There are two truths, and both are true.
Conventionally there are chariots, persons and Tuesdays; ultimately none of them has a fixed essence. The error is picking one. The teaching runs on both at once.
The two truths keep the tradition from talking nonsense in either direction. Conventionally there are people, promises, and consequences, and Buddhist ethics operates entirely at that level; ultimately those are designations laid over processes with no fixed cores. Both statements are true at their own level, and the error is collapsing them — either denying that anything matters because it is all empty, or insisting that conventional things must therefore be ultimately real. Every school has a version of the distinction; they disagree sharply about what the ultimate truth actually is, and whether it can be stated at all.
The same ground, other faiths
claims that share this one's ideasSign in to open the first thread. Everything here is attributed.
