• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Dr. Joseph Dillard is a psychotherapist with over forty year's clinical experience treating individual, couple, and family issues. Dr. Dillard also has extensive experience with pain management and meditation training. The creator of Integral Deep Listening (IDL), Dr. Dillard is the author of over ten books on IDL, dreaming, