The Two Truths Doctrine

Discussion in 'Buddhism' started by Meagain, Jul 25, 2006.

  1. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    From time to time in the religion and philosophy forum a question, or debate, arises concerning the nature of truth. In light of this I though I would offer my understanding of truth in the realm of Buddhist philosophy. Please contribute any of your views in support or opposition to the nature of this post, or my understanding of the doctrine presented.

    In Buddhism there are two major ways of viewing truth.

    The first is that truth is relative:

    Relative truth is related to the human perception of reality. This involves experience by the senses. All things that arise, exist, and cease due to their interdependent nature belong in this realm. Because the senses are involved there must be something that senses and something to sense. Sensed objects include all physical objects, thoughts, feelings, and concepts.

    Relative truth must be dualistic in nature.

    The second aspect of truth is that it has an ultimate nature:

    As we explore the world of relative truths we discover the interdependent nature of all things and realize that there can be no actual arising, existing, and ceasing of any particular thing. If all things arise, exist, and cease in relation to each other they have no permanent separate existence and therefore are all part of the same universal flux. Arising, existing, and ceasing are all false concepts, which have no meaning; they are empty.

    Realizing this empty nature is realizing absolute truth.

    But, absolute truth is not a concept and is beyond conception. To conceive of an absolute or ultimate truth would require a concept of truth and someone to conceive that concept, and so any conception of ultimate truth would cause it to fall back into the relative realm.

    All knowledge of absolute truth has to be non-conceptual; 'im-mediate', or without mediator.

    Ultimate truth transends all dualities.

     
    3 people like this.
  2. Hikaru Zero

    Hikaru Zero Sylvan Paladin

    Messages:
    3,235
    Likes Received:
    0
    However, you have just conceptualized it for us. :)
     
  3. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    Yes Zero You are absolutely correct.

    In my understanding the two truths are not seperate. Relative truth exists, if I kick a stone it hurts, and yet the stone, my foot, the hurt, and even myself are all transitory and interdependant; thus in an ultimate sense "one", beyond duality.

    Now since I am in human form I must communicate at the relative level. But the ultimate level, at the same time, exists and on an intellectual level; I know this. how can I communicate what I know? Only by useing the relative tools that I have available to me.
    So, an attempt is made to communicate an "emotional" understanding to the intellect so that the "concept" may be transmitted.

    This is what Budhism describes as the finger pointing to the moon. It is not enough to grasp the intellectual "finger", one must look beyond to the "ultimate" moon.

    This is all related to the many talks we've had concerning facts and truth before. I've been thinking about this for some time and even worked up a thread on truth I was going to post in the general section but it concerned mostly western ideas of truth and facts and I like this better.

    I think this is the same idea in a western format:

    Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.
    Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
    Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me, is true for me. Truth is subjective.
    Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
    Protagoras: Indeed I do.
    Scorates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, then you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
    Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.



     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Hikaru Zero

    Hikaru Zero Sylvan Paladin

    Messages:
    3,235
    Likes Received:
    0
    What is knowing? How can one know this? Is it experiential? I thought all experiences were part of the relative truth and existed in duality? How can one know something that is ultimate, if the mind and faculty of human reason itself does not have access to the ultimate?

    (Pardon my questions they are not meant to attack, only to question -- an argument that can hold up to scrutiny is a good argument ^_^)

    If this is so, why do we differentiate between "fact" and "opinion?"

    Why do we discredit the opinions of others as wrong, or skewed, or even incoherent? They are the truth, are they not?

    If these truths relative to each of us, are in some form skewed or inconsistant with the state of the ultimate underlying reality, should they even be called truths?
     
  5. Posthumous

    Posthumous Resident Smartass

    Messages:
    4,365
    Likes Received:
    0
    Socrates was mocking Protagoras.
     
  6. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    Posthumous,
    Yes, Socrates is, but Protagras has nullified the attack by revealing the ultimate truth of his statement by agreeing to the paradox.

    Zero,
    Hmmm....
    What is knowing....to know there must be something to know and someone to know...so knowing is a dualistic concept.
    The Ultimate level cannot be known, you are correct.

    I'm just pointing with words.
    The words must be ignored.

