Guest guest Posted September 16, 2005 Report Share Posted September 16, 2005 The two truths doctrine in Buddhism differentiates between two levels of truth in Buddhist discourse, a low, or commonsense truth, and a high, or " ultimate " truth or between a relative and an absolute truth. It is used to avoid confusion between doctrinally accurate statements about the true nature of reality (e.g., there is no " self " ) and practical statements that make reference to things that, while not expressing the true nature of reality, are necessary in order to communicate easily and help people achieve enlightenment (e.g., talking to a student about " himself " or " herself " ). While this division, particularly when referred to as the " satya-dvaya " , is often associated with the Madhyamaka school, its history is quite extensive. Casual readers of Buddhist thought have often used the ideas of the two truths to erroneously identify Buddhism as being Transcendental in nature, and thereby identify it's doctrines with Plato or Kant. Wilber accepts the two truths doctrine of Buddhism. It maintains that, to avoid philosophical confusion (or " category collapse " ), we must clearly distinguish between the absolute truth of Emptiness and the relative truths of Form. All of Wilber's AQAL categories quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types " relate to relative truth. None of them are true in an absolute sense. Only formless awareness, " the simple feeling of being, " exists absolutely. Wilber follows Aurobindo (and Hegel) in calling this formless awareness " Spirit " . Wilber's " Spirit " is conceptually equivalent to Plotinus' One, to Schelling's Absolute, to the Hindu Brahman, and to the Shunyata of Buddhism. ~~~ wikipedia Era Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2005 Report Share Posted September 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Era " <n0ndual@w...> wrote: > The two truths doctrine in Buddhism differentiates between two levels of truth in Buddhist discourse, a low, or commonsense truth, and a high, or " ultimate " truth or between a relative and an absolute truth. It is used to avoid confusion between doctrinally accurate statements about the true nature of reality (e.g., there is no " self " ) and practical statements that make reference to things that, while not expressing the true nature of reality, are necessary in order to communicate easily and help people achieve enlightenment (e.g., talking to a student about " himself " or " herself " ). > > While this division, particularly when referred to as the " satya-dvaya " , is often associated with the Madhyamaka school, its history is quite extensive. Casual readers of Buddhist thought have often used the ideas of the two truths to erroneously identify Buddhism as being Transcendental in nature, and thereby identify it's doctrines with Plato or Kant. > > Wilber accepts the two truths doctrine of Buddhism. It maintains that, to avoid philosophical confusion (or " category collapse " ), we must clearly distinguish between the absolute truth of Emptiness and the relative truths of Form. All of Wilber's AQAL categories quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types " relate to relative truth. > > None of them are true in an absolute sense. Only formless awareness, " the simple feeling of being, " exists absolutely. Wilber follows Aurobindo (and Hegel) in calling this formless awareness " Spirit " . Wilber's " Spirit " is conceptually equivalent to Plotinus' One, to Schelling's Absolute, to the Hindu Brahman, and to the Shunyata of Buddhism. > > ~~~ > wikipedia > > Era I don't agree with this idea of two kinds of truth. If we say that 2 + 2 = 4, then that is an absolute truth. We cannot prove that truth in an absolute sense using any kind of theory without relying on axioms. But we can see directly that this is the truth. We don't need any doctoral thesis to prove the validity of this claim. So for me there is only truth. The concept of Emptiness is meaningless without all other concepts. The concept of Emptiness is itself true in the way it points to the interconnectedness of all things, but this Emptiness is not a truth separate from the truth of form. Formless awareness is itself not absolute. Something formless can only exist in relation to form. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2005 Report Share Posted September 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Era " <n0ndual@w...