double truth and relativity

8/14/2019 Double Truth and Relativity

1/22

DOUBLE TRUTH ANDRELATIVITY

ANKUR BARUA

The Centre of Buddhist Studies, The University of Hong Kong,

Hong Kong

Corresponding address:

Dr. ANKUR BARUABLOCK EE, No. 80, Flat No. 2A,SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR -2,KOLKATA 700 091

WEST BENGAL, INDIA Tel: +91-33-23215586Mobile: +919434485543Email: [email protected]

1


2/22

DOUBLE TRUTH AND

RELATIVITY

Abstract

The theory of the two truths is an innovation on the part of the Theravada

Abhidhamma. Here, we find the concept of the two levels of reality, the one

which is amenable to analysis and the other which defies further analysis.

There are some striking similarities present between Buddhist concept of Double

Truth and modern scientific views related to the notion of time and space.

The concept of Time is psychological and it is also considered to be an imputed

entity . This is because it is identified on the basis of something that is other than

itself. The whole process of cosmo-genesis according to Buddhism is catalyzed by

the actions of living beings or Kamma . The Theravda concept of space is found

only in Milindapa ha where the only two things which are considered to be

independent of kamma or of causes or of season are namely Nibb

na and space.But it carefully avoids the use of the term unconditioned (asakhata) and relates

space as neither conditioned nor unconditioned. However, In the Sarvstivda

Abhidhamma, space is elevated to the level of an unconditioned dhamma.

2


3/22

Key Words: Sammuti , Paatti , Conventional, Paramattha , Absolute,Double Truth, Relativity, Abhidhamma, Einstein, Time, Space,Emptiness, Psychological, Nibbna, Tathata

3


4/22

DOUBLE TRUTH AND

RELATIVITY Introduction

In Buddhist doctrines, the Sutta passages mention the theory of double truth which

is a logical extension of the dhamma theory. The theory of the two truths is an

innovation on the part of the Theravada Abhidhamma. Here, we find the concept of the two levels of reality, the one which is amenable to analysis and the other which

defies further analysis. The first level is called sammuti because it represents

conventional or relative truth or consensual reality. The second is called paramattha

because it represents the absolute truth or ultimate reality. 1,2

There are some controversies related to the degree of reality that should beattributed to the sum total of the dhammas that make up the person. According to

the Puggalavdins the sum total should be assigned the same degree of reality that

is assigned to the constituents. However, the Theravdins consider that the sum

total is not real in an ultimate sense because of its analyzability. The ultimate

constituents into which, the sum total is analyzable are ultimately real because they

are not amenable to further analysis. 2,3

An interesting feature in the Theravda version of the theory is the use of the term

sammuti for relative truth. For in all other schools of Buddhist thought the term

4


5/22

used is savrti . The difference is not simply that between Pali and Sanskrit, for the

two terms differ both in etymology and meaning. Since sammuti refers to

convention or general agreement, sammuti-sacca means truth based on convention

or general agreement. On the other hand, the idea behind savrti-satya is that

which covers up the true nature of things and makes them appear otherwise. As

savrti means that which covers, hides, or conceals the true nature of reality, it is

clearly implied that paramrtha is that which reveals the true nature of reality. Thus,

the very use of the term savrt i to express one of the truths shows that that

particular truth is less truthful and therefore inferior to what is called paramrtha-

satya , the absolute truth. That is why, in all other schools of Buddhist thought

belonging to the Hnayna and Mahyna traditions, the paramrtha satya is

considered superior to savrti satya .4,5

In the Sarvstivda Abhidharma the difference between savrti (relative) and

paramrtha (absolute) is explained in a different manner. It is sought to be based on

the principle of physical reducibility and mental analyzability. When there are the

five aggregates as objects of clinging, there comes to be the mere term of common

usage a being, a person, yet when each component is examined, there is no

being as a basis for the assumption of I am or I. Here, the idea of a human

being disappears when it is reduced to pieces. If the notion of a thing disappears

when it is analyzed by mind, then it is to be regarded as existing relatively. If the

idea of a thing does not persist any more when it is analyzed, then it exists in a

conventional sense ( savrtisat) .On the other hand, when a given thing is analyzed

by mind, if the idea of it continues to persist, then that particular thing is said to

exist in an ultimate sense ( paramrtha-sa t). For example, materiality ( rpana ) or

5


6/22

impenetrability ( pratighta ) continues to persist when what is material or

impenetrable is reduced to atoms or analyzed by mind into their constituents. The

same is true when we consider mental phenomena such as feeling ( vedan ),

ideation (saja), etc . According to Bhadanta rilta, one of the celebrities of the

Sautrntika School of Buddhism, if the thing in question loses its original name

when it is analyzed, then it is savrti and if it does not, then it is paramrtha . Here,

too, analyzability is taken as the sole criterion in distinguishing the two kinds of

truth. 3,4,5

Teachings of the Buddha in the light of Double Truth

The Buddha preached his doctrine by adopting either the sammuti -kath or the

paramattha-kath according to the suitability of the occasion . He had used the

dialect that a person readily understands. There was no implication that one dialect

was superior or inferior to another. After taking into consideration the ability of each

individual to understand the Four Noble Truths, the Buddha had presented his

teaching, either by way of sammuti , or by way of paramattha , or by way of both.

These are just two different ways of presenting the same set of doctrines. Although

the sammuti-sacca is quite different from the paramattha-sacca , but both are

expressed through paatti. The commentarial literatures stated that the

ultimately real is expressed (communicated) without going beyond paatti

(Paattim anatikkamma paramattho paksito ) and also the Madhyamaka stating

that the absolute is not taught without resorting to the conventional ( Vyavahram

ansrtya paramrtho na deyate ). Both statements refer to the invariable

association between the two truths and the symbolic medium of language. 3,4,5

6


7/22

In the Sutta Piaka there is more use of conventional terms in ordinary parlance,

whereas in the Abhidhamma Piaka more use is made of specific, technical terms

which directly refer to the ultimate categories of empirical existence. The difference

is only pertaining to method and not the content. Thus, what is intended to show by

the description of the Sutta Piaka and the Abhidhamma Piaka as sammuti-desan

and paramattha-desa n respectively is that they represent two different ways of

presenting the same doctrine. So, we should remember that whatever method the

Buddha had adopted, the purpose was the same. He wanted to show the way to

immortality through the analysis of mental and physical phenomena. Hence, one is

advised not to adhere dogmatically to the mere superficial meanings of words ( Na

vacanabhedamattam lambitabba ), while understanding the teaching of the

Buddha. 3,5

Application of the Concept of Double Truth in Modern Science

Though Buddhism did not have any rigorous methodology for studying the physical

world, but the Buddhist scholars and contemplatives had developed views on

matters related to the universe and its contents. This was based on pure logical and

rational thinking and no experimental model was applied to prove or disprove any of

these observations. These phenomena were discussed in detail in the early

Buddhism, the Abhidhamma Pitaka , the Visuddhimagga , the Pali commentaries,

Mahvibh - stra , the Klacackra Tantra and in the literature on Buddhist

epistemology. 1,3,6 Although the study of physical world was not the central focus of

the traditional areas of learning and specialization in Buddhism, but there are some

7


8/22

striking similarities present between Buddhist concept of Double Truth and modern

scientific views related to the notion of time and space.

Einsteins Theories on Relativity

Albert Einstein is generally regarded as the greatest theoretical physicist of all

times. His contributions to atomic physics and study of the photoelectric effect had

earned him the Noble Prize. His theory of relativity with its profound modifications of

the notions of space, time and gravitation had fundamentally changed and

deepened our understanding of the physical and philosophical conception of the

universe. The historians call the year 1905 as the annus mirabilis or miracle

year, because in that year the renowned scientist Albert Einstein published four

remarkable scientific papers addressing fundamental problems about the nature of

energy, matter, motion, time and space. He was awarded the noble prize in the year

1921 for his outstanding contributions to the Theoretical Physics and especially for

his discovery of the Law of the Photoelectric Effect. 7,8 Some of his theories which

could be viewed in the light of Buddhist concept of Double Truth are as follows: 8,9

In June 1905, Einstein proposed his concept of special relativity . Einstein's

March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity estimated light as

a continuous field of waves. So, Einstein observed light both as wave and

particle.

Later in 1905 came an extension of special relativity in which Einstein proved

that energy and matter are linked in the most famous relationship in physics:

E=mc 2 . (The energy content of a body is equal to the mass of the body

times the speed of light in vacuum squared). This equation predicted an

8


9/22

evolution of energy roughly a million times more efficient than that obtained

by ordinary physiochemical means. This led to the theory of the conservation

of energy, in the form of the first law of thermodynamics, which stated that

the total amount of energy in any isolated system always remains constant.

Although it can only be changed from one form to another, e.g. friction turns

kinetic energy into thermal energy; this energy cannot be created or

destroyed. If we calculate how much energy is being produced within the

volume by stars and galaxies and also calculate how much energy is leaving

the region, then the difference between the two parts should equal zero.

Therefore, hypothetically, the energy produced by the universe is zero. So,

another expression of this assumption is that the total amount of energy in

the universe is always constant. It is only that one form transforms into the

other.

During 1915, Einstein completed the General Theory of Relativity and

showed that matter and energy actually mold the shape of space and

the flow of time . What we feel as the 'force' of gravity is simply the

sensation of following the shortest path we can through curved, four-

dimensional space-time. It was a radical vision where space was no longer

considered to be the box to enclose the universe. Instead, space and time

along with matter and energy are all locked together in the most intimate

embrace.

The Concept of Double Truth and Relativity

9


10/22

The Buddhist view was always aware of the unity and mutual interaction of all

events. This concept of seeing things as they are themselves was also called

Tathata or suchness. The Theravda version of the two truths are considered as

conventional truth ( sammuti -sacca ) and absolute or ultimate truth ( paramattha-

sacca ). The theory of double truth as developed by the Abhidhamma has a close

connection with the early Buddhist analysis of empirical existence into aggregates

(khandha) , sense bases ( ayatana ), and elements ( dhtu ) of cognition. Although

what is analysed is called sammuti , unlike in the Abhidhamma, that into which it is

analysed is not called paramattha . What is more, in the early Buddhist scriptures

the term paramattha is used only as a descriptive term of Nibbna, to show that,

from an ethico-psychological perspectivbe, Nibbana is the highest ideal( sumnum

bonum ). Whereas in the Abhidhamma the term paramattha is used in an ontological

sense to mean what exists in a real and ultimate sense. In this ontological sense

the term paramattha denotes not only Nibbna as the Unconditioned Element, but

also all mental and material elements into which the conditioned existence is

analyzed. 2,3 Einstein had also expressed that there is no place in this kind of

physics both for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality. 7,8

In the Madhyamaka system, ntrtha (ntattha) and neyyrtha (neyyattha) are

explained as a parallel to its version of the two kinds of truth ( savrti and

paramrtha ). Nagarjunas analysis of Sunyata was based on the concept of

rejection of all sorts of impositions. It revealed the fact that anything internal or

external that appears to us as existing is in fact unreal and virtual. Thus, it

emphasized the dynamicity and relativity of our own individual perceptions. The

Mahayanists had claimed that nothing exists in our universe of experience in real

10


11/22

form. What we perceive through our senses is all virtual and subjected to constant

change from moment to moment. 4,5,6 This implies that there is no static and

permanent entity and everything is subjected to transformation. Since, every

phenomenon is relative to each other and follows the rule of Dependent Origination,

it is considered to be dynamic.

Time: A Psychological Concept

Since ages, time had been a topic extensive analysis in both the Buddhist and

scientific traditions. Long before Galileo or Newton, many of the Ancient

philosophers speculated on the nature of time. One view that is relevant to the

history of non-mathematical concept of time is Augustines suggestion that the only

time is lived-time. This theory reflects the existence of psychological time; the

sense of time that we all normally experience. It is psychological, rather than the

mathematical or scientific concept of time, which was most recently explored by the

German phenomenologist Martin Heidegger. This psychological time has been

discussed by Buddhism as well. 7,8

Galileo was the first modern scientist to work with the concept of time. In his

studies, he used a simple water clock to measure relative passages of time while

rolling balls down inclined planes. Despite these pioneering efforts, he could not

provide any systematic or functional definition of time. A clear definition of time did

not come until Newton, who had universalized time and employed the concept of

time in mathematical frameworks. 7,8

11


12/22

Beyond Newton, time eventually became important in relation to the

thermodynamics and Einsteins theory of relativity. Observing the irreversibility or

asymmetry between the past and future, it has been argued that time is uni-

directional and is also associated with the experience of psychological time. The

concept of the uni-directional nature of time is not without controversy. Einstein

himself had felt the uni-directionality of time and considered the concept of time to

be an illusion. 9,10

According to Newton, time was universal and unchanging and provides a kind of

backdrop with space where all events took place. This concept was also based on

the view that time was completely unrelated to space and uni-directional. As

compared to this existing notion, Einsteins contribution to the understanding of

time was revolutionary. In Einsteins theory of relativity, time (with space) becomes

relative and contingent both on speed and gravity. The faster one travels or the

closer one is to an object with a very strong gravitational pull, time elapses more

slowly. This theory was supported by Langevin who proposed the concept of twin

paradox and predicted that one twin traveling through space at great speeds will

age much more slowly than her twin who is living on earth. A similar concept has

been described in our psychological experience of time. Sometimes, we perceive as

time to fly off very fast while in other situations, we perceive time to move very

slowly.7,11

The Buddhist concept of time is equally diverse. Like psychological time described

in Western contexts, Buddhists recognize that time can be experienced as moving

faster or slower in certain situations. Buddhist contemplatives had often claimed to

12


13/22

be able to alter their experience of time. What others might experience as only an

instant, could be experienced by a person meditating as a much longer period of

time. From the Buddhist perspective, when one actually analyzes time; it is found to

not really exist. So, according to Buddhism, time is a conventional truth (pa atti)

and a verbal or conceptual designation which is imputed onto experiences of a past,

present, and future. It is called conventional because it is only established

nominally on the basis of words and thoughts. If we actually try to point to an

instant of time, the moment that we try to pinpoint has already passed and a future

moment has now become the present. In this way, we cannot technically speak of

any fixed, locatable present as it always vanishes upon close examination. Because

of its conventional or dependent nature, time is an excellent example of the

Buddhist concept of interdependence. The present only exists in dependence upon

the concepts of past and future and none of these make sense without the

others. 3,10,11,12

Time is also considered an imputed entity in a yet more scholastic and technical

context. This is because it is identified on the basis of something that is other than

itself. A substantial entity , by contrast, is something that can be pointed to and

identified directly. For example, when we speak of time, we point to a clock (a

substantial entity) and as we watch the second hand go by, we perceive that we are

watching the time to pass. We have not pointed to the time in reality, but rather

perceived it through designations on things that are not time, like the clock. Though

the things which serve as the basis for designations of time can be physical or

mental, but time itself is neither physical nor mental. Instead, time fits in a third

class of phenomenon technically referred to as non-associated composite

13


14/22

phenomena. Here, Non-associated means that it is neither physical nor mental

and composite means that time is dependent on other factors and is

impermanent. 8,10,11

Beyond these technical understandings of time, the Buddhists in Mahayana tradition

believe in the existence of three forms of time consisting of past, present, and

future. But the Theravda tradition only recognizes the present moment as a marker

of time. From a contemplative perspective, a major practice in Buddhism, is abiding

in the present moment. In other contexts, time is discussed as an accessible way

to introduce the Buddhist concept of dependent-origination. Apart from this concept

of time, these two Buddhist schools had also identified the shortest possible

divisions of time that is required to perform an act and the shortest division of time

in general. An example of the shortest possible divisions of time is the time it takes

to blink our eye, which is called a moment. The shortest division of time is

considered to be 1/60th (or even 1/365th, depending on the source) the duration of

a finger snap, a number which one Buddhist scholar has calculated roughly as one

millisecond. 11,13

Considering these facts, we observe that the Buddhist concept of psychological

time is similar to Einsteins perception that time is illusory. Since, Buddhism

originated 2500 years ago and Einstein had a good understanding of the doctrines

of Buddhism, there is a high possibility that he was influenced by this Buddhist

concept of time as a conventional truth and used it to explain his theory of

relativity which is accepted by modern science.

