Talk:Two truths doctrine

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buddhism Top‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Epistemology / Religion / Eastern Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Dharma#Dharmas in Buddhist phenomenology|metaphysical-phenomenological constituents]] The anchor (#Dharmas in Buddhist phenomenology) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Isn't this a type of dualism? I thought that Buddhist philosophy in general argues against dualistic points of view... Itistoday 20:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Truths Doctrine in Buddhism differentiates between two levels of truth in Buddhist discourse, a "relative", or commonsense truth, and an "ultimate" or absolute spiritual truth. Stated differently, the two truths doctrine holds that truth exists in conventional and ultimate forms, and that both forms are co-existent. Other schools, such as Dzogchen, hold that the Two Truths Doctrine are ultimately resolved into nonduality as a lived experience. The doctrine is an especially important element of Buddhism and was first expressed in complete modern form by Nagarjuna, who based it on the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta?.

Blót: blessings in blood

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with (inherent) dualism. There simply are different kinds of truths: contingent and absolute truths! "The bottle is standing on the table", can be true or not depending on the condition. Another example is Newton's mechanics: Newton's theory is wrong, it is not representing the true laws of nature, but within certain limits it gives correct answers. So, within a convention (= people agree on how to use it in what situations with what limits) , it can be used for everyday needs, in that way it is 'true'. Absolute truth is always true, is not contingent, never changing, is not constructed in any way and is not depending on convention - it is reality. According to I. Kant, there are synthetic and analytical truths. Analytical truths may appear to be absolute truth, but they are not in the (Prasangika) Madhyamaka sense, because they are constructed (if - then - scheme). It can be said, there is a limited truth (= conventional, relative) and an unlimited truth (= absolute), to characterize the difference. From the point of view of the absolute truth, relative truth is not true, there is only one real truth. So, there is no dualism, but there is a dualism from the conventional point of view! ;) (Gelong Karma Trinley Rabgye) 84.61.86.145 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"There are two kinds of knowledge to be acquired – the higher and the lower; this is what, as tradition runs, the knowers of the import of the Vedas say. Of these, the lower comprises the Rig-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Sama-Veda, Atharva-Veda, the science of pronunciation etc., the code of rituals, grammar, etymology, metre and astrology. Then there is the higher (knowledge) by which is attained that Imperishable. (By the higher knowledge) the wise realize everywhere that which cannot be perceived and grasped, which is without source, features, eyes, and ears, which has neither hands nor feet, which is eternal, multiformed, all-pervasive, extremely subtle, and undiminishing and which is the source of all. As a spider spreads out and withdraws (its thread), as on the earth grow the herbs (and trees), and as from a living man issues out hair (on the head and body), so out of the Imperishable does the Universe emerge here (in this phenomenal creation). Through knowledge Brahman increases in size. From that is born food (the Unmanifested). From food evolves Prana (Hiranyagarbha); (thence the cosmic) mind; (thence) the five elements; (thence) the worlds; (thence) the immortality that is in karmas."^[1]

Ā = citta santana = "The Great Continuum of 'Great Madhyamika'"
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that Alexander Berzin didn't understand the matter. This is not a case for the application of the law of excluded middle because the "common" and "ultimate" cases are on different levels. Apples and oranges. The common level is a sub-case, simplification, an adaptation of practical purpose. The only real level is the "ultimate" one.

Take for example the "Newtonian physics" compared to "Einstein's relativity" theory. The second is a larger case, including the first. Yet the first is useful and holds (almost) true at low speeds and low masses, that is for all practical purposes of engineering. You wouldn't design a car taking into account the relativistic effects.

So there's no need to have this quote as it ads nothing useful to the article. It merely muddies the idea of two truths.

The quote also contradicts the general direction of the article. In a lower paragraph we read In Buddhism, it is applied particularly to the doctrine of emptiness, in which objects are ultimately empty of essence, yet conventionally appear the contrary at any given moment in time, such that they neither exist nor do not exist.

