A Reply to Andrew Brenner

Abstract

In "Abhidharma Metaphysics and the Two Truths" (McDaniel 2019), I argued that a version of ontological pluralism - the view that there are different modes of being - is a philosophically satisfactory account of the doctrine of two truths as found in Abhidharma metaphysics, and that it is superior to accounts in the secondary literature.¹ According to my account, the doctrine of two truths is best construed as a view that distinguishes between conventional and ultimate reality, the former of which is enjoyed by persons (and other composite objects) while the latter is enjoyed by only short-lived, impartite dharmas.² Conventional truth and ultimate truth understood as features of sentences, beliefs, or propositions are accounted for in terms of conventional and ultimate existence.