Editing Two truths doctrine (section)

==Origin and development==
{{Buddhist Philosophy sidebar}}

The concept of the two truths is associated with the [[Madhyamaka|Mādhyamaka]] school of [[Mahayana|Mahāyāna Buddhism]], whose founder was the 3rd-century [[History of Buddhism in India|Indian Buddhist]] monk and philosopher [[Nagarjuna|Nāgārjuna]],{{sfn|Matilal|2002|pp=203-208}}{{sfn|Garfield|2002|p=91}} and its history traced back to the [[Pre-sectarian Buddhism|earliest years of Buddhism]].

===Early Indian Buddhism===
{{Main|Gandharan Buddhism|History of Buddhism in India}}
{{Further|History of Indian influence on Southeast Asia|Silk Road transmission of Buddhism}}

==== Theravāda ====
In the [[Pāli Canon]], the distinction is not made between a ''lower'' truth and a ''higher'' truth, but rather between two kinds of expressions of the same truth, which must be interpreted differently. Thus a phrase or passage, or a whole [[Buddhist texts|Sūtra]], might be classified as ''neyyattha'', ''samuti'', or ''vohāra'', but it is not regarded at this stage as expressing or conveying a different ''level'' of truth.

''Nītattha'' (Pāli; Sanskrit: ''nītārtha''), "of plain or clear meaning"<ref name="Monier-Williams">Monier-Williams</ref> and ''neyyattha'' (Pāli; Sanskrit: ''neyartha''), "[a word or sentence] having a sense that can only be guessed".<ref name="Monier-Williams"/> These terms were used to identify texts or statements that either did or did not require additional interpretation. A ''nītattha'' text required no explanation, while a ''neyyattha'' one might mislead some people unless properly explained:<ref>McCagney: 82</ref>
{{quote|There are these two who misrepresent the [[Tathāgata]]. Which two? He who represents a [[Buddhist texts|Sutta]] of indirect meaning as a Sutta of direct meaning and he who represents a Sutta of direct meaning as a Sutta of indirect meaning.<ref>''[[Anguttara Nikaya]]'' I:60 (Jayatilleke: 361, in McCagney: 82)</ref>}}

''{{IAST|Saṃmuti}}'' or ''{{IAST|samuti}}'' (Pāli; Sanskrit: ''{{IAST|saṃvṛti}}''), meaning "common consent, general opinion, convention",<ref>PED</ref> and ''paramattha'' (Pāli; Sanskrit: ''paramārtha''), meaning "ultimate", are used to distinguish conventional or common-sense language, as used in metaphors or for the sake of convenience, from language used to express higher truths directly. The term ''vohāra'' (Pāli; Sanskrit: ''vyavahāra'', "common practice, convention, custom" is also used in more or less the same sense as ''samuti''.

The [[Theravada|Theravādin]] commentators expanded on these categories and began applying them not only to expressions but to the truth then expressed: {{quote|The [[The Buddha#Siddhārtha Gautama and Buddha Shakyamuni|Awakened One]], the best of teachers, spoke of two truths, conventional and higher; no third is ascertained; a conventional statement is true because of convention and a higher statement is true as disclosing the true characteristics of events.<ref>''{{IAST|Khathāvatthu Aṭṭha kathǎ}}'' (Jayatilleke: 363, in McCagney: 84)</ref>}}

====Prajnāptivāda====
The [[Prajñaptivāda]] school took up the distinction between the conventional ({{IAST|saṃvṛti}}) and ultimate ({{IAST|paramārtha}}) truths, and extended the concept to [[Dharma#Dharmas in Buddhist phenomenology|metaphysical-phenomenological constituents]] (''dharma''), distinguishing those that are real (''tattva'') from those that are purely conceptual, i.e., ultimately nonexistent (''prajñāpti'').