So, you seem they are simultaneously applying "common" and "ultimate". Not either one or the other. The "common" level is only an appearance. The ultimate "level" alone is real. But as an appearance, the "common" level exists together on the "ultimate", without denying the ultimate level (superposition - they neither exist nor do not exist).

Visarga (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, and removed the quote. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure sure sure that subject and object poles exist conventionally? there are some fairly commonsense things that do no IIRC. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.49.8 (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joshua Jonathan, the idea of 'three levels of reality' is not the same as the theory of 'two truths'. It is a related idea. Therefore it should not be jumbled up together with views expressing the 'Two Truth' doctrine; the basic idea of 'three levels of reality' should be clearly demarcated from 'two truths' doctrine. Soham321 (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Or just move the whole Yogacara-section? @Ogress: any thoughts? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: sadly, I'm not an expert on Yogacara, I can try to read up some today as I have a bunch of books available to me.

Soham321, since the page is kind of confusing, can you elaborate in a sentence or two what it is and also where you'd like it to go? Do you believe it has enough weight to warrant its own page or should it just stay a section on the page? Ogress _smash! 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to get into an extended discussion on this right now because i don't have the source material with me right now. The only point i am making is that the "two truths" doctrine should be demarcated from the "three levels of reality" since they are related but different concepts; therefore, they should not be jumbled up together. Regarding having a separate page, my answer is no; the two concepts of "two truths" doctrine, and "three levels of reality", are sufficiently similar in nature so that they can be included in the same page. Soham321 (talk) 18:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC) Incidentally, the Madhyamika also talks of "three levels of reality". That is why we need to have a separate section about "Three levels of reality" with the views of the Yogacara, Madhyamika, and Advaita Vedanta. Also, we can mention that there has been allegations by a section of ancient, medieval, and modern scholars that the conception of "three levels of reality" was first invented by the Mahayana Buddhists (Yogacara aka vijnanavaadis, and Madhyamika aka sunyavadis) and then surreptiously borrowed (plagiarized) by Shankara. Furthermore, Advaita also talks of the "two truths" doctrine. Even here, the criticism is that Shankara plagiarizes without acknowledgement from the Mahayana Buddhists. Therefore, a separate section for "two truths" doctrine and "three levels of reality" is a must. They cannot be jumbled up together. By the way, one can also add another section on "Criticism of the Two Truths Doctrine", that is to say criticism of the Advaita Vedantists and Mahayana Buddhists (Yogacara and Madhyamika) by contemporary philosophers in India who did not subscribe to Advaita or Mahayana Buddhism. Soham321 (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the talk page of this article, in this section itself, Joshua has invited Ogress for her feedback. Presumably this does not constitute canvassing. I am therefore inviting every single person (with the exception of IP address editors, and of course Joshua and Ogress) who has contributed to the main article of this page at some time or another to give their feedback on whether the 'three levels of reality' should be clearly demarcated from 'two truths doctrine' instead of jumbling them up in the way it is appearing now . I do not have the source material with me, but i hope to have it soon. When i do so i will give more details on this topic. Meanwhile, i request others to share their views: Felix Folio Secundus, Pollinosisss, Visarga, B9 hummingbird hovering, Gregbard, John Carter. Soham321 (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B9 hummingbird hovering ‎was blocked indef in 2009; you started editing in 2013. This is really weird, that you appeal to him. And why do you start again to make a drama out of nothing? I suggested that the Yogacara-section might ne moved, so what's the fuzz? I'm perfectly fine with a separate section, or even article, on "Three levels of reality." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we already pointed out that the term "plagiarized" is anachronistic and OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I informed everyone who has contributed to the main article to avoid the charge of canvassing (without looking at their page histories). I find your suggestion of removing the Yogacara section repugnant. The 'two truths doctrine' and 'three levels of reality' postulate was an invention of the Buddhists including the Yogacara Buddhists. It is strange that you should seek to remove the Yogacara view on 'three levels of reality' while retaining the Advaita view of 'three levels of reality' from this page. Your suggestion comes across as indicative of unacceptable bias and prejudice in favor of Advaita. Regarding the accusation of plagiarism, why are you getting so excited? Let others also participate