14


15/22

Space: Ambiguity on its Status of Conditioned or Unconditioned

Another major area of discussion for Buddhists, physicists, and cosmologists is the

nature of empty space and cosmogony. The concept of Time and Space in relation

to Buddhism are the two varieties of pa atti. They are two conceptual constructs

without any corresponding objective reality. In Buddhism, the only two things which

are considered to be not born of kamma (akammaja) or of causes (ahetuja) or of

season (anutuja) are namely Nibb na and Space. In Milindapa ha, the only two

things which are considered to be independent of kamma or of causes or of season

are namely Nibb na and space. But it carefully avoids the use of the term

unconditioned (asakhata) and relates space as neither conditioned nor

unconditioned. The Theravda concept of space is found only in Milindapa ha where

the space is defined as infinite (ananta), boundless (appam na) and immeasurable

(appameyya). It does not cling to anything (alagga), is not attached to anything

(asatta), rests on nothing (appati ha) and is not obstructed anything (apalibuddha).

The Therav dins include the space element concept in the objective field of mental

objects (dhamm yatana) which means that it is not visible but can be cognized only

as an object of mind-consciousness. 3,10,11,12,13

In the Sarvstivda Abhidhamma, the counterpart of space element is referred to as

k a-dh tu. The space element is either light ( loka) or darkness (tamas) andtherefore it is included in the objective sense-field of the visible (rup yatana).

Besides this, the Sarv stivdins recognize another kind of space which is called

ka and not ka dhtu. It is defined not as space bound by matter, but as that

15


16/22

which provides room for the movement of matter (yatra r pasya gati). It is omni-

present (sarvagata), eternal (nitya) and its nature is non-obstruction (an varaa-

svabh va). It does not obstruct matter, which freely exists therein. It is also not

obstructed by matter, for it cannot be dislodged by matter. However, space is not

the mere absence of obstruction of matter, but something passively real. Hence, in

the Sarvstivda Abhidhamma, space is elevated to the level of an unconditioned

dhamma. Thus, what the Sarvstivdins call unconditioned space is the space

considered absolutely real and as serving as a receptacle for the existence and

movement of material phenomena. 4,10,12

In the Madhyamaka system Nagarjuna had explained the Buddhist Doctrine of

Dependent Origination in the light of Sunyata which means void or emptiness.

The space in universe is also intimately connected to this Buddhist concept of

nyat or emptiness. Just as nothing can exist without space, so too can nothing

exist without emptiness. Because all phenomena are empty of a static, independent

and permanent existence, they can come into existence, change their forms and

pass on. Emptiness is alternatively understood through the concept of dependent-

origination. It is because things arise by depending on other things that exist. The

notion of a permanent and independent phenomenon therefore, can never exist

without interacting with anything else and itself undergoing some changes in the

process. We should realize the absolute truth behind the concept of emptiness

as absence of self-entity and attachment. We should also understand the fact that

interdependence is the nature of reality in order to eliminate ignorance and free our

minds from the ocean of conditioned, karmic-driven existence. 4,8,10,11

16


17/22

In physics, there are highly developed mathematical theories which suggest the

empty space of a vacuum actually contains an infinite amount of energy. It is

speculated that this energy has a role in the evolution in the universe. While this is

still an area of controversy and mystery within theoretical physics, it makes for a

rough parallel to the Buddhist concept of empty-particles and the universe arising

out of space. In Buddhist literature, empty space is an important concept in

understanding the origins of the universe. It is traditionally presumed that at the

beginning of a cosmic cycle, the various elements arise from empty space catalyzed

by the karmic winds of sentient beings. From space comes wind or kinetic energy.

From wind comes fire or thermal energy. From fire comes water or fluidity. Finally,

from water comes earth or solidity. 10,11,12 According to Hinduism, these five elements

(space, wind, fire, water, and earth) make up the basis for matter in the universe.

But Buddhism does not accept space as a primary element for matter and regard it

as pa atti, which is based on conceptual constructs without any corresponding

objective reality.

The whole process of cosmo-genesis according to Buddhism is catalyzed by the

actions of living beings or Kamma .

When an action or Kamma is performed by an individual based on lust, anger,

hatred and jealousy, then that action creates an imprint on ones consciousness.

