<p>All words are like sign posts. The meaning of it is an idea that is in the mind of the person who is speaking it. And the communication will take place if the person who hears it has assigned the same meaning to the word in his/her mind.</p>

<p>Therefore the shared meaning has to be previously agreed upon or communication will not be very effective. As a result it is extremely difficult to communicate an idea (ex: enlightenment/dhamma) when the receiver has no data points to relate to. They become merely words. </p>

<p>So yes, the words don't have the properties of what they refer to. For example Alan Watts once said that "<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/7hun9n/you_cannot_get_wet_from_the_word_water_alan_watts/" rel="noreferrer">You can't get wet from the word 'water.'</a>". </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-28T07:41:59.367Z
2018-12-28T15:24:13.417Z
2018-12-28T15:24:13.417Z
RRR
<blockquote>
  <p>"Sanketa vacanam saccam - loka sammuti karanam<br>
  Paramattha vacanam saccam - dhammanam tathalakkhanam"</p>
</blockquote>

<p>According to the above quote, all the words (cenventional truth) made by living beings using any language considered as truth because they are enacted by living beings.</p>

<p>We use words to mention ultimate truth. For example when we say "Nibbana", the real dhamma or actual Nibbana exists but the word "Nibbana" has been enacted. The actual dhamma and the word used to refer it are two different things. The word may not contain the actual characteristics inherent to Nibbana. I suppose Shakyamuni Tatagata Lord Buddha used many words to explain ultimate truth (Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana) because of this reason.</p>

<p>So my question is: Does the word "Nibbana" (as well as the other words used to mention ultimate truth) belong to the conventional truth while only the actual dhamma belong to the ultimate truth?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-31T05:19:17.507Z
There is both a conventional truth/meaning and a higher truth/meaning to every key word in Buddha Dhamma. Nirvana is the incorrect usage of the word. The true word is Nibbana. It’s higher meaning is clipping at the roots the three Bana’s - rāga, dōsa, Mōha.   “rāgakkhayo Nibbānan, dōsakkhayō Nibbānan, Mōhakkhayō Nibbānan”  Thus cleansing our minds is the only way to Nibbāna.
Saptha Visuddhi
<theravada><terminology><abhidhamma>
Do all words belong to conventional truth (Sammuti Sacca)?
# Do all words belong to conventional truth (Sammuti Sacca)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-12-28)

> "Sanketa vacanam saccam - loka sammuti karanam  
> Paramattha vacanam saccam - dhammanam tathalakkhanam"

According to the above quote, all the words (cenventional truth) made by living beings using any language considered as truth because they are enacted by living beings.

We use words to mention ultimate truth. For example when we say "Nibbana", the real dhamma or actual Nibbana exists but the word "Nibbana" has been enacted. The actual dhamma and the word used to refer it are two different things. The word may not contain the actual characteristics inherent to Nibbana. I suppose Shakyamuni Tatagata Lord Buddha used many words to explain ultimate truth (Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana) because of this reason.

So my question is: Does the word "Nibbana" (as well as the other words used to mention ultimate truth) belong to the conventional truth while only the actual dhamma belong to the ultimate truth?

**Tags:** theravada, terminology, abhidhamma

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There is both a conventional truth/meaning and a higher truth/meaning to every key word in Buddha Dhamma. Nirvana is the incorrect usage of the word. The true word is Nibbana. It’s higher meaning is clipping at the roots the three Bana’s - rāga, dōsa, Mōha.   “rāgakkhayo Nibbānan, dōsakkhayō Nibbānan, Mōhakkhayō Nibbānan”  Thus cleansing our minds is the only way to Nibbāna.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-12-28. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

All words are like sign posts. The meaning of it is an idea that is in the mind of the person who is speaking it. And the communication will take place if the person who hears it has assigned the same meaning to the word in his/her mind.

Therefore the shared meaning has to be previously agreed upon or communication will not be very effective. As a result it is extremely difficult to communicate an idea (ex: enlightenment/dhamma) when the receiver has no data points to relate to. They become merely words.

So yes, the words don't have the properties of what they refer to. For example Alan Watts once said that "[You can't get wet from the word 'water.'](https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/7hun9n/you_cannot_get_wet_from_the_word_water_alan_watts/)".


---