and contribute their thoughts. Soham321 (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC) I just realized i was only looking at the first page of the talk page history when sending the notice to other editors. I am sending the notice therefore to the editors to whom i did not send it earlier. Please note that i am sending this notice to everybody who has ever contributed to the main article (except IP address editors and bots) to get feedback on whether there should be a clear demarcation of 'three levels of reality' and 'two truths' doctrine instead of the currently jumbled up form in the main page. (I will point out that I had made the clear demarcation between 'three levels of reality' and 'two truths doctrine' which are two similar and related, but different, concepts in the main page before Joshua scrambled and jumbled up the two concepts on the main page.) Apologies if i missed out anyone inadvertently. So here is the notice to the others: Kukkurovaca, Shantavira, Eequor, CesarB, 20040302, Biot, Mjb, TheMadBaron, Cacycle, Goethean, Stephen Hodge, DopefishJustin, DopefishJustin, A Ramachandran, Gregory Wonderwheel, Phe, Rich Farmbrough, Zerokitsune, Graham87,Elipongo, Owlmonkey, Eu.stefan,Dakinijones, Emptymountains, Paxfeline,CFynn, R'n'B,Jevansen, Koavf, Ninly, Mitsube,Moonsell, Wilhelmina Will, Woohookitty, Pilcrow549,Skyerise, Wikitanvir, Scottywong, Gatti fabien1,Nathanielfirst, Heironymous Rowe, Rich Farmbrough, Amplifying Life, Breno, Addshore, Helpsome, Wiki-uk,Dakinijones, Deville, Hotaru in meditation, JimRenge Soham321 (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Soham, read again: "I'm perfectly fine with a separate section, or even article, on "Three levels of reality."" Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joshua, i read again. You said you wanted to move the Yogacara section out of this page; you did not say you also wanted to move the Advaita section out of this page. If you also wish to move the Advaita section out of this page (the material on 'three levels of reality') than i will withdraw my criticism of bias against you although i will still disagree with you on the ground that the two principles of 'two truths' and 'three levels of reality' are sufficiently similar to be included in the same page. Soham321 (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to inclusion, no objection to a separate section. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will do the demarcation once i get access to the source material since i also wish to give the views of the sunyavadi (Madhyamaka) Buddhists on the three levels of reality. I would be happy if somebody else does the demarcation before i do it. Soham321 (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that Joshua has agreed about the need to clearly demarcate the 'Three levels of Reality', i propose the following: give the views of the Yogacara (also known as vijnaanavad), and also the Madhyamaka (also known as sunyavada) which were the two major schools of Mahayana Buddhism in India in this section. If there is any other school of Mahayana Buddhism (other than the two schools i mention) in China or Japan or elsewhere which talks of 'three levels of reality' the views of that school can also be included in this section. Next we can also add the views of Advaita on 'three levels of reality' in this section. The note on 'Greek Skepticism' (that is currently present at the end of the article) should not be placed in the new section 'Three levels of Reality' because the Greek viewpoint is talking of 'two truths' doctrine and not 'three levels of reality.
• I propose we include the Advaita viewpoint of 'two truths' doctrine in the main article (but not in the 'three levels of reality section'). Right now the article is implying as if Advaita accepts the 'three levels of reality' but not the 'two truths' doctrine. As i said the two concepts are similar and related, but different.
• I propose we include a section containing the allegations of ancient, medieval and modern philosophers that the 'two truths' doctrine and 'three levels of reality' concept was an invention of the Mahayana Buddhists and that both these concepts were surreptitiously borrowed by the Advaita Vedantist Adi Shankara who seeks to conceal this plagiarism by denouncing the Buddhists. I shall present all the evidence i am able to produce for this section, recognizing that this is a controversial section. We can agree to have some kind of a consensus on this issue based on the evidence i and possibly others will produce.
• I propose to include a section on the rebuttal of the 'two truths' doctrine and 'three levels of reality' by ancient and medieval Indian philosophers who were neither Mahayana Budhists nor Advaita Vedantists. This section can also include rebuttals of the 'two truths' doctrine and 'three levels of reality' by ancient or medieval philosophers in China, Japan or elsewhere.
• I would request everyone i have pinged to keep an eye on this page. When introducing the other sections i will be pinging everyone again in the event of some controversy arising.Soham321 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Some note can be written comparing the 'Two Truths' doctrine of Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta with the the concept of the 'Double Truth' enunciated by medieval Christian philosophers in Europe: Double truth Soham321 (talk) 09:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by JJ: Some starters:

• Sonam Thakchoe, The Theory of Two Truths in India, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Dan Lusthaus, The Two Truths (Saṃvṛti-satya and Paramārtha-satya) in Early Yogācāra

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ghee, a Marxist... Last month I had a discussion with a friend of mine, on Marxism. Some door in my memory opened-up, and I was transported back to the early 90s (I'm old enough to remember 1989). Not a specific memory, but a mood, an atmosphere. Just to know for sure: who is Chattopadhyaya, and is he really relevant for this article? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 02:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read Mohanbhan's comments on the Carvaka talk page to know more about Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya and his writings and whether he can be used as a source in WP articles. In case you are unaware, Chattopadhyaya's body of work has been endorsed by no less a person than Joseph Needham. Soham321 (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking. Ehm... how up-to-date is Joseph Needham, and how relevant is his endorsement? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am now tired of listening to this refrain of how up to date a source should be in discussions related to the humanities. The question of being up to date makes sense in science, but not always in humanities, certainly not in philosophy. I have with me a translation of Sun Tzu's book The Art of War translated by Samuel Griffith. In the preface, Liddell Hart writes:

Among all the military thinkers of the past, only Clausewitz is comparable, and even he is more 'dated' than Sun Tzu, and in part antiquated, although he was writing more than two thousand years later. Sun Tzu has clearer vision, more profound insight, and eternal freshness...in the middle of the Second World War, I had several visits from the Chinese Military Attache, a pupil of Chiang Kai-Shek. He told me that my book and General Fuller's were principal textbooks in the Chinese military academies---whereupon I asked: 'What about Sun Tzu?' He replied that while Sun Tzu's book was venerated as a classic, it was considered out of date by most of the younger officers, and thus hardly worth study in the era of mechanized weapons. At this, I remarked that it was time they went back to Sun Tzu, since in that one short book was embodied almost as much about the fundamentals of strategy and tactics as I had covered in more than twenty books. In brief, Sun Tzu was the best short introduction to the study of warfare, and no less valuable for constant reference in extending study of the subject.

Soham321 (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya was a specialist in Cārvāka - he got into it from his Marxism as an ancient Indian counter-proposal to Hinduism - and as such is mostly a fantastic source. Every scholar has things that need unpacking, and for him it is modernity - for him, all actions are political, and he was involved in an actual struggle that was often extremely violent. He wasn't studying the Cārvāka because he was an armchair historian, he wanted to apply it as a tool to liberate the minds and bodies of his fellow humans. Ogress _smash! 05:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ogress. That makes sense to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Kumarila's rebuttal of the 'Two Truths' doctrine should come after the 'Three levels of reality' section. The reason is that it is in this section that the concepts of both 'three levels of reality' and 'two truths' are explained in a coherent and cogent manner in my opinion. The average reader will not be able to appreciate Kumarila's rebuttal until he has read the content in the 'Three levels of reality' section in my opinion. Soham321 (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right, but then we'll first have to ask how relevant Kumarila's rebuttal is. Why should it be included? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be included because it is a very good rebuttal, and besides Ogress approves of it from what i could tell. Soham321 (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs a context: a (very) short explanation of what Mimamsa is, and what the relation between Mimamsa and Buddhism is. And a short explanation on the interaction between the various traditions in India. In this regard, it is relevant that Kumarila was a strong, and convincing, opponent of Buddhism. By the way, I find the quote very difficult to understand. And since I'm not an average reader, but one with a relatively greater amount of knowledge on Hinduism and Buddhism, I expect that this quote is incomprehensible to the average reader. Would it be possible to paraphrase it, and give the full quote in a note? And by the way, I find it a worthless rebuttal; it doesn't reflect the argument of the Madhyamikas. But that's my personal opinion, though it's also a reminder that this is an encyclopedia, and that our task is to give an overview of what the relevant sources say, not to repeat scholastic fights from more than a millennium ago. So, which relevant source refers to this quote? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, honestly I just ran my usual page cleaning routine. It is true that criticism sections are often included in pages about philosophical concepts, and it does give a bit of three-dimensionality, but it might be nice if it was a little less quote and a little more content. As I understand it, although I am not an expert, this period of Buddhist-Hindu interaction was quite interactive. Ogress _smash! 05:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are right about this being a period of intense Hindu-Budhist philosophical interaction; this of course led to an all round enrichment of all the concerned philosophies who were participating in the debates. I will consider editing the Kumarila quote later. Actually, this is only the beginning of his statement--he goes on to say a lot more on this topic. Soham321 (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the section about the Madhyamakas in the Three Levels of Reality. Joshua Jonathan has rewritten this section and made a mess of it in my opinion. First, he removes any mention of the level of reality corresponding to paramartha satya. Second, he begins the section with the words "Madhyamaka's two levels of truth can also be regarded as three levels of truth." I would request Ogress to consider fixing the content in this section. Soham321 (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead Ogress. But Soham, please refrain from statements like "Only someone who does not really understand this topic;" in this place, or at least with me, you can discuss in a normal way, instead of the hyperbole and permanent warfare that seems to be en vogue in India. Okay? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since a content dispute has taken place between Joshua Jonathan and me, i am again pinging every editor who has ever edited this article for a second opinion: Kukkurovaca, Shantavira, Eequor, CesarB, 20040302, Biot, Mjb, TheMadBaron, Cacycle, Goethean, Stephen Hodge, DopefishJustin, DopefishJustin, A Ramachandran, Gregory Wonderwheel, Phe, Rich Farmbrough, Zerokitsune, Graham87, Elipongo, Owlmonkey,Eu.stefan, Dakinijones, Emptymountains, Paxfeline,CFynn,R'n'B, Jevansen, Koavf,Ninly,Mitsube,Moonsell, Wilhelmina Will, Woohookitty, Pilcrow549,Skyerise, Wikitanvir, Scottywong, Gatti fabien1,Nathanielfirst, Heironymous Rowe, Rich Farmbrough, Amplifying Life, Breno, Addshore, Helpsome, Wiki-uk, Dakinijones, Deville, Hotaru in meditation, JimRenge, Felix Folio Secundus, Pollinosisss, Visarga, B9 hummingbird hovering, Gregbard, John Carter, Ogress Soham321 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User talk:Soham321#Some stroopwafels for you! by Joshua Jonathan, for a clarification

I have nothing personal against you. In fact i like you as a person. It is just that i do not think your editing on the Two truths doctrine was leading to the article becoming better; in fact the article was becoming worse in my opinion. I wish you would have stopped editing this article when i asked Ogress to do the editing since both of us seem to have trust in her. At any rate, i have now pinged on the talk page of the article every single person who has ever edited this article for a second opinion on our content dispute. I am sorry if i have hurt your feelings, but in my opinion our primary focus should be on making wikipedia articles better. Soham321 (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied text

Sigh... I don't think that a wholesale revert is very constructive; let's say, I think it's a little bit clumsy. I least you should have kept the edits on the "Refutation of Two Truths Doctrine" doctrine. I'm not going to dig into this now, but I thrust we (you and me of course, but also other editors who are interested) will reach a concencus. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment, not supporting anyone in particular, JJ there is particular problem in editing philosophical articles!. For the material of spirituality and philo some times words/sentences are not just right expression for it, some how if we try to deduce the concepts down to our known english dictionery without being comprehensive(which could itself run into a book! ), the very concepts looses its meaning and is reduced down to something trivial or may be which it is even not!, this problems comes when we try to concretise notions or "realisations" (could also be a problem with many )

e.g consider a 5th grader gets in contact with a book on "Brain surgery" and reads a chapter on "Thalamus", now he if he states " Thalamus a part of brain which functions as a sensory relay" yes its partially true but does not correctly depict what ""Thalamus"" actually is !!

would suggest to abstaining from concretising philo/spiritual concepts but rather giving only an Idea or a possibility (giving the reader to decide or finding out on his own) would be a better way of going ahead Shrikanthv (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: I have been reviewing the changes to this article since yesterday, and your improvements to edits made by @Soham321. I have not reverted @Soham321, as I have been checking and figuring out what to keep, revise, revert or delete. I like your changes, but I am concerned about the section where the only source is the Marxist-ideology blinkered writings of Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya. I suggest we keep Chattopadhyaya-sourced content if an independent second, supporting RS is available. Thoughts? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't reverted Soham321 either; simply reverting is not the way to go ahead, especially not now that he's got a topic-ban. I wanted to verify his edits with other sources, but that will take some timeto do. So, yes, I agree. It concerns mainly two points:

• the "Three Levels of Reality;" I don't know what other sources say about this;
• Kumārila Bhaṭṭa's refutation; it's definitely interesting, but it needs to be contextualised.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-ordered the sections, as I'd done before:

• Merged "Origin and development" and "Understnding in Buddhist tradition;" these are the same topics; presenting them as different subtopics is confusing;
• Added subsubheaders: "Tibetan Buddhism" already contained subsubheaders; I've divied the other subsections into "Early Indian Buddhism," "Indian Mahayana Buddhism," and "East Asian Buddhism," conform the topics covered in these subsections;
• Moved "Refutation of Two Truths Doctrine" and "Correspondence with Greek scepticism" into a new subsection. Those areas are, of course, geographically widely away from each other, but qua topic they constitute a "rest-category."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As explained before at Talk:Two truths doctrine#Kumarila Bhatta's refutation of 'Two Truths' Doctrine, and in accordance with Ogress' recommandation, I've added some context to Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, and paraphrased the long quote (which is still available in the note. NB: I still have the feeling that this section is WP:UNDUE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several changes:

• Merged the Madhayamaka subsection into the Madhyamaka-section above, meanwhile rephrasing the explanation, and moving the examples into a note;
• Attributed Chattopadhyaya's comment on Nagarjuna; as it was stated, this comment was too sweeping, and looked more like an argument by the editor with Nagarjuna:

"It has been argued that the Buddha never subscribed to the 'two truths doctrine', and that it is characteristic of Nagarjuna to mendaciously claim that his views have the endorsement of the Buddha."

• "it has been argued": too broad; Chattopadhyaya says so;
• "the Buddha never": "never" is too general, or definite;
• "mendaciously claim": far from neutral;
• "his views have the endorsement of the Buddha": too lietral, as if the Buddha and nagarjuna had a personal interaction.