    All of Buddhism, all of Taoism, Zen, Meditation, etc., etc. are just empty words and concepts designed to point the way to that which can't be known.[​IMG]


    Some people do, some don't

    Truth has different levels. Depending on your view truth may be defined in different ways.

    They may or may not be inconsistant with relative reality. They have no bearing on Ultimate reality at all. Also remember that the two forms of truth, relative and ultimate both exist simutaniously.

    In Buddhism there is another school of thought that defines three truths.
    In the relative realm of truth there can be real truth and illusionary truth. If you see a snake in the middle of the road you will react to the snake by being startled, jumping aside, etc. The snake is indeed real for you and has caused real reactions. However, your friend walking beside you sees the snake as a piece of rope and has no reaction to it.
    Now, in one case the object is an illusionary truth and the other it is a real truth.
    In neither case has Ultimate truth been "revealed".
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. Posthumous

    Posthumous Resident Smartass

    Messages:
    4,365
    Likes Received:
    0
    :D That's ironically funny with respect to this debate. Cause you think Protagras won; I contend Socrates was the victor (plus gave him a good kick in the nuts). Like Socrates, I believe there is ultimate truth, but just as you cannot prove a negative, you cannot prove a positive without question, yet probability lies in the favor of any argument backed by evidence.
     
  8. Art Delfo

    Art Delfo It is dark

    Messages:
    1,214
    Likes Received:
    1
    would the enlightenged being see both his realtive turth and the ultimate truth in full?
     
  9. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    Post,
    Most philosopers I have read give the victory to Socrates. In fact this is the only time I have seen Protagras' final answer to Socky. (That I remember)
    The point is you can't prove anything...I think. At least how can you muster proof of an Ultimate truth that lies beyond all relative truths?

    Art,
    Yes. This is where Buddhist compassion originates.
     
  10. Posthumous

    Posthumous Resident Smartass

    Messages:
    4,365
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice save! :sunglasse

    I think of the truth as pi; it can never be known exactly, but using the correct formula and rigorous calculation, it may be approximated.


    "Buddhas cannot purify your karma with water," referring to the Hindu notion of purifying one's karma by bathing in the River Ganges. Buddha said, "I cannot purify your karma by pouring water from a golden vase, a diamond vase, or whatever vase you have. I cannot purify your karma, your negativities by that means." He said, "I cannot give my realization to you by my hand. I cannot transfer my realization. I don't have that power." However, he also said, "What Buddhas can do is show the path of liberation, the path of enlightenment. It is totally up to you how you walk on this path, how you handle this path."
     
  11. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    what socraties and Protagoras aggreed upon is that individual perception is true for the individual perceiving it. not that what any one person perceives is globaly or universaly true for all or even any, one eles.

    we each of us perceive only with our own perception. whatever else is out there also is out there also. it is only that it is only with our own perception that we perceive it.

    i do not see a conflict or a debate in this.

    this does not mean it is ok to fail to consider the possibility of causing harm, nor the responsibility to attempt to avoid doing so.

    but do we want to avoid causing harm in some arbitrary persuit of sainthood?
    some may if they so desire. but there is another and better reason.

    and that is bacause the more harm there is, the more likely each of us are to suffer.
    and the more harm each of us cause the more harm there is.

    of course we can each still suffer if we cause no harm ourselves. we can. but this is a matter of probability. we are still less likely to suffer if there is less harm out there.
    and there will be less harm out there, each and every little bit we avoid causing it.

    =^^=
    .../\...
     
  12. Posthumous

    Posthumous Resident Smartass

    Messages:
    4,365
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must respectably disagree. Socrates did not hold any Truth to be subjective, but defined it as a very real and narrowly defined objective concept, about which everyone could easily be completely off-base.

    Someone might think a virgin gave birth to some dude that rose from the dead; don't make it so; not for the believer; not for anyone.
     
  13. Columbo

    Columbo Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,375
    Likes Received:
    1
    .
    what an excellent observation in such a short sentence.

    then we would not be able to argue or come to an agreement because we would have to acknowledge that we might not be able to agree upon anything, and yet it seems to me that there are ways out of the subjective/objective debate.

