Origins of the "double-truth"

[Stephen Hodge]

Steve Farmer wrote:

> None of this is relevant to the main point of my post, which was
> that scholastic bifurcations of concepts -- in this case,
> pertinent to countless Eurasian variations of the "double-truth"
> -- were driven by exegetical processes.

You do not seem to have gasped the point I was making -- perhaps I did
not express myself well enough.   While I was supplying you with
terminological information with regards to the thread that prompted
your original posting, I was not denying that the Buddhists employed a
hermeneutical  technique which parallels what you term "double-truth"
but I was drawing your attention to the fact that in Mahayana Buddhism
the terms "paramaartha-satya" and "sa.mv.riti-satya" might look as
though they could be translated (loosely) as "ultimate truth/reality"
and relative truth/reality" and thus be a Buddhist equivalent to a
"double-truth" paradigm but are not.  These terms, as I said, relate
to epistemological matters -- "paramaartha-satya" is what is accessed
by direct perception (prayak.sa-pramaa.na) and "sa.mv.riti-satya" by
inferential / conceptual processes (anumaa.na) -- they are not
generally used as exegetical devices.   The Mahayaana Buddhist terms
which are more or less equivalent to other "double-truth" terminology
are "neyaartha" and "niitaartha".  The rest of your comments are
irrelevent to what I was saying since I was not in principle
disagreeing with you -- perhaps you should read what I write more
carefully before jumping to conclusions.

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge