Talk:Two truths doctrine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Two truths doctrine, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] A type of idealism?
Isn't this a type of dualism? I thought that Buddhist philosophy in general argues against dualistic points of view... Itistoday 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- The Two Truths Doctrine in Buddhism differentiates between two levels of truth in Buddhist discourse, a "relative", or commonsense truth, and an "ultimate" or absolute spiritual truth. Stated differently, the two truths doctrine holds that truth exists in conventional and ultimate forms, and that both forms are co-existent. Other schools, such as Dzogchen, hold that the Two Truths Doctrine are ultimately resolved into nonduality as a lived experience. The doctrine is an especially important element of Buddhism and was first expressed in complete modern form by Nagarjuna, who based it on the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta?.
- Blót: blessings in blood
- B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mundaka Upanishad: Translated by Swami Gambhirananda
"There are two kinds of knowledge to be acquired – the higher and the lower; this is what, as tradition runs, the knowers of the import of the Vedas say. Of these, the lower comprises the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharva-Veda, the science of pronunciation etc., the code of rituals, grammar, etymology, metre and astrology. Then there is the higher (knowledge) by which is attained that Imperishable. (By the higher knowledge) the wise realize everywhere that which cannot be perceived and grasped, which is without source, features, eyes, and ears, which has neither hands nor feet, which is eternal, multiformed, all-pervasive, extremely subtle, and undiminishing and which is the source of all. As a spider spreads out and withdraws (its thread), as on the earth grow the herbs (and trees), and as from a living man issues out hair (on the head and body), so out of the Imperishable does the Universe emerge here (in this phenomenal creation). Through knowledge Brahman increases in size. From that is born food (the Unmanifested). From food evolves Prana (Hiranyagarbha); (thence the cosmic) mind; (thence) the five elements; (thence) the worlds; (thence) the immortality that is in karmas."[1]
Ā = citta santana = "The Great Continuum of 'Great Madhyamika'"
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Alexander Berzin quote should be removed
It is clear that Alexander Berzin didn't understand the matter. This is not a case for the application of the law of excluded middle because the "common" and "ultimate" cases are on different levels. Apples and oranges. The common level is a sub-case, simplification, an adaptation of practical purpose. The only real level is the "ultimate" one.
Take for example the "Newtonian physics" compared to "Einstein's relativity" theory. The second is a larger case, including the first. Yet the first is useful and holds (almost) true at low speeds and low masses, that is for all practical purposes of engineering. You wouldn't design a car taking into account the relativistic effects.
So there's no need to have this quote as it ads nothing useful to the article. It merely muddies the idea of two truths.
The quote also contradicts the general direction of the article. In a lower paragraph we read In Buddhism, it is applied particularly to the doctrine of emptiness, in which objects are ultimately empty of essence, yet conventionally appear the contrary at any given moment in time, such that they neither exist nor do not exist.
So, you seem they are simultaneously applying "common" and "ultimate". Not either one or the other. The "common" level is only an appearance. The ultimate "level" alone is real. But as an appearance, the "common" level exists together on the "ultimate", without denying the ultimate level (superposition - they neither exist nor do not exist).
Visarga (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
