Two Truths Doctrine

If you're new to the forum or new to Buddhism, this is the best place for your questions. Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:36 am How can outside causes not be responsible if everything has a cause and an effect?
because your own experience depends on how you respond to cause and effect. Of course, there still some connection. Nobody is isolated from sensory perceptions. There are some things we don’t have much control over. For example, fire always burns.
But if outside conditions are responsible for our experience of them, then consider this:

Suppose, as a small child, your crayon broke, and you got upset and cried. If the external cause made you cry, this would mean that the cause for your sadness is inherent in the breaking of a crayon. If that were true, then now, as an adult, if you break a crayon, you will get upset and cry. But that probably isn’t what will happen. Since the event of the crayon breaking is the same, it can’t be the cause of your emotional state, because your response as an adult is different than it would be when you are two years old.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:36 am And this is what was said:
… the individual with "true understanding" knows there is no reason to feel anything with regards to either situation as they are just random things that occur through particle and waves in reality colliding
but the conventionally appropriate way of being in the world may include feeling depressed over things to empathetically connect with other people
… "the one with true understanding knows there is no reason to feel anything to either one" I just dont know about that. I don't know if it's true.
I forget whether you answered when I asked you whether you have a regular meditation practice or not. Because, if you do, then you can directly know and experience the truth in this. Otherwise, it’s just idle speculation.

The statement means that while a person with ordinary awareness gets upset because of a thunderstorm, a person with higher awareness (“true understanding”) knows that the storm is only temporary and will pass, and they don’t put any real emotional investment into it (“Thunderstorm” is used here as a metaphor for life’s upheavals).

As with thoughts that arise during meditation, emotions just come and go.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:46 pm

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Agent Smith »

Ardha wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 10:46 pm I knew someone who talked about this a lot and I know the terms conventional and ultimate reality got thrown around a lot when it comes to that. But I got stuck on the part of ultimate reality that they were talking about, where there is no reason to feel a certain way about anything because stuff just happens but that conventional reality is the world of meaning that we live in.

I didn't understand it. When I told her that that's like saying everything isn't real and what I feel is a lie or not real she said I was stuck in absolutism because I got hung up on the ultimate. Needless to say I didn't get it.

I don't understand if there is ultimate reality then how can you just go back to living the day to day as if things matter, aren't you pretending at that point? I also didn't understand loss being false at ultimate reality (in regards to someone dying), heck I don't even understand ultimate reality.
One thing's for sure - you're absolutely right that it all boils down to comprehension/understanding.

There's a thread on so-called root gurus. It looks like you better find yours pronto!

My own take on the 2 Truths Doctrine reduces to
1. Maya
2. Reality
Ardha
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:48 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Ardha »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 5:29 am
Ardha wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:36 am And this is what was said:
… the individual with "true understanding" knows there is no reason to feel anything with regards to either situation as they are just random things that occur through particle and waves in reality colliding
but the conventionally appropriate way of being in the world may include feeling depressed over things to empathetically connect with other people
… "the one with true understanding knows there is no reason to feel anything to either one" I just dont know about that. I don't know if it's true.
I forget whether you answered when I asked you whether you have a regular meditation practice or not. Because, if you do, then you can directly know and experience the truth in this. Otherwise, it’s just idle speculation.

The statement means that while a person with ordinary awareness gets upset because of a thunderstorm, a person with higher awareness (“true understanding”) knows that the storm is only temporary and will pass, and they don’t put any real emotional investment into it (“Thunderstorm” is used here as a metaphor for life’s upheavals).

As with thoughts that arise during meditation, emotions just come and go.
It sounds like she's saying that since stuff just happens without any real rhyme or reason then there isn't any reason to feel X or Y about it. Though that doesn't really make sense since random there is a reason to feel something toward that.

But from what you're saying it makes more sense. This stuff is all temporary and will pass so there isn't a reason to feel any type of way about it since it's all transient. But wouldn't that lead to being uncaring if everything around us is just transient.

