The Two Truths

2020 ◽  
pp. 91-100
Author(s):  
Nicolas Bommarito

This chapter analyzes the two truths. Buddhists care deeply about getting at the truth and as a result have thought a lot about what truth is. One of the most important philosophical ideas to emerge from Buddhism is that of the two truths. Though it is more commonly known as the two truths, it could also be called the Two Realities. What is really true, not just within a set of conventions, is called ultimate truth. This does not entail that conventional truth is always bad or to be abandoned. Conventional truth can be useful as long as it does not blind one to what is really happening. This idea plays two different roles in Buddhism: One is as a philosophical idea about the nature of reality; the other is as an interpretive strategy to make sense of a variety of Buddhist texts.

Author(s):  
Mark Siderits

This essay develops the theory of action presupposed by Buddhist Reductionists. Their account uses the theory of two truths to reconcile the folk theory of human action with the Buddhist claim that there are no agents. The conventional truth has it that persons are substance-causes of actions, and the willings that trigger actions are exercises of a person’s powers in light of their reasons. According to the ultimate truth, there are no persons, only causal series of bundles of tropes. An action is a bodily or mental event in one such series that has the occurrence of a prior intention event as its cause. Facts about causally connected psychophysical elements explain the utility, and thus the conventional truth, of claims about persons as agents. This two-tier account of human agency makes possible a novel approach to making attributions of moral responsibility compatible with psychological determinism.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
AbdulSwamad Gyagenda

Imam Al-Ghazali used a combination of the wisdom, exposure and experience he had acquired while running the Nizamiyyah colleges to contribute to the core of the theory knowledge, education and Islamic sciences. His ideas suggest that God is the primary source of knowledge and sense alone cannot deliver one to the ultimate truth. He categorised knowledge according to the needs of the society. Knowledge according to him should shape an individual and help him/her to interact with the creator and with the other existents. Knowledge should affect body and soul, mind and heart and ultimately deliver one to happiness here and in the hereafter. His views on the core values of Islam affecting both individuals and society can be employed in determining and redefining the philosophy of knowledge in our contemporary world. The brief on the philosophy of knowledge reflected in here as well as the method of teaching and instruction especially in the Islamic institutions is drawn from Al-Ghazali’s rich reservoir of experience. This literature can be used to develop teaching and learning models and polices in developing Islamic academic institutions especially in Uganda.


2021 ◽  
pp. 105-139
Author(s):  
Natalia Bonetskaya

The article presents the philosophical idea of N. Berdyaev in its internal logic. The author of the article determines the gnoseological origins of Berdyaev’s existentialism, that was initially aiming to overcome Kant's phenomenalism and agnosticism through the connection of philosophical thinking with religious experience. On one hand N. Bonetskaya shows that Berdyaev, the author of the book «Philosophy of freedom» (1911), in search of the freedom conditions for the cognizing person used the conception by R. Steiner, developed for example in his work «Philosophy of freedom» (1894). On the other hand, Berdyaevʼs gnostic thought had its source in his own spontaneous inner experience, which the thinker himself considered as a revelation of «creativity». Berdyaevʼs existentialism developed as a reflection of his philosophical creativity and in this sense, it can be interpreted as selfknowledge.


Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Sijia Wang ◽  
Huanhuan He

This paper discusses the development of ideas of the ultimate in the thought of Chinese Buddhism in the Northern and Southern Dynasties. The concept of ultimate truth is, along with that of conventional truth, a core concept in Mahāyāna Buddhism. During the Sui Dynasty, Chinese Buddhism developed the unique perspective of the Three Truths, the foundation for which was formed during the Southern and Northern Dynasties. This begins with Jie jie Jing 解節經 (in full, Foshuo Jiejie Jing 佛說解節經) by Paramārtha (499–569), which is a partial translation of Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra and presents the theory of ultimate truth (paramārtha) to Chinese Buddhists. Through a comparison of Jiejie Jing with other Chinese and Tibetan translations of Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra, we establish Paramārtha’s thoughts on the ultimate. The relationship between Paramārtha’s thought on the ultimate and the development of the Three Truths is evaluated in a comparison of Paramārtha’s thoughts on ultimate truth with the thinking of nearly contemporary Chinese monks.


Author(s):  
C.A. Hooker

It is widely supposed that science aims to identify ’natural laws’. But what are laws of nature? How, if at all, do statements of laws differ from ’mere’ general truths which include generalizations true only ’accidentally’? Suppose, for example, it happens to be true that all iron spheres (past, present and future) are less than 1 km in diameter. Contrast this with the truth of ’all electrons are negatively charged’. There seems to be a clear intuitive distinction between these two truths, but is there any principled distinction between them that can be drawn and defended? This has been the traditional focus of philosophical attention concerning laws of nature, and basically two mutually opposed philosophical accounts have been developed. According to the first account, there are real necessities in nature, over and above the regularities that they allegedly produce (whether or not these regularities are held to be observable), and law-statements are descriptions of these necessities. According to the second account, there are no necessities but only regularities (correlations, patterns) and laws are descriptions of regularities (though perhaps not of any regularity but only of the most basic or most general ones). There are significantly different variants of each account; and also positions that altogether deny the existence of general laws (or deny that science should aim to describe them). Any one of these accounts, if it is ultimately to be coherent and defensible, has to successfully address four interrelated issues: the meaning of a law statement – the semantic issue; the fact to which a law statement refers and which makes it true – the metaphysical issue; the basis on which claims to know a law are justified – the epistemological issue; the capacity to explain adequately the variety and roles of scientific laws – the explanatory issue. In attempting this task, each of the available accounts faces its own distinct difficulties. For example, if there are necessities in nature, as the first account claims, how exactly do we identify them: how can we tell which of the inductively confirmed regularities are laws? On the other hand, if there are only regularities, as the second account claims, does this mean that our intuitions and scientific practices are awry and that there really is no distinction between laws and accidental generalizations? The difficulties facing all extant accounts become even more marked when we face up squarely to the surprisingly wide variety of (putative) laws supplied by current science and to the complexity of the relations between those putative laws and regularities and causes.


Author(s):  
Paul B. Donnelly

Along with Yogācāra, Madhyamaka (Middle Way) is one of the two foundational doctrinal systems of Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism, which flourished from the 3rd century ce to the final disappearance of Buddhism from the subcontinent in the 12th–13th centuries. Beginning in the 4th century, it spread to East Asia, where it became the foundation of an independent school of thought and influenced the other major Chinese Buddhist schools. It took root in Tibet beginning in the 7th century, where it served as the cornerstone of all the scholastically inclined Buddhist sects. Throughout the Mahāyāna Buddhist world, Madhyamaka has occupied a foundational position in doctrinal formulations and practices. Madhyamaka has tended to be regarded as either the supreme formulation of Mahāyāna thought, as was often the case in Tibet, or as complementary to Yogācāra, which was more commonly held in China and Japan. The name “Middle Way” references a fundamental assumption in Buddhism that stakes a middle position between the idea that the self is an irreducible, enduring entity and one in which it is wholly reducible to the physical body and perishes after death. Though central Madhyamaka ideas, such as the doctrine of the Two Truths, Dependent Origination, and Emptiness, can be found in Nikāya Buddhism and in Mahāyāna sutras, it is in the treatises of Nāgārjuna (2nd–3rd centuries ce) that we have a fully formed and distinct system of thought that can be called Madhyamaka. In earlier canonical works, and more explicitly in the Abhidharma, this notion of middle way applied exclusively to the self (Skt ātman/Pali atta) and conceptually constructed phenomena. In Mahāyāna sutras and in Nāgārjuna works, the assertion is extended to the fundamental component parts of all existents, which are declared to be empty of intrinsic nature. In Abhidharma works, the self and other composite phenomena are said to be reducible to their fundamental parts, the dharmas (Pali dhamma), which, being irreducible, must have their own identifiable intrinsic mode of existence even if they exist dependently. According to Madhyamaka, a dharma cannot possess an intrinsic nature precisely because it exists dependently. Denying any intrinsic nature, Madhyamaka asserts that things exist only dependently, and this only in terms of conventional truth, and that ultimately, emptiness of intrinsic nature is the truth and reality of all things. Not surprisingly, such a position was contentious, and numerous interpreters attempted to elucidate this rather radical position. The question of which commentator or commentators are definitive has occupied many generations of Indian, East Asian, and Tibetan Buddhists, and the issue remains very much alive in modern scholarship on Madhyamaka. Though much of this scholarship has come from a philosophical perspective, the intent of Madhyamaka, like all Buddhist thought, is primarily soteriological in nature.


