Two Truths in Mahayana

[Malcolm]

There are Two Truths: Conventional Truth and Absolute Truth. This counts as two sides of the same coin. But I cannot understand how it is possible to simultaneously believe in both conventional and absolute truth? Could we give examples. thanks

Thorough knowledge of relative truth is ultimate truth; for this reason the two truths are mutually confirming and not in contradiction at all.

For example, I gave a child candy and he was delighted, this is a conventionally truth. But the absolute truth is that me, the kid, and the candy don't exist, or that the baby won't be happy?

The ultimate truth is that neither you, the child, nor the candy exist inherently. As QQ pointed out, whatever is dependently originated, that is empty and dependently designated. The two truths are inseparable.

[Arnold3000]

Thorough knowledge of relative truth is ultimate truth; for this reason the two truths are mutually confirming and not in contradiction at all.

For example, I gave a child candy and he was delighted, this is a conventionally truth. But the absolute truth is that me, the kid, and the candy don't exist, or that the baby won't be happy?

The ultimate truth is that neither you, the child, nor the candy exist inherently. As QQ pointed out, whatever is dependently originated, that is empty and dependently designated. The two truths are inseparable.

that is, the child will still feel the joy of candy. Just the child's joy, sweets and the child itself depends on the causes and conditions?

[LastLegend]

There are Two Truths: Conventional Truth and Absolute Truth. This counts as two sides of the same coin. But I cannot understand how it is possible to simultaneously believe in both conventional and absolute truth? Could we give examples. thanks

So which idiot constructed this conventional truth and ultimate truth?

The Buddha.

Buddha never said a word!

[Malcolm]

So which idiot constructed this conventional truth and ultimate truth?

The Buddha.

Buddha never said a word!

Well, then someone must have ghostwritten for him, because there are countless volumes of the Buddha's words.

[LastLegend]

I think so...when he raised a flower neither Mahakasyapa or him said a word.

[Malcolm]

I think so...when he raised a flower neither Mahakasyapa or him said a word.

This event never happened.

[LastLegend]

I don’t think it did. Even Buddha doesn’t exist.

[Malcolm]

I don’t think it did. Even Buddha doesn’t exist.

Even you don't exist, but here you are.

[PadmaVonSamba]

This concept is really not as difficult to grasp as it may seem.
Conventional means arising along with something else. Literally, con “with” + venire (Latin) “to come”.

The conventional truth about an object expresses how it exists in relation to something else.
The ultimate truth expresses the actual nature of an object, itself.

Can you apply this explanation to sentient beings, humans, animals?

it’s universal. It can be applied to everything.

[Arnold3000]

This concept is really not as difficult to grasp as it may seem.
Conventional means arising along with something else. Literally, con “with” + venire (Latin) “to come”.

The conventional truth about an object expresses how it exists in relation to something else.
The ultimate truth expresses the actual nature of an object, itself.

Can you apply this explanation to sentient beings, humans, animals?

it’s universal. It can be applied to everything.

I just don't know how to figure it out? Conditional truth: For example, if I help poor people who are hungry and give them money for food, they will feel happy, they will think that I am a good person, and they will think how to thank me. But if you look at it from the side of the Absolute Truth:

[Ayu]

Can you apply this explanation to sentient beings, humans, animals?

it’s universal. It can be applied to everything.

I just don't know how to figure it out? Conditional truth: For example, if I help poor people who are hungry and give them money for food, they will feel happy, they will think that I am a good person, and they will think how to thank me. But if you look at it from the side of the Absolute Truth:

... then you can't hold it, because it is not inherently true. It doesn't stay, it's not true from every ancle of view. It's just appearance.
Tomorrow the poor people will blame you, because they are hungry again and the money didn't help them in longterm.

[Malcolm]

Can you apply this explanation to sentient beings, humans, animals?

it’s universal. It can be applied to everything.

I just don't know how to figure it out? Conditional truth: For example, if I help poor people who are hungry and give them money for food, they will feel happy, they will think that I am a good person, and they will think how to thank me. But if you look at it from the side of the Absolute Truth:

It must means you, the gift, and the recipient lack inherent existence.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I find it is really helpful to distinguish between
Ultimate truth and relative truth
by using two different terms,
Exists and Occurs.

Relative truth is what occurs all the time.
Absolute truth is what actually exists, meaning that it refers to the conditions of things as they really are.

I really like to use the word occur because it refers to phenomena as events happening over time rather than as objects existing in space. An occurrence is something that happens during a period of time. A chair is an event, as very slowly occurring event. At some point, that chair will be gone.

And the reason I like applying this term is because in fact, the things we perceive as non-moving, non-changing phenomena, chairs, mountains, books, houses, valleys, and so on, are all very slowly occurring events because they are composites and are therefore in a perpetual state of erosion or decay. A house, for example, is always very gradually settling. If you drive through a rural area you may see old barns which are leaning or have sagging roofs or are in some phase of collapse.
So, looking at phenomena this way, as events which are occurring, this really shakes up our usual perception of things as solid “existing” objects.

One of the best arguments I ever heard against biblical creationism is the fact that there are still volcanoes erupting, and there are still earthquakes caused by the shifting of tectonic plates, and that therefore the Earth is still very much “under construction” and as such cannot be regarded as having been “created”.

When we look at the world as a swirl of constantly changing events, there is not even a moment when you can say that one “thing” has become another “thing” because that would suggest a moment when phenomena stop changing, which never happens. It is the clinging to our perception of things being stationary, unchanging objects, which results in suffering.

[LastLegend]

Can you apply this explanation to sentient beings, humans, animals?

it’s universal. It can be applied to everything.

I just don't know how to figure it out? Conditional truth: For example, if I help poor people who are hungry and give them money for food, they will feel happy, they will think that I am a good person, and they will think how to thank me. But if you look at it from the side of the Absolute Truth:

Absolute truth is the realm of experience. Precisely there is a recognition of empty nature. As in Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra describes Samadhi of no knower, there is nothing to be known. What we know what we understand what we perceive is conventional.

[PadmaVonSamba]

it’s universal. It can be applied to everything.

I just don't know how to figure it out? Conditional truth: For example, if I help poor people who are hungry and give them money for food, they will feel happy, they will think that I am a good person, and they will think how to thank me. But if you look at it from the side of the Absolute Truth:

Absolute truth is the realm of experience. Precisely there is a recognition of empty nature. As in Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra describes Samadhi of no knower, there is nothing to be known. What we know what we understand what we perceive is conventional.

Don’t you mean that relative truth is the realm of experience? Most beings only experience relative truth.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I just don't know how to figure it out? Conditional truth: For example, if I help poor people who are hungry and give them money for food, they will feel happy, they will think that I am a good person, and they will think how to thank me. But if you look at it from the side of the Absolute Truth:

It must means you, the gift, and the recipient lack inherent existence.

Malcolm is correct. If you are asking how to apply the idea of absolute truth in some meaningful or practical way to our everyday life experiences, then even on a purely intellectual or conceptual level, you can use it as a means of letting go of attachment.

If, ultimately, there is no “me” giving money to a poor person, then there’s no “me” waiting around for a “thank you” or expecting anything in return.

Likewise, ultimately, there is no single recipient. You are helping that person by giving money. That person will then spend that money, which in turn helps someone else, and so on.

Although absolute truth/relative truth can be applied to everything, it doesn’t need to be all the time. The whole point of understanding relative/ultimate is as a practice to eliminate attachment by seeing that ultimately nothing can be said to truly exist to which one can attach.

[LastLegend]

I just don't know how to figure it out? Conditional truth: For example, if I help poor people who are hungry and give them money for food, they will feel happy, they will think that I am a good person, and they will think how to thank me. But if you look at it from the side of the Absolute Truth:

Absolute truth is the realm of experience. Precisely there is a recognition of empty nature. As in Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra describes Samadhi of no knower, there is nothing to be known. What we know what we understand what we perceive is conventional.

Don’t you mean that relative truth is the realm of experience? Most beings only experience relative truth.

By experience I mean there is a direct recognized experience of empty nature. There is a recognizer here. When the knower or recognizer is extinguished. There isn’t anything else to be known.

[Arnold3000]

I just don't know how to figure it out? Conditional truth: For example, if I help poor people who are hungry and give them money for food, they will feel happy, they will think that I am a good person, and they will think how to thank me. But if you look at it from the side of the Absolute Truth:

It must means you, the gift, and the recipient lack inherent existence.

Malcolm is correct. If you are asking how to apply the idea of absolute truth in some meaningful or practical way to our everyday life experiences, then even on a purely intellectual or conceptual level, you can use it as a means of letting go of attachment.

If, ultimately, there is no “me” giving money to a poor person, then there’s no “me” waiting around for a “thank you” or expecting anything in return.

Likewise, ultimately, there is no single recipient. You are helping that person by giving money. That person will then spend that money, which in turn helps someone else, and so on.

Although absolute truth/relative truth can be applied to everything, it doesn’t need to be all the time. The whole point of understanding relative/ultimate is as a practice to eliminate attachment by seeing that ultimately nothing can be said to truly exist to which one can attach.

But when, for example, I and all people see the absolute truth, people will not stop thinking about me or other people, thinking about where to make money, they will be happy when they see something good (for example, children), they will want to eat, drink, they will have a headache time from time to time. The absolute truth simply tells us that everything depends on the reasons and conditions. Is that correct?

[Johnny Dangerous]

It must means you, the gift, and the recipient lack inherent existence.

Malcolm is correct. If you are asking how to apply the idea of absolute truth in some meaningful or practical way to our everyday life experiences, then even on a purely intellectual or conceptual level, you can use it as a means of letting go of attachment.

If, ultimately, there is no “me” giving money to a poor person, then there’s no “me” waiting around for a “thank you” or expecting anything in return.

Likewise, ultimately, there is no single recipient. You are helping that person by giving money. That person will then spend that money, which in turn helps someone else, and so on.

Although absolute truth/relative truth can be applied to everything, it doesn’t need to be all the time. The whole point of understanding relative/ultimate is as a practice to eliminate attachment by seeing that ultimately nothing can be said to truly exist to which one can attach.

But when, for example, I and all people see the absolute truth, people will not stop thinking about me or other people, thinking about where to make money, they will be happy when they see something good (for example, children), they will want to eat, drink, they will have a headache time from time to time. The absolute truth simply tells us that everything depends on the reasons and conditions. Is that correct?

Absolute truth does not negate relative truth..that's kind of of the whole point. Seeing the actual nature of relative truth is absolute truth.

[Arnold3000]

Malcolm is correct. If you are asking how to apply the idea of absolute truth in some meaningful or practical way to our everyday life experiences, then even on a purely intellectual or conceptual level, you can use it as a means of letting go of attachment.

If, ultimately, there is no “me” giving money to a poor person, then there’s no “me” waiting around for a “thank you” or expecting anything in return.

Likewise, ultimately, there is no single recipient. You are helping that person by giving money. That person will then spend that money, which in turn helps someone else, and so on.

Although absolute truth/relative truth can be applied to everything, it doesn’t need to be all the time. The whole point of understanding relative/ultimate is as a practice to eliminate attachment by seeing that ultimately nothing can be said to truly exist to which one can attach.

But when, for example, I and all people see the absolute truth, people will not stop thinking about me or other people, thinking about where to make money, they will be happy when they see something good (for example, children), they will want to eat, drink, they will have a headache time from time to time. The absolute truth simply tells us that everything depends on the reasons and conditions. Is that correct?

Absolute truth does not negate relative truth..that's kind of of the whole point. Seeing the actual nature of relative truth is absolute truth.

Thanks you
I know that I have already tortured everyone with my question.
Can not understand:
If you look at the Amazon River from conventional Truth, it is a river.
But from the point of view of the Absolute Truth, it is just a stream of water.
OK I understood.
But for example:
Recently I met a grandmother who said that she was very hungry and she had a headache and she was thinking about where to get money for food and medicine. I gave her some money and she was happy and said that she was ashamed that she didn’t have her own money.
This is in terms of conventional truth.
And the absolute truth:
This grandmother is composed of five skandhas, and I am also composed of five skandhas. And it turns out that one five skandhas (I) gave money for food and medicine to the other five skandhas (grandmother)?