    Suppose I say "all three sided objects are triangular". so I am saying "lets come to an agreement that when I say 'triangular' you will know I am talking about a three sided object" that would make something objective.
    Infact everyone would have had experience of a three sided object but might not know that when I say triangular they are meant to think 'three sided object' but that wouldnt matter because its the observation that contains the objectivity or subjectivity, the word that we call the 3 sided object is merely a convention that can be learned we could call it wigbrumabf and it wouldnt alter the properties of the observation.

    It is this form of stating what the rules are that allow us to talk with any meaning about shared experiences. If I say 'computer' and you point to it to show me you know what I mean, then that is surely some form of objectivity.

    My point using this line would be, that our convention is to call "subjective" that which cannot be standardised. So when we both look at a blue object we will both see that the object is a chair, and that much is objective, but we may disagree about what shade of blue it is, and that is subjective.
    We can have a proof of concept if we stick to what is observed and can be objectivised.
    So this cannot be true as there could be no truth at all without an observation to be conceptualised. And unless there was some element of objectivity that existed we could not say anything which stood up as THE TRUTH at all.
    Even if everything we observed was shown to be a subjective matter, we could be in no doubt about one thing: IE: there was an observer or we observed this. This would lead to another absolute truth, we had the experience that there was something we thought we observed.
    The absolute truth for me equates to what can be objectified in the way I have said it can be. All other observations fall into the category of disputable truths.
     
  14. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    In my understanding....


    That would be a relative truth not the Ultimate Truth.

    That's right, that's why the Ultimate Truth can not be expressed.

    A point iis reached where there is no subjective matter and no observer. There is no distinction. There simply is. Later, after leaving this state, we may remember entering it and experiencing it, but a complete memory is not possible as we have re-entered a dualistic state.

     
  15. jailmate

    jailmate Plantenist

    Messages:
    791
    Likes Received:
    0
    Tinkin duh trut, an duu-in duh trut, iz 2 different tingz.
     
  16. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,543
    And all religious teachings.
     
  17. Chodpa

    Chodpa Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    121
    I heard a great story at another group. About environmentalist watching a flock of rare birds. They watched them for days gathering information, until two little birds started pecking at the heads of the observers. After a few hours they swatted at the little birds and the motion scared the flock under observation away never to be seen again. The environmentalists were very angry at the little birds that pecked them.
     
  18. crankyelbow

    crankyelbow Makes Music

    Messages:
    2,068
    Likes Received:
    1
    Please explain a bit more?
     
  19. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed & Confused Lifetime Supporter Super Moderator

    Messages:
    19,736
    Likes Received:
    13,762
    Ultimate Truth is a label that is given to a state of being that exists now.
    Always now.
    It is undivided by time, form, space, or mind.
    It is sometimes called One.
    But even the term One is misleading as one cannot be conceptualized without two, or three, or none.

    Ultimate Truth is immediate, it is always Now.
    But if we stop to think about it we are dividing it into the thing that is and the thought of that thing that is.
    Into the thing that is and the one who thinks about the thing that is.
    Into the thing that is and the time it takes to think of the thing that is.
    Into the thing that is and the concept of a thing that is.

    Into Me and It.

    If you understand you have already missed it.
     
  20. TheJourney2218

    TheJourney2218 Guest

    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am in total agreement with the two truth doctrine and the nature of the ultimate reality.

    It has been discussed well in this thread. To reiterate that which has already been stated, the ultimate truth cannot be put into words or conceptualized in any way. By doing that, you're separating what "is" from what "is not" and the ultimate truth is non-separation, so in the ultimate there is no distinction like "is" and "is not." Of course, conceptualization is necessary to discuss anything at all, including the ultimate truth, hence the metaphor of the finger pointing to the moon. To be honest, I find it quite annoying when someone tries to discuss this stuff and another person says "yea but you just conceptualized it so it's not true." Obviously if he's aware of what he's saying he knows it's not ultimately true, but we HAVE TO use words to get a message across. The buddha used many words.

    The relative truth is impermanence. The ultimate truth is simply the suchness, the is that is all of existence, without any sort of separation between space or time. In my contemplation I have thought of what I consider to be an interesting way of putting it. Namely that impermanence is permanent. That which does not change is change. The nature of the ultimate reality, in which there is no change, is change. Sounds paradoxical and nonsensical, but it's the only way of saying it reasonably accurately.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice