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.
Jeff H
Posts: 1020
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:56 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Jeff H »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 5:53 pm It’s getting really tiresome watching you present the same straw man arguments over and over, and seemingly never consider anyone’s responses.
JD, just a personal note: I often like questions like Ardha's that may seem obstinate. In my opinion the value of DW includes more than the direct issues and answers that arise. It’s also the inner dialogs those conversations stir up in the minds of lurkers, like me.

I posted in this case because I really wasn’t sure how I would respond if someone put Ardha’s questions to me, so I had to consider it and I wanted to see how my response sounded in public. (I also hope for correction if I misstate Buddhist tenets.) Other times I just get a lot of personal food for thought.

Ardha may or may not want to understand the concept of ultimate truth at this time, but his questions, and especially the insights from top posters these kinds of questions elicit, can nevertheless benefit a lot of DW readers who never or seldom post.
Where now is my mind engaged? - Shantideva
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3504
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by narhwal90 »

Ardha wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:48 pm
But dreams don't occur though, they aren't real. Nothing in them really affects or harms you. You can get torched and not burn because none of it we ever real.

Also why would ultimate truth not mean its not real? Isn't there that quote that "before enlightenment rivers are rivers and rocks are rocks, during the process rocks aren't rocks and rivers aren't rivers, and upon realization rivers are rivers and rocks are rocks"? That makes it sound like ultimately nothing is real.
The quotation doesn't say rocks aren't rocks, but that as practice progressed the supposedly solid concept of rocks was shown to be grasping and projection and so rocks no longer have dualized identity, and further along they were viewed as rocks again. It is a method of describing the evolution of realization. Reading existential arguments into such statements goes well beyond their focus. Study of such material should not taken up solo or misunderstanding will most certainly arise.

Ardha wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:48 pm
You say that realization leads to a more engaged life but that doesn't seem to be the impression I read from other Buddhist sources, mostly some stuff in Lion's Roar. It tends to lead to detachment but also because content, sort of like a turtle I think they put it.
Detachment is not nihlism, nor are Lions Roar or Tricycle necessarily authoritative instruction or explanation.

Ardha wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:48 pm
Knowing the true nature of things does render them less enjoyable and this has been measured. Jokingly people call it the hotdog principle, where if you love something never learn how it's made. Knowing the horror is just actors does make it less suspenseful, the whole point of movies and the "illusion" is to NOT know it is one. Otherwise it loses all it's magic. If you want further proof just look at magicians who perform tricks, the whole point is not knowing, same with avoiding spoilers for games or movies. Ignorance is the point.

How you describe attitudes to relationships is more like what therapists would refer as toxic behavior, and they often advise "treating people like human beings", I wouldn't call that ultimate truth it's a pretty common story them in a lot of media.

Knowing pleasant stuff is transient tends to rob the joy from it because you're always aware that it won't last and that tends to overtake what currently happens, it's another thing that psychology tends to show.
I disagree it robs one of joy, it has certainly not been the case in my experience. Allowing experiences end without grasping at trying to make them last longer avoids turning them into suffering. Trying to perpetuate joy is one of the three poisons that bring suffering.

Recognizing perceptions as more or less delusory doesn't change the scary movie from being scary or the cartoon from being fun, or the card trick being mind-boggling. Perhaps having delusory perceptions is necessary for any of those things to provide the experience they do.

Ardha wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:48 pm
I could see it leading to contentment because you realize it's like a stream with everything drifting on by, but I don't see the greater appreciation for things. It sounds like apathy since you know everything will pass there is no reason to be happy or sad about anything really. It will fade away. No need to help or harm others, everything rises and falls. Appreciation for stuff does require some degree of attachment, it what leads people to care enough to do things.

Though peace of mind sounds like a good deal to give all that up. I mean why else would they suggest people go off to become monks and join a monastery? It always seemed to come back to that when I talked to monks or other teachers. It doesn't seem like this can be a livable philosophy.
Some go off to monasteries, many do not. The only way you can see if the philosophy is liveable is to live it and make choices as a consequence. My roshi spent some time practicing homeless- literally on the street- to really experience what having nothing and no attachments meant.


Ardha wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:48 pm I'm just getting mixed messages on what it going on.
This is a very good reason why its so important to explore these topics face-to-face with a teacher, and not simply read about them and assume you understand.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Aemilius »

Ardha wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:48 pm
But dreams don't occur though, they aren't real. Nothing in them really affects or harms you. You can get torched and not burn because none of it we ever real.
Buddhism does not say that all dreams are without meaning. There are several instances of prophetic dreams and dreams that are caused by devatas or bodhissattvas in the biographies of eminent buddhist teachers like Milarepa, Hanshan, and others.

in FACETS OF BUDDHIST THOUGHT, Collected Essays of K. N. Jayatilleke writes:

"The mind is in a dynamic state and the Buddha compares it to a fire
which smokes by night and flares up during the day.
According to the Milindapañhá, dreams are of four types:
(1) those due to physiological disturbances in the body;
(2 those due to mental indulgence, i.e., wish-fulfilment (samudácinna);
(3) those due to intervention of a deity (devata)
and (4) prophetic dreams."

A Buddhist Approach to Dreams; Jung and Junti - Dreams West and East, by Rev. Heng Sure https://www.urbandharma.org/udharma7/dreams.html

The sixteen dreams of King Pasenadi Kosol and their Interpretations by the Buddha". https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku ... the-buddha

"King Pasenadi of Kosala and his sixteen dreams". Sunday Observer. http://archives.sundayobserver.lk/2010/06/13/spe13.asp

"Mahasupina Jataka". what-buddha-said.net. https://what-buddha-said.net/library/DP ... at_077.htm

"The Sixteen Dreams of King Pasenadi Kosala".

"Jataka Tales of the Buddha: Part IV". https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... bl144.html

"The Sixteen Dreams of King Pasenadi Kosol". Saraniya Dhamma Meditation Centre. http://saraniya.com/buddhism/buddhist-s ... adi-kosol/

"Buddhist Relief Mission, Evil Dreams and the Military in Burma".http://www.brelief.org/articles2.htm
Last edited by Aemilius on Mon Oct 31, 2022 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:48 pm Knowing the true nature of things does render them less enjoyable and this has been measured. Jokingly people call it the hotdog principle, where if you love something never learn how it's made. Knowing the horror is just actors does make it less suspenseful, the whole point of movies and the "illusion" is to NOT know it is one. Otherwise it loses all it's magic. If you want further proof just look at magicians who perform tricks, the whole point is not knowing, same with avoiding spoilers for games or movies. Ignorance is the point.
So, your basic premise is that ignorance is bliss, and you can’t really be happy if you understand the true nature of things.
In other words, lies are better.

(BTW, again, ultimate truth and relative truth are not opposites).

There are some obvious flaws to your argument, but aside from them, there is a glaring contradiction: You believe your argument to be true, and you profess it as true. But if it were true, then by definition, you wouldn’t know it was true. You wouldn’t know that ignorance is bliss. You wouldn’t be able to proclaim it.

And, if you are correct, and Buddhists don’t see the truth that you are correct, then by your own argument, Buddhists are happier than you are because we are ignorant of the ‘fact’ that ignorance is bliss. Since you are not ignorant of this ‘fact’, knowing the truth would make you less happy.

You basically assert that the truth hurts, yet at the same time, you uphold this assertion as the truth.

It looks as though you disproved your position the moment you established it.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Aemilius »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:01 am
Relative truth is that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.
Ultimate truth is that it’s actually the Earth rotating that creates the illusion of the Sun moving across the sky. The Sun doesn’t really rise and set.
That doesn't really illustrate anything, bacause all motion of celestial bodies in space occurs in relation to an observer that is stationed somewhere. The different moving or "stationary" points of observation are equally valid. The paths of celestial bodies become naturally different, if you change your point of observation. Our sun too is moving, for example in relation to the path of Jupiter, which is a heavy planet and therefore causes fluctuation in the position of the sun. The Sun is moving also in relation to the centre of the Milkyway galaxy, and in relation to the other suns in our galaxy. All these paths of movement are again wholly conventional.


Celestial mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_mechanics

Local standard of rest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_standard_of_rest
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: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Aemilius wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:47 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:01 am
Relative truth is that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.
Ultimate truth is that it’s actually the Earth rotating that creates the illusion of the Sun moving across the sky. The Sun doesn’t really rise and set.
That doesn't really illustrate anything, bacause all motion of celestial bodies in space occurs in relation to an observer that is stationed somewhere.
that’s totally beside the point. Of course everything is occurring in a position relative to something else. The dirty dishes in my sink occur in a position relative to the cat in your back yard, but that fact doesn’t express the relative or ultimate truth about either one of them.

The point is, people used to think the Sun rotated around the Earth. Even though that’s not really (ultimately) true, it’s functionally (relatively) true.
Now we know that the Earth actually rotates around the Sun. Of course, both Earth and Sun are composites and in that sense are also empty of any ultimate reality.

Likewise, if I say “I” am angry, that is relatively true because “I” functions as the conventional object experienced, even though ultimately there is no “I” that can be found to exist.

Where this matters in Buddhist theory is in that when examined during meditation, both “I” and “anger” cannot be found to have any ultimate reality to them. They are empty of any true existence, thus grasping on to them is futile and counterproductive in terms of attaining liberation from samsara, which is the whole point of the two-truths doctrine.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Aemilius »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 1:13 pm
Aemilius wrote: Thu Nov 03, 2022 10:47 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 5:01 am
Relative truth is that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening.
Ultimate truth is that it’s actually the Earth rotating that creates the illusion of the Sun moving across the sky. The Sun doesn’t really rise and set.
That doesn't really illustrate anything, bacause all motion of celestial bodies in space occurs in relation to an observer that is stationed somewhere.
that’s totally beside the point. Of course everything is occurring in a position relative to something else. The dirty dishes in my sink occur in a position relative to the cat in your back yard, but that fact doesn’t express the relative or ultimate truth about either one of them.

The point is, people used to think the Sun rotated around the Earth. Even though that’s not really (ultimately) true, it’s functionally (relatively) true.
Now we know that the Earth actually rotates around the Sun. Of course, both Earth and Sun are composites and in that sense are also empty of any ultimate reality.

Likewise, if I say “I” am angry, that is relatively true because “I” functions as the conventional object experienced, even though ultimately there is no “I” that can be found to exist.

Where this matters in Buddhist theory is in that when examined during meditation, both “I” and “anger” cannot be found to have any ultimate reality to them. They are empty of any true existence, thus grasping on to them is futile and counterproductive in terms of attaining liberation from samsara, which is the whole point of the two-truths doctrine.
Sun still really arises in the east and really sets in the west. It is not less true than the hypotetical observer's view from the sun.


Image
Last edited by Aemilius on Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
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)
PeterC
Posts: 5173
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:38 pm

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PeterC »

Ardha wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:48 pm You say that realization leads to a more engaged life but that doesn't seem to be the impression I read from other Buddhist sources, mostly some stuff in Lion's Roar. It tends to lead to detachment but also because content, sort of like a turtle I think they put it.
...
I'm just getting mixed messages on what it going on.
All this is just speculation. You'll see a lot of people refer to them as a practitioner because, well, what matters is practice. Study is useful, discussion is useful, but if you don't actually practice then you're a bit like someone who calls themselves a tennis player but who never actually plays or even watches tennis, just discusses with people what playing tennis is like. It's completely futile. The only way you get answers to these questions is by practicing and then coming back and seeing if the questions make any more sense, or if you have any experience that aligns with what Dharma texts say you should have.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Aemilius wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:18 am Sun still really arises in the east and really sets in the west. It is not less true than the hypotetical observer's view from the sun.
The Sun doesn’t “rise”. The Earth turns. What we call night is simply the shadow that occurs on whatever part of the Earth is facing away from the sun at the moment. If you are at the North Pole, it is constant daylight for six months.

The Sun appears from the point of view of Earth in the morning, and there is the illusion that it is moving over the Earth, and it “disappears” at night. But in the real universe, there is no East or West, North or South. Even in weightless orbit around the Earth, there is no actual up or down. The sun is constantly shining.

Someone viewing from the Sun would see the Earth moving slowly across the sky the way you see a jet flying really high, like a dot. And they would see it spinning, the way you would see a far away carousel spinning.

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
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 12:21 pm
Ardha wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 6:48 pm Knowing the true nature of things does render them less enjoyable and this has been measured. Jokingly people call it the hotdog principle, where if you love something never learn how it's made. Knowing the horror is just actors does make it less suspenseful, the whole point of movies and the "illusion" is to NOT know it is one. Otherwise it loses all it's magic. If you want further proof just look at magicians who perform tricks, the whole point is not knowing, same with avoiding spoilers for games or movies. Ignorance is the point.
So, your basic premise is that ignorance is bliss, and you can’t really be happy if you understand the true nature of things.
In other words, lies are better.

(BTW, again, ultimate truth and relative truth are not opposites).

There are some obvious flaws to your argument, but aside from them, there is a glaring contradiction: You believe your argument to be true, and you profess it as true. But if it were true, then by definition, you wouldn’t know it was true. You wouldn’t know that ignorance is bliss. You wouldn’t be able to proclaim it.

And, if you are correct, and Buddhists don’t see the truth that you are correct, then by your own argument, Buddhists are happier than you are because we are ignorant of the ‘fact’ that ignorance is bliss. Since you are not ignorant of this ‘fact’, knowing the truth would make you less happy.

You basically assert that the truth hurts, yet at the same time, you uphold this assertion as the truth.

It looks as though you disproved your position the moment you established it.
That's not really true. If it were true then I would be able to know it was true, if it weren't then I wouldn't be able to know that it was. I would be able to know ignorance is bliss because it's true. I'm not really sure what logic you're trying to use here. I wouldn't be able to know if something was true or not if it didn't reflect reality, which it does.

I gave examples of this being the case, how knowing how something works robs the enjoyment of it like a magic show. once you know how the trick works it defeats the point, same with knowing in a movie that all the folks are just actors and it's not real. The entire point of movies and similar media is that we forget that.

So feelings aren't like this then? I'm getting mixed results from different sites:
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

You spend enough time in meditation, you will realize that you never genuinely feel feelings in the first place
it is all just cause and effect response
and a lot of the time the specificity of that response is ascribed to how societal expectations dictate one should be effected by a particular cause
loss-->sadness
gain-->joy

The part about loss being false, is cold -- that is why the wise thing to do is to help people grieve rather than tell them about it
there are more appropriate times and places to discuss the ultimate nature of reality,
and telling someone "death doesn't matter" while they are vulnerable and grieving over death
will often hurt them in an emotional sense more than it will help guide them to an ultimate understanding

it has to be balanced out with a proper understanding of compassion
but all the monks I've met over the course of my life have been comfortable in their way of life
while my own had for years been disordered and confusing
And at the ultimate level change is real so does that mean that my feelings aren't real since they are ultimately empty?
Suffering is change; change is chaos; at the ultimate level suffering is the only real thing, but it is only suffering through the lens of those who suffer
the bunny cries, the bird cheers, nature goes on
I just read and hear and talk about this from different sources and it's hard to figure who's right or who's getting it wrong. One told me conventional and ultimate reality (or truth I guess) is an important part of it but I didn't learn about that until recently.

It's hard for me to say no to Buddhism because it feels like I have no choice but to listen or essentially live a lie and part of me is terribly upset at living a lie. So it's more like I'm listening out of fear I might be wrong.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 8:58 pm If it were true then I would be able to know it was true, if it weren't then I wouldn't be able to know that it was.
just because something is true is no guarantee that one knows it is true.
I wouldn't be able to know if something was true or not if it didn't reflect reality, which it does.
That makes no sense, because if you know something, you can’t be ignorant of it.
I gave examples of this being the case, how knowing how something works robs the enjoyment of it like a magic show. once you know how the trick works it defeats the point
it’s true that there are many things whose enjoyment depends on it being a mystery. But that certainly doesn’t include most things.
same with knowing in a movie that all the folks are just actors and it's not real.
so, you are saying that don’t enjoy movies, TV shows, fiction of any kind? Certainly you must know they are all made up.
The entire point of movies and similar media is that we forget that.

But this is precisely what you are objecting to with regards to the two-truths. In a sense, we are talking about suspending knowledge of the true nature of things.

You can understand the true nature of everything, that phenomena are empty of self-essence, but still enjoy it as though it is permanent. You can know that there is no essential “car-ness” in a car, that it is simply an assembly of parts, but still regard it as ‘car’.

This is what the two truths is about. Understanding that the true nature of phenomena is that they lack any intrinsic, self-arising essence, but acknowledging the fact that our experience revolves around treating phenomena as though it does.

You ask, ‘how can you be happy knowing the ultimate truth and pretending via relative truth?’ But that’s precisely what you do watching a magic show. You know the lady isn’t really being cut in half.
So feelings aren't like this then?

Don’t confuse the valid experience of an emotion with the fact that it is temporary and ultimately in it there is nothing to hold onto.
I just read and hear and talk about this from different sources and it's hard to figure who's right or who's getting it wrong.
I don’t find much contradiction in most Buddhist teachings regarding the two truths. Rather, there are different applications and contexts.
It's hard for me to say no to Buddhism because it feels like I have no choice but to listen or essentially live a lie and part of me is terribly upset at living a lie.
…even though you also say that not knowing the truth about something is bliss? How is that not ‘living a lie’?

You have a very distorted understanding of Buddhism. This is why you are uncomfortable with it.

At this time, you have ignorance about what Buddhism really teaches. Strangely however, by your own reasoning, this should result in your feeling perfectly happy with it.
So it's more like I'm listening out of fear I might be wrong.
I don’t understand that.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Nov 05, 2022 3:23 pm
Ardha wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 8:58 pm If it were true then I would be able to know it was true, if it weren't then I wouldn't be able to know that it was.
just because something is true is no guarantee that one knows it is true.
I wouldn't be able to know if something was true or not if it didn't reflect reality, which it does.
That makes no sense, because if you know something, you can’t be ignorant of it.
I gave examples of this being the case, how knowing how something works robs the enjoyment of it like a magic show. once you know how the trick works it defeats the point
it’s true that there are many things whose enjoyment depends on it being a mystery. But that certainly doesn’t include most things.
same with knowing in a movie that all the folks are just actors and it's not real.
so, you are saying that don’t enjoy movies, TV shows, fiction of any kind? Certainly you must know they are all made up.
The entire point of movies and similar media is that we forget that.

But this is precisely what you are objecting to with regards to the two-truths. In a sense, we are talking about suspending knowledge of the true nature of things.

You can understand the true nature of everything, that phenomena are empty of self-essence, but still enjoy it as though it is permanent. You can know that there is no essential “car-ness” in a car, that it is simply an assembly of parts, but still regard it as ‘car’.

This is what the two truths is about. Understanding that the true nature of phenomena is that they lack any intrinsic, self-arising essence, but acknowledging the fact that our experience revolves around treating phenomena as though it does.

You ask, ‘how can you be happy knowing the ultimate truth and pretending via relative truth?’ But that’s precisely what you do watching a magic show. You know the lady isn’t really being cut in half.
So feelings aren't like this then?