I'll admit what she said did torment me a lot since it's saying there is no reason for me to feel happy about events because stuff just happens and so when I start feeling some sort of way I have to stop it since there is no reason to feel that feeling about that event.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 2:22 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 5:29 am
Ardha wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:36 am And this is what was said:

… "the one with true understanding knows there is no reason to feel anything to either one" I just dont know about that. I don't know if it's true.
I forget whether you answered when I asked you whether you have a regular meditation practice or not. Because, if you do, then you can directly know and experience the truth in this. Otherwise, it’s just idle speculation.

The statement means that while a person with ordinary awareness gets upset because of a thunderstorm, a person with higher awareness (“true understanding”) knows that the storm is only temporary and will pass, and they don’t put any real emotional investment into it (“Thunderstorm” is used here as a metaphor for life’s upheavals).

As with thoughts that arise during meditation, emotions just come and go.
It sounds like she's saying that since stuff just happens without any real rhyme or reason then there isn't any reason to feel X or Y about it. Though that doesn't really make sense since random there is a reason to feel something toward that.

But from what you're saying it makes more sense. This stuff is all temporary and will pass so there isn't a reason to feel any type of way about it since it's all transient. But wouldn't that lead to being uncaring if everything around us is just transient.

I'll admit what she said did torment me a lot since it's saying there is no reason for me to feel happy about events because stuff just happens and so when I start feeling some sort of way I have to stop it since there is no reason to feel that feeling about that event.
The point is simply this:
All beings are constantly striving for perfect contentment and satisfaction.
In other words, to have permanent peace of mind, which is another way of saying freedom from craving.
That is why we buy things. That is why we seek companionship. That is why we do things that we believe will make us happy.
All phenomena that we pursue in order to deliver this happiness are temporary, composite phenomena,
which arise and disappear because of changing conditions.
As long as we seek lasting satisfaction from temporary objects we will eventually suffer,
because a temporary cause cannot produce a permanent result. it is not any more complicated than that.

In Buddhism, there is this idea of ‘taking refuge’ in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.
But what does ‘taking refuge’ really mean?
It means that one no longer ‘takes refuge’ in a new car, or a better job, and so on,
foolishly thinking that these temporary things will bring permanent peace of mind.
We don’t normally call our grasping at temporary objects ‘taking refuge’ in them, but that is basically what is going on.

Instead, we take refuge in these ‘Three Jewels’ of Buddhism because Buddhism works directly with awareness (the mind) itself,
because that awareness is always there. If you want perfect peace of mind, then you have to work with what is always there.
The mind itself is the ultimate source of all our thoughts and emotions.

But, getting back to the issue of not experiencing things at all, That’s not what the Buddha taught.
As long as you know that you will still be hungry again tomorrow, you can enjoy stuffing yourself on a holiday meal today.
But if a foolish person were to think ‘if I stuff myself enough, I will never feel hungry again’ …you know what’s going to happen.
You can extend this reasoning to everything, people, places, things. Even if you fall in love with the most loving and wonderful person, even if being with that person makes you happier than you could ever imagine, the source of that happiness, ultimately, is still within your own mind.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
Ardha
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:48 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Ardha »

I'm not saying that if I get this I'll never be hungry again. I'm not that naive. I know that such things don't lead to permanent happiness, but there is joy in the doing and experiencing of such things. They don't last nor would I want them to. At some level I accept the world changes and nothing is ever the same again. Losses can hurt and grief is a part of life but after that you move on. That I can accept.

But what I can't accept or I find hard to think about is what she is saying by true understanding is that there is no reason to feel happy or sad about anything because "shit happens randomly". This is different from your take that stuff is temporary which I know and accept. I can accept things coming and going and leaving, have for a long time. But it's a different matter to be told there is no reason to feel happy or sad about something because it's all just random stuff in existence happening. It's sort of calling your feelings about something "Wrong" or that you don't really feel happy or sad over something. That's the part I'm getting that.

I can accept impermanence, that's easy (well in my case because I was exposed to it growing up) but not being "wrong" or "living a lie" which her phrase seems to imply.

I don't get ice cream because it will be perma happiness. I get it because I felt like having one and enjoy it while it lasts and think no more of it. But it would be different if during eating of said ice cream someone told me I have no reason to feel happy over this happening or to like it, etc etc. Or that you don't actually feel that way now. See what I'm getting at?
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 15652
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

“Shit happens randomly” is not a Buddhist teaching, and is actually contrary to them. Shit in fact happens in a very precise way to us due the state and actions of body speech and mind.

That being the case, the number of “meanings” that comes from relative things - the play of impermanence or emptiness- is infinite, things can mean whatever you want them to and it is actually your job, and only your job to assign that meaning. The delicious taste of ice cream and the enjoyment of it -comes from you- not the ice cream.

To borrow a concept from Victor Frankl, stop asking the universe about the meaning of things and realize that it is the universe asking you that question.

Enjoying the play of impermanence itself, or eating an ice cream and liking it or whatever is not the same as taking refuge in its contents, desiring the impermanent to be permanent, etc.

The reason you can’t grok the difference is probably because you are just stuck in your concepts about permanence, impermanence, Buddhism, emptiness, etc.

I really think you should either give up on this stuff and take a break or actually pursue something with a teacher.

You’ve been on here two years now rehashing the same issues you’ve arrived at by listening to people who don’t seem like teachers, but are just telling you random things.

And you are here asking us about them, instead of really pursuing the answers.

You think you are asking these big questions, but you aren’t, these are really simple questions people have answered over and over, questions really common to new Buddhists, people just interested in Buddhism, etc.

If the answers you get here don’t penetrate the logical thing is find a qualified teacher to ask and stop wasting your own time, you only have so much of that.
Don’t you see what’s wrong with the world today? Oh Everybody wants somebody to be their own piece of clay.

-Marvin Gaye
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:07 am I'm not saying that if I get this I'll never be hungry again. I'm not that naive. I know that such things don't lead to permanent happiness, but there is joy in the doing and experiencing of such things. They don't last nor would I want them to. At some level I accept the world changes and nothing is ever the same again. Losses can hurt and grief is a part of life but after that you move on. That I can accept.
we’ll good then. There’s no misunderstanding.
The food thing was a metaphor, by the way. But in general, that’s how many if not most people live, grasping after temporary externals, one after another, seeking the thing they think will finally make them happy.

As has been mentioned, the idea that one should reject all temporary sources of joy altogether is not a Buddhist teaching.

As far as there being no reason to feel happy or sad, who needs a reason?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:07 am I can accept things coming and going and leaving, have for a long time. But it's a different matter to be told there is no reason to feel happy or sad about something because it's all just random stuff in existence happening. It's sort of calling your feelings about something "Wrong" or that you don't really feel happy or sad over something. That's the part I'm getting that.
I don’t see what you are getting at. Who said anything about ‘wrong’?
The point is, don’t depend on the joy or sadness experienced with temporary gains or losses to last.
That means, attachment to things that are temporary will lead to suffering.
Don’t depend on temporary phenomena for your own lasting peace of mind.
I think you can get that.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
Ardha
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:48 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Ardha »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 4:19 am
Ardha wrote: Fri Dec 02, 2022 12:07 am I can accept things coming and going and leaving, have for a long time. But it's a different matter to be told there is no reason to feel happy or sad about something because it's all just random stuff in existence happening. It's sort of calling your feelings about something "Wrong" or that you don't really feel happy or sad over something. That's the part I'm getting that.
I don’t see what you are getting at. Who said anything about ‘wrong’?
The point is, don’t depend on the joy or sadness experienced with temporary gains or losses to last.
That means, attachment to things that are temporary will lead to suffering.
Don’t depend on temporary phenomena for your own lasting peace of mind.
I think you can get that.
I do get that. Though at times I wish something would last longer than it does but then I realize that by doing that it would eventually grow to be torment, too much of a good thing. I think it's nice, that stuff is temporary, and accepting that things change is part of life and growing up. Though I'm not sure how Buddhism squares impermanence stuff like doctors helping people or healing the sick. Wouldn't that be attachment?

And to Johnny, the thing is that I don't know for sure who is in the right. Because the person from the forum I mentioned said they studied religion in college and spoke to monks and PhDs who studied this. But some of it I find a bit wonky though I think that's mostly to me not knowing a whole lot about Buddhism because a lot of it doesn't make much sense to me.

Because when she says stuff like this:
that is because you limit yourself to an all-or-nothing view of reality

as soon as one is able to realize that the conventional world can be deeply meaningful to the lived existence
while ultimately being empty of any intrinsic existence or permanence
the capacity for a meaningful life with less hang-ups becomes available

that beautiful psychedelic acceptance of uncertainty

ultimately, shit just chaotically happens without meaning or structure; to seek a meaning for existence is to approach the Void and be turned back into the world of naming
conventionally, we ascribe meaning and structure to our lives to experience them in a cohesive way

My love for others is real, but it is only available to share while I am here with them -- and therefore should be maximized while available
My sadness is real, but it is only present relative to the experiences that cause sadness, and recognizable by the presence of joy
My joy is real, but it is only available to me while having experiences that bring me joy, and it must be balanced through experiences of sadness or it just becomes a different degree of flatness

I am real while I am here
but one day that reality will be changed into reality as a memory
and then, on a long enough time line, not even that will remain
I will no longer be real, no longer be capable of love, sadness, or joy

so it comes to whether my approach is to make the most of its reality while it around
or mourn for it fading away before it does, and to go into the darkness with only that behind me


It sounds similar to stuff I've read like ultimate reality and conventional reality. It reminds me of something by Adayshanti (sorry about the name) saying that "many people know not to get stuck in hell but not many know not to get stuck in heaven" which to me sounds like ultimate reality isn't the entire truth but it's a far more subtle thing. Everything is not some atomized compartments but it's not a gray blob either.

The stuff about it being chaotic I know isn't true because there isn't really chaos in the universe, not even at the quantum level (some parts are random but it's uncertain how random they are). It's all cause and effect but it happens at such a scale and with so many moving parts that no one can hope to know it all. If it were all just random then cause and effect would be meaningless as would dependent arising in Buddhism.

But in my mind it sounds like Buddhism since it "seems" to gel with what I read people calling ultimate reality the void, and her mentioning when gazing at the void to go back to the world of naming.

I'll admit I know nothing and it scares me because everyone else seems so sure about what they're saying and I don't know who to listen to and I don't want to be wrong, let alone live a lie.

I'll admit it sounds like you guys have a better grasp than her but I don't know enough to be sure (not any offense to anyone here it's just a problem I've always had with new information). And I don't want to be accused of denying the truth just to live a comfortable existence or lie.

Sorry about all that, I wanted to give a clear picture of what's running through my head with stuff like this. Even now I find it hard to let her words go.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:45 pm I'll admit it sounds like you guys have a better grasp than her but I don't know enough to be sure (not any offense to anyone here it's just a problem I've always had with new information). And I don't want to be accused of denying the truth just to live a comfortable existence or lie.
1. The Buddha’s teachings provide the means of figuring it out for yourself. Many people here have done just that, and have also shared these methods of reasoning with you.

2. There doesn’t seem to be any major contradiction to what the quote you just shared says and what people here are saying. But it seems you are viewing things as contradictory and also in a way which is unnecessarily complicated. I can see why she says you have an all-or-nothing approach. Do you think that’s true?

3. Maybe if you don’t worry about ‘being accused’ of anything, that will help. Also, if a person is so afraid of being wrong that they can’t take a step in any direction, the result is basically the same as being wrong anyway. These are simply both types of self-grasping and ego clinging.

4. What type of regular practice do you do (meditation, chanting, etc)? If you don’t do any type of practice, then these questions won’t get you anywhere. If they won’t get you anywhere, aren’t they basically pointless? What do you think?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4045
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Aemilius »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 2:10 pm
Aemilius wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:31 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 5:41 pm

The perspective of relative speed shown in that graphic is a whole other topic. It’s why a waterfall far away appears to move slowly
It is not like that. There are very many different coordinate systems, which are possible and real and in which you can perceive motion. One way of understanding the principle of relativity of motion are the different ways of defining what is a "month":

"The synodic month (Greek: συνοδικός, romanized: synodikós, meaning "pertaining to a synod, i.e., a meeting"; in this case, of the Sun and the Moon), also lunation, is the average period of the Moon's orbit with respect to the line joining the Sun and Earth: 29 d 12 h 44 min and 2.9 s. This is the period of the lunar phases, because the Moon's appearance depends on the position of the Moon with respect to the Sun as seen from Earth.

While the Moon is orbiting Earth, Earth is progressing in its orbit around the Sun. After completing a sidereal month, the Moon must move a little further to reach the new position having the same angular distance from the Sun, appearing to move with respect to the stars since the previous month. Therefore, the synodic month takes 2.2 days longer than the sidereal month. Thus, about 13.37 sidereal months, but about 12.37 synodic months, occur in a Gregorian year

Sidereal month

The period of the Moon's orbit as defined with respect to the celestial sphere of apparently fixed stars (the International Celestial Reference Frame; ICRF) is known as a sidereal month because it is the time it takes the Moon to return to a similar position among the stars (Latin: sidera): 27.321661 days (27 d 7 h 43 min 11.6 s). This type of month has been observed among cultures in the Middle East, India, and China in the following way: they divided the sky into 27 or 28 lunar mansions, one for each day of the month, identified by the prominent star(s) in them.

Tropical month

It is customary to specify positions of celestial bodies with respect to the March equinox. Because of Earth's precession of the equinoxes, this point moves back slowly along the ecliptic. Therefore, it takes the Moon less time to return to an ecliptic longitude of 0° than to the same point amid the fixed stars. This slightly shorter period, 27.321582 days (27 d 7 h 43 min 4.7 s), is known as the tropical month by analogy with Earth's tropical year.

Anomalistic month

The Moon's orbit approximates an ellipse rather than a circle. However, the orientation (as well as the shape) of this orbit is not fixed. In particular, the position of the extreme points (the line of the apsides: perigee and apogee), rotates once (apsidal precession) in about 3,233 days (8.85 years). It takes the Moon longer to return to the same apsis because it has moved ahead during one revolution. This longer period is called the anomalistic month and has an average length of 27.554551 days (27 d 13 h 18 min 33.2 s). The apparent diameter of the Moon varies with this period, so this type has some relevance for the prediction of eclipses (see Saros), whose extent, duration, and appearance (whether total or annular) depend on the exact apparent diameter of the Moon. The apparent diameter of the full moon varies with the full moon cycle, which is the beat period of the synodic and anomalistic month, as well as the period after which the apsides point to the Sun again.

An anomalistic month is longer than a sidereal month because the perigee moves in the same direction as the Moon is orbiting the Earth, one revolution in nine years. Therefore, the Moon takes a little longer to return to perigee than to return to the same star. "

(from wikipedia)
Again, totally irrelevant.
Motion occurs relative to the perceiver's position, it occur in the coordinate system of the perceiver. This has been the widely known since the time Isaac Newton. And it has seen further developments since then. A moving train is a coordinate system. A flying airplane is a coordinate system. A human being walking on a road and a human driving in a car are coordinate systems. Planets and stars are coordinate systems. A galaxy is a coordinate system. A cluster of galaxies is a coordinate system. The point is that there is no absolute movement.

Something like this was also known in ancient China and India. There are some Buddhist texts from China which say that when you are in boat on the river, you can perceive or think that the shore moves or that the boat moves. This idea of the shore moving is also mentioned by the Indian astronomer Aryabhatiya.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Aemilius wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:45 pm Motion occurs relative to the perceiver's position, it occur in the coordinate system of the perceiver.
Do you mean the perception of movement, or do you mean all movement, regardless of whether they are perceived or not? Are you saying that the movement of race horses in Kentucky depends on the relative degree of perception (which is very low if at all) by farmers in Japan?
[/quote]
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Aemilius wrote: Mon Dec 05, 2022 1:45 pm The point is that there is no absolute movement.
I still don’t understand how this relates to the topic.
The Earth absolutely revolves around the Sun. If you don’t know this, then you need to read some 3rd grade basic science books. The Sun doesn’t actually “rise” and float over the Earth and then “set” even though we say “sunrise” and “sunset”, which are terms relating to appearances, to relative truth.
But this is just a metaphor anyway. The ultimate truth is that neither the Sun nor the Earth possess any self-arisen essence. They are both empty of any “true existence”.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
Ardha
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:48 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Ardha »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 9:26 pm
Ardha wrote: Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:45 pm I'll admit it sounds like you guys have a better grasp than her but I don't know enough to be sure (not any offense to anyone here it's just a problem I've always had with new information). And I don't want to be accused of denying the truth just to live a comfortable existence or lie.
1. The Buddha’s teachings provide the means of figuring it out for yourself. Many people here have done just that, and have also shared these methods of reasoning with you.

2. There doesn’t seem to be any major contradiction to what the quote you just shared says and what people here are saying. But it seems you are viewing things as contradictory and also in a way which is unnecessarily complicated. I can see why she says you have an all-or-nothing approach. Do you think that’s true?

3. Maybe if you don’t worry about ‘being accused’ of anything, that will help. Also, if a person is so afraid of being wrong that they can’t take a step in any direction, the result is basically the same as being wrong anyway. These are simply both types of self-grasping and ego clinging.

4. What type of regular practice do you do (meditation, chanting, etc)? If you don’t do any type of practice, then these questions won’t get you anywhere. If they won’t get you anywhere, aren’t they basically pointless? What do you think?
I used to meditate every night with just watching the breath and letting the thoughts pass. But it's hard because they tend to stick to me a lot.

Just to be clear this quote:
The only "proper" way of being in the world is acceptance of the good and the bad, without feeling inherently joyful or badly about it

after that first level, it is appropriate to feel a variety of ways to share in social experiences
if people around you are depressed over loss, the compassionate thing is often to commiserate with them, rather than tell them their loss is false and not worth crying over
if people around you want to give you gifts and celebrate their promotion at work, the compassionate thing is to thank them for the gifts and share in their celebration to maximize their feelings of joy
in both situations, the individual with "true understanding" knows there is no reason to feel anything with regards to either situation as they are just random things that occur through particle and waves in reality colliding
but the conventionally appropriate way of being in the world may include feeling depressed over things to empathetically connect with other people
Seems like a contradiction to me. Saying there is no reason to feel any way about a sort of thing and yet conventionally doing so to connect with others? I mean...which one is it. Either you genuinely feel happy or sad or you stop emotions because there is no reason to feel them over things.

AS for number 3 I'm currently in the position of stopping emotions I feel because according to "true understanding" there is no reason to feel any way about anything.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 4:41 am Seems like a contradiction to me. Saying there is no reason to feel any way about a sort of thing and yet conventionally doing so to connect with others? I mean...which one is it. Either you genuinely feel happy or sad or you stop emotions because there is no reason to feel them over things.

AS for number 3 I'm currently in the position of stopping emotions I feel because according to "true understanding" there is no reason to feel any way about anything.
It’s not a contradiction. It’s two truths.

So many examples and and analogies have been offered to you. For example, watching a movie, knowing that it is just a movie and not real, but still feeling emotions from it. What this quote you shared is saying is just like that. Would you say that crying at a movie is a contradiction, that you can’t feel emotion from it if you know it’s just a movie?

There is no purpose in trying to ‘stop emotions’.
Nobody has suggested trying to suppress feelings or thoughts.

Everyone who does Buddhist sitting meditation faces the fact that thoughts arise. That’s part of the initial process. You sit there watching your breath, focusing on that, and out of nowhere you start thinking about all of random stuff. But instead of fixating on these distractions or getting carried away by them, you simply notice that these random thoughts have appeared, and then go back to watching your breath (or whatever method of focusing you use). You don’t need to try to block thoughts, and you don’t need to get into thoughts. Eventually, the flood of distracting thoughts flows down and stops and you rest in pure awareness.

That’s why I asked if you meditate or not. If you tried it a few times and got distracted and so you stopped, that’s not going to produce any results.

Emotions will pop up too, in exactly the same way. But do emotions last forever, or go they come and go? They are just like any other type of thoughts. So, likewise, you acknowledge them and then return to your focus. They are temporary and have no ultimate reality to them. Yet they can be experienced. Is that a contradiction?

That’s basically all that is being said in the quote you shared, except that it’s being applied to life in general, and not only to meditation practice. If happy thoughts or emotions arise, you don’t need to indulge them or try to hold onto them. If something makes you laugh, you don’t think, “I must maintain this laughter, this happy feeling for as long as I can” do you? If sad thoughts arise, you don’t need to force them out or push them away. But you don’t need to dwell in sadness all day either.

I get the feeling that you aren’t really testing out what people have suggested to you, or what is being suggested in the quote you shared, but instead, that you are just coming back again and again with ‘yeah but I don’t see how that works’. But if you don’t test things out and analyze them, then of course you won’t see how they work.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
muni
Posts: 5352
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by muni »

How can outside causes not be responsible if everything has a cause and an effect?
Outside causes cannot be responsible all alone on their own. But there is dependency, the dependency of consciousness and things. Without how can there be something so all alone on its own?

For example when "I" am bitten by a snake, you do not know or experience that, but I can. Unfortunately, lots of beings are suffering in different ways. But when something is happening, or done to "us", or "our" consciousness! Then ouch!

In guided practice/meditation ( is very necessary ) we can learn to be aware of that consciousness, learn to see our grasping, causing suffering.

I wish you good guidance in this, when it is your aspiration.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 4:41 am
Seems like a contradiction to me. Saying there is no reason to feel any way about a sort of thing and yet conventionally doing so to connect with others?
We already went over this.
There is no reason to have polite table manners either. You could just grab all the food for yourself. But, we kept good manners in order to connect with others. Is it a contradiction then, to wait politely until the food is passed around? Is that somehow living a lie?

also, nobody suggested to “not feel any way”
but keep in mind, the function of attachment and repulsion, “setting up what you like against what you dislike” is to reinforce self-grasping and ego clinging. In other words, to increase the causes of suffering.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
Ardha
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2021 4:48 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Ardha »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 10:30 am
Ardha wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 4:41 am Seems like a contradiction to me. Saying there is no reason to feel any way about a sort of thing and yet conventionally doing so to connect with others? I mean...which one is it. Either you genuinely feel happy or sad or you stop emotions because there is no reason to feel them over things.

AS for number 3 I'm currently in the position of stopping emotions I feel because according to "true understanding" there is no reason to feel any way about anything.
It’s not a contradiction. It’s two truths.

So many examples and and analogies have been offered to you. For example, watching a movie, knowing that it is just a movie and not real, but still feeling emotions from it. What this quote you shared is saying is just like that. Would you say that crying at a movie is a contradiction, that you can’t feel emotion from it if you know it’s just a movie?

There is no purpose in trying to ‘stop emotions’.
Nobody has suggested trying to suppress feelings or thoughts.

Everyone who does Buddhist sitting meditation faces the fact that thoughts arise. That’s part of the initial process. You sit there watching your breath, focusing on that, and out of nowhere you start thinking about all of random stuff. But instead of fixating on these distractions or getting carried away by them, you simply notice that these random thoughts have appeared, and then go back to watching your breath (or whatever method of focusing you use). You don’t need to try to block thoughts, and you don’t need to get into thoughts. Eventually, the flood of distracting thoughts flows down and stops and you rest in pure awareness.

That’s why I asked if you meditate or not. If you tried it a few times and got distracted and so you stopped, that’s not going to produce any results.

Emotions will pop up too, in exactly the same way. But do emotions last forever, or go they come and go? They are just like any other type of thoughts. So, likewise, you acknowledge them and then return to your focus. They are temporary and have no ultimate reality to them. Yet they can be experienced. Is that a contradiction?

That’s basically all that is being said in the quote you shared, except that it’s being applied to life in general, and not only to meditation practice. If happy thoughts or emotions arise, you don’t need to indulge them or try to hold onto them. If something makes you laugh, you don’t think, “I must maintain this laughter, this happy feeling for as long as I can” do you? If sad thoughts arise, you don’t need to force them out or push them away. But you don’t need to dwell in sadness all day either.

I get the feeling that you aren’t really testing out what people have suggested to you, or what is being suggested in the quote you shared, but instead, that you are just coming back again and again with ‘yeah but I don’t see how that works’. But if you don’t test things out and analyze them, then of course you won’t see how they work.
But what I am trying to say is that in that quote she mentioned there is no reason to feel a way about anything, according to what she said. In other words when someone dies there is no reason to be sad or when you get a gift there is no reason to feel happy, etc because this is all stuff that just happens. There is no reason to feel anything about anything. I think you are adding more to what she is saying than what is there. I'm trying to say that your explanation isn't what she means.

I also explained that in the movie the thing falls apart once you recognize it as just a movie. The whole point of movies and media like that and why they work and why they evoke feelings is that we forget that they are movies or media. It's what makes Batman more than just linework and color. The movie example more illustrates my point that once you remember that it's just a movie then the emotions tend to vanish. It has power because we make it real and give it life, if we all just recognize it as just a movie entertainment would have died long ago.

I have meditated in the past but there hasn't been a point of "just awareness", it's just been a stream of thoughts and images that flow in. Granted I don't give them a lot of weight, but they don't stop no matter how long I keep at it. The after effects of meditation tend to leave me with more or less a sense of peace yet at the same time disconnected from my emotions, my wants and those around me. I watch my breath and that weathers the storm but I don't know if the price I pay is worth the peace (ish) at the end.

But to recap she is saying that the one with "true understanding" knows that there is no reason to feeling anything about anything, it's not what you seem to be getting at.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 7410
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Sat Dec 31, 2022 10:05 pm
But what I am trying to say is that in that quote she mentioned there is no reason to feel a way about anything, according to what she said. In other words when someone dies there is no reason to be sad or when you get a gift there is no reason to feel happy, etc because this is all stuff that just happens. There is no reason to feel anything about anything.
so, why do you need a reason?
I think you are adding more to what she is saying than what is there. I'm trying to say that your explanation isn't what she means.
You originally stated:
“I don't understand if there is ultimate reality then how can you just go back to living the day to day as if things matter, aren't you pretending at that point? I also didn't understand loss being false at ultimate reality (in regards to someone dying), heck I don't even understand ultimate reality.”
…so, I’m addressing that.
I also explained that in the movie the thing falls apart once you recognize it as just a movie.

Right. I can enjoy a car wreck in a movie precisely because I know it’s not real. Likewise, knowing the true nature of things does not mean you have no emotional experiences. Why do you keep arguing this point?
But to recap she is saying that the one with "true understanding" knows that there is no reason to feeling anything about anything, it's not what you seem to be getting at.
I think my reply is what she is getting at, and I say this because she really isn’t saying anything new that hasn’t been said before or that isn’t basically the crux of the buddhist teachings. She just said it in a way that’s got you confused.

One who has ‘true understanding’ (and I can only interpret that phrase to mean a direct perception of emptiness) doesn’t experience happiness and sadness in the same way that one who is easily swept away by the constantly shifting winds of samsara experiences happiness and sadness.

That doesn’t mean they are emotional zombies. You seem to be making that claim but you have no basis for doing so other than “I don’t think so” .
But, as been suggested, maybe if you do more research into the Buddhist teachings, and don’t just fixate on what that one person has written, you might get a different perspective.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook develops outward insight.
Post Reply

Return to “Discovering Mahayana Buddhism”