===Indian Mahāyāna Buddhism===
[[File:Nagarjuna with 84 mahasiddha.jpg|thumb|right|230px|''[[Nagarjuna|Nāgārjuna]] with 84 [[Mahasiddha|Mahāsiddhas]]'' ({{Circa|1750}}), Tibetan Buddhist ''[[thangka]]'' currently preserved in the [[Rubin Museum of Art]], New York City]]

====Mādhyamaka school====
The distinction between the two truths (''satyadvayavibhāga'') was fully developed by [[Nagarjuna|Nāgārjuna]] ({{Circa|150|250 CE}}), founder of the [[Madhyamaka|Mādhyamaka]] school of Buddhist philosophy.{{sfn|Matilal|2002|pp=203-208}}{{sfn|Garfield|2002|p=91}} Mādhyamika philosophers distinguish between ''saṃvṛti-satya'', "empirical truth",<ref>{{Cite web |title=Saṃvṛti-satya {{!}} Truth, Illusion & Reality {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/samvrti-satya |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref> "relative truth",<ref group=web name="urbandharma">[http://www.urbandharma.org/udnl2/nl031604.html ''The Urban Dharma Newsletter. March 16, 2004'']</ref> "truth that keeps the ultimate truth concealed",{{sfn|Chattopadhyaya|2001|pp=103-106}} and ''paramārtha-satya'', ultimate truth.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Paramārtha-satya {{!}} Buddhist concept {{!}} Britannica |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/paramartha-satya |access-date=2025-04-10 |website=www.britannica.com |language=en}}</ref><ref group=web name="urbandharma"/>

''Saṃvṛti-satya'' can be further divided in ''tathya-saṃvṛti'' or ''loka-saṃvṛti'', and ''mithya-saṃvṛti'' or ''aloka-saṃvṛti'',{{sfn|Joshi|1977|p=174}}{{sfn|Nakamure|1980|p=285}}{{sfn|Dutt|1930}}{{sfn|Stcherbatsky|1989|p=54}} "true saṃvṛti" and "false saṃvṛti".{{sfn|Stcherbatsky|1989|p=54}}<ref group=web name="urbandharma"/><!--START OF NOTE-->{{refn|group=note|According to Lal Mani Joshi, [[Bhāviveka]] (6th century CE), the founder of the [[Svātantrika]] sub-school of Mādhyamaka philosophy, classified ''saṃvṛti'' into ''tathya-saṃvṛti'' and ''mithya-saṃvṛti''.{{sfn|Joshi|1977|p=174}} [[Chandrakirti|Chandrakīrti]] (7th century CE), one of the main proponents of the [[Prasaṅgika]] sub-school of Mādhyamaka philosophy, divided ''saṃvṛti'' into ''loka-saṃvṛti'' and ''aloka-saṃvṛti''.{{sfn|Joshi|1977|p=174}}{{sfn|Nakamure|1980|p=285}} [[Shantideva|Śāntideva]] (8th century CE) and his commentator Prajñakaramati (950-1030<ref group=web>[http://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Praj%C3%B1akaramati Rigpawiki, ''Prajñakaramati'']</ref>) both use the terms ''tathya-saṃvṛti'' and ''mithya-saṃvṛti''.{{sfn|Dutt|1930}}{{sfn|Stcherbatsky|1989|p=54}} [[Kumārila Bhaṭṭa]], an influential 8th-century [[Hindu philosophy|Hindu philosopher]] of the [[Mīmāṃsā]] school, in commenting on Mādhyamaka philosophy, also uses the terms ''loka-saṃvṛti'' and ''aloka-saṃvṛti''.{{sfn|Chattopadhyaya|2001|pp=103-106}} [[Tiruppattur R. Venkatachala Murti|T. R. V. Murti]], in his ''The Central Philosophy of Buddhism'', uses the term ''aloka'', and refers to the synonym ''mithya-saṃvṛti''.{{sfn|Murti|2013|p=245}}<br/><br/>Murti: "In calling it 'loka samvrti,' it is implied that there is some appearance which is ''aloka'' - non-empirical, i.e. false for the emprical consciousness even."{{sfn|Murti|2013|p=245}}<br/><br/>David Seyfort Ruegg further comments: "The ''samvrti'' in worldly usage is termed ''lokasamvrti''; and while it can serve no real purpose to distinguish an ''alokasamvrti'' opposed to it (from the point of view of ultimate reality both are unreal, though in different degrees from the relative standpoint), one may nevertheless speak of an ''alokasamvrti'' as distinct from it when considering that there exist persons who can be described as 'not of the world' (''alokah'') since they have experiences which are falsified because their sense-faculties are impaired (and which, therefore, do not belong to the general worldly consensus."{{sfn|Seyfort Ruegg|1981|p=74-75}}}}<!--END OF NOTE--> ''Tathya-saṃvṛti'' or "true saṃvṛti" refers to "things" which concretely exist and can be perceived as such by the senses, while ''mithya-saṃvṛti'' or "false saṃvṛti" refers to false cognitions of "things" which do not exist as they are perceived.{{sfn|Dutt|1930}}{{sfn|Stcherbatsky|1989|p=54}}{{sfn|Chattopadhyaya|2001|pp=103-106}}<!--START OF NOTE-->{{refn|group=note|An often-used explanation in Madhyamaka literature is the perception of a snake. The perception of a real snake is ''tathya-saṃvṛti'', concretely existing. In contrast, a rope which is mistakenly perceived as a snake is ''mithya-saṃvṛti''. Ultimately both are false, but "the snake-seen-in-the-rope" is less true than the "snake-seen-in-the-snake". This gives an epistemological hierarchy in which ''tathya-saṃvṛti'' stands above ''mithya-saṃvṛti''.<ref group=web name="urbandharma"/>{{sfn|Chattopadhyaya|2001|pp=103-106}} Another example given in the Mādhyamaka philosophical literature to distinguish between ''tathya-saṃvṛti'' and ''mithya-saṃvṛti'' is "water-seen-in-the-pool" (''loka saṃvṛti'') as contrasted with "water-seen-in-the-mirage" (''aloka samvriti'').}}<!--END OF NOTE--><!--START OF NOTE-->{{refn|group=note|''Mithya-saṃvṛti'' or "false saṃvṛti" cam also be given as ''asatya'', "untruth."<ref group=web name="urbandharma"/> Compare [[Peter Harvey (academic)|Peter Harvey]], noting that in ''[[Chandogya Upanishad]]'', 6.15.3 [[Brahman]] is ''satya'', and [[Richard Gombrich]], commenting on the Upanishadic identity of microcosm and macrocosm, c.q. [[Ātman (Hinduism)|Ātman]] and [[Brahman]], which according to the Buddha is ''asat'', "something that does not exist."{{sfn|Gombrich|1990|p=15}} Compare also [[Atiśa]]: "One may wonder, "From where did all this come in the first place, and to where does it depart now?" Once examined in this way, [one sees that] it neither comes from anywhere nor departs to anywhere. All inner and outer phenomena are [[Tathatā|just like that]]."{{sfn|Brunholzl|2004|p=295}}}}<!--END OF NOTE-->

[[Nagarjuna|Nāgārjuna]]'s ''[[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]]'' provides a logical defense for the claim that [[Śūnyatā|all things are empty]] (''śūnyatā'') and [[Anattā|devoid of any inherently-existing self-nature]] (''anātman'').{{sfn|Garfield|2002|p=91}} Emptiness itself, however, is also shown to be "empty", and Nāgārjuna's assertion of "the emptiness of emptiness" prevents the mistake of believing that emptiness may constitute a higher or ultimate reality.{{sfn|Garfield|2002|p=38–39}}{{sfn|Siderits|2003}}{{refn|group=note|See also [http://emptinessteachings.com/2014/09/11/the-two-truths-of-buddhism-and-the-emptiness-of-emptiness/ Susan Kahn, ''The Two Truths of Buddhism and The Emptiness of Emptiness'']}}{{refn|group=note|Some have interpreted ''paramarthika satya'' or "ultimate truth" as constituting a metaphysical 'Absolute' or [[noumenon]], an "ineffable ultimate that transcends the capacities of discursive reason."{{sfn|Siderits|2003}} For example T. R. V. Murti (1955), ''The Central Philosophy of Buddhism'', who gave a [[Neo-Kantianism|neo-Kantian]] interpretation.{{sfn|Westerhoff|2009|p=9}}}} Nāgārjuna's view is that "the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth".{{sfn|Siderits|2003}} According to Siderits, Nāgārjuna is a "semantic anti-dualist" who posits that there are only conventional truths.{{sfn|Siderits|2003}} [[Jay L. Garfield]] explains: {{quote|Suppose that we take a conventional entity, such as a table. We analyze it to demonstrate its emptiness, finding that there is no table apart from its parts [...] So we conclude that it is empty. But now let us analyze that emptiness […]. What do we find? Nothing at all but the table’s lack of inherent existence [...] To see the table as empty [...] is to see the table as conventional, as dependent.{{sfn|Garfield|2002|p=38–39}}}}

In [[Nagarjuna|Nāgārjuna]]'s ''[[Mūlamadhyamakakārikā]]'', the two truths doctrine is used to defend the identification of [[Pratītyasamutpāda|dependent origination]] (''pratītya-samutpāda'') with [[Śūnyatā|emptiness]] itself (''śūnyatā''): {{quote|The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth. Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth. Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved.<ref>Nagarjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārika 24:8–10. Jay L. Garfield|''Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way'': pp. 296, 298</ref>}}

In Nāgārjuna's own words: {{quote|8. The teaching by the Buddhas of the Dharma has recourse to two truths:<br/>
The world-ensconced truth and the truth which is the highest sense.<br/>
9. Those who do not know the distribution (vibhagam) of the two kinds of truth<br/>
Do not know the profound "point" (tattva) in the teaching of the Buddha.<br/>
10. The highest sense of the truth is not taught apart from practical behavior,<br/>
And without having understood the highest sense one cannot understand nirvana.<ref>[http://www.orientalia.org/article492.html Mūlamadhyamakakārikā Verse 24] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050208100348/http://www.orientalia.org/article492.html |date=February 8, 2005 }}</ref>}}

Nāgārjuna based his statement of the two truths on the ''Kaccāyanagotta Sutta''. In this text, [[Gautama Buddha|Śākyamuni Buddha]], speaking to the monk Kaccāyana Gotta on the topic of right view, describes the [[Middle Way|middle course]] (''madhyamāpratipada'') between the extreme philosophical views of [[Sassatavada|eternalism]] (or [[Absolute (philosophy)|absolutism]]) and [[Ajita Kesakambali#From Buddhist sources|annihilationism]] (or [[nihilism]]): {{quote|By and large, Kaccāyana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "non-existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, "existence" with reference to the world does not occur to one.<ref>Source: [https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html Kaccāyanagotta Sutta on Access to Insight] (accessed: Sept 14th 2023) </ref>}}

According to the [[Tibetology|Tibetologist]] Alaka Majumder Chattopadhyaya, although Nāgārjuna presents his understanding of the two truths as a clarification of the teachings of the [[Gautama Buddha|historical Buddha]], the two truths doctrine as such is not part of the earliest Buddhist tradition.{{sfn|Chattopadhyaya|2001|p=21-3,94,104}}

====Buddhist Idealism====

=====Yogācāra=====
The [[Yogacara|Yogācāra]] school of Buddhist philosophy distinguishes the [[Yogacara#The Three Natures|Three Natures]] and the ''[[Trikāya]]''. The Three Natures are:<ref>{{cite book |title=Buddhist Epistemology |author=S.R. Bhatt & Anu Meherotra |pages=7 |year=1967}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=''What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy'' 5th edition |author=Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya |pages=107 |year=2001}}</ref>
*''Paramarthika'' (transcendental reality), also referred to as ''Parinispanna'' in Yogācāra literature: ''The level of a storehouse of consciousness that is responsible for the appearance of the world of external objects. It is the only ultimate reality.''
*''Paratantrika'' (dependent or empirical reality): ''The level of the empirical world experienced in ordinary life''. For example, the snake-seen-in-the-snake.
*''Parikalpita'' (imaginary). For example, the snake-seen-in-a-dream.

=====''Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra''=====
The ''[[Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra]]'', one of the earliest [[Mahayana sutras|Mahāyāna Sūtras]], took an idealistic turn in apprehending reality. Japanese Buddhist scholar [[D. T. Suzuki]] writes the following explanation: {{quote|The ''Laṅkā'' is quite explicit in assuming two forms of knowledge: the one for grasping the absolute or entering into the realm of [[Mind-only]], and the other for understanding existence in its dual aspect in which logic prevails and the ''[[vijñāna]]s'' are active. The latter is designated [[Vikalpa|discrimination]] (''vikalpa'') in the ''Laṅkā'' and the former [[Prajñā (Buddhism)|transcendental wisdom or knowledge]] (''prajñā''). To distinguish these two forms of knowledge is most essential in Buddhist philosophy.}}

===East Asian Buddhism===
{{Main|East Asian Buddhism}}
{{Further|Five Ranks#Interplay of Absolute and Relative|l1=Interplay of Absolute and Relative}}

When [[Spread of Buddhism|Buddhism was introduced to China]] by [[Buddhist monasticism|Buddhist monks]] from the [[Indo-Greek Kingdom]] of [[Greco-Buddhism#Gandharan proselytism|Gandhāra]] (now Afghanistan) and [[History of India#Early classical period (c. 200 BCE – 320 CE)|classical India]] between the 2nd century BCE and 1st century CE, the two truths teaching was initially understood and interpreted through various ideas in [[Chinese philosophy]], including [[Confucianism|Confucian]]{{sfn|Brown Holt|1995}} and [[Taoism|Taoist]]{{sfn|Goddard |2007|p=10}}{{sfn|Verstappen|2004|p=5}}{{sfn|Fowler|2005|p=79}} ideas which influenced the vocabulary of [[Chinese Buddhism]].{{sfn|Oh|2000}} As such, [[Chinese Buddhist canon|Chinese translations of Buddhist texts and philosophical treatises]] made use of native Chinese terminology, such as [[Essence-Function|"T’i -yung"]] (體用, "Essence and Function") and "[[Five Ranks#Interplay of Absolute and Relative|Li-Shih]]" (理事, Noumenon and Phenomenon) to refer to the two truths. These concepts were later developed in several [[East Asian Buddhism|East Asian Buddhist traditions]], such as the [[East Asian Yogācāra|Wéishí]] and [[Huayan school|Huayan]] schools.{{sfn|Oh|2000}} The doctrines of these schools also influenced the ideas of [[Zen|Chán (Zen) Buddhism]], as can be seen in the ''[[Five Ranks|Verses of the Five Ranks]]'' of [[Dongshan Liangjie|Tōzan]] and other Chinese Buddhist texts.{{sfn|Dumoulin|2005a|p=45-49}}

Chinese thinkers often took the two truths to refer to two ''[[Ontology|ontological]] truths'' (two ways of being, or levels of [[existence]]): a relative level and an [[Absolute (philosophy)|absolute]] level.{{sfn|Lai|2003|p=11}} For example, Taoists at first misunderstood [[Śūnyatā|emptiness]] (''śūnyatā'') to be akin to the Taoist notion of non-being.{{sfn|Lai|2003|p=8}} In the [[Madhyamaka|Mādhyamaka]] school of Buddhist philosophy, the two truths are two ''epistemological truths'': two different ways to look at reality. The [[East Asian Mādhyamaka|Sānlùn]] school (Chinese Mādhyamikas) thus rejected the ontological reading of the two truths. However, drawing on [[Buddha-nature]] thought, such as that of the ''[[Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra]]'', and on [[Yogacara|Yogācāra]] sources, other Chinese Buddhist philosophers defended the view that the two truths did refer to two levels of reality (which were nevertheless [[Nondualism|non-dual]] and inferfused), one which was conventional, illusory and impermanent, and another which was eternal, unchanging and pure.{{sfn|Lai|2003}}

====Huayan school====
The [[Huayan school]] or "Flower Garland" school is a tradition of [[Chinese Buddhism|Chinese Buddhist philosophy]] that flourished in [[medieval China]] during the [[Tang period]] (7th–10th centuries CE). It is based on the ''[[Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra|Avataṃsaka Sūtra]]'', and on a lengthy Chinese interpretation of it, the ''Huayan Lun''. The name "Flower Garland" is meant to suggest the crowning glory of profound understanding.

The most important philosophical contributions of the Huayan school were in the area of its [[metaphysics]]. It taught the doctrine of the mutual containment and interpenetration of all phenomena, as expressed in [[Indra's net]]. One thing contains all other existing things, and all existing things contain that one thing.

