The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Sanskrit: , ) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit; PÃÂli: sacca; meaning "truth" or "reality") in the teaching of à ÂÃÂkyamuni Buddha: the "conventional" or "provisional" (saá¹Âvá¹Âti) truth, and the "absolute" or "ultimate" (paramÃÂrtha) truth.
The exact meaning varies between the various Buddhist schools and traditions. The best known interpretation is from the MÃÂdhyamaka school of MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhism, whose founder was the 3rd-century Indian Buddhist monk and philosopher NÃÂgÃÂrjuna. For NÃÂgÃÂrjuna, the two truths are epistemological truths. The phenomenal world is accorded a provisional existence. The character of the phenomenal world is declared to be neither real nor unreal, but logically indeterminable. Ultimately, all phenomena are empty (à Âà «nyatÃÂ) of an inherent self or essence due to the non-existence of the self (anÃÂtman), but temporarily exist depending on other phenomena (pratëtya-samutpÃÂda).
In Chinese Buddhism, the MÃÂdhyamaka thought is accepted, and the two truths doctrine is understood as referring to two ontological truths. Reality exists in two levels, a relative level and an absolute level. Based on their understanding of the MahÃÂyÃÂna MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa Sà «tra, the Chinese Buddhist monks and philosophers supposed that the teaching of the Buddha-nature (tathÃÂgatagarbha) was, as stated by that Sà «tra, the final Buddhist teaching, and that there is an essential truth above emptiness (à Âà «nyatÃÂ) and the two truths.
The doctrine of emptiness (à Âà «nyatÃÂ) is an attempt to show that it is neither proper nor strictly justifiable to regard any metaphysical system as absolutely valid. The two truths doctrine doesn't lead to the extreme philosophical views of eternalism (or absolutism) and annihilationism (or nihilism), but strikes a middle course (madhyamÃÂpratipada) between them.
Satya is usually taken to mean "truth", but also refers to "a reality", "a genuinely real existent". Satya (Sat-yá) is derived from Sat and ya. Sat means being, reality, and is the present participle of the root as, "to be" (Proto-Indo-European ; cognate to English ). Ya and yam means "advancing, supporting, hold up, sustain, one that moves". As a composite word, Satya and Satyam imply that "which supports, sustains and advances reality, being"; it literally means, "that which is true, actual, real, genuine, trustworthy, valid".
The two truths doctrine states that there is:
The 7th-century Buddhist philosopher Chandrakërti suggests three possible meanings of :
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.
The 3rd-century Indian Buddhist monk and philosopher NÃÂgÃÂrjuna and other Buddhist philosophers after him introduced an exegetical technique of distinguishing between two levels of truth, the conventional and the ultimate.
A similar method is reflected in the Brahmanical exegesis of the Vedic scriptures, which combine the ritualistic injunctions of the Brahmanas and speculative philosophical questions of the Upanishads as one whole "revealed" body of work, thereby contrasting the with .
The concept of the two truths is associated with the MÃÂdhyamaka school of MahÃÂyÃÂna Buddhism, whose founder was the 3rd-century Indian Buddhist monk and philosopher NÃÂgÃÂrjuna, and its history traced back to the earliest years of Buddhism.
In the PÃÂli 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 Sà «tra, might be classified as neyyattha, samuti, or vohÃÂra, but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different level of truth.
Nëtattha (PÃÂli; Sanskrit: nëtÃÂrtha), "of plain or clear meaning" and neyyattha (PÃÂli; 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 nëtattha text required no explanation, while a neyyattha one might mislead some people unless properly explained:
' or ' (PÃÂli; Sanskrit: '), meaning "common consent, general opinion, convention", and paramattha (PÃÂli; Sanskrit: paramÃÂrtha), 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 vohÃÂra (PÃÂli; Sanskrit: vyavahÃÂra, "common practice, convention, custom" is also used in more or less the same sense as samuti.
The TheravÃÂdin commentators expanded on these categories and began applying them not only to expressions but to the truth then expressed:
The PrajñaptivÃÂda school took up the distinction between the conventional () and ultimate () truths, and extended the concept to metaphysical-phenomenological constituents (dharma), distinguishing those that are real (tattva) from those that are purely conceptual, i.e., ultimately nonexistent (prajñÃÂpti).
The distinction between the two truths (satyadvayavibhÃÂga) was fully developed by NÃÂgÃÂrjuna (), founder of the MÃÂdhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy. MÃÂdhyamika philosophers distinguish between saá¹Âvá¹Âti-satya, "empirical truth", "relative truth", "truth that keeps the ultimate truth concealed", and paramÃÂrtha-satya, ultimate truth.
Saá¹Âvá¹Âti-satya can be further divided in tathya-saá¹Âvá¹Âti or loka-saá¹Âvá¹Âti, and mithya-saá¹Âvá¹Âti or aloka-saá¹Âvá¹Âti, "true saá¹Âvá¹Âti" and "false saá¹Âvá¹Âti". Tathya-saá¹Âvá¹Âti or "true saá¹Âvá¹Âti" refers to "things" which concretely exist and can be perceived as such by the senses, while mithya-saá¹Âvá¹Âti or "false saá¹Âvá¹Âti" refers to false cognitions of "things" which do not exist as they are perceived.
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikàprovides a logical defense for the claim that all things are empty (à Âà «nyatÃÂ) and devoid of any inherently-existing self-nature (anÃÂtman). Emptiness itself, however, is also shown to be "empty", and NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's assertion of "the emptiness of emptiness" prevents the mistake of believing that emptiness may constitute a higher or ultimate reality. NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's view is that "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth". According to Siderits, NÃÂgÃÂrjuna is a "semantic anti-dualist" who posits that there are only conventional truths. Jay L. Garfield explains:
In NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's Mà «lamadhyamakakÃÂrikÃÂ, the two truths doctrine is used to defend the identification of dependent origination (pratëtya-samutpÃÂda) with emptiness itself (à Âà «nyatÃÂ):
In NÃÂgÃÂrjuna's own words:
NÃÂgÃÂrjuna based his statement of the two truths on the KaccÃÂyanagotta Sutta. In this text, Ã ÂÃÂkyamuni Buddha, speaking to the monk KaccÃÂyana Gotta on the topic of right view, describes the middle course (madhyamÃÂpratipada) between the extreme philosophical views of eternalism (or absolutism) and annihilationism (or nihilism):
According to the Tibetologist Alaka Majumder Chattopadhyaya, although NÃÂgÃÂrjuna presents his understanding of the two truths as a clarification of the teachings of the historical Buddha, the two truths doctrine as such is not part of the earliest Buddhist tradition.
The YogÃÂcÃÂra school of Buddhist philosophy distinguishes the Three Natures and the TrikÃÂya. The Three Natures are:
The Laá¹ kÃÂvatÃÂra Sà «tra, one of the earliest MahÃÂyÃÂna Sà «tras, took an idealistic turn in apprehending reality. Japanese Buddhist scholar D. T. Suzuki writes the following explanation:
When Buddhism was introduced to China by Buddhist monks from the Indo-Greek Kingdom of GandhÃÂra (now Afghanistan) and classical India between the 2nd century BCE and 1st century CE, the two truths teaching was initially understood and interpreted through various ideas in Chinese philosophy, including Confucian and Taoist ideas which influenced the vocabulary of Chinese Buddhism. As such, Chinese translations of Buddhist texts and philosophical treatises made use of native Chinese terminology, such as "TâÂÂi -yung" (é«Âç¨, "Essence and Function") and "Li-Shih" (çÂÂäºÂ, Noumenon and Phenomenon) to refer to the two truths. These concepts were later developed in several East Asian Buddhist traditions, such as the Wéishàand Huayan schools. The doctrines of these schools also influenced the ideas of Chán (Zen) Buddhism, as can be seen in the Verses of the Five Ranks of Tà Âzan and other Chinese Buddhist texts.
Chinese thinkers often took the two truths to refer to two ontological truths (two ways of being, or levels of existence): a relative level and an absolute level. For example, Taoists at first misunderstood emptiness (à Âà «nyatÃÂ) to be akin to the Taoist notion of non-being. In the MÃÂdhyamaka school of Buddhist philosophy, the two truths are two epistemological truths: two different ways to look at reality. The SÃÂnlùn school (Chinese MÃÂdhyamikas) thus rejected the ontological reading of the two truths. However, drawing on Buddha-nature thought, such as that of the MahÃÂyÃÂna MahÃÂparinirvÃÂá¹Âa Sà «tra, and on YogÃÂcÃÂra sources, other Chinese Buddhist philosophers defended the view that the two truths did refer to two levels of reality (which were nevertheless non-dual and inferfused), one which was conventional, illusory and impermanent, and another which was eternal, unchanging and pure.