This karmic imprint acts as a seed that lies dormant within consciousness until

someday maturing into a fully ripened fruit or experience. When conditions are

right, this imprint would manifest itself and stir into creation of some new universe

of experience. Thus, in Buddhism, the universe is considered to be the space of our

various kinds of Kammic experiences. In the context of cosmogony, Kamma is what

17


18/22

catalyzes the formation of a new universe. From the Buddhist perspective, there are

said to be multiple world systems which constantly go through a process of

formation and dissipation across vast expanses of space and time without having

any particular point of beginning. Einstein also accepted this concept and

emphasized on the conduction of volitions activities by human beings. 7,8,10,11

18


19/22

Conclusion

The expression paramattha (absolute/ultimate) means that which is ultimate, that

which is not further resolvable. The reference is to the dhammas, the ultimate data

of existence. Accordingly, sammuti is conceptual ( kappan-siddha ) and paramattha

is objectively real ( bhva-siddha ). Although paramattha can be designated and

conceptualized by mind, it exists without being designated and conceptualized. In

other words, it is the knowledge which is ultimate. Knowledge is present everywhere

all the time irrespective of whether we perceive it or not. Thus, paramattha-sacca

really means the truth expressed by using the technical terms expressive of the

ultimate elements of existence. Similarly, sammuti-sacca or conventional truth

means the truth expressed by using conventional terms in common parlance. It is

to be noted that no preferential value-judgment should be used to distinguish

between sammuti-sacca and paramattha-sacca while deciphering the doctrine of

the Buddha. 2,3,5

As mentioned in the Aguttaranikya, the Theravada tradition also considers these

as the two ways of presenting the same dhamma . Although the Four Noble Truths

represent four different facts, no preferential value judgment is introduced in

respect of them. One particular truth is not held out as superior or inferior to

another. That is why they are all introduced as Noble Truths ( Ariya-saccni) . All are

equally noble ( ariya ), and all are equally true ( sacca ). None of them impose any

preferential value judgment in respect of each of the other. This concept of non-

value judgment is the most important common feature between ntattha and

neyyattha, and the Four Noble Truths. 1,2,3,5

19


20/22

During the process of evolution of modern science, the basic elementary

philosophical and logical concepts were already present in our religious practices.

Though the modern scientists discard the concept of a Creator God, but they

recognize the fact that there are a number of philosophical concepts of modern

science embedded in Buddhism, which needs careful exploration. The interpretation

of modern scientific theories, related to the universe and cosmology, in the light of

Abhidhamma perspective of Buddhism is a sincere effort in this direction.

20


21/22

References

1. Karunadasa, Y. 2009. The Literature of the Theravda Abhidhamma as a

guide to the history of the Abhidhamma Systematization. Hong Kong: The

Centre of Buddhist Studies, the University of Hong Kong.

2. Karunadasa, Y. 1996. The Dhamma Theory: Philosophical Cornerstone of the

Abhidhamma . Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society.

3. Karunadasa, Y. 2008. Theravada Version of the Two Truths . Hong Kong: The

Centre of Buddhist Studies, the University of Hong Kong.

4. Dhammajoti, K.L. 2003. Sarvstivda Abhidhamma . Colombo, Sri Lanka: The

Centre for Buddhist Studies.

5. Bodhi, B., ed. 1993. A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (the annotated

translation of Abhidhammatthasangaha of Acariya Anuruddha) . Kandy, Sri

Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society.

6. Lopez, Donald S. 2005. Critical terms for the study of Buddhism . Buddhism

and modernity. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

7. Jammer, Max. 1999. Einstein and religion: physics and theology . Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

8. Bharucha, Filita P. 1992. Buddhist theory of causation and Einstein's theory of

relativity . Delhi, India: Sri Satguru Publications.

9. Einstein, A., 1931. The world as I see it. Forum and Century: Living

Philosophies 84: 193-4.

10.Wallace,B.A., ed., 2003. Buddhism & science: breaking new ground. New

York: Columbia University Press.

21


22/22

11.Wallace, B.A.1996. Choosing Reality: A Buddhist View of Physics and the

Mind . Ithaca, N.Y.: Snow Lion Publications: 18-27.

12.Karunadasa, Y. 2009. Time and Space . Hong Kong: The Centre of Buddhist

Studies. The University of Hong Kong.

13.Lopez, D.S. 2008. Buddhism & science: A guide for the perplexed. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

22

double truth and relativity

Documents