Distinctive features of this approach to Buddhist philosophy include:
* Truth (or reality) is understood as encompassing and interpenetrating falsehood (or illusion), and vice versa
* Good is understood as encompassing and interpenetrating evil
* Similarly, all mind-made distinctions are understood as "collapsing" in the enlightened understanding of [[Śūnyatā|emptiness]] (a tradition traced back to the Indian Buddhist philosopher [[Nagarjuna|Nāgārjuna]])

Huayan teaches the [[Four Dharmadhātu]], four ways to view reality:
# All dharmas are seen as particular separate events;
# All events are an expression of the absolute;
# Events and essence interpenetrate;
# All events interpenetrate.{{sfn|Garfield|Edelglass|2011|p=76}}

====Absolute and relative in Zen Buddhism====
{{Main|Zen philosophy}}
[[File:DogenP2.JPG|thumb|right|230px|[[Dōgen]] (1200–1253), Japanese [[Zen master]] and founder of the [[Sōtō]] school of [[Zen]]]]

The teachings of [[Zen|Chán (Zen) Buddhism]] are expressed by a set of polarities: [[Buddha-nature]] (''tathāgatagarbha''), [[Śūnyatā|emptiness]] (''śūnyatā''),{{sfn|Kasulis|2003|pp=26–29}}{{sfn|McRae|2003|pp=138–142}} absolute-relative,{{sfn|Liang-Chieh|1986|p=9}} [[Subitism|sudden]] and [[Gradual training|gradual]] [[Enlightenment in Buddhism|enlightenment]] (''bodhi'').{{sfn|McRae|2003|pp=123–138}}

The ''[[Prajnaparamita|Prajnāpāramitā Sūtras]]'' and [[Madhyamaka|Mādhyamaka]] philosophy emphasized the non-duality of form and emptiness: "form is emptiness, emptiness is form", as it's written in the ''[[Heart Sutra]]''.{{sfn|Liang-Chieh|1986|p=9}}
The idea that the ultimate reality is present in the daily world of relative reality fitted into the [[Culture of China|Chinese culture]], which emphasized the mundane world and society. But this does not tell how the absolute is present in the relative world. This question is answered in such schemata as the ''[[Five Ranks|Verses of the Five Ranks]]'' of [[Dongshan Liangjie|Tōzan]]{{sfn|Kasulis|2003|p=29}} and the [[Ten Bulls|Oxherding Pictures]].

====Essence-function in Korean Buddhism====
{{Main|Essence-Function}}

The polarity of absolute and relative is also expressed as "essence-function". The absolute is essence, the relative is function. They can't be seen as separate realities, but interpenetrate each other. The distinction does not "exclude any other frameworks such as ''neng-so'' or "subject-object" constructions", though the two "are completely different from each other in terms of their way of thinking".<ref>Park, Sung-bae  (1983). ''Buddhist Faith and Sudden Enlightenment.'' SUNY series in religious studies. SUNY Press. {{ISBN|0-87395-673-7}}, {{ISBN|978-0-87395-673-4}}. Source: [https://books.google.com/books?id=_A2QS03MP5EC&q=Sung-bae+Park] (accessed: Friday April 9, 2010), p.147</ref>

In [[Korean Buddhism]], essence-function is also expressed as "body" and "the body's functions": {{quote|[A] more accurate definition (and the one the Korean populace is more familiar with) is "body" and "the body's functions". The implications of "essence/function" and "body/its functions" are similar, that is, both paradigms are used to point to a nondual relationship between the two concepts.<ref>Park, Sung-bae (2009). ''One Korean's approach to Buddhism: the mom/momjit paradigm''. SUNY series in Korean studies: SUNY Press. {{ISBN|0-7914-7697-9}}, {{ISBN|978-0-7914-7697-0}}. Source: [https://books.google.com/books?id=TEAq0ldHjVYC&dq=essence-function+nondual&pg=PA11] (accessed: Saturday May 8, 2010), p.11</ref>}}

