Steve Watson

Two Truths Doctrine Deprecated

Nagarjuna’s (2^nd-3^rd C) doctrine of Two Truths is accepted by all Mahayanists. It refers to a method of instruction in which statements were open to alternative possible interpretations depending on the level of sophistication of the audience; a method that Buddha used in order to make his doctrines accessible. The two truths are distinguished as

1. Conventional truth (sa~vrti-satya) which characterizes statements that are true by convention and by which we may describe our daily experience of a concrete world, and
2. Ultimate truth (paramArtha-satya) which characterizes statements that disclose the true nature of things and by which we may describe the ultimate reality.

It might be stated, for example, that the achievement of nirvana will lead to the person exiting samsara, and this could be understood under a conventional interpretation as a discussion of the fate of persons; but it could also be understood at another ‘higher’ level as using the non-referring terms ‘person’, ‘samsara,’ etc. and referring to a process that cannot occur in the way indicated. The point of making the statement to an audience that will apply the conventional interpretation is to convince the hearer that there is a reason to follow the Buddha’s teachings to the point that they will be capable of making the second interpretation. The point of the statement is therefore not to convey a truth about the world but to achieve some objective, and the point of claiming that the conventional interpretation gives a ‘conventional truth’ is no more than to validate in conventional terms the worth of the statement to the audience.

In fact, this being the case, we should say that the teachings of the Buddha are not intended to be evaluated in terms of their truth or falsity, but rather in terms of whether or not they lead to success in the Buddha’s intended project of liberation. But if this pragmatic or instrumental attitude towards truth is the proper understanding of the Buddha’s method, then his method is a very risky one, because, of course, once you have allowed that your statements are not to be thought of as true in the ‘standard’ way – even if you now insist that this statement is true in that way – it becomes impossible to make any statement that the audience may reasonably be expected to accept at face value. Even statements of so-called ‘ultimate truths’ may be suspected of being only instrumentally true rather than truly true; and we cannot know what the statements are instrumental for: the Buddha may state that he intends to end suffering and that his teachings are directed towards that end; but maybe that’s just a statement intended to lead us to behave or believe in a certain way, and doesn’t describe Buddha’s real intentions. Who can tell?