Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:41, 19 July 2015

Buddhism C‑class

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Religion / Eastern C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy

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

1. ^ 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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

New Sections

• 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)
• 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 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)

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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

Kumarila Bhatta's refutation of 'Two Truths' Doctrine

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

Regarding the Madhyamakas in the Three Levels of Reality section

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)

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)

• 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