Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
S. Batchelor on Relative Truth vs. Absolute Truth
Dakini
Veteran
When queried by Yours Truly about the idea in Mahayana that bodhisattvas, Buddhas, and enlightened teachers are above conventional morality, and function from the perspective of a higher reality, Stephen Batchelor, who's in town for a retreat, stated frankly:
"The two-truths doctrine is the single greatest disaster to hit Buddhism". (He doesn't mince words.)
He traces the roots of this doctrine back to what he calls "the Indianization of Buddhism". He believes it arose from the belief in Mara, representing the illusory world, and Brahman, representing the Divine. "This opened the door to a double-standard. This split level of reality is a problem not only philosophically, but behaviorally."
The Buddha, of course, taught the same ethics for all, and didn't exclude himself.
Maybe it's time for a back-to-basics Buddhism...?
"The two-truths doctrine is the single greatest disaster to hit Buddhism". (He doesn't mince words.)
He traces the roots of this doctrine back to what he calls "the Indianization of Buddhism". He believes it arose from the belief in Mara, representing the illusory world, and Brahman, representing the Divine. "This opened the door to a double-standard. This split level of reality is a problem not only philosophically, but behaviorally."
The Buddha, of course, taught the same ethics for all, and didn't exclude himself.
Maybe it's time for a back-to-basics Buddhism...?
0
Comments
no one is above morality. causality exist prior and after enlightenment.
By the way it is not a traditional teaching (across the boards) that people are above morality. Trungpa Rinpoche called that shunyata poisoning. Nagarjuna was prominent for instituting higher standards of morality and he was catalytic in developing the madyamaka philosophy, teachings, and so forth. Which is related to the teaching of the two truths.
I saw an essay by a Zen practitioner saying something like: "We should remember our roots are in the Heart Sutra, the identification of relative and Absolute. Thus we are obliged to challenge dualistic moral judgement. (i.e. teachers running amok, disregarding ethics) If the teacher disappoints us [in his behavior], he won't be the first master whose realization didn't extend into the relative realm". This makes me scared of the Heart Sutra. I guess it shows the importance of studying with a qualified teacher to get the right interpretation. But people really swallow this stuff. The Tibetan interpreter for the abbot at Hemis monastery was quoted by Andrew Harvey in his book, "Journey to Ladakh" as saying if the lama kills, it's not for us to question why. The lama views life from the bodhisattva's perspective.
Padmasambhava said:
" My view is as vast as the sky, but my actions are finer than flour."
So one should not lurch and stagger through life claiming to be a Dzogchenpa or a Dzogchenma when all the while one may be little more than a flatulent oaf, rank with greed, and stinking of stale beer.
To thein own self be true. ~ Shakespeare
morality and its function is to bring about peaceful states of mind, which in turn allows for mindfulness/concentration. the goal and function of morality is ultimately for the flowering of wisdom/compassion.
what one does after such realization is up to them. either they follow their natural inclination of wisdom/compassion or create their own twisted up version that justifies some insane form of morality that only insane people agree to.
the buddha or arhat or bodhisattva or whatever spiritual leader is still human and being human can fail and utterly fail hard. we must break all illusion that such people are "perfect". sure they are in some sense, but the arhat's integration with the world or rather the engagement with the world is an infinite learning process.
just because becoming ends, doesn't mean one cannot be a douche bag.
humbleness is the quality of an arhat who realize they have achieve nirvana but still a human body is here. thus they with compassion go about engaging in the world.
but this isn't just arhats. the bodhisattvas who realize the non dual awareness and hide behind such awakening and justify other insane "over the top" or "holier than you" morality is just as human as everyone else.
=]
thus the great mantra in the heart sutra is go go go go keep going keep going keep going awaken but keep going.
From The Two Truths by Geshi Tashi Tsering:
"Our universe is made up of things and events. Some of these may be pure fantasies or simply not exist, but the vast majority exist and function, and at one level we are unmistaken in how we perceive them. That is conventional truth. At a more subtle level however, we fail to see the way they come into existence due to causes and conditions and the way we erroneously ascribe to them a concrete reality. The mode of existence of phenomena at this deeper "ultimate" level is ultimate truth. Narrowing the gap between how things appear to exist and how they actually exist is the focus of this book."
In Buddhism, we use both conventional and ultimate truths. You couldn't cross a road without getting hit by a conventional car if we didn't. But seeing the ultimate truth - even at a purely analytical level (which is only what I can do) - is useful. We see certain situations as being 'out there' and inherently real - since we impute our level of understanding onto them - so by seeing the ultimate reality, the emptiness of the situation, even just at an analytical level, is useful for removing the fear element involved in dealing with these situations, enabling us to deal with them in a better and more 'grown up' manner.
I'm not sure what Stephen Bachelor meant by the Two Truths doctrine being a disaster, because that's how things and phenomena exist. It's like him saying that reality is a disaster!
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html#sand
Those who wants to continue to play with "sand castles" cannot claim to have ended their craving.
The different truth understanding of truth is also real, and the Buddha talk also for different understanding. For people having not attained insight there is the "normal" Noble Eightfold Path to bring them to the level to be able to understand the four noble truth on an transcendent level.
For those who have not entered the stream, the transcendent truth of the Four Noble truth is not understandable and even if explained they would not be able to understand.
From this view there are two kinds of truth. For sure, if somebody has not lost the lower fetters (lost of doubt about the Dhamma is one of them) he would only be able to see the intellectual truth and therefore hardly claim that's the end of the line.
For example, one who tries to enter the stream "right intention" (thoughts) are necessary. If one has entered a high level of inside he needs also dissolving this as there is neither right or wrong (in the way we normally see at things). But as long as we have not free from the lower fetters it is not very wise to think of letting go of "ordinary" judgement. It leads just to synthetically "Non-Attachment" and his is build up on a self made wrong views
I think http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html the "Maha-cattarisaka Sutta: The Great Forty" is maybe useful to understand this different.
*smile*
The problem whether those who act in this way do so out compassion or out of delusion is another matter.
The moment conventional morality (or anything else for that matter) is made into an absolute, true wisdom and compassion are lost. imo.
Train in not harming, killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and not taking intoxicants. If we change our livelihood in that way, we have the basis for gaining more insight. Its not so wise to try the sort cut.
*smile*
There is nothing outside of what is really here. Those who preach on these ultra fine points of philosophy do so because they have a habit of intellectualizing. I thought sincere meditation ends that sort of nonsense.?
The 2 truths don't say there is anything else apart from This. Absolute truth is not a "higher" truth hidden "behind" our conventional reality. It's just a different name for emptiness. That's how I understand it.
It can be just intellectualising for it's own sake, but some folks can actually learn from this kind of approach. Though I have my own tolerance limit for intellectualising.
Whether sincere meditation ends this sort of nonsense, you'd need to ask a sincere meditator :rolleyes:
I was just saying some people may find it helpful, who knows?
Of course, using it as an excuse for unethical behaviour is missing the point.
But I would also add that if it wasn't for the teaching about absolute & relative truths, there could be a danger of staying in the relative forever and believing that this is it. Where is liberation then? Isn't the concept of liberation itself already making a distinction between absolute & relative?
There is no "it" at all to grasp, possess or reside in-- nirvana, liberation, enlightenment, awakening, buddha nature... these are all provisional tools to help point on in the direction toward something that cannot be expressed in concepts. Such concepts are necessary, but it is also necessary (at the right time) to let go of them.
If Prajnaparamita is approached from a mere intellectual point of view, one has really missed the boat!
Riverflow, I'm interested in how Nagarjuna developed the two truths doctrine, and from what basis. Batchelor said neither the Buddha nor Nagarjuna used the terms "non-duality", nor "emptiness". But Nagarjuna's philosophy wasn't discussed in full. I'm wondering how this two-truths, two-moralities idea developed, when this is not what the Buddha taught. Could you elaborate?
Great discussion, everyone--so informative and insightful! Please continue.
You seem to hold to the idea that there is a double standard somewhere.
Its a very slippery slope though, when is someone engaging in tough love and when are they just being an ass?
I'd like for any teacher of mine though to generally appear to have fairly pure moral action.
MN 121
PTS: M iii 104
Cula-suññata Sutta: The Lesser Discourse on Emptiness
MN 122
PTS: M iii 109
Maha-suññata Sutta: The Greater Discourse on Emptiness
You might be able to find something if you search "Vaibhashika school"
The rules themselves don't change, or shouldn't, but one's understanding of them does. Thus, it may seem as though one person is acting differently than another and playing by different rules, but really they are playing by the same rules, just in a different way.
That's just my opinion. Be well. Right, the two truths explanation is merely saying that things conventionally exist through mutual co-dependence, but are all ultimately empty of inherent existence. That is all, nothing more, nothing less. People make it out into something wild and new from what the Buddha taught, but if one understands the Buddhas teachings, Nagarjunas understanding is naturally comprehended without complication.
That's how it seems to me at least.
Buddhism is very simple, if you understand dependent origination, apply that to every single statement made by any historical Buddha from whatever time period, from Shakyamuni, to Nagarjuna to Vasubhandu to Padmasambhava and all that complicated sounding stuff will be very deeply simplified on an internal level, where intuition is.
When we talk of emptiness or the empty mind, it is not a mind devoid of feeling or objects or of any experience. It is not everything vanishing and the mind being an empty space where nothing else is happening. But it is a mind empty of the sense of ‘I,’ of ignorance, of grasping and rejecting. When the mind is empty there can still be sight, sound, feeling, smell, taste, touch. It can all be there, but there is no grasping. Everything that we see, hear, taste, touch, think, remember, every mood, every aspect of ourselves and our world, every particle of it, is experienced as a pattern of consciousness in the mind. And so to understand and realise emptiness, is to be able to see that reality, that actuality.
It is almost, in a sense, seeing a transparency of experience, the dream-like, mirage-like nature of our world of experience. The Buddha’s description of emptiness, and what that takes us to, is a mind which is fresh and alert and can respond freely to life.
Aj Amaro
The World : See it as a bubble, see it as a mirage: one who regards the world this way the King of Death doesn't see. Dhammapada
*plopp*
*smile*
Please be mindful when posting, of condensing commentary.
many thanks!
But, I comment to each separate post of others at separate occasions.
people get put off by seeing the same poster over and over again. It seems like a thread take-over.... so condensing them into one, you still replied to everyone individually, but it's all in one place.....see?
Secondly, we do live, in a manner of speaking, in two realities. Firstly, there is the reality where, as has been posted already, if you cross a road without looking, you may be hit by a car. In this reality, suffering exists and is real. Of course, ultimately, from the perspective of a Buddha and Bodhisattva, suffering is caused by the illusion that cars are real, that people are separate entities etc. Ultimately, if the car hits you and kills you, nothing has really changed as this physical world is a delusion.
Some people misunderstand this teaching. I was watching a program about the Samuri the other day, and they said how they were taught that killing your enemy wasn't really killing, as flesh was an illusion. In fact, you could be said to be doing them a favour, as you'd liberate them from their flesh and give them a chance to be reborn in a heaven realm. But this is clearly a perversion of the Buddha's teachings! You don't need to know much about the Dharma, or even the Buddha's own life, to see the error in that. Where is the compassion? Where is the kindness? Where is the view that this is a precious human life and we shouldn't squander it? Or the precept against killing?
So there it is: morality, exemplified by the Eightfold Path, is not different in different levels of reality. Our awareness is. That awareness of 'Ultimate Reality' helps us when we threaten to become overwhelmed by the suffering all around us. It helps us to see the 'Big Picture' and remember that ultimately, all is well with the universe. And when we are in the middle of suffering, ourselves, it helps us to transcend that ordinary, physical reality we are so bewitched by (Samsara) and remember that suffering is produced by our minds, ourselves.
However, we should never forget that for most people, ordinary reality is all they know, and suffering is suffering. It would be easy to forget that compassion is the other side of the coin to wisdom, and sit on our metaphorical lotus, looking down and saying "Poor saps - they are trapped in their delusion". But the Buddha didn't do that, and neither should we.
Like the old story of the great teacher who offered his body for a hungry mother tiger, with cubs to feed, we offer our lives to others for the relief of their suffering, in this reality, knowing that in ultimate reality, we are free to do so with no loss to ourselves.
I'd have faith in awakening but great doubt with everythin else. Even your doubt must be doubted.
No ego. Just beings believing otherwise.