Difference between revisions of "Two truths doctrine"
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
The [[conventional truth]] may be interpreted as "[[obscurative truth]]" or "that which obscures the [[true nature]]" as a result. It is constituted by the [[appearances]] of mistaken [[awareness]]. [[Conventional truth]] would be the [[appearance]] that includes a {{Wiki|duality}} of apprehender and apprehended, and [[objects]] [[perceived]] within that. [[Ultimate truths]], are [[phenomena]] free from the {{Wiki|duality}} of apprehender and apprehended. | The [[conventional truth]] may be interpreted as "[[obscurative truth]]" or "that which obscures the [[true nature]]" as a result. It is constituted by the [[appearances]] of mistaken [[awareness]]. [[Conventional truth]] would be the [[appearance]] that includes a {{Wiki|duality}} of apprehender and apprehended, and [[objects]] [[perceived]] within that. [[Ultimate truths]], are [[phenomena]] free from the {{Wiki|duality}} of apprehender and apprehended. | ||
− | ==Origin and development== | + | ==Origin and [[development]]== |
While the {{Wiki|concept}} of the [[two truths]] is associated with the [[Madhyamaka]] school, its {{Wiki|history}} goes back to the oldest [[Buddhism]]. | While the {{Wiki|concept}} of the [[two truths]] is associated with the [[Madhyamaka]] school, its {{Wiki|history}} goes back to the oldest [[Buddhism]]. | ||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
'''[[Pali Canon]]''' | '''[[Pali Canon]]''' | ||
[[File:Mind Teasers.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Mind Teasers.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
− | In the [[Pali canon]], the {{Wiki|distinction}} is not made between a [[lower truth]] and a [[higher truth]], but rather between two kinds of {{Wiki|expressions}} of the same [[truth]], which must be interpreted differently. [[Thus]] a phrase or passage, or a whole [[sutta]], might be classed as [[neyyattha]] or [[samuti]] or [[vohāra]], but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different level of {{Wiki|truth}}. | + | In the [[Pali canon]], the {{Wiki|distinction}} is not made between a [[lower truth]] and a [[higher truth]], but rather between two kinds of {{Wiki|expressions}} of the same [[truth]], which must be interpreted differently. [[Thus]] a [[phrase]] or passage, or a whole [[sutta]], might be classed as [[neyyattha]] or [[samuti]] or [[vohāra]], but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different level of {{Wiki|truth}}. |
− | [[Nītattha]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[nītārtha]]), "of plain or [[clear meaning]]" and [[neyyattha]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[neyartha]]), "[a [[word]] or sentence] having a [[sense]] that can only be guessed". These terms were used to identify texts or statements that either did or did not require additional interpretation. A [[nītattha]] text required no explanation, while a [[neyyattha]] one might mislead some [[people]] unless properly explained: | + | [[Nītattha]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[nītārtha]]), "of plain or [[clear meaning]]" and [[neyyattha]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[neyartha]]), "[a [[word]] or sentence] having a [[sense]] that can only be guessed". These terms were used to identify texts or statements that either did or did not require additional [[interpretation]]. A [[nītattha]] text required no explanation, while a [[neyyattha]] one might mislead some [[people]] unless properly explained: |
::There are these two who misrepresent the [[Tathagata]]. Which two? He who represents a [[Sutta]] of indirect meaning as a [[Sutta]] of direct meaning and he who represents a [[Sutta]] of direct meaning as a [[Sutta]] of indirect meaning. | ::There are these two who misrepresent the [[Tathagata]]. Which two? He who represents a [[Sutta]] of indirect meaning as a [[Sutta]] of direct meaning and he who represents a [[Sutta]] of direct meaning as a [[Sutta]] of indirect meaning. | ||
− | [[Saṃmuti]] or [[samuti]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[saṃvṛti]], meaning "common consent, general opinion, convention", and [[paramattha]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[paramārtha]]), meaning "[[ultimate]]", are used to distinguish {{Wiki|conventional}} or {{Wiki|common-sense}} {{Wiki|language}}, as used in {{Wiki|metaphors}} or for the sake of convenience, from {{Wiki|language}} used to express higher [[truths]] directly. The term [[vohāra]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[vyavahāra]], "common practice, convention, {{Wiki|custom}}" is also used in more or less the same [[sense]] as [[samuti]]. | + | [[Saṃmuti]] or [[samuti]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[saṃvṛti]], meaning "common consent, general opinion, convention", and [[paramattha]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[paramārtha]]), meaning "[[ultimate]]", are used to distinguish {{Wiki|conventional}} or {{Wiki|common-sense}} {{Wiki|language}}, as used in {{Wiki|metaphors}} or for the sake of convenience, from {{Wiki|language}} used to express higher [[truths]] directly. The term [[vohāra]] ([[Pāli]]; [[Sanskrit]]: [[vyavahāra]], "common [[practice]], convention, {{Wiki|custom}}" is also used in more or less the same [[sense]] as [[samuti]]. |
[[Theravāda]] | [[Theravāda]] | ||
− | The [[Theravādin]] commentators expanded on these categories and began applying them not only to expressions but to the [[truth]] then expressed: | + | The [[Theravādin]] commentators expanded on these categories and began applying them not only to {{Wiki|expressions}} but to the [[truth]] then expressed: |
[[File:Mahakasyapa4.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Mahakasyapa4.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
::The [[Awakened One]], the best of [[teachers]], spoke of [[two truths]], [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] and higher; no third is ascertained; a {{Wiki|conventional}} statement is true because of convention and a higher statement is true as disclosing the true [[characteristics]] of events. | ::The [[Awakened One]], the best of [[teachers]], spoke of [[two truths]], [[Wikipedia:Convention (norm)|conventional]] and higher; no third is ascertained; a {{Wiki|conventional}} statement is true because of convention and a higher statement is true as disclosing the true [[characteristics]] of events. | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
The {{Wiki|distinction}} between the [[two truths]] ([[satyadvayavibhāga]]) was fully expressed by the [[Madhyamaka]]-school. In [[Nāgārjuna]]'s [[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]] it is used to defend the identification of [[dependent origination]] ([[pratītyasamutpāda]]) with [[emptiness]] ([[śūnyatā]]): | The {{Wiki|distinction}} between the [[two truths]] ([[satyadvayavibhāga]]) was fully expressed by the [[Madhyamaka]]-school. In [[Nāgārjuna]]'s [[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]] it is used to defend the identification of [[dependent origination]] ([[pratītyasamutpāda]]) with [[emptiness]] ([[śūnyatā]]): | ||
− | ::The [[Buddha]]'s [[teaching]] of the [[Dharma]] is based on [[two truths]]: a [[truth of worldly convention]] and an [[ultimate truth]]. Those who do not understand the {{Wiki|distinction}} drawn between these [[two truths]] do not understand the [[Buddha]]'s profound [[truth]]. Without a foundation in the [[conventional truth]] the significance of the [[ultimate truth]] cannot be taught. Without [[understanding]] the significance of the {{Wiki|ultimate}}, {{Wiki|liberation}} is not achieved. | + | ::The [[Buddha]]'s [[teaching]] of the [[Dharma]] is based on [[two truths]]: a [[truth of worldly convention]] and an [[ultimate truth]]. Those who do not understand the {{Wiki|distinction}} drawn between these [[two truths]] do not understand the [[Buddha]]'s profound [[truth]]. Without a foundation in the [[conventional truth]] the significance of the [[ultimate truth]] cannot be [[taught]]. Without [[understanding]] the significance of the {{Wiki|ultimate}}, {{Wiki|liberation}} is not achieved. |
