Tricycle Blogs 2006 by Stephen Batchelor

2. The Two Truths

"Very often," says Maurice Walshe in the introduction to his translation of the Long Discourses of the Buddha (Digha Nikaya), "the Buddha talks in the Suttas in terms of conventional or relative truth (sammuti-sacca), according to which people and things exist just as they appear to the naïve understanding. Elsewhere, however, when addressing and audience capable of appreciating his meaning, he speaks in terms of ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca)."

This passage confirms a view familiar to all Buddhists, no matter what school to which they belong. It is technically known as the doctrine of the Two Truths, according to which reality is divided into two "levels": the conventional and the ultimate, the relative and the absolute - or, as I translated it somewhere - the partial and the sublime.

It might come as a surprise, therefore - particularly after having just read the words of an eminent translator of the Buddha's word - to learn that nowhere among the discourses (sutta) in the Pali canon does the Buddha use such terms. This famous distinction between "relative" and "absolute" truth is entirely alien to these early texts. One can certainly interpret his teaching through the lens of such an idea (which, if you read the passage carefully, is what Maurice Walshe does) but bear in mind that the distinction itself is one the Buddha never employed.

The notion of Two Truths goes entirely against the grain of what the Buddha taught. Siddhattha Gotama's teaching is not founded on absolutes of any kind. He avoids the deeply ingrained assumption of much religious thought that reality is somehow split down the middle (God and Creation / Brahman and Maya / Nirvana and Samsara / Emptiness and Form). Ironically, of course, such divisions are blatantly dualistic - a position most Buddhists are supposed to be at pains to avoid.

In one of the most succinct accounts of his enlightenment, the Buddha speaks of awakening to "dependent origination," a truth that is "hard to see" since it "goes against the worldly stream." (Ariyapariyesana Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 26, section 19). In modern parlance, his insight was counterintuitive. Why? because it went against two "streams": our instinctive mental habit to split reality into two, and the outward expression of that habit in religious doctrines such as the Two Truths. The Buddha awakened to a glittering plurality of endlessly arising and vanishing phenomena. No God created it; no Mind underpins it; no Unconditioned lies somewhere outside it. Ethics, meditation and wisdom are not founded on some absolute truth, but grow out of a careful examination of what causes suffering and what brings it to an end. Enlightenment, for the Buddha, entailed simply paying attention to the phenomenal flux of your own empirical experience.

The doctrine of the Two Truths seems to have emerged fairly soon after the Buddha's death. It is not a later Mahayana idea; for it was already taken for granted in the early Abhidhamma. I suspect that it was the first step in the progressive brahminization of Buddhism in India. The Two Truth doctrine is strikingly reminiscent of the Upanishadic teaching that the world of appearances is an illusion (maya) that separates us from the transcendent, absolute reality of God (brahman). But that, of course, was the worldview the Buddha sought to abandon. He wanted to replace it with another way of seeing things altogether: the radical contingency of all existence, devoid of any intrinsic self-essence or God.

28 April, 2006