• Moved the Yogacara-section upwards to "Buddhist Idealism," where it belongs;
• Moved the Advaita section to "Understanding in other traditions", where it is better suited now.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've further expanded this section. I think that the edits and the edit-summaries speak for themselves. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only eight hits at Google Books for "loka samvriti"... Anyone any thoughts? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One spurce that may be verifiable: The Journal of the Indian Academy of Philosophy, 1972 [2]. I'll see if I can access it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tis might be a little bit clarifying:

"And this is a kind of truth, but it is temporary and conditional. It covers the world with a veil of illusion. Loka-samvriti-satya, according to the Indian interpretation of the difficult word samvriti." Source: V. Nithiyanadam (2004), Theistic Buddhism, p.118 (in summary/quote via Google Books)

So, "loka-samvriti" as a synonym for "loka-samvriti-satya" c.q. "samvriti"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found more:

• The Urban Dharma Newsletter... March 16, 2004:

So, according to this source, Nagarjuna spekas of asatya.

• Sulekha.com, Refutation of Advaita: Kumarila Part 2, which gives an extensive quote of Kumarila (emphasis mine):

Apparently, it is Kumarila who uses the terms loka-samvriti and aloka-samvriti. Chattopadhyaya took over this terminology, and Soham321 failed to attribute this nuance correctly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the info on loka-samvriti-satya and asatya (...) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JJ: This article is in a much better shape today with your edits. Here are a few more leads:
[1] Natalie Isaeva's Shankara and Indian Philosophy has a discussion on Two Truths doctrine, from Shankara's perspective and few other Hindu schools of philosophies, on pages 190-198; she also provides Gaudapada's discussion on this doctrine on pages 54-55. These as well a summary from recent relevant discussions on Shankara's Bhasya on Book 2 of Taittiriya Upanishad;
[2] In other traditions section, the article would become better if it includes both epistemic and ontological perspective for this doctrine in the Vedanta-Mimamsa-etc schools, showing the differences they had with Buddhist schools;
[3] Mention two truths doctrine from Tiantai perspective; Paul Swanson , Foundations of Tʻien-Tʻai Philosophy: The Flowering of the Two Truths Theory, ISBN 978-0895819192;
[4] Streng's paper is a useful source, as is the SEP article for this article.
[5] For Loka-samvrti and Aloka-samvrti, you may find Murti's work useful. For example, TRV Murti, The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, Routledge (2003 Reprint), ISBN 978-8121510806, pages 243-255 (Murti has been widely cited in other RS).
Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And pffffff... way to go! I'll start with Murti; it seems to be time to buy The central Philosophy. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found some more. Murti mentions the synonym Mithya-samvrti. This seems to be the Buddhist term:

• Stcherbatsky, commenting on Candrakīrti (7th century CE), also uses the terms loka-samvrti adn aloka-samvrti. See Theodore Stcherbatsky (1989), Madhyamakakārikā, Motilall Banarsidass, p.54. He further refers to Prajñakaramati (950-1030), commentator to Shantideva's Bodhicharyavatara.
• Nalinaksha Dutt (1930) refers to Shantideva (8th century CE): "Such experiences should be called Alokasamvrti (conventional truths but not general). Santideva calls these two kinds of conventional truths Tathya-samvrti and Mithya-samvrti."
• Jnanagarbha (8th century) also uses the term mithya-samvrti. See Malcolm David Eckel (1992), Jñānagarbha on the Two Truths: An Eighth Century Handbook of Madhyamaka Philosophy, p.123

So, the Buddhist tradition seems to use the terms tathya-samvrti and mithya-samvrti; from where then come the terms loka-samvrti and aloka-samvrti?