The Huayan school or "Flower Garland" school is a tradition of Chinese Buddhist philosophy that flourished in medieval China during the Tang period (7thâÂÂ10th centuries CE). It is based on the Avataá¹Âsaka Sà «tra, and on a lengthy Chinese interpretation of it, the Huayan Lun. The name "Flower Garland" is meant to suggest the crowning glory of profound understanding.
The most important philosophical contributions of the Huayan school were in the area of its metaphysics. It taught the doctrine of the mutual containment and interpenetration of all phenomena, as expressed in Indra's net. One thing contains all other existing things, and all existing things contain that one thing.
Distinctive features of this approach to Buddhist philosophy include:
Huayan teaches the Four DharmadhÃÂtu, four ways to view reality:
The teachings of Chán (Zen) Buddhism are expressed by a set of polarities: Buddha-nature (tathÃÂgatagarbha), emptiness (à Âà «nyatÃÂ), absolute-relative, sudden and gradual enlightenment (bodhi).
The PrajnÃÂpÃÂramitàSà «tras and MÃÂdhyamaka philosophy emphasized the non-duality of form and emptiness: "form is emptiness, emptiness is form", as it's written in the Heart Sutra. The idea that the ultimate reality is present in the daily world of relative reality fitted into the Chinese culture, which emphasized the mundane world and society. But this does not tell how the absolute is present in the relative world. This question is answered in such schemata as the Verses of the Five Ranks of Tà Âzan and the Oxherding Pictures.
The polarity of absolute and relative is also expressed as "essence-function". The absolute is essence, the relative is function. They can't be seen as separate realities, but interpenetrate each other. The distinction does not "exclude any other frameworks such as neng-so or "subject-object" constructions", though the two "are completely different from each other in terms of their way of thinking".
In Korean Buddhism, essence-function is also expressed as "body" and "the body's functions":
A metaphor for essence-function is "A lamp and its light", a phrase from the Platform Sutra, where "essence" is the lamp and "function" its light.
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 (8th century CE). Tibetan Buddhist philosopher and polymath Mipham the Great (1846âÂÂ1912) in his commentary to the MadhyamÃÂlaá¹ÂkÃÂra of à ÂÃÂntaraká¹£ita (725âÂÂ788) says:
The following sentence from Mipham the Great's exegesis of à ÂÃÂntaraká¹£ita's MadhyamÃÂlaá¹ÂkÃÂra highlights the relationship between the absence of the four extremes (mtha'-bzhi) and the non-dual or indivisible two truths (bden-pa dbyer-med):
The 2nd-century Digambara Jain monk and philosopher Kundakunda distinguishes between two perspectives of truth:
For Kundakunda, the mundane realm of truth is also the relative perspective of normal folk, where the workings of karma operate and where things emerge, last for a certain time, and then perish. The ultimate perspective, meanwhile, is that of the liberated individual soul (jëvatman), which is "blissful, energetic, perceptive, and omniscient".
The Advaita school of VedÃÂnta philosophy took over from the Buddhist MÃÂdhyamaka school the idea of levels of reality. Usually two levels are being mentioned, but the school's founder ÃÂdi à Âaá¹ kara uses sublation as the criterion to postulate an ontological hierarchy of three levels:
Chattopadhyaya notes that the 8th-century MëmÃÂá¹Âsàphilosopher KumÃÂrila Bhaá¹Âá¹Âa rejected the two truths doctrine in his Shlokavartika. Bhaá¹Âá¹Âa was highly influential with his defence of Vedic orthodoxy and rituals against the Buddhist rejection of Brahmanical beliefs and ritualism. Some believe that his influence contributed to the decline of Buddhism in India, since his lifetime coincides with the period in which Buddhism began to disappear from the Indian subcontinent.
According to KumÃÂrila, the two truths doctrine fundamentally is an idealist doctrine, which conceals the fact that "the theory of the nothingness of the objective world" is absurd:
Thomas McEvilley notes a correspondence between Greek Pyrrhonism and the Buddhist MÃÂdhyamaka school:
Thus in Pyrrhonism "absolute truth" corresponds to acatalepsy and "conventional truth" to phantasiai.