the so-called "double-truth"

[Stephen Hodge]

Steve Farmer wrote:

> For the statements
> 'X is Y' and 'X is not-Y' do not refer to the same but to
> different levels of reality -- higher and lower. In revealing
> this, I speak of the deepest, most secret, of all
> Truths hidden in the BOOK OF ALL TRUTHS, which cannot err
> or contradict itself."

Apart from a form of the "double truth" approach, Mahaayaana Buddhists
and some of their precursors, such as the Mahaasa`ngikas and the
Lokottarvaadins, also adopted a strategy which implicitly acknowledges
the layering of texts you mention.   According to this approach, the
Budha is said to have a) never verbalized any teachings or b) uttered
only one single sound.  The various "audiences" heard various
teachings appropriate for their situation.  Thus, since the Buddha
never actually said anything, one can have a range of apparently
contradictory teachings without privileging any of them above
others -- they are all accepted as equally valid inasmuch as they are
suitable to
the specific needs of trainees at different times and in different
places.
This may, of course, lead on to a "double truth" technique of
classification
but not necessarily so.
The famous Three Turnings of the Wheel of the Dharma mentioned in the
c3rd century CE Mahaayaana suutra, the Sandhi-nirmocana, has the
Buddha himself classify his own teachings into three grades according
to their "sophistication" but again one should note that the
potentially misleading (for Western interpreters) sa.mv.rti /
paramaartha-satya terms are not used but instead we find the neya /
niitaartha division I mentioned previously.   Another term often used
in Mahaayaana texts as an equivalent for neyaartha is abhisandhi
(implicit /intentional) to denote non-definitive teachings.  I draw
your attention to this merely to show that sa.mv.rti /
paramaartha-satya terminology is primarily used to deal with
perceptual / conceptual levels -- they also can be linked with
saamanya-lak.sa.na / sva-lak.sa.na (universal / specific attributes)
or praj~napti / dravya ("imputed" designation / substance) -- rather
than to distinguish the "deepest, most secret, of all Truths".  There
is nothing especially secret or deep about paramaartha-satya, in the
Mahaayaana texts I read, it is just a more veridical mode of
perception
but not particularly secret.   Would modern cognitive psychologists
say that bare sense data is more deep, profound, secret than
conceptual constructs ?

Best wishes,
Stephen Hodge