− | In [[Nagarjuna]]'s own words: | + | In [[Nagarjuna]]'s [[own]] words: |
::The [[teaching]] by the [[Buddhas]] of the [[dharma]] has recourse to [[two truths]]: | ::The [[teaching]] by the [[Buddhas]] of the [[dharma]] has recourse to [[two truths]]: | ||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
::Those who do not [[know]] the distribution ([[vibhagam]]) of the [[two kinds of truth]] | ::Those who do not [[know]] the distribution ([[vibhagam]]) of the [[two kinds of truth]] | ||
::Do not [[know]] the profound "point" ([[tattva]]) in the [[teaching]] of the [[Buddha]]. | ::Do not [[know]] the profound "point" ([[tattva]]) in the [[teaching]] of the [[Buddha]]. | ||
− | ::The [[highest]] [[sense]] of the {{Wiki|truth}} is not taught apart from practical {{Wiki|behavior}}, | + | ::The [[highest]] [[sense]] of the {{Wiki|truth}} is not [[taught]] apart from {{Wiki|practical}} {{Wiki|behavior}}, |
::And without having understood the [[highest]] [[sense]] one cannot understand [[nirvana]]. | ::And without having understood the [[highest]] [[sense]] one cannot understand [[nirvana]]. | ||
[[Nāgārjuna]] based his statement of the [[two truths]] on the [[Kaccāyanagotta Sutta]]. In the [[Kaccāyanagotta Sutta]], the [[Buddha]], {{Wiki|speaking}} to the [[monk]] [[Kaccayana Gotta]] on the topic of [[right view]], describes the [[middle Way]] between {{Wiki|nihilsm}} and {{Wiki|eternalism}}: | [[Nāgārjuna]] based his statement of the [[two truths]] on the [[Kaccāyanagotta Sutta]]. In the [[Kaccāyanagotta Sutta]], the [[Buddha]], {{Wiki|speaking}} to the [[monk]] [[Kaccayana Gotta]] on the topic of [[right view]], describes the [[middle Way]] between {{Wiki|nihilsm}} and {{Wiki|eternalism}}: | ||
− | + | ||
::By and large, [[Kaccayana]], this [[world]] is supported by a {{Wiki|polarity}}, that of {{Wiki|existence}} and {{Wiki|non-existence}}. But when one sees the origination of the {{Wiki|world}} as it actually is with right [[discernment]], "[[non-existence]]" with reference to the {{Wiki|world}} does not occur to one. When one sees the {{Wiki|cessation}} of the {{Wiki|world}} as it actually is with right [[discernment]], "{{Wiki|existence}}" with reference to the {{Wiki|world}} does not occur to one. | ::By and large, [[Kaccayana]], this [[world]] is supported by a {{Wiki|polarity}}, that of {{Wiki|existence}} and {{Wiki|non-existence}}. But when one sees the origination of the {{Wiki|world}} as it actually is with right [[discernment]], "[[non-existence]]" with reference to the {{Wiki|world}} does not occur to one. When one sees the {{Wiki|cessation}} of the {{Wiki|world}} as it actually is with right [[discernment]], "{{Wiki|existence}}" with reference to the {{Wiki|world}} does not occur to one. | ||
Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
The [[Lankavatara Sutra]] took an {{Wiki|idealistic}} turn in apprehending {{Wiki|reality}}. {{Wiki|D.T.Suzuki}} writes the following: | The [[Lankavatara Sutra]] took an {{Wiki|idealistic}} turn in apprehending {{Wiki|reality}}. {{Wiki|D.T.Suzuki}} writes the following: | ||
− | The [[Lanka]] is quite explicit in assuming two [[forms]] of [[knowledge]]: the one for [[grasping]] the [[absolute]] or entering into the [[realm]] of [[Mind-only]], and the other for [[understanding]] {{Wiki|existence}} in its {{Wiki|dual}} aspect in which [[logic]] prevails and the [[Vijnanas]] are active. The latter is designated {{Wiki|Discrimination}} ({{Wiki|vikalpa}}) in the [[Lanka]] and the former [[transcendental]] [[wisdom]] or [[knowledge]] ([[prajna]]). To distinguish these two [[forms]] of [[knowledge]] is most {{Wiki|essential}} in [[Buddhist philosophy]]. | + | The [[Lanka]] is quite explicit in assuming two [[forms]] of [[knowledge]]: the one for [[grasping]] the [[absolute]] or entering into the [[realm]] of [[Mind-only]], and the other for [[understanding]] {{Wiki|existence}} in its {{Wiki|dual}} aspect in which [[logic]] prevails and the [[Vijnanas]] are active. The [[latter]] is designated {{Wiki|Discrimination}} ({{Wiki|vikalpa}}) in the [[Lanka]] and the former [[transcendental]] [[wisdom]] or [[knowledge]] ([[prajna]]). To distinguish these two [[forms]] of [[knowledge]] is most {{Wiki|essential}} in [[Buddhist philosophy]]. |
