whatever the method adopted the purpose is the same, to show the way to Immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena.
AA. Vol. I, pp.54-55
Do show us us the terrible slanderous nature of this quote.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Locked