> wrote: > > The two truths doctrine in Buddhism differentiates between two > levels of truth in Buddhist discourse, a low, or commonsense truth, > and a high, or " ultimate " truth or between a relative and an absolute > truth. It is used to avoid confusion between doctrinally accurate > statements about the true nature of reality (e.g., there is no " self " ) > and practical statements that make reference to things that, while not > expressing the true nature of reality, are necessary in order to > communicate easily and help people achieve enlightenment (e.g., > talking to a student about " himself " or " herself " ). > > > > While this division, particularly when referred to as the > " satya-dvaya " , is often associated with the Madhyamaka school, its > history is quite extensive. Casual readers of Buddhist thought have > often used the ideas of the two truths to erroneously identify > Buddhism as being Transcendental in nature, and thereby identify it's > doctrines with Plato or Kant. > > > > Wilber accepts the two truths doctrine of Buddhism. It maintains > that, to avoid philosophical confusion (or " category collapse " ), we > must clearly distinguish between the absolute truth of Emptiness and > the relative truths of Form. All of Wilber's AQAL categories > quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types " relate to relative truth. > > > > None of them are true in an absolute sense. Only formless awareness, > " the simple feeling of being, " exists absolutely. Wilber follows > Aurobindo (and Hegel) in calling this formless awareness " Spirit " . > Wilber's " Spirit " is conceptually equivalent to Plotinus' One, to > Schelling's Absolute, to the Hindu Brahman, and to the Shunyata of > Buddhism. > > > > ~~~ > > wikipedia > > > > Era > > > I don't agree with this idea of two kinds of truth. If we say that 2 + > 2 = 4, then that is an absolute truth. 2+2=4 is a belief. a concept, created in the mind. We cannot prove that truth in > an absolute sense using any kind of theory without relying on axioms. > But we can see directly that this is the truth. We don't need any > doctoral thesis to prove the validity of this claim. true, all you need to do is believe your belief, and voila, you are convinced in the validity of your claim. :-) > > So for me there is only truth. The concept of Emptiness is meaningless > without all other concepts. The concept of Emptiness is itself true in > the way it points to the interconnectedness of all things, but this > Emptiness is not a truth separate from the truth of form. one cannot 'realize' or understand the absolute truth of Emptiness with the logical mind - that is, it is decidedly not an intellectual understanding. until/unless you lay down all these beliefs that you hold so tightly to, you will not realize the absolute truth. if you think you have realized the absolute truth and still believe your dualistic thoughts of a 'truth of form' are the same truth as the absolute truth you are quite mistaken about your 'realization'. regards, clay Formless > awareness is itself not absolute. Something formless can only exist in > relation to form. > > al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2005 Report Share Posted September 20, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Clay " <clay.spencer@v...> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " Era " <n0ndual@w...> wrote: > > > The two truths doctrine in Buddhism differentiates between two > > levels of truth in Buddhist discourse, a low, or commonsense truth, > > and a high, or " ultimate " truth or between a relative and an > absolute > > truth. It is used to avoid confusion between doctrinally accurate > > statements about the true nature of reality (e.g., there is > no " self " ) > > and practical statements that make reference to things that, while > not > > expressing the true nature of reality, are necessary in order to > > communicate easily and help people achieve enlightenment (e.g., > > talking to a student about " himself " or " herself " ). > > > > > > While this division, particularly when referred to as the > > " satya-dvaya " , is often associated with the Madhyamaka school, its > > history is quite extensive. Casual readers of Buddhist thought have > > often used the ideas of the two truths to erroneously identify > > Buddhism as being Transcendental in nature, and thereby identify > it's > > doctrines with Plato or Kant. > > > > > > Wilber accepts the two truths doctrine of Buddhism. It maintains > > that, to avoid philosophical confusion (or " category collapse " ), we > > must clearly distinguish between the absolute truth of Emptiness > and > > the relative truths of Form. All of Wilber's AQAL categories > > quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types " relate to relative > truth. > > > > > > None of them are true in an absolute sense. Only formless > awareness, > > " the simple feeling of being, " exists absolutely. Wilber follows > > Aurobindo (and Hegel) in calling this formless awareness " Spirit " . > > Wilber's " Spirit " is conceptually equivalent to Plotinus' One, to > > Schelling's Absolute, to the Hindu Brahman, and to the Shunyata of > > Buddhism. > > > > > > ~~~ > > > wikipedia > > > > > > Era > > > > > > I don't agree with this idea of two kinds of truth. If we say that > 2 + > > 2 = 4, then that is an absolute truth. > > 2+2=4 is a belief. a concept, created in the mind. > > > We cannot prove that truth in > > an absolute sense using any kind of theory without relying on > axioms. > > But we can see directly that this is the truth. We don't need any > > doctoral thesis to prove the validity of this claim. > > > true, all you need to do is believe your belief, and voila, you are > convinced in the validity of your claim. :-) > > > > > So for me there is only truth. The concept of Emptiness is > meaningless > > without all other concepts. The concept of Emptiness is itself > true in > > the way it points to the interconnectedness of all things, but this > > Emptiness is not a truth separate from the truth of form. > > one cannot 'realize' or understand the absolute truth of Emptiness > with the logical mind - that is, it is decidedly not an intellectual > understanding. until/unless you lay down all these beliefs that you > hold so tightly to, you will not realize the absolute truth. > > if you think you have realized the absolute truth and still believe > your dualistic thoughts of a 'truth of form' are the same truth as > the absolute truth you are quite mistaken about your 'realization'. > > regards, > clay > I see what you mean. Conceptual truth is not the same as nondual truth. But I would call it Being instead of truth (although that is still only going around in concepts . al. > > > > Formless > > awareness is itself not absolute. Something formless can only > exist in > > relation to form. > > > > al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2005 Report Share Posted September 21, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Clay " <clay.spencer@v...> > wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > Nisargadatta , " Era " <n0ndual@w...> wrote: > > > > The two truths doctrine in Buddhism differentiates between two > > > levels of truth in Buddhist discourse, a low, or commonsense > truth, > > > and a high, or " ultimate " truth or between a relative and an > > absolute > > > truth. It is used to avoid confusion between doctrinally accurate > > > statements about the true nature of reality (e.g., there is > > no " self " ) > > > and practical statements that make reference to things that, > while > > not > > > expressing the true nature of reality, are necessary in order to > > > communicate easily and help people achieve enlightenment (e.g., > > > talking to a student about " himself " or " herself " ). > > > > > > > > While this division, particularly when referred to as the > > > " satya-dvaya " , is often associated with the Madhyamaka school, > its > > > history is quite extensive. Casual readers of Buddhist thought > have > > > often used the ideas of the two truths to erroneously identify > > > Buddhism as being Transcendental in nature, and thereby identify > > it's > > > doctrines with Plato or Kant. > > > > > > > > Wilber accepts the two truths doctrine of Buddhism. It > maintains > > > that, to avoid philosophical confusion (or " category collapse " ), > we > > > must clearly distinguish between the absolute truth of Emptiness > > and > > > the relative truths of Form. All of Wilber's AQAL categories > > > quadrants, lines, levels, states, and types " relate to relative > > truth. > > > > > > > > None of them are true in an absolute sense. Only formless > > awareness, > > > " the simple feeling of being, " exists absolutely. Wilber follows > > > Aurobindo (and Hegel) in calling this formless > awareness " Spirit " . > > > Wilber's " Spirit " is conceptually equivalent to Plotinus' One, to > > > Schelling's Absolute, to the Hindu Brahman, and to the Shunyata > of > > > Buddhism. > > > > > > > > ~~~ > > > > wikipedia > > > > > > > > Era > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with this idea of two kinds of truth. If we say > that > > 2 + > > > 2 = 4, then that is an absolute truth. > > > > 2+2=4 is a belief. a concept, created in the mind. > > > > > > We cannot prove that truth in > > > an absolute sense using any kind of theory without relying on > > axioms. > > > But we can see directly that this is the truth. We don't need any > > > doctoral thesis to prove the validity of this claim. > > > > > > true, all you need to do is believe your belief, and voila, you > are > > convinced in the validity of your claim. :-) > > > > > > > > So for me there is only truth. The concept of Emptiness is > > meaningless > > > without all other concepts. The concept of Emptiness is itself > > true in > > > the way it points to the interconnectedness of all things, but > this > > > Emptiness is not a truth separate from the truth of form. > > > > one cannot 'realize' or understand the absolute truth of Emptiness > > with the logical mind - that is, it is decidedly not an > intellectual > > understanding. until/unless you lay down all these beliefs that > you > > hold so tightly to, you will not realize the absolute truth. > > > > if you think you have realized the absolute truth and still > believe > > your dualistic thoughts of a 'truth of form' are the same truth as > > the absolute truth you are quite mistaken about your 'realization'. > > > > regards, > > clay > > > > > I see what you mean. Conceptual truth is not the same as nondual > truth. But I would call it Being instead of truth (although that is > still only going around in concepts . > > al. al, yes, we are hindered by the ages old problem, what word do we use to describe the indescribable nature of our being. when using the word truth, I tend to think of relative and absolute truth, I would equate your conceptual truth to 'relative' truth (as in dualistic truth). it seems we are in violent agreement. clay > > > > > > > > > Formless > > > awareness is itself not absolute. Something formless can only > > exist in > > > relation to form. > > > > > > al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.