1
CDH – Escola de Meditação
Bolos pintados não satisfazem a fome... Medite!
As Duas Verdades
O caminho do Meio. Sua santidade o Dalai Lama.
Cap.1 abordando o profundo. Pg. 33-36.
O grande mestre Nagarjuna afirma em suas Estrofes fundamentais sobre o Caminho do Meio:
Os ensinamentos dados pelo Buda
baseiam-se puramente em duas verdades.
Para entender a apresentação das quatro verdades nobres de acordo com a visão do Caminho do
Meio, é essencial compreender estes dois níveis de verdade: convencional e absoluta, pois, como
vimos, sem entender a verdade absoluta — as coisas como verdadeiramente são —, é
extremamente difícil pressupor a cessação em toda a sua abrangência. Foi por isso que escrevi:
Pelo entendimento das duas verdades, a natureza da base,
vou averiguar como, através das quatro verdades nobres,
entramos e saímos do samsara.
Aquilo que é referido como duas verdades são os dois níveis da realidade: aparência e realidade
efetiva. Esses dois níveis correspondem às compreensões de mundo fundamentadas no nível da
aparência e no da realidade efetiva, o modo como as coisas verdadeiramente são. Em nossa
maneira cotidiana de falar, reconhecemos diferentes graus de realidade; fazemos distinções entre
aparência e realidade, e sentimos diferentes dimensões da verdade. Os ensinamentos sobre as duas
verdades conceituam de modo explícito nossa intuição a respeito dessa diferença. Na distinção que
experimentamos entre aparência e realidade efetiva, a natureza final, categórica, das coisas
constitui a verdade absoluta, enquanto o entendimento desenvolvido dentro da estrutura da
aparência, ou de nossa percepção cotidiana, constitui a verdade convencional.
Quais são, então, as características das duas verdades? Verdades convencionais são fatos do
mundo obtidos por um entendimento não crítico no que tange à realidade última. Sempre que,
insatisfeitos com as meras aparências discernidas por uma perspectiva não crítica, sondamos em
maior profundidade, com análise crítica, buscando a verdadeira maneira de ser das coisas, o fato
obtido por meio dessa inquirição constitui a verdade absoluta. Essa verdade suprema, a natureza
final das coisas, portanto, não se refere a um absoluto independente, que se sustenta por si —
alguma entidade altiva ideal. Refere-se, sim, à natureza última de uma coisa ou fenômeno
específico. Essa coisa particular (a base) e sua verdadeira forma de ser (sua natureza fundamental)
constituem uma mesma entidade. Sendo assim, embora as perspectivas ou características das duas
verdades sejam definidas de modo distinto, elas pertencem a uma realidade única. Todos os
fenômenos, sejam quais forem, possuem essas duas verdades.
 Para saber mais: Appearance and reality. The two truths in the four Buddhist Tenet
Systems. Guy Newland.
2
Dicionário de budismo
 The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism. Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr.
saṃvṛtisatya. (P. sammutisacca; T. kun rdzob bden pa; C. shisu di/sudi; J. sezokutai/zokutai; K. sesok
che/sokche 世俗諦/俗諦). In Buddhist Sanskrit, “conventional truth” or “relative truth”; the term carries
the pejorative connotation of deception, concealment, and obscuration. Conventional truth (saṃvṛtisatya)
and ultimate truth (PARAMĀRTHASATYA) constitute the “two truths” (SATYADVAYA), a philosophical
bifurcation that is widely referenced and analyzed in Buddhism. All dharmas are said to be included in one
of these two categories. Saṃvṛtisatya is variously defined by the Buddhist philosophical schools, but it is
generally understood to refer to objects of ordinary experience that involve misperceptions tainted by
ignorance, in distinction to the true or ultimate nature of those objects, which are ultimate truths
(paramārthasatya). It is important to note that conventional truths, although misperceived, nonetheless exist
conventionally or have conventional utility. The object of the most consequential misconception, a
perduring self (ĀTMAN), is not a conventional truth because it is utterly nonexistent. Saṃvṛtisatya is also
understood to mean the unavoidable domain through which sentient beings must navigate and
communicate with one another in the mundane world. Thus buddhas and BODHISATTVAs use their
knowledge of conventional truths to teach unenlightened beings and lead them away from suffering. Some
Buddhist schools further subdivide saṃvṛtisatya into two categories: tathyasaṃvṛtisatya (correct
conventional truth) and atathyasaṃvṛtisatya (or mithyāsaṃvṛtisatya, incorrect or false conventional truth), a
distinction based upon whether or not the object can perform functions in accordance with their
appearance. For example, a face would be a tathyasaṃvṛtisatya but a reflection of a face in a mirror would
be a mithyāsaṃvṛtisatya.
