The Two Truths Debate (Sonam Thakchoe)

A Consideration of the Two Truths in the Context of Tibetan Madhyamika

[My 3-star Amazon review (NDA) of “The Two Truths Debate: Thonghapa and Gorampa on the Middle Way” by Sonam Thakchoe.]

This book is a consideration of the “two truths”—Ultimate (or Noumenal) Reality and conventional (or phenomenal) reality—in the context of Tibetan Madhyamika. The consideration is presented in the form of a “debate” between the respective (and dramatically contrasting) philosophies of Tsongkhapa and Gorampa, two of Madhyamika’s foremost exegetes.

Thakchoe is a clear and concise writer, and does a fine, objective job comparing and considering the two opposing philosophies. Anyone into Tibetan Madhyamika and/or the “two truths debate’’ will find this an interesting read.

A criticism I have of Thakchoe is that he is too loose with his relegation of various philosophers (such as Longchen Rabjam and Jaideva Singh) to Gorampa’s camp. Rabjam, for example, in direct contrast to Gorampa, considers Nirvana and samsara to have equal ontological staus. And Singh, who champions Hindu Kashmir Shaivism as the acme of Indian philosophy, has, like me, little regard for Madhyamika; so to stick him on Gorampa’s side based on a few out-of-context statements from an introduction he wrote to another author’s Buddhism book is ridiculous. In fact, in his book “Spanda Karikas: the Divine Pulsation,” Singh has a subchapter in which he totally reams Madhyamika, thoroughly deconstructing its argument that Ultimate Reality is Sunya (Emptiness).

A problem (at least for me) with this book is its narrow focus. To my mind, comparing Tsonghapa’s and Gorampa’s philosophies is akin to a basketball book that only compares Kobe Bryant to LeBron James. Just as neither Bryant nor James is as great a player as Wilt Chamberlain or Michael Jordan was, neither Tsonghapa’s nor Gorampa’s philosophy is on par with, say, Abhinavagupta’s, Jaideva Singh’s, or Adi Da Samraj’s. Even if you find Tsonghapa’s arguments more convincing than Gorampa’s (which you probably will if you read the book), it hardly elevates him to the top of the spiritual philosophic heap.

It would be interesting to see one of the contemporary Tibetan Buddhism scholars of Madhyamika—viz. Hopkins, Garfield, Dreyfuss, Newland, or Thakhchoe--step out of his comfort zone and pit Madhyamika against, say, the Pratyabbhija system of Kashmir Shaivism, or the Advaita Vedanta of Ramana Maharshi, or Adi Da Samraj’s Daism; but it’s unlikely to happen because Sunya will get its clock cleaned versus Siva-Shakti.