From Candrakirti, according to Nakamura: Nakamura (1980), Indian Buddhism, p.285. Lal Mani Joshi (1977), in the Buddhistic Culture of India During the Seventh and Eighth Centuries A.D., p.174 further states that the division into tathya-samvrti and mithya-samvrti comes from Bhavaviveka (6th century), while the divison into loka-samvrti and aloka-samvrti comes from Candrakirti. So, there we are. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my last edit is clear enough. If not, I can provide something from Candrakirti that substantiates it. The way that I see it is that if one were to hold an innate view of permanence (which we unenlightened all do, as it is the primary basis of coarse attachment and aversion), then it is likely that one will also hold an innate view of essence also. (not merely believing that things persist, but also that they are there on their own side). However, (and I've made the point before), I can imagine that someone can eliminate coarse attachment through understanding impermanence (ie, momentary change) - but be still tied to a view of essence. I think that Lord Buddha was very careful when distinguishing the three marks of existence - you need to really know all three in order to develop Wisdom, and these three are distinct in that eg. meditating on momentariness of all phenomena does NOT eliminate essence. (20040302 (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Two truths doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724083326/http://www.berotsana.org/pdf/lotsawa_timesII_sc.pdf to http://www.berotsana.org/pdf/lotsawa_timesII_sc.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050208100348/http://www.orientalia.org:80/article492.html to http://www.orientalia.org/article492.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060511184737/http://www.accesstoinsight.org:80/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-015.html to http://accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn12-015.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title has been modified to include the original terminology used by Nagarjuna. N sahi (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I moved it back. First, you need consensus for a change of this magnitude, and second this article covers more than Nagarjuna. Dharmalion76 (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok...good you did! N sahi (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhammasaṅgaṇī of Abhidhamma Piṭaka explains two means of perfecting the knowledge:

What on that occasion is the faculty of knowledge made perfect (annindriyam) ?
The insight that makes for the realization of those truths that have been realized, comprehended, attained to, discerned, and known — the insight that is understanding, search, research, searching the Truth, etc.^[1]

The existing references from pali canon in the article regarding nītattha and neyyattha can be applied only to texts or statements from pali canon whereas the reference i quoted seems to imply two kinds of truth that can be applied in ones own life. There is a clear distinction so it does add something new to the article. Kyraa7 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

notifying User:Teishin User:Joshua_Jonathan Kyraa7 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems to imply"? See WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding User:Joshua_Jonathan. My english is not very good so the usage of "Seems to imply" was a mistake. The reference i was mentioning has 2 points ie, 364 and 364a(which im quoting) under section named "the fourth path". This section as whole explains means for attaining "perfect knowledge" and "balance" which are termed as "states that are good". The first point explains cultivation of Jnana through which one eventually reaches 1st stage of Jnana which results in "states that are good". The second point explains two kinds of insights which constitutes as "perfect knowledge".

Also please notice the use of word "truth" in both insights. The only word this is lacking is "two" but it obviously is talking about of two kinds of insights. You can read the translation of the canon here, page is 89. Kyraa7 (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand what you're writing, but I'm afraid I fail.... It seems to me that you're intrpreting a primary source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im reinterpreting nothing. Im quoting direct text from the source. Its written in plain words even in translation that cannot be interpreted in multiple ways. Please read the translation that i linked yourself. Kyraa7 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no mention of any info related to the two truths doctrine in that text. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section ie, "the fourth path" consisting of two points as a whole is not dedicated towards explaining 2 truths doctrine. Only the second point 364a elaborates on two kinds of insights (notice how it uses the word truth) that constitutes as perfect knowledge.

> insight one - "realization of those truths that have been realized, comprehended, attained to, discerned, and known". Talking about truths that have already been established.

> insight two - "the insight that is understanding, search, research, searching the Truth, etc.". Talking about truths that needs further investigation or exploration on ones part. Kyraa7 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains multiple references to Lai 2003, but no such source is listed in the sources section. Diana Karpow (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddha taught that form is empty of inherent existence. This means that objects do not exist from their own side, but are mere APPEARANCES to mind. They are only IDEAS, labels, or designations of our own making. For example, a tree does not call itself a tree, our mind calls it a tree, and an idea of the mind cannot leave the mind, and take on an objective existence of its own. In other words , the material world is only a kind of dream in our minds. 80.189.60.122 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to move the page as a sub on Sacca as it is the main topic of this article. Any ideas? Faredoka (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]