Tibetan Buddhist polemics are often perceived as a type of hairsplitting or logic chopping, where defeating one’s opponent is more highly prized than arriving at truth. This assumes that Tibetan polemicists are obsessed with inconsequential minutiae and invested in nitpicking, trite attempts at self-aggrandizement. This article seeks to undermine the notion of Tibetan polemics as mere quibbling, arguing that what appears to be competitive carping in fact involves high stakes. Each Tibetan Buddhist philosophical system is constituted by tightly imbricated tenets, which not only are deeply interconnected with each other but individually comprise a microcosm of that system’s broader philosophical view. Inconsistencies between two systems’ seemingly subsidiary tenets thus demarcate proxy battles indicating larger conflicts over each system’s total cogency. To explore this point, I investigate one “polemic” initiated by Taktsang Lotsāwa (1405–77) against the Gelug school concerning yogic perception and where it occurs along the adherent’s spiritual progression. Although this point seems trivial at first blush, a deeper analysis reveals that it is central to Taktsang’s entire philosophy. Taktsang is invoking a wider philosophical framework in which reality transcends appearances. Impermanence entails appearances, and so cannot be an object of yogic perception, which necessarily perceives reality. Tsongkhapa, on the other hand, argues that reality remains accessible to appearances, and so yogic perception can realize impermanence. In this small debate, much larger stakes become clear—the very connection between appearances and reality, a cornerstone issue of both ontology and epistemology.