[[File:Nation-and-in.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Nation-and-in.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
==[[Tibetan Buddhism]]== | ==[[Tibetan Buddhism]]== | ||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
The [[Nyingma]] [[tradition]] is the oldest of the four major schools of [[Tibetan Buddhism]]. It is founded on the first translations of [[Buddhist scriptures]] from [[Sanskrit]] into [[Tibetan]], in the eighth century. [[Ju Mipham]] (1846–1912) in his commentary to the [[Madhyamālaṃkāra]] of [[Śāntarakṣita]] (725–788) says: | The [[Nyingma]] [[tradition]] is the oldest of the four major schools of [[Tibetan Buddhism]]. It is founded on the first translations of [[Buddhist scriptures]] from [[Sanskrit]] into [[Tibetan]], in the eighth century. [[Ju Mipham]] (1846–1912) in his commentary to the [[Madhyamālaṃkāra]] of [[Śāntarakṣita]] (725–788) says: | ||
− | If one trains for a long [[time]] in the union of the [[two truths]], the stage of [[acceptance]] (on the [[path]] of joining), which is attuned to {{Wiki|primordial}} [[wisdom]], will arise. By thus acquiring a certain conviction in that which surpasses {{Wiki|intellectual}} [[knowledge]], and by training in it, one will eventually actualize it. This is precisely how the [[Buddhas]] and the [[Bodhisattvas]] have said that {{Wiki|liberation}} is to be gained.[a] | + | If one trains for a long [[time]] in the union of the [[two truths]], the stage of [[acceptance]] (on the [[path]] of joining), which is attuned to {{Wiki|primordial}} [[wisdom]], will arise. By thus acquiring a certain conviction in that which surpasses {{Wiki|intellectual}} [[knowledge]], and by {{Wiki|training}} in it, one will eventually actualize it. This is precisely how the [[Buddhas]] and the [[Bodhisattvas]] have said that {{Wiki|liberation}} is to be gained.[a] |
The following sentence from [[Mipham]]'s {{Wiki|exegesis}} of [[Śāntarakṣita]]'s [[Madhyamālaṃkāra]] highlights the relationship between the absence of the four [[extremes]] ([[mtha'-bzhi]]) and the {{Wiki|nondual}} or indivisible [[two truths]] ([[bden-pa dbyer-med]]): | The following sentence from [[Mipham]]'s {{Wiki|exegesis}} of [[Śāntarakṣita]]'s [[Madhyamālaṃkāra]] highlights the relationship between the absence of the four [[extremes]] ([[mtha'-bzhi]]) and the {{Wiki|nondual}} or indivisible [[two truths]] ([[bden-pa dbyer-med]]): | ||
− | The [[learned and accomplished]] [[[masters]]] of the [[Early Translations]] considered this [[simplicity]] beyond the four [[extremes]], this abiding way in which the [[two truths]] are indivisible, as their own immaculate way.[b] | + | The [[learned and accomplished]] [[[masters]]] of the [[Early Translations]] considered this [[simplicity]] beyond the four [[extremes]], this abiding way in which the [[two truths]] are indivisible, as their [[own]] immaculate way.[b] |
− | + | ||
'''[[Dzogchen]]''' | '''[[Dzogchen]]''' | ||
[[Dzogchen]] holds that the [[two truths]] are {{Wiki|ultimately}} resolved into {{Wiki|non-duality}} as a lived {{Wiki|experience}} and are non-different. | [[Dzogchen]] holds that the [[two truths]] are {{Wiki|ultimately}} resolved into {{Wiki|non-duality}} as a lived {{Wiki|experience}} and are non-different. | ||
− | '''Correspondence with {{Wiki|Greek}} {{Wiki|scepticism}}''' | + | '''[[Correspondence]] with {{Wiki|Greek}} {{Wiki|scepticism}}''' |
− | McEvilley (2002) notes a correspondence between {{Wiki|Greek}} {{Wiki|Pyrrhonism}} and [[Madhyamika]] [[doctrines]]: | + | McEvilley (2002) notes a [[correspondence]] between {{Wiki|Greek}} {{Wiki|Pyrrhonism}} and [[Madhyamika]] [[doctrines]]: |
− | Sextus says that there are two criteria: 1.[T]hat by which we judge [[reality]] and unreality, and | + | Sextus says that there are two criteria: 1.[T]hat by which we [[judge]] [[reality]] and unreality, and |
− | ::That which we use as a guide in everyday [[life]]. | + | ::That which we use as a [[guide]] in everyday [[life]]. |