2021 ◽  
Vol VII ◽  
pp. 231-276
Author(s):  
Barbara Sitarska

Pansophia (omniscience) is John Amos Comenius' philosophical idea which, related to his idea of lifelong learning, can be described by the words To teach everybody... everything... about everything… with all the senses... with the use of natural methods... forever. These are the key thoughts of John Amos Comenius' two leading and closely interrelated ideas. According to the author, the idea of pansophism does not exist without the idea of lifelong learning, and the other way round: the idea of lifelong learning cannot exist without the idea of pansophism. In the article, the author attempts to present pansophism as the thinker’s idea of lifelong lear-ning, including the idea of self-cognition as a foundation of pansophic education, which lasts throughout everybody's life. Such education has two dimensions: institutional and symbolic with a philosophical overtone. The author mainly refers to the issues analyzed within her seven years' comeniological research, as well as to previous interpretations and reinterpreta-tions of available works by Comenius and about Comenius, aware of their deficiency.


2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-80
Author(s):  
Andry Setiawan

Pluralisme menjadi kesadaran baru yang menganggap bahwa semua keyakinan memiliki kesamaan secara umum satu dengan yang lain. Implikasinya, tidak ada satu pun agama yang boleh mengklaim bahwa ia adalah satu-satunya keyakinan yang paling benar di antara agama-agama lainnya. Indonesia sebagai negara pluralis juga menghadapi problematika pluralisme agama. Dalam menghadapi ini, muncul pemikiran Kristen pluralis yang menekankan persamaan di antara agama-agama sehingga meniadakan keunikan kekristenan: Kristus dan karya keselamatan-Nya benar sedangkan agama lainnya salah. Tulisan ini akan mengenalkan model berapologetika yang membela keunikan iman Kristen di tengah tantangan pemikiran Kristen yang pluralis tentang pluralisme agama di Indonesia: apologetika prasuposisional triperspektivalisme John M. Frame yang diuraikan melalui apologetika konstruktif (normatif), defensif (eksistensial), dan ofensif (situasional). Kata-kata kunci: Apologetika, Prasuposisional, Triperspektivalisme, John M. Frame, Aplikasi, Pluralisme Agama Pluralism exhibits a new awareness that assumes that all beliefs have general similarity when compared one with another. As a result, there is no religion that can claim that it has the claim to ultimate truth when compared with a host of other options. Indonesia, as a pluralistic nation, exhibits the challenges of religious pluralism. Because of that reality, there are frameworks of Christian thought that have arisen that emphasize the similarity of several religions which erodes and ultimately eliminates the uniqueness of Christianity. However, Jesus Christ and his work of salvation is absolutely true and the other religions are false. This article will introduce an apologetic model that can be used to defend the uniqueness of the Christian faith among the challenges of religious pluralistic thought in Indonesia. John M. Frame’s triperspectivalism presuppositional apologetics is proferred and developed through constructive apologetics (normative), defensive apologetics (existential), and offensive apologetics (situational). Keywords: Apologetics, Presuppositional, Triperspectivalism, John M. Frame, Application, Religious Pluralism


Author(s):  
Anders Lisdorf

How do we explain that people believe in apparently bizarre things as in Evans-Prichards’s study of the Azande beliefs in witches? It is argued that radically nativist theories on the one hand and radically culturalist explanations on the other are inadequate. Rather, a more detailed account needs to be worked out. Taking the example of religious ontologies to which Azandes witches belong, it is argued that religious ontologies consist of a relatively limited catalogue of counter-intuitive concepts on a worldwide basis. The problem is then how to explain why only some of these concepts are present in one culture and others in another culture. Also it is a problem how to explain why these religious ontologies are relatively stable within one culture over long durations, that is, why a kind of cultural inertia exists. It is argued that the mechanism which stabilises cultural knowledge is validation contexts of this knowledge. Validation contexts are situations in which some knowledge is validated as true and other as false. Among the Azande these are the different oracles. The oracles are anthropomorphised in the ritual situation. But they are also sociomorphised, that is, considered a part of the wider society of the Azande. As society has a hierarchy, so do oracles. This creates a knowledge hierarchy among them. Some oracles give the ultimate truth while others are not credible. When questions about witches as causes of misfortune are verified in the highest oracle they remain a part of the religious ontology, which is why they are later again inferred as causes of misfortune and again put as questions to the highest oracle. This looping could explain the cultural inertia which is often testified in many cultures.  


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document