samyagājīva. (P. sammājīva; T. yang dag pa’i ’tsho ba; C. zhengming; J. shōmyō; K. chŏngmyŏng 正命). In
Sanskrit, “right livelihood” or “correct livelihood”; the fifth constituent of the noble eightfold path
(ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA). “Right” (samyak) in this context is interpreted as “resulting in a decrease in the
net suffering experienced by oneself and others.” Of the three divisions of the eightfold path—morality
(ŚĪLA), concentration (SAMĀDHI), and wisdom (PRAJÑĀ)—samyagājīva is the third of the three aspects of
moral training. It involves abstention from engaging in occupations that are considered to be incompatible
with morality because they bring harm to other beings, either directly or indirectly. Such inappropriate
occupations include selling weapons, or working as a butcher, fisherman, or soldier. Right livelihood also
involves abstention from any occupation that may cause oneself, or encourage others, to break precepts
associated with right speech (SAMYAGVĀC) and right action (SAMYAKKARMĀNTA). For this reason,
selling intoxicants is considered to be a breach of right livelihood. The tradition provides examples of wrong
livelihoods
for
both
monastics
and
the
laity.
In
Pāli
literature,
the BRAHMAJĀLASUTTA and SĀMAÑÑAPHALASUTTA of the DĪGHANIKĀYA list several “wrong
livelihoods” for monks. These include performing divination and astrology as well as casting
spells.MAHĀYĀNA interpretations stress the absence of absolutes, and the relative merits or demerits of
any occupation based on the situation at hand and its value to the larger goal of promoting the welfare of
others. In the inversion of categories that is characteristic of much of tantric literature, many of
the MAHĀSIDDHAs are involved in professions that do not constitute right livelihood according to
mainstream Buddhist definitions.
samyagdṛṣṭi. (P. sammādiṭṭhi; T. yang dag pa’i lta ba; C. zhengjian; J. shōken; K. chŏnggyŏn 正見). Often
translated as “right view” or “correct view,” the first constituent of the noble eightfold path
(ĀRYĀṢṬĀṄGAMĀRGA). It is described as the correct understanding of the FOUR NOBLE
TRUTHS (catvāry āryasatyāni); namely, the truth of suffering, the truth of the cause of suffering, the truth of
cessation of suffering, and the truth of the path leading to the end of suffering. The last truth is itself the
same as the eightfold path. Right view is also identified as the correct understanding of nonself
(ANĀTMAN). In the MADHYĀNTAVIBHĀGA, right view refers to the understanding of the vision of
truth that has just been witnessed, the unique formulation of the inexpressible in the mind of the awakened
one who has just emerged from equipoise (SAMĀHITA).
