Distinguishing the Views & Philosophies: Illuminating Emptiness in a Twentieth-Century Tibetan Buddhist Classic by Bötrül (review)

The present book is a deft english translation of a fascinating work of twentieth-century Tibetan philosophy. The Tibetan author Bötrül (bod sprul mdo sngags bstan pa’i nyi ma, 1858–1959) was a major promoter of the rNying ma tradition as taught by the great Jamgön Mipam (1846–1912), one of the founders of the so-called non-sectarian (ris med) perspective. The translator, Douglas Duckworth, has published two books on Mipam, and he holds to a high standard of lucid doctrinal explication and sure-footed, reliable translations. The book contains a brief “Translator’s Introduction” (25 pages), a translation of the versified root text (50 pages), and a translation of the prose commentary (217 pages), as well as an outline, notes, and bibliography.

Distinguishing the Views & Philosophies is a polemical text, which argues, at every turn, for the superiority of the Nyingma position over its philosophical rivals. The main opponent of “non-sectarian” authors is the dGe lugs pa, whose views are depicted as shortsighted and simplistic in their doctrines as well as their exclusivism. Deemed far better—both more accurate to the truth of the Buddha’s teachings and less contentious—is the purported rNying ma approach, which accepts all Buddhist schools as valid, finding no contradictions among them. As Duckworth points out, there is a definite rNying ma sectarian agenda behind this non-sectarian text. It is tempting to read it as ironic, if not disingenuous, when Bötrül says that the distinction among vehicles is not one of contradiction, but of the rNying ma’s greater “clarity, extensiveness and completion” (96). Yet the point of non-sectarianism was never to accept all views as equivalent—rather, one must allow each view its proper place, which requires that the scholar (as here) distinguish among them. The work of the text is to give substance to the claim of inclusivism, by explaining exactly how the rNying ma in fact provides, within it, this noncontentious space for all Buddhist perspectives.

It is this agenda that most decisively distinguishes this work from its closest cousin, Distinguishing the Views, by the great Sa skya pa author Go rams pa (1429–1489)—a work it draws upon in a great many ways, including its title. Go rams pa’s work was also recently published in English translation by José Cabezón and Geshe Lobsang Dargyay (Wisdom Publications 2007), and both texts provide English readers rare access to sophisticated, Tibetan critiques of the dGe lugs pa. Go rams pa’s work decried, at length, Tsong Kha pa’s view of emptiness, explaining that it amounted to the absurdity of a conceptually constructed ultimate. This is taken up as a major theme in Bötrül’s arguments as well. Echoing Go rams pa (after five centuries of dGe lugs pa dominance), Bötrül calls the dGe lugs pa view of emptiness a “mere categorized,” as opposed to a genuine view of emptiness, which is free of all conceptuality.

Yet as much as he shares Go rams pa’s interest in defeating dGe lugs pa (and Jo nang) opponents, Bötrül is advocating a modern rNying ma, rather than a traditional Sa skya, view. He ingeniously integrates Go rams pa’s critique of the dGe lugs pa into the wider perspective of his master, Mipam. Bötrül’s work is a self-styled “meaning commentary” on Mipam’s Beacon of Certainty, and is very much an expression of the views of that work, which is also available in English translation by John Pettit (Wisdom Publications, 2002). Mipam famously explained two ways to read the distinction between relative and ultimate truth: as a distinction between appearance and emptiness on the one hand, and as a distinction between authentic and inauthentic experience on the other. While we can surely distinguish the two...