Is the Two Truths Doctrine a Problem for Early Buddhism?

[@DougsDharma]

🧡 If you find benefit in my videos, consider supporting the channel by joining us on Patreon and get fun extras like exclusive videos, ad-free audio-only versions, and extensive show notes: www.patreon.com/dougsseculardharma 🙂 📙 You can find my new book here: books2read.com/buddhisthandbook

[@rastafah2263]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oJDRfnWbd95jpqs I want you to make a video like this too. Buddhism and Science same aim is to seek the truth

[@riverezell3953]

As a Zen practitioner, it's a little surprising to hear of the Doctrine of Two Truths in the Theravada tradition - I thought that's just something we did. We can speak of Ultimate or Small Truths but they're both empty, and those that lose themselves in emptiness and nothingness fall into the same trap as those that cling to form and self. Ultimate truth is made of conventional truths, crows calling, cows pooping, you being you. And the conventional truth of you as a distinct unit is entirely made of the ultimate truth. The Way is carrying water and chopping wood, the Ultimate is only conventional. It's a subtle teaching but we're lucky to have wonderful teachers like you!

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks, River!

[@smlanka4u]

The ultimate truths/realities made the conventional truths. Abhidhamma is highly scientific, and only a Buddha could teach Abhidhamma. According to Abhidhamma, the mind lives between two arising and dissolving moments. So likely, there are two invisible moments between the observation of the living moment that anything can exist. According to the Buddhist explanations, it seems that the lifetime of a matter zone/unit is equal to 16 + 1/3 mind moments. And the mind moment continues to another matter zone after the 16th mind moment. And perhaps, the next matter zone of the previous matter zone appears/arises after the 17 mind moment. So likely, the matter zones live for 16 mind moments and disappear for 1 mind moment as a cyclic process. According to Abhidhamma, there are ultimate realities called Paramartha (Paramount) Dhamma. But those realities are forms of emptiness: 1.) Matter/Rupa (4 great fundamental forms + 24 derived material forms) ii.) Cetasika/Chaitasika (52 Mental Factors/fields of emotions) iii.) Citta (mind moment) iv.) Nibbana (timeless/unconditioned/disappeared state/moment) Abhidhamma teachings are much deeper/fundamental than modern science. Abhidhamma proves that Buddhism is much more accurate than modern science. I could mathematically derive the ultimate truths mentioned in Abhidhamma. So Abhidhamma is helpful to develop faith in Buddhism. Also, Abhidhamma explains the formation and destruction of worlds. I could understand the scientific process in the Big Bounce theory mentioned in Abhidhamma. No one added a new element to those realities. The texts mentioned one element later to maintain the relativeness of the teachings. I think it is the biggest misconception about the Abhidhamma. But they named the heart the main location of the mind to make it easy to teach simply. Ultimate realities are not static objects. Likely, they are sets/groups of dimensional formations of emptiness. So everything is changing.

[@joltee9317]

Saw this video and saved it to watch later. Looking forward to this. Watching it now.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@dulikadealwis9520]

In the mid 90' s , a well learned buddhist monk did an extensive research on the original teachings of the Buddha. This discoveries are revolutionary. He named it Proto Buddhism and the monk is the late Bhante Punnaji .

[@saralamuni]

Right view of the two truths doctrine according to the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra is as follows. Relative truth: “As a lamp, a cataract, a star in space an illusion, a dewdrop, a bubble, a dream, a cloud, a flash of lightning, view all created things like this.” Absolute truth: “Who looks for me in form who seeks me in a voice indulges in wasted effort, such people see me not.”

[@bam111965]

As always, thank you for a wonderful discussion of a topic which causes much confusion. Your ending is the most essential for those seeking progress to understand. According to the Buddha, gaining an intellectual understanding of ultimate reality is of little use without attaining nibbana. However, once nibbana is glimpsed, intellectual understanding of ultimate reality comes of its own accord. Aiming for it, is the wrong approach and will not lead to nibbana. As for conventional truth vs ultimate truth, it need not be a sticking point for anyone. It is not some mystical magical zen koan kind of thing. It's just how stuff works. In physics, if you want to calculate gravity, you usually use Newton's ultimately incorrect approach rather than Einstein's more likely true approach because it is easier and gives you the right answer in all but the most extreme circumstances. In Buddhism, if you want to spend your time only thinking about ultimate truth, you may end up deciding that rape, murder, and theft are all perfectly fine because you cannot harm a non-being anyway, and this belief would lead you away from Nibbana rather than toward it. Whereas, wrongly believing that you and everyone else are permanent real selves and therefore you decide you will not harm other living beings, will lead you toward Nibbana, where you will ultimately understand Anatta. :-)

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Brian, it’s my pleasure. 🙏

[@ud0ntevenkn0wme]

"you cant harm a non-being anyway" reminds me of the extreme of nihilism (opposite of the extreme of eternalism of the self of persons) which is said to lead one to hell. Apparently, the failure of falling into extreme views is itself often caused by taking the "ultimate truth" distinction too "literally".

[@sarahk802]

Very interesting. The two-truths concept reminds me of dialectical philosophy where seemingly contradictory ideas can be true at the same time (ie, becoming a completely different person than before, but still being who you've always been). I think the parable of the four blind monks describing an elephant might relate to this concept.

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, there are lots of similarities!

[@Daniel-Strain]

Thank you! We cannot focus exclusively on ultimate truth because we are not ultimate beings. Conventional matters must be attended to in order to relate to others and to the pragmatic concerns of life. It would be like interacting with a computer ONLY by typing in 1's and 0's, without ever operating on the abstract level of programming languages. One's head would be in the clouds. Meanwhile, many conventional matters much be dealt with in order to, for example, be compassionate and get medicine to an ill person. Thus, the ultimate cannot be fully experienced and pursued while ignoring the conventional, because the conventionality of our existence is also a fact of Reality that cannot be ignored.

[@user-Void-Star]

That's why you can't pass through walls or walk on space or go anywhere an instant because you are stuck on conventional truth.

[@davidhowe6905]

Thanks; new to your channel. I'm no scholar, just an amateur, but got the impression that something like 'two truths' was very clear in the pali suttas, e.g. SN 1.25 trans. Bodhi: "Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He might still say 'I speak,' He might say too, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." Or perhaps such references are uncommon and I latched onto them from reading Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti. Also, though N. only quotes one early sutra, I don't remember any others, early or later, being quoted by him (though his dedication is, if I remember right, quite similar in part to a passage from one of the perfection of wisdom texts). Thanks again!

[@DougsDharma]

I have a couple of videos on the history of the doctrine of two truths that might answer some of your questions. This is the first: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p33CpKamf9-Erpo

[@davidhowe6905]

@@DougsDharma Wow! Thanks for the quick reply and link (probably could've found it myself if less lazy!). Just watched it - at times almost felt like you did it in the last couple of hours just for me! I'm retiring next week and very much look forward to catching up with your earlier talks.

[@ud0ntevenkn0wme]

Thank you for a clear and unbiased explanation of this issue. Anyone confused about the two truths should definitely watch this video before getting "lost in any weeds".

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@freetibet1000]

As a Mahayana practitioner I have always been taught to think about the concept of the two truths as a conventional way of approaching the direct experience of non-duality, which cannot be described or pointed out by means of intellectual thinking. It can be described as seeing everything through a par of glasses made out of two lenses. In order to get to the real truth we need both lenses and look through them simultaneously and when the vision merges into one we experience the real truth. Therefor, the idea of splitting the truth into two is just a skillful means so that the student may have a reasonable chance of reaching the ultimate truth, the non-duality of the union of the two truths. After all, we are practicing the dharma for the precise reason we have not yet realized then non-duality of ultimate reality yet. We need to be lead skillfully into the vision of the non-dual reality and the chariot to our disposal is the life and the body we live in. At the end of the ‘journey’ we realize the ultimate nature of self and all phenomena and that samsara and nirvana cannot be, and have never been separate. Nothing have changed. The only thing that have changed is our view of ourselves and phenomena. This is the precise reason why a Buddha can remain among us, if he/she so chooses. It is also the reason a Buddha can manifest anywhere and in any form simultaneously through all reality. It is the reason a Buddha is utterly free of all limitations and restrictions. The two truths have never been separated. They are only presented as two as a means for us that have not managed to transcend the erroneous views of duality and remain under the self imposed limitations of lesser views. The teachings of the Buddha are full of practical ways of instructing the student into ever more subtle ways of understanding reality, up until ultimate reality is completely realized, which is said to be beyond all views. These, seemingly contradictory teachings, should be understood as skillful presentations or stepping stones along the way towards the realization of ultimate reality. It is not a flaw on behalf of the teachings on ultimate reality or Buddha nature itself but our own stubborn reluctance, due to a very long habituation, to give up our erroneous ideas about ourselves and reality, that stands in the way of experiencing the non-dual reality of Buddhahood right now. Ultimate reality has always been with us and can be accessed at any given moment, any time we want. Ultimate reality and relative reality are inseparable. Samsara and nirvana is one. Historically we can see how the Buddha gradually manifested the progression of teachings into ever deeper and deeper realizations until students were able to attain full Buddhahood themselves. Through both his skillful ways of manifesting himself in different forms and functions as well as the progressions of different teachings he gave indicates his completeness as both a Buddha as well as a fully competent teacher on these matters. In the view on the teachings on ultimate reality and Buddha Nature the Buddha is never separate from us. Along the path of practice the student experience a more and more direct relationship with the Buddha and it becomes a natural part of the progression that the practitioner experience a direct contact with the Buddha and thus receives further instructions from the Buddha. In this view we cannot talk about there being any difference between the historical Buddha Shakyamuni and our own primordial Buddha Nature.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks very much for your input, Free Tibet! 🙏

[@janglestick]

Thanks for following this topic Doug, I keep my eye on it, and it surfaces in many forms in many different belief / practice systems. (I also very much appreciate your subtle handling of the Self / Not-Self topic, being more appropriately addressed to issues of "Mind". I have many times had various discussions with people newish to the practices where they insist "There is no Self in Buddhism" and, it's a bit of show stopper sometimes.)

[@DougsDharma]

Yes, thanks janglestick. It does confuse some people sometimes!

[@trinp.6334]

Thank you for sharing this in a very clear straightforward way. In reading Nyanaponika’s Abdhidhamma Studies, AK Warder’s Indian Buddhism and the Atthasālinī; I believed that Abhidhamma is the mental exercise where the Bhikkhus applied objects of Satipatthāna to the Buddhist corpus and making sure that the studies and understandings are all in accord and consistent with the whole body of Suttas. With such practice outlined in the Patisambhidā or Nettipakarana. And being an oral traditions, these practice of considering the teachings grew. Two truths are then when looking at the teachings through these two different lens. Buddhagohsa mentioned briefly in the Atthasālinī that to the Bhikkhus, these outlines were provided by the Buddha. At the end of the day, I think the question would then what is a skillful attitude towards the whole body of teachings? The Buddha do talk about this in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta and also gave us simile of the teachings as the raft or handful of leaves. Thanks again and anumondana.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏

[@geoffh2560]

Hope you are keeping well Doug.

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Geoff, I am! 🙏

[@dorotheadiallo5790]

Dear Doug, I am not sure if this is a little strange, but the blurred background makes me motion sick. I can of course just listen, but since you take the effort to make videos I wanted to let you know. Otherways I really appreciate your content very much and I learn from every video. Thank you so much for putting these out!!!!!

[@DougsDharma]

You're very welcome, Dorothea! Sorry about the background! 😊

[@Boxingexpert123]

Hey, Doug! Thanks for your videos, I always find them to be really interesting. I wonder if you could do a video about social media from a buddhist perspective. Thanks, again!

[@DougsDharma]

Thanks Gerardo! I did a video awhile back on a similar topic that might be useful: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6SzXn-li9CCe5Y

[@smlanka4u]

Abhidhamma proves that Buddhism is much more accurate than modern science. I could mathematically derive the ultimate truths mentioned in Abhidhamma. So Abhidhamma is helpful to develop faith in Buddhism. Also, Abhidhamma explains the formation and destruction of worlds. I could understand the scientific process in the Big Bounce theory mentioned in Abhidhamma.

[@yhseow]

If it leads to the understanding and cessation of Dukkha, it is true Dhamma. That is the acid test. Furthermore, Dhamma is a vehicle to cross over to the far shore, not a view or a truth for one to grasp onto.

[@DougsDharma]

🙏

[@freetibet1000]

Well said! 🙏

[@mindlessmindwatch7807]

There are 'acording to my insight' not two 'thruths' but many. They arise in dicriminating mind.

[@DougsDharma]

That could be, in a way of speaking.

[@middlewayers]

Doug I want to tell you a very very important point..and I hope you tell it to viewers as well: "Some people are doing Meditation and when they reach some stage or dimensions of Meditation they start relishing in them and taking pleasure in them. Its all a trap.. Do not relish or take pleasure in any stage of Meditation..GO ALL THE WAY TO COMPLETE ELIMINATION of Evil inside yourself so that it doesn't grows back. If a person doesn't go all the way then Evil will rise in him again and again and He will suffer. FOR A SUCH A PERSON MEDITATION IS JUST AN OPIUM AND HE IS JUST A RELISHER AND ADDICT." Cutting the stamp..the tree will grow again and again...I say cut the roots..so that evil never grows back inside you.. That is the true purpose of Mediation..and not enjoying dimensions. Please convey this message to viewers.. Thank you.

[@sonamtshering194]

Saying the ultimate truth is more important than the conventional truth kinda misses the whole point about the Dharma since such an attitude can itself become a hindrance in your practice. Both are just meant to be the means towards true understanding. Also, it depends on which truth the practitioner finds it easier to comprehend and integrate in his/her practice of the Dharma

[@DougsDharma]

True, there are ways to integrate both.

[@Lee-Van-Cle]

Thank you for putting forth the question in such a tidy way. The Buddha didn’t address the problem because people at his time had no confusion about it. According to M.35, debating against the great debater Saccaka, the meaning of No-Self is in effect, NO FREE WILL. This is arguably the biggest philosophical question. Nevertheless, it has great implications for ethics, as Saccaka raised the proposition: One could base on the self to produce merit or demerit. The Buddha answered the question of FREE WILL correctly long before modern psychology and neuroscience. His teaching was largely psychological, and obviously had no interest in dealing with physical entities. That made his teaching very spiritual, if I may say, like Krishnamurti. Later scholars, without a proper understanding of the psychology, mistook it for a discussion of physical entities (perhaps as “formation”) and skipped spirituality. Hence, they had to introduce samsara as a reward system for the deeds of merit and demerit.

[@අරියසච්චානදස්සනං]

Sadly! The twofold truth is really there in the Therawada Buddhsim as well as early Buddhism(literally there are no differences between early Buddhism and Therawada Buddhism,Though for some it seems as such they havent yet understood the Dhamma!) If you can read 'Maha chattareesaka Sutta' in the Majjima Nikaya you can find the Noble eight fold path in two ways.One is for the conventional world and the other is for the side of Super Mundane state.(Those who entered to path of the Dhamma,Stream enterers and so on) When anyone who lives in the world before they do a specific proffession,He has to learn the basics since the childhood. Then once he got through all the exams then he is eligible for that certain proffession. Suppose a proffesion of an Engineer.before he bwcome an enguneer.He needa to learn the basics,While he is learning basics if one may asks how could possibly those basics helps to become an engineer!its a quiz that irrellavent to even ask.learning basic is some thing and becoming engineer is something else. Similarly! General mass is not already enlightened at the beginning,So Buddha adress them via conventiinal truth,then when they go further with Dhamma they be able to comprehence the Ultumate truth. But still they have to live the conventional world. Suppose the timing is the general acceptance and it differs from zone to zone and countrty to country.in the utter truth its not common to every globe. So as.per the contry we live,we have to adere general timungs in that particular country! If we dont adere with it,it seems unnatural with the others around ans that person become an insane to them. Similarly Ultimate truth is beyond this material world.It has to be realized spiritually,But though we have realized that,Still we have deal with the common people,So we have to act like them when we do meet them. So in that way we have clarified these two truths! Non of the truths are wrong! Problems are with our understanding on them!

[@DougsDharma]

Yes in a sense there are different approximations to truth.

[@tomtillman]

Off topic, but I can't find any video you may have done on the question, "If there is no self, who or what is training the mind?" I have seen advices to "train your mind", but no comment on who's doing it. Any comments from anyone on this nebulous idea would be appreciated. Thanks.

[@DougsDharma]

This is one of these apparent paradoxes. Nobody is training the mind. Or, another way to look at it is that the mind trains itself, or various mental states operate to train future ones.

[@freetibet1000]

The whole point is that there has never been a self, and yet we are able to function anyway. It is our belief in a self that trips us over and make everything so hard. If we stop believing in a self our abilities will be limitless and suffering will be gone. At the beginning of the path towards enlightenment a belief in self is inevitable. We are still on that side of the river, sort of speak. Most things that we do in our practice will be tainted with a belief in a self during earlier stages on our path. But real progress will start to happen when we are starting to have glimpses of our ego-less nature in our practice. That is a direct experience of the empty nature of our being and our practice will start to make a lot more sense to us. This is the time when our meditation is starting to extend into all aspects of our lives. We now realize that there’s a whole different way to relate to reality. Our own groundlessness starts to be more acute and vivid and at the same time we are becoming much more aware about what’s really going on in our lives and the world around us. Our own identity is becoming much more fuzzy and unclear. Our personal version of reality is dissolving and we are able to see others in a new light. Loosing our vision of self is a tremendous expansion of awareness and we will never be our small little selves again. Our time on the path towards enlightenment is a period of transition that will have many ups and downs along the way. Like a fish that’s been pulled out of the water our self will wriggle and shake for a long while trying to survive despite our efforts to get rid of it. Sometimes our belief in a self may get a boost from our dharma practice too. It is up to our own deeper wisdom to learn how self arise and is dissolved. If we embark on a war on our own self we are heading for destruction. Our practice should give rise to a natural non-self reality rising out of our own insights and inherent wisdom. Because all the wisdom of the Buddha is already present in our true nature we can become a Buddha.

[@AgeofColossus]

Hi Doug, could you provide the link to Bhikkhu Sujato's paper on the two truths? Thank you

[@DougsDharma]

To my knowledge he hasn't written an entire paper on the subject. The comment I cited is from an article which is linked in the show notes.

[@AgeofColossus]

Thanks, the previous link was broken but now it’s working. Cheers!

[@wolfk2258]

I"ve been around the dharma world for a bit and whenever I hear the Two Truths, it's trotted out to avoid something inconvenient. Perhaps when Madhyamaka is taken to a logical end, nihilism. Or Bhikkhu Bodhi wanting Buddha to say Karma is everything when he explicitly did not -- he was only talking *conventionally*. Although the paradox of Zeno's arrow has been refuted, calculus can sum up infinite measurements and there's other refutations. For hundreds of years, pre-calculus, the logic of Zeno's argument stood firm. Although we all know from practical experience, the arrow indeed reaches its target. Two Truths fanboys can simply say that there's two truths here, conventional truth is the arrow reaches its target, absolute truth (Zeno) it does not. No problem. Interestingly, i think Nagarjuna parallels Zeno and proves motion is in fact, impossible. Okayy.

[@Oi-mj6dv]

The way i take the two truths doctrine (personal understanding, might be completely wrong tho) so i make the most sense out of it is that the ultimate truth means that nothing truly exists in a categorical sense. What i mean is not that nothing exists in a material sense, more like categorization while true (little t) is not really True (Big T) this immediately becomes apparent when we start stripping "things" out of their qualities until a definite point where this "thing" becomes another "thing" this point simply does not exist because It is virtual, arbitrary. As Diogenes so clearly demostrated to plato, a chicken can fit the featherless biped categorization of a human. Categories while useful, are not ultimate truths. Therefore if no true cutoff point exists for change of category that is objective, then all categories are virtual and non existant, Therefore "nothing exists" its not really such a hard concept to understand if seen in this way. All clearly exists and has distinct different definitions and attibutes, but at a fundamental level its just a matter of how information and matter are arranged and stored, there is no real diference in "identity" or category.

[@starshiptexas]

The concepts can guide you to ultimate truth but you won't understand ultimate truth through concepts alone. You have to see it yourself through meditation and a shift in perspective or letting go of the perspective one normally holds on to.

[@DougsDharma]

Right, enlightenment isn't a matter of grasping certain concepts.

[@jocr1971]

the fact that birth in the desire realm is due to our karma would lead one to believe that all the pains one would undergo is directly a result of karma

[@DougsDharma]

The Buddha denies this explicitly, however.

[@kitkat6959]

This may be flawed but I have a way I view the two truths through a modern metaphor. Imagine a television- the ultimate truth is that it's merely a box emitting sound and light. The conventional truth is the show or movie being played.

[@DougsDharma]

Right yes this is a good way to think of it. Thanks Katherine.

[@rahulratan0]

Namo buddhay🙏🙏 Mr. Douglas Smith☺️☺️🇮🇳

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@jsohi0082]

Hey, thank you for the video! Have you been planning on making videos on topics that may directly relate to and address major concerns in the modern lay lifestyle?

[@DougsDharma]

I've done a number of such videos in the past, what were you thinking of in particular?

[@jsohi0082]

@@DougsDharma How to get involved in generous deeds, which organizations one should join, how to focus on the things that matter to you the most, how to educate yourself & others, are the things that came to mind.

[@DougsDharma]

OK thanks, I'll put it on the list!

[@smlanka4u]

Abhidhamma is highly scientific, and only a Buddha could teach Abhidhamma. According to Abhidhamma, the mind lives between two arising and dissolving moments. So likely, there are two invisible moments between the observation of the living moment that anything can exist. According to the Buddhist explanations, it seems that the lifetime of a matter zone/unit is equal to 16 + 1/3 mind moments. And the mind moment continues to another matter zone after the 16th mind moment. And perhaps, the next matter zone of the previous matter zone appears/arises after the 17 mind moment. So likely, the matter zones live for 16 mind moments and disappear for 1 mind moment as a cyclic process. According to Abhidhamma, there are ultimate realities called Paramartha (Paramount) Dhamma. But those realities are forms of emptiness: 1.) Matter/Rupa (4 great fundamental forms + 24 derived material forms) ii.) Cetasika/Chaitasika (52 Mental Factors/fields of emotions) iii.) Citta (mind moment) iv.) Nibbana (timeless/unconditioned/disappeared state/moment) Abhidhamma teachings are much deeper/fundamental than the modern science.

[@buddhism8312]

Namo Buddhaya🙏🏻 May I get some time to talk to you? I have a question about what is the origin of Buddhism? Who is the creator of mankind? In a logical way. Can you reply in such a way that I can easily understand and be able to make people of other religions understand if they ask? Thank you🙏🏻 Sukhi Hotu🌸

[@DougsDharma]

Well as to the origin of Buddhism, I have a video on what early Buddhism is: kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZpWmeGWcncp0h9U . There is no creator of mankind, except for the causes and conditions of evolution.

[@buddhism8312]

@@DougsDharma Sukhi Hotu🙏🏻

[@meditator3498]

Doug youre awesome

[@DougsDharma]

Very kind of you! 🙏

[@matthewrousseau2982]

I don't think anybody could ever truly know what Gotamas actual meditation practice

[@DougsDharma]

Maybe so, but in the suttas he does claim to discuss his practice.

[@matthewrousseau2982]

@@DougsDharma the night he got enlightenment. Didn't he start with breath meditation. ?

[@smlanka4u]

No one added a new element to those realities. The texts mentioned one element later to maintain relativeness of the teachings. I think it is the biggest misconception about the Abhidhamma. But they named the heart the main location of the mind to make it easy to teach simply.

[@xiaomaozen]

😊🙏

[@DougsDharma]

🙏😊

[@Jp-sp3eg]

Sir I would like to tell you that Brahmin of today are not baman mentioned in Buddhist texts

[@DougsDharma]

For sure, it’s been 2500 years after all.

[@christophergan71]

There's no two truths, abhidhamma is not even heard of during Buddha's time. Buddha doesn't even know what's tripitaka. Even when the Buddha was alive, there's distortion to his teachings like the ones done by the fisherman's son and Devadatta. This used to irritate the Buddha that he called the fisherman's son a pernicious fool. If you read the original Buddha's teachings and based it on implying as something else, then you're over thinking and that's how deviation from the original teaching occurs.

[@andromeda9030]

- People who claim that “Abhidhamma” was developed in later centuries by various monks are either ignorant or trying to destroy Buddhism. - By declaring such myths; they openly challenge and ridicule Buddha’s superior intelligence and wisdom. - “Abhidhamma” is the foundation of Buddhism. - If Gautam Buddha did not preach “Abhidhamma”; then he is not the Buddha at all. - There must be 7 different authors as there are 7 books in Abhidhamma pitaka. - Can anyone (Bhikku Sujato) point-out the original authors of Abhidhamma pitaka then (With solid evidence) ???

[@osip7315]

"the buddha" a soap opera character "the wise one" sententious pontification a senile fart foul air for two millennia apologists cannot disguise it

[@learningtolearn4190]

If you wanna more straightforward information on Buddhism search ' Tsem Rinpoche ' on KZbin and tell me here in the comment how you feel after listening to him

[@pokhuthird1194]

Very interesting channel! Thank you for the recommendation.

[@learningtolearn4190]

​@@pokhuthird1194 you mean , tsem rinpoche channel recommendation ?