A metaphor for essence-function is "A lamp and its light", a phrase from the ''[[Platform Sutra]]'', where "essence" is the lamp and "function" its light.<ref>Lai, Whalen (1979). "Ch'an Metaphors: waves, water, mirror, lamp". ''Philosophy East & West''; Vol. 29, no.3, July, 1979, pp.245–253. Source: [http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/HistoricalZen/ChanMetaphors.htm] (accessed: Saturday May 8, 2010)</ref>

===Tibetan Buddhism===
{{Main|Tibetan Buddhism}}
{{Further|Tibetan Buddhist canon|Vajrayana}}

====Nyingma school====
The [[Nyingma]] tradition is the oldest of the four major schools of [[Tibetan Buddhism]].<ref name="Stanford 2022"/> It is founded on the [[Tibetan Buddhist canon|first translations of Buddhist scriptures]] from [[Sanskrit]] into [[Classical Tibetan|Tibetan]] (8th century CE). Tibetan Buddhist philosopher and polymath [[Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso|Mipham the Great]] (1846–1912) in his commentary to the ''[[Madhyamālaṃkāra]]'' of [[Śāntarakṣita]] (725–788) says:<ref>Commentary to the first [[couplet]] of [[quatrain]]/[[śloka]] 72 of the root text, (725–788) — Blumenthal, James (2008). "Śāntarakṣita", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Source: [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/saantarak-sita/] (accessed: February 28, 2009), as rendered into English by the Padmakara Translation Group (2005: p. 304)</ref>
{{quote|If one trains for a long time in the union of the two truths, the stage of acceptance (on the path of joining), which is attuned to primordial wisdom, will arise. By thus acquiring a certain conviction in that which surpasses intellectual knowledge, and by training in it, one will eventually actualize it. This is precisely how the Buddhas and the Bodhisattvas have said that liberation is to be gained.<ref>[[Śāntarakṣita]] (author); [[Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso|Mipham the Great]] (commentator); Padmakara Translation Group (2005). ''The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with commentary by Jamgön Mipham.'' Boston, Massachusetts, US: Shambhala Publications, Inc. {{ISBN|1-59030-241-9}} (alk. paper), p. 304</ref>{{refn|group=note|"Primordial wisdom" is a rendering of ''[[jñāna]]'' and "that which surpasses intellectual knowledge" may be understood as the direct perception (Sanskrit: ''[[pratyakṣa]]'') of (''[[dharmatā]]''). "Conviction" may be understood as a gloss of [[Faith in Buddhism|faith]] (''śraddhā'').  An effective analogue for "union", a rendering of the relationship held by the two truths, is ''[[Interpenetration (Buddhism)|interpenetration]]''.}}}}

The following sentence from [[Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso|Mipham the Great]]'s exegesis of [[Śāntarakṣita]]'s'' [[Madhyamālaṃkāra]]'' highlights the relationship between the absence of ''[[Catuṣkoṭi#Four Extremes|the four extremes]]'' (''mtha'-bzhi'') and the [[Nondualism|non-dual]] or ''[[Two Truths|indivisible two truths]]'' (''bden-pa dbyer-med''): {{quote|The learned and accomplished [masters] of the Early Translations considered this simplicity beyond the four extremes, this abiding way in which the two truths are indivisible, as their own immaculate way.<ref>Thomas, H. (trans.); [[Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso|Mipham the Great]] (author). '' Speech of Delight: Mipham's Commentary of Shantarakshita's Ornament of the Middle Way'' (2004). Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications. {{ISBN|1-55939-217-7}}, p. 127</ref>{{refn|group=note|[[Helena Blankleder|Blankleder]] and [[Wulstan Fletcher|Fletcher]] of the Padmakara Translation Group give a somewhat different translation:<br/>
"The learned and accomplished masters of the Old Translation school take as their stainless view the freedom from all conceptual constructs of the four extremes, the ultimate reality of the two truths inseparably united."<ref>[[Śāntarakṣita]] (author); [[Jamgön Ju Mipham Gyatso|Mipham the Great]] (commentator); Padmakara Translation Group (2005). ''The Adornment of the Middle Way: Shantarakshita's Madhyamakalankara with commentary by Jamgön Mipham.'' Boston, Massachusetts, US: Shambhala Publications, Inc. {{ISBN|1-59030-241-9}} (alk. paper), p. 137</ref>}}}}