Talk:Two truths doctrine

message: "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."Source:  (accessed: January 3, 2008)
Ā = citta santana = "The Great Continuum of 'Great Madhyamika'"
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mundaka Upanishad]]: Translated by [[Swami Gambhirananda]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: I totally agree, and removed the quote. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The Alexander Berzin quote should be removed

message: 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)
thread_title: Notes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It should be included because it is a very good rebuttal, and besides  approves of it from what i could tell. Soham321 (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Kumarila Bhatta's refutation of 'Two Truths' Doctrine 

message: 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  to consider fixing the content in this section. Soham321 (talk) 06:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding the Madhyamakas in the ''Three Levels of Reality'' section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re-ordering 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Kumārila Bhaṭṭa 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Three levels of reality -  Madhaymaka 

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Mithya-samvrti''

message: 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)
thread_title:  Essence does not have to be qualified as unchanging to be refuted in Madhyamaka.. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Two truths doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The title has been modified to include the original terminology used by Nagarjuna. N sahi (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ok...good you did! N sahi (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in title

message: 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)
replies: text: I've added it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Lai 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The doctrine of Sunyata