− | According to the first criterion, [[nothing]] is either true or false[.] [I]nductive statements based on direct observation of [[phenomena]] may be treated as either true or false for the purpose of making everyday practical decisions. | + | According to the first criterion, [[nothing]] is either true or false[.] [I]nductive statements based on direct observation of [[phenomena]] may be treated as either true or false for the {{Wiki|purpose}} of making everyday {{Wiki|practical}} decisions. |
− | ::The {{Wiki|distinction}}, as {{Wiki|Conze}} has noted, is {{Wiki|equivalent}} to the {{Wiki|Madhyamika}} {{Wiki|distinction}} between "[[Absolute truth]]" ([[paramārthasatya]]), "the [[knowledge]] of the real as it is without any distortion," and "{{Wiki|Truth}} so-called" ([[saṃvṛti satya]]), "{{Wiki|truth}} as {{Wiki|conventionally}} believed in common parlance. | + | ::The {{Wiki|distinction}}, as {{Wiki|Conze}} has noted, is {{Wiki|equivalent}} to the {{Wiki|Madhyamika}} {{Wiki|distinction}} between "[[Absolute truth]]" ([[paramārthasatya]]), "the [[knowledge]] of the real as it is without any [[distortion]]," and "{{Wiki|Truth}} so-called" ([[saṃvṛti satya]]), "{{Wiki|truth}} as {{Wiki|conventionally}} believed in common parlance. |
{{W}} | {{W}} | ||
[[Category:Nāgārjuna]] | [[Category:Nāgārjuna]] | ||
[[Category:Two Truths]]{{BuddhismbyNumber}} | [[Category:Two Truths]]{{BuddhismbyNumber}} |
Latest revision as of 20:15, 25 March 2015
The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Tibetan: bden-pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of truth (Sanskrit: satya) in Buddhist discourse: relative or commonsensical truth, and absolute or ultimate truth.
The doctrine was first expressed in complete form by Nāgārjuna.
Etymology and definition
The two truths doctrine states that there is:
- Relative truth or common-sense truth (Sanskrit samvṛtisatya, Pāli sammuti sacca, Tibetan kun-rdzob bden-pa), which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and
- Ultimate truth (Sanskrit, paramārthasatya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), which describes the ultimate reality as sunyata, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics.
The Sanskrit term for relative, "samvṛti", also implies false, hidden, concealed, or obstructed, as well as other nuanced concepts.
The conventional truth may be interpreted as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result. It is constituted by the appearances of mistaken awareness. Conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of apprehender and apprehended, and objects perceived within that. Ultimate truths, are phenomena free from the duality of apprehender and apprehended.
Origin and development
While the concept of the two truths is associated with the Madhyamaka school, its history goes back to the oldest Buddhism.
In the Pali canon, the distinction is not made between a lower truth and a higher truth, but rather between two kinds of expressions of the same truth, which must be interpreted differently. Thus a phrase or passage, or a whole sutta, might be classed as neyyattha or samuti or vohāra, but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different level of truth.
Nītattha (Pāli; Sanskrit: nītārtha), "of plain or clear meaning" and neyyattha (Pāli; Sanskrit: neyartha), "[a word or sentence] having a sense that can only be guessed". These terms were used to identify texts or statements that either did or did not require additional interpretation. A nītattha text required no explanation, while a neyyattha one might mislead some people unless properly explained:
Saṃmuti or samuti (Pāli; Sanskrit: saṃvṛti, meaning "common consent, general opinion, convention", and paramattha (Pāli; Sanskrit: paramārtha), meaning "ultimate", are used to distinguish conventional or common-sense language, as used in metaphors or for the sake of convenience, from language used to express higher truths directly. The term vohāra (Pāli; Sanskrit: vyavahāra, "common practice, convention, custom" is also used in more or less the same sense as samuti.
The Theravādin commentators expanded on these categories and began applying them not only to expressions but to the truth then expressed:
- The Awakened One, the best of teachers, spoke of two truths, conventional and higher; no third is ascertained; a conventional statement is true because of convention and a higher statement is true as disclosing the true characteristics of events.
The Prajnāptivāda school took up the distinction between the conventional and ultimate (paramārtha/saṃvṛti), and extended the concept to metaphysical-phenomenological constituents (dharmas), distinguishing those that are real (tattva) from those that are purely conceptual, i.e., ultimately nonexistent (prajnāpti).
The distinction between the two truths (satyadvayavibhāga) was fully expressed by the Madhyamaka-school. In Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakakārikā it is used to defend the identification of dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda) with emptiness (śūnyatā):
- The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate truth cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.
- The teaching by the Buddhas of the dharma has recourse to two truths:
- The world-ensconced truth and the truth which is the highest sense.
- Those who do not know the distribution (vibhagam) of the two kinds of truth
- Do not know the profound "point" (tattva) in the teaching of the Buddha.
- The highest sense of the truth is not taught apart from practical behavior,
- And without having understood the highest sense one cannot understand nirvana.
Nāgārjuna based his statement of the two truths on the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta. In the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, the Buddha, speaking to the monk Kaccayana Gotta on the topic of right view, describes the middle Way between nihilsm and eternalism:
- By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.
Understanding in Buddhist tradition
The Yogācāra-school distinguishes the three natures and the Trikaya.
The Lankavatara Sutra took an idealistic turn in apprehending reality. D.T.Suzuki writes the following:
The Lanka is quite explicit in assuming two forms of knowledge: the one for grasping the absolute or entering into the realm of Mind-only, and the other for understanding existence in its dual aspect in which logic prevails and the Vijnanas are active. The latter is designated Discrimination (vikalpa) in the Lanka and the former transcendental wisdom or knowledge (prajna). To distinguish these two forms of knowledge is most essential in Buddhist philosophy.
Tibetan Buddhism
The Nyingma tradition is the oldest of the four major schools of Tibetan Buddhism. It is founded on the first translations of Buddhist scriptures from Sanskrit into Tibetan, in the eighth century. Ju Mipham (1846–1912) in his commentary to the Madhyamālaṃkāra of Śāntarakṣita (725–788) says:
If one trains for a long time in the union of the two truths, the stage of acceptance (on the path of joining), which is attuned to primordial wisdom, will arise. By thus acquiring a certain conviction in that which surpasses intellectual knowledge, and by training in it, one will eventually actualize it. This is precisely how the Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas have said that liberation is to be gained.[a]
The following sentence from Mipham's exegesis of Śāntarakṣita's Madhyamālaṃkāra highlights the relationship between the absence of the four extremes (mtha'-bzhi) and the nondual or indivisible two truths (bden-pa dbyer-med):
The learned and accomplished [[[masters]]] of the Early Translations considered this simplicity beyond the four extremes, this abiding way in which the two truths are indivisible, as their own immaculate way.[b]
Dzogchen holds that the two truths are ultimately resolved into non-duality as a lived experience and are non-different.
Correspondence with Greek scepticism
McEvilley (2002) notes a correspondence between Greek Pyrrhonism and Madhyamika doctrines:
Sextus says that there are two criteria: 1.[T]hat by which we judge reality and unreality, and
According to the first criterion, nothing is either true or false[.] [I]nductive statements based on direct observation of phenomena may be treated as either true or false for the purpose of making everyday practical decisions.
- The distinction, as Conze has noted, is equivalent to the Madhyamika distinction between "Absolute truth" (paramārthasatya), "the knowledge of the real as it is without any distortion," and "Truth so-called" (saṃvṛti satya), "truth as conventionally believed in common parlance.