Don’t confuse the valid experience of an emotion with the fact that it is temporary and ultimately in it there is nothing to hold onto.
I just read and hear and talk about this from different sources and it's hard to figure who's right or who's getting it wrong.
I don’t find much contradiction in most Buddhist teachings regarding the two truths. Rather, there are different applications and contexts.
It's hard for me to say no to Buddhism because it feels like I have no choice but to listen or essentially live a lie and part of me is terribly upset at living a lie.
…even though you also say that not knowing the truth about something is bliss? How is that not ‘living a lie’?

You have a very distorted understanding of Buddhism. This is why you are uncomfortable with it.

At this time, you have ignorance about what Buddhism really teaches. Strangely however, by your own reasoning, this should result in your feeling perfectly happy with it.
So it's more like I'm listening out of fear I might be wrong.
I don’t understand that.
So what I said about emotions previously isn't right then? I read that from someone who talked to monks and Phd scholars who study Buddhism but don't know if it's true. Like "being able to feel appropriate things in order to connect with others but ultimately realizing there is no reason to feel one way or another about what's going on"?

But I do understand that on some level everything comes from somewhere else, a cause if you will. I learned that from the food web in elementary that all things connect, along with many shows saying the same thing. That one isn't inherently angry, happy or sad because then you'd always feel like that. Something happens, emotions flower and then fade. Such is life.

How we respond to them can depend on our understanding, which I think might be what she meant about "in meditation you realize you don't genuinely feel anything it's all cause and effect" or "one with true understanding knows there is no reason to anything with regards to situations, they're just stuff that happens" but feeling a certain way helps to connect with others. I don't know if that's true though.

But back to what I meant, like traffic. I used to get mad at it, but then I realized that stuff like this will happen so I should try my best to protect myself from it and watch out rather than try to force others to obey the rules. Getting mad won't change what happened but I can try to react or anticipate such moves when they happen. Works better for me.

Not much gets under my skin lately but that might be either depression or me suppressing my emotions due to what that person said about feelings (the quoted stuff I mentioned).

But yeah, I think you're right. On some level I can intuit what is meant by two truths.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 4:47 am I read that from someone who talked to monks and Phd scholars who study Buddhism but don't know if it's true. Like "being able to feel appropriate things in order to connect with others but ultimately realizing there is no reason to feel one way or another about what's going on"?
Well, that sounds about right.
I think one of the best ways I’ve seen it expressed (and I’ve shared this here before) but I’m not sure now where it comes from:

…to fully experience happiness
without relying on happiness;
…to fully experience sadness
without dwelling in sadness


In other words, the wind comes and goes
but it doesn’t knock your house over.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 11:11 pm
Ardha wrote: Tue Nov 08, 2022 4:47 am I read that from someone who talked to monks and Phd scholars who study Buddhism but don't know if it's true. Like "being able to feel appropriate things in order to connect with others but ultimately realizing there is no reason to feel one way or another about what's going on"?
Well, that sounds about right.
I think one of the best ways I’ve seen it expressed (and I’ve shared this here before) but I’m not sure now where it comes from:

…to fully experience happiness
without relying on happiness;
…to fully experience sadness
without dwelling in sadness


In other words, the wind comes and goes
but it doesn’t knock your house over.
But how do you feel happiness or sadness without relying on either one? I dont get it?

Does that mean this holds water? It's from a conversation I had with someone who studied Buddhism as part of a religion course in college:
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
Again it just feels like everyone has a take on it that I don't understand what it is really saying. Or maybe my friend is just bad at explaining things.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:07 am But how do you feel happiness or sadness without relying on either one? I dont get it?

Does that mean this holds water? It's from a conversation I had with someone who studied Buddhism as part of a religion course in college:
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
Yeah, pretty much.
It also means you don’t have to go looking for happiness in order to be happy, because happiness is a product of your own mind to begin with.

And when sadness comes your way, it’s not the end of the world.
Again it just feels like everyone has a take on it that I don't understand what it is really saying. Or maybe my friend is just bad at explaining things.
Or, you might just be too preoccupied with intellectualizing everything.

