The Two Truths Debate: Tsongkhapa and Gorampa on the Middle Way

by Sonam Thakchoe, Jay L. Garfield (Foreword)

All lineages of Tibetan Buddhism today claim allegiance to the philosophy of the Middle Way, the exposition of emptiness propounded by the second-century Indian master Nagarjuna. But not everyone interprets it the same way. A major faultline runs through Tibetan Buddhism around the interpretation of what are called the two truths--the deceptive truth of conventional appearances and the ultimate truth of emptiness. An understanding of this faultline illuminates the beliefs that separate the Gelug descendents of Tsongkhapa from contemporary Dzogchen and Mahamudra adherents. The Two Truths Debate digs into the debate of how the two truths are defined and how they are related by looking at two figures, one on either side of the faultline, and shows how their philosophical positions have dramatic implications for how one approaches Buddhist practice and how one understands enlightenment itself.

Genres: Buddhism, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Religion

352 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 2007

Reviews

[Yontan Gyatso · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is a confessed follower of Tsongkhapa, which makes his excellent presentation of Gorampa all the more impressive. I happen to agree more with Gorampa's view and really enjoyed seeing these two important figures' thought compared side-by-side. While these two thinkers – important as they may be to the development of Tibetan thought – do not represent the entire range of views, they are in some ways polar opposites, making this book an excellent study on many of the important controversies among Tibetan "Middle-Wayists".

[Taylor]

Excellent comparison of the views of Tsongkhapa (late 14th cent) and Gorampa (mid 15th cent), two of the most important dialecticians Tibet has known. More or less contemporaries, their views each had tremendous impact on the thought of Tibetan Buddhism. Despite the authors confessed preference for Tsongkhapa's view (unlike me), he does an excellent job of presenting the material objectively. If you have any interest in Tsongkhapa, Gorampa or either of their schools (Gelug/Sakya, resp.) you must read this study. It's also quite interesting to see how close Mipham (19th century) comes to Gorampa's view, despite never once mentioning him as an influence.

[r0b · Rating 5 out of 5]

The positions on the two truths taken by these two Tibetan Prasangika Madhyamikas are distinct and, finally, irreconcilable. Tsongkhapas com­mitment to the unity between the two truths, and the unity between the two corresponding epistemic pathways, lays the foundation for his entire philosophical system. In contrast, Gorampas commitment to the contra­dictory relationship between the two truths and the respective verifying cognitions leads to significantly different implications. While they both claim to be the heirs of the Indian Prasangika Madhyamaka tradition, their interpretations of the two truths lead to fundamentally different approaches to ontology, epistemology, soteriology, and, not least, morality.

[bad · Rating 5 out of 5]

classic comparison of the two truths (conventional and ultimate) from the perspectives of contrasting madhyamaka (middle-way) buddhism. tsongkhapa argues for the prasangikas (consequentialists) for the ontological, soteriological, and epistemoligical identity of the truths, whereas gorampa maintains their utter incompatibility for the mind-only enthusiasts. my personal favorite tibetan critique is when gorampa accuses tsongkhapa of propogating the views of demons. i never got to use that one in high-school debate..

[Steven · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent overview of an argument that has been happening in Tibet for hundreds of years. I tend to side with Tsongkhapa in this argument, as he relies on air tight logic to build a philosophical system of Buddhism that anyone can access (and that will inevitably lead to enlightenment). Gorampa, on the other hand, has a clunky system that focuses too much on subjectivity. He also has a very confusing idea of final enlightenment that directly contradicts everything we know about the mind--To him, enlightenment is pure subjectivity that completely annihilates every object. However, you cannot have subjectivity without an object, so it's unclear to me how, exactly, Gorampa's philosophy differs from Vedanta. Indeed, Vedanta is a monist system just like Gorampa's, which involves the total transcendence of conventionality in order to attain the state of pure consciousness called moksha. To me, Tsongkhapa's system is more faithful to traditional Indian ideas about Buddhism, and his hermeneutics are more sound in that they don't rely on the concept of the alayavijñana. Gorampa, on the other hand, seems like a Tibetan purist in that he appeals to the tradition of the alaya in order to validate his system of Madhyamaka.

[Gonpo Dorje · Rating 1 out of 5]

Why not add a zero star option

This book was one continuous representation of what was once called mental masterbation. Having said that , most of the data from both perspectives seem ok to me. I have come along through the practice traditional approaches of Zen Mahamudra and lastly Dzogchen where by after being given scant pointings out, one gets to and does the work, then is lead through the field of awareness to bare perception by dialouge with the mentor. This book is obviously representation of the analytical approach. Seems like these guys were either talking in depth from experience or just wasting away their interest on otherwise already realised stuff. Either way every view is included in the absolute . Have a read see for your self

[Cole · Rating 5 out of 5]

Concise and really well organized.

[Ellison · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was expecting more. I did learn I have no patience for Gorampa.