| Revision as of 04:40, 4 July 2015 editSoham321 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,262 edits →Three levels of reality: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:36, 4 July 2015 edit undoSoham321 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,262 edits →Three levels of reality: addNext edit → | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
| ::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." ] -] 04:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC) | ::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." ] -] 04:09, 4 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::Oh, and we already pointed out that the term "plagiarized" is anachronistic and OR. ] -] 04:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC) | :::Oh, and we already pointed out that the term "plagiarized" is anachronistic and OR. ] -] 04:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
| ::::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. ] (]) 04:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC) | ::::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. ] (]) 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) 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: {{u|Kukkurovaca}}, {{u|Shantavira}}, {{u|Eequor}}, {{u|CesarB}}, {{u|20040302}}, {{u|Biot}}, {{u|Mjb}}, {{u|TheMadBaron}}, {{u|Cacycle}}, {{u|Goethean}}, {{u|Stephen Hodge}}, {{u|DopefishJustin}}, {{u|DopefishJustin}}, {{u|A Ramachandran}}, {{u|Gregory Wonderwheel}}, {{u|Phe}}, {{u|Rich Farmbrough}}, {{u|Zerokitsune}}, {{u|Graham87}},{{u|Elipongo}},{{u|Owlmonkey}},{{u|Eu.stefan}},{{u|Dakinijones}},{{u|Emptymountains}},{{u|Paxfeline}},{{u|CFynn}},{{u|R'n'B}},{{u|Jevansen}},{{u|Koavf}},{{u|Ninly}},{{u|Mitsube}},{{u|Moonsell}},{{u|Wilhelmina Will}},{{u|Woohookitty}},{{u|Pilcrow549}},{{u|Skyerise}},{{u|Wikitanvir}},{{u|Scottywong}},{{u|Gatti fabien1}},{{u|Nathanielfirst}},{{u|Heironymous Rowe}},{{u|Rich Farmbrough}},{{u|Yobot}},{{u|Amplifying Life}},{{u|Breno}},{{u|Addshore}},{{u|Helpsome}},{{u|Wiki-uk}},{{u|Dakinijones}},{{u|Deville}},{{u|Hotaru in meditation}},{{u|JimRenge}} ] (]) 06:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
| :::::Dear Soham, read again: "I'm perfectly fine with a separate section, or even article, on "Three levels of reality."" Cheers, ] -] 04:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC) | :::::Dear Soham, read again: "I'm perfectly fine with a separate section, or even article, on "Three levels of reality."" Cheers, ] -] 04:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
| {{od}} | {{od}} | ||
Revision as of 06:36, 4 July 2015
.svg){kind=small} | Buddhism C‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Philosophy: Religion / Eastern C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
A type of idealism?
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)
- 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 03:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
Mundaka Upanishad: Translated by Swami Gambhirananda
"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."
Ā = citta santana = "The Great Continuum of 'Great Madhyamika'"
B9 hummingbird hovering 13:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Alexander Berzin quote should be removed
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)
- I totally agree, and removed the quote. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Notes
- ^ Source: (accessed: January 3, 2008)
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)
Three levels of reality
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)
- Sources? Or just move the whole Yogacara-section? @Ogress: any thoughts? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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) 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,Yobot,Amplifying Life,Breno,Addshore,Helpsome,Wiki-uk,Dakinijones,Deville,Hotaru in meditation,JimRenge Soham321 (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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) 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,Yobot,Amplifying Life,Breno,Addshore,Helpsome,Wiki-uk,Dakinijones,Deville,Hotaru in meditation,JimRenge Soham321 (talk) 06:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
Categories:- C-Class Buddhism articles
- Unknown-importance Buddhism articles
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class philosophy of religion articles
- Low-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- C-Class Eastern philosophy articles
- Low-importance Eastern philosophy articles
- Eastern philosophy task force articles