Do you have a regular meditation practice?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Ardha wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:07 am But how do you feel happiness or sadness without relying on either one? I dont get it?
There is the ordinary up and down happy/sad existence of samsara. Everyone experiences that.
But there is also a level of experience that transcends that, that goes beyond that, which is more about overall general contentment rather than being happy or sad from one moment to the next. I think this is one of the things we can learn from buddhist teachings about how to watch the mind. The cause of peace of mind is the mind itself. Temporary happiness and sadness are the result of temporary events that occur outside of ourselves.

I have a close friend who is essentially pushed around by her emotions. They dictate her state of mind to her. She has no interest in meditation at all and thinks that Buddhism somehow robs a person of the rich spectrum of normal human emotions. But if that were reality, then when she is upset or angry, she should be happy to be experiencing the rich spectrum of emotions. Being miserable should technically bring her satisfaction and so on.

For some strange reason however, being miserable and distraught only seems to make a person feel
Miserable and distraught.

If you depend on outside causes for your basic state of mind, you will always be like a leaf blown around in the wind, always subject to changing conditions and never experiencing your true mind, whose essential quality is untroubled.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Natan
Posts: 3650
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:48 pm

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Natan »

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.
It might help to understand the levels of Buddhism vis a vis the Arahant path vs the Bodhisattva path.

Some practitioners come.to see samsara, the cycle of rebirth, as bad and strive to overcome it by recognizing the cause of it requires attachment to a personal identity. Then, they look within to see that it does not consist of any true reality.

Then those who wish to assist others on a grand scale seek to overcome all limits to Buddhahood which consist of not being able to overcome attachment not only to the illusory nature of oneself but also of the actions needed to help others and the very notion of others. To do this they must recognize emptiness of the relevant and ultimate truths. Then the practice of Bodhicitta functions on the level of great bliss
User avatar
Aemilius
Posts: 4594
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:44 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by Aemilius »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 5:41 pm
Aemilius wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:18 am Sun still really arises in the east and really sets in the west. It is not less true than the hypotetical observer's view from the sun.
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)
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: 9398
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Aemilius wrote: Thu Nov 17, 2022 9:31 am
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 5:41 pm
Aemilius wrote: Fri Nov 04, 2022 10:18 am Sun still really arises in the east and really sets in the west. It is not less true than the hypotetical observer's view from the sun.
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.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: Two Truths Doctrine

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 7:37 am
Ardha wrote: Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:07 am But how do you feel happiness or sadness without relying on either one? I dont get it?
There is the ordinary up and down happy/sad existence of samsara. Everyone experiences that.
But there is also a level of experience that transcends that, that goes beyond that, which is more about overall general contentment rather than being happy or sad from one moment to the next. I think this is one of the things we can learn from buddhist teachings about how to watch the mind. The cause of peace of mind is the mind itself. Temporary happiness and sadness are the result of temporary events that occur outside of ourselves.

I have a close friend who is essentially pushed around by her emotions. They dictate her state of mind to her. She has no interest in meditation at all and thinks that Buddhism somehow robs a person of the rich spectrum of normal human emotions. But if that were reality, then when she is upset or angry, she should be happy to be experiencing the rich spectrum of emotions. Being miserable should technically bring her satisfaction and so on.

For some strange reason however, being miserable and distraught only seems to make a person feel
Miserable and distraught.

If you depend on outside causes for your basic state of mind, you will always be like a leaf blown around in the wind, always subject to changing conditions and never experiencing your true mind, whose essential quality is untroubled.
How can outside causes not be responsible if everything has a cause and an effect?

Also they keep asking me for source for my quotes but I'm honest when i say it's from a thread with someone I knew.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showfl ... 5#26649185

And this is what was said:
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
Depression is a coded way of feeling about the world; it is about an inability to accept things as they are
few are actually brave enough to relinguish depression and to brutally accept truth
As well as the others I included on this thread, though the second one I know is wrong. But the first one about "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.
Locked

Return to “Discovering Mahayana Buddhism”