3
satyadvaya. (P. saccadvaya; T. bden pa gnyis; C. erdi; J. nitai; K. ije 二諦). In Sanskrit, “the two truths,” viz.,
“ultimate truth” (PARAMĀRTHASATYA) and “conventional truth” (SAṂVṚTISATYA). The two truths are
central terms in Buddhist philosophy for categorizing the phenomena of the universe. Regardless of the
school, the two truths are presumed to be exhaustive, with everything that exists, that is, all DHARMAs,
falling into one of the two categories. This bifurcation is associated especially with
the MADHYAMAKA school, but it occurs in other schools as well, with each providing its own view of
what constitutes the two truths. In each case, however, conventional truths might be described as the objects
of ordinary experience that tend to be misperceived by the unenlightened, by mistakenly ascribing to them
a greater degree of reality than they in fact possess. Thus, despite being “truths,” conventional truths are
falsely perceived, as implied in the term saṃvṛti, with its connotation of deception. Ultimate truths, literally
“supreme object truths,” might be described as those realities that exist as they appear and whose direct
perception
can
lead
to
liberation
from
rebirth.
For
theVAIBHĀṢIKA branch
of SARVĀSTIVĀDA ABHIDHARMA, a conventional truth is any phenomenon that can be either physically
or mentally broken down into parts; an ultimate truth is a partless particle of matter or an indivisible
moment of consciousness. For the YOGĀCĀRA, conventional truths are dependent phenomena
(PARATANTRA) as well as permanent phenomena such as space (ĀKĀŚA); ultimate truths are
consummate natures (PARINIṢPANNA). In Madhyamaka, conventional truths are all phenomena other
than emptiness (ŚŪNYATĀ), which is the ultimate truth. The Chinese SAN LUN ZONG(Madhyamaka)
master JIZANG (549–623) discusses the three stages of the two truths, in which each of these stages serves to
correct any possible reification of Buddhist truth.
Satyadvayavibhaṅga. (T. Bden pa gnyis rnam par ’byed pa). In Sanskrit, “Distinction Between the Two
Truths,” a work by the eighth-century MADHYAMAKA master JÑĀNAGARBHA. According to Tibetan
classification, the work belongs to the SVĀTANTRIKA-MADHYAMAKA, and within that,
the SAUTRĀNTIKA-SVĀTANTRIKA-MADHYAMAKA.
This
work,
together
with
the MADHYAMAKĀLAṂKĀRA by ŚĀNTARAKṢITA and
the MADHYAMAKĀLOKA of KAMALAŚĪLA are known in Tibet as the “three works of the eastern
*SVĀTANTRIKAs” (rang rgyud shar gsum) because the three authors were from Bengal.
TheSatyadvayavibhaṅga is composed in verses (kārikā) and includes a prose autocommentary (vṛtti) by the
author. There is also a commentary (pañjikā) by Śāntarakṣita, who is said to have been a student of
Jñānagarbha.
The
text
presumably
takes
its
title
from
Nāgārjuna’s
statement
in
his MŪLAMADHYAMAKAKĀRIKĀ: “Those who do not comprehend the distinction between these two
truths do not know the nature of the profound doctrine of the Buddha.” The ultimate truth
(PARAMĀRTHASATYA) is nondeceptive; its nature accords not with appearance, but with valid
knowledge gained through reasoning (nyāya). It is also free from discursive thought (NIRVIKALPA). The
conventional truth (SAṂVṚTISATYA) includes ordinary appearances, or as the text says, “whatever
appears even to cowherds and women.” Within the category of the conventional, there are true and false
conventions, which are distinguished based on their ability to perform a function (ARTHAKRIYĀ) in
accordance with their appearance; thus water is a true convention and a mirage is a false convention. The
work ends with a discussion of the three bodies (TRIKĀYA) of a buddha.
Veiled by ignorance and depending on common-sense pre- suppositions and judgments (samvrtisatya) and truth as unqualified and ultimate (paramartha-satya).
UNIVERSIDADE FEDERAL DE MINAS GERAIS
FACULDADE DE FILOSOFIA E CIÊNCIAS HUMANAS
 GIUSEPPE FERRARO ‘VERDADE ORDINÁRIA’ E ‘VERDADE SUPREMA’ COMO BASES DOS
ENSINAMENTOS BUDISTAS NO PENSAMENTO DE NĀGĀRJUNA.