Two truths doctrine

The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths differentiates between two levels of truth in Buddhist discourse, a "relative", or commonsense truth, and an "ultimate" or absolute spiritual truth. This avoids 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").

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 and are non-different. 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".

Nomenclature and etymology

The two truths doctrine (Tibetan: "bden-pa gnyis"):

*a "relative", commonsense, conventional truth (Tibetan: "kun-rdzob bden-pa"; Sanskrit: "samvrtisatya"); and
*an "ultimate", deepest, absolute truth (Tibetan: "don-dam bden-pa"; Sanskrit: "paramarthasatya").

The Sanskrit term for relative, "samvrt", also implies false, hidden, concealed, or obstructed, as well as other nuanced concepts. Translator Jules Levinson interprets the conventional truth as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result.Levinson, Jules (August 2006) " [http://www.berotsana.org/pdf/lotsawa_timesII_sc.pdf Lotsawa Times Volume II] ]

Exegesis

Berzin (2007) frames the centrality of the two truths doctrine to Buddhism:

All Hinayana and Mahayana tenet systems assert the two truths (bden-pa gnyis). Regardless of how the tenet systems define and delineate them, the two truths always constitute a dichotomy (dngos-‘gal). All knowable phenomena must be members of the set of either one or the other true phenomena, with nothing knowable that belongs to either both or neither of the sets. Consequently, understanding the two truths constitutes understanding all knowable phenomena. [Berzin, Alexander (2007). "The Two Truths in Vaibhashika and Sautrantika."March 2001; revised September 2002 and July 2006. Source: [http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/sutra/level5_analysis_mind_reality/truths/2_truths_vaibhashika_sautrantika.html] (accessed: January 2, 2008). ]

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 its doctrines with Plato or Kant.

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.

In the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, the Buddha, speaking to the monk Kaccayana Gotta on the topic of "right view", says the following:

:By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. [Source: [http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-015.html Kaccāyanagotta Sutta on Access to Insight] (accessed: January 2, 2008)]

Canonical use

Two pairs of terms are used in the Pali Tipitaka. One pair is "nītattha" (Pali; Sanskrit: nītārtha, "of plain or clear meaning" (Monier-Williams)) and "neyyattha" (Pali; Sanskrit: neyartha, "(a word or sentence) having a sense that can only be guessed" (Monier-Williams)). These terms were used to identify texts or statements that either did or did not require additional interpretation in order to be made clear and/or non-contradictory and/or doctrinally accurate in a strict sense; a nītattha required no explanation, while a neyyartha text might mislead some people unless properly explained. (McCagney, 82)

: "There are these two who misrepresent the Tathagata. Which two? He who represents a Sutta of indirect meaning as a Sutta of direct meaning and he who represents a Sutta of direct meaning as a Sutta of indirect meaning.": — "Anguttara Nikaya" I:60 (Jayatilleke, 361, in McCagney, 82)

The other pair is "IAST|saṃmuti" (Pali; Sanskrit: IAST|saṃvṛti; Pali = "common consent, general opinion, convention" (PED), with same meaning in Buddhist Sanskrit) and "paramattha" (Pali; Sanskrit: paramārtha, "ultimate"). These are used to distinguish conventional or common-sense language, as used in metaphors or for the sake of convenience, from language used to express higher truths directly.

The term "vohāra" (Pali; Sanskrit: vyavahāra, "common practice, convention, custom" is also used in more or less the same sense as "samuti".

In the canon, the distinction is not made between a lower "truth" and a higher "truth", but rather between two kinds of expressions of the same truth, which must be interpreted differently. Thus a phrase or passage, or a whole sutta, might be classed as neyyattha or samuti or vohāra, but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different level of "truth".

There is a canonical assertion that "truth is one" that might be held to conflict with a systematic assertion that there is a bifold distinction of truths. [http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4-12.html#12-1]

Theravāda commentarial tradition

The Theravādin commentators expanded on these categories and began applying them not only to expressions but to the truth then expressed.

: "The Awakened One, the best of teachers, spoke of two truths, conventional and higher; no third is ascertained; a conventional statement is true because of convention and a higher statement is true as disclosing the true characteristics of events.": — "IAST|Khathāvatthu Aṭṭha kathǎ" (Jayatilleke, 363, in McCagney, 84)

Further developments in Nikaya Buddhism

The Prajnāptivāda school took up the paramārtha/IAST|saṃvṛti distinction, and extended the concept to "dharmas" (metaphysical-phenomenological constituents), distinguishing those which are "tattva" (real) from those which are purely conceptual, i.e., ultimately nonexistent, "prajnāpti".

Mahayana Philosophy

The two truths are central to many Mahayana texts. In Yogacara texts you may alternatively find discussions of the three natures.

Some presentations distinguish not only which teachings may be classified as relating to the relative truth or ultimate truth, but also which kinds of knowledge or methods are for accomplishing each. In his introduction to his translation of the Lankavatara Sutra, D.T.Suzuki writes the following:

:Without a theory of cognition, therefore, Mahayana philosophy becomes incomprehensible. The "Lanka" is quite explicit in assuming two forms of knowledge: the one for grasping the absolute or entering into the realm of Mind-only, and the other for understanding existence in its dualistic aspect in which logic prevails and the Vijnanas are active. The latter is designated Discrimination ("vikalpa") in the "Lanka" and the former transcendental wisdom or knowledge ("prajna"). To distinguish these two forms of knowledge is most essential in Buddhist philosophy.

Phenomenon

Within the Mahayana presentation, the two truths may also refer to specific perceived phenomenon instead of categorizing teachings. Conventional truths would be the appearances of mistaken awareness - the awareness itself when mistaken - together with the objects that appear to it or alternatively put the appearance that includes a duality of apprehender and apprehended and objects perceived within that. Ultimate truths, then, are phenomenon free from the duality of apprehender and apprehended.

Madhyamaka

The distinction between the two truths (satyadvayavibhaga) is of great importance for the Madhyamaka school, as it forms a cornerstone of their beliefs; in Nāgārjuna's "Mūlamadhyamakakārika", for example, it is used to defend the identification of pratītyasamutpāda with śūnyatā.

Cquote
The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.|30px|30px|Nagarjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārika 24:8-10 [Jay L. Garfield|"Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way", pp. 296, 298]

See also

* Nagarjuna
* Tetralemma
* Upaya

Notes

References

* McCagney, Nancy. "The Philosophy of Openness." Rowman and Littlefield, 1997
* Keown, Damien. "Dictionary of Buddhism." Oxford University Press, 2003
* Monier-Williams, Monier. "Sanskrit-English Dictionary"
* Gethin, Rupert. "Foundations of Buddhism." pp. 207, 235-245
* Jayatilleke, K.N. "Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge". George Allen and Unwin, 1963
* Lopez, Donald S., "A Study of Svatantrika", Snow Lion Publications, 1987, pp.192-217.
* Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro, "The Lankavatara Sutra, A Mahayana Text" Routledge Kegan Paul, 1932