The gap
between two truths
The Zennist September
16, 2014
It is
well known that Nagarjuna, who lived in the late 2nd century,
engaged in debates that were called destructive (vitandâ).
Such a tactic is close to skepticism. In other words, Nagarjuna
refuted his opponent's thesis without having one of his own. But I
would argue that, in fact, Nagarjuna did have a thesis—an unusual
thesis. It was the ultimate truth (paramartha-satya)
which, being unconditioned, could not be debated since all debates
were by nature conditioned, revolving around conventional truth
(samvriti-satya).
This all comes from Nagarjuna’s two truth theory which, I hasten to
add, is not without some problems.
To understand
Nagarjuna's two truths we first have to consider the distinction
between them. Conventional truth is about non-definitive, verbal
and conceptual teachings, which include debates. Hopefully this
will help us to ultimate truth which can't be verbalized or
conceptualized. But there are no guarantees of success.
This brings us to
the real problem with Nagarjuna's two truths. How do we bridge
them? How does one go from conceptual, non-definitive verbal and
conceptual teachings to the big enchilada of ultimate truth or
paramartha-satya? Even to explain the bridging process
falls under the heading of conceptual. To be honest, there is a
broad ugly ditch between the Buddha's conventional teachings, which
are supposed to lead us to realizing, personally,
paramartha-satya, and the direct realization of ultimate
truth, itself.
Nagarjuna must have realized that there is no actual way to bridge
the gap anymore than one can go from waves to water since there are
really
no waves at all
when compared with the element of water. Conventional truth is but
a configuration of ultimate truth like a vase which is made of
clay. Conventional truth points in the general direction of where
we must spiritually look, but the direction of our looking is
not
paramartha-satya.
We still have to go
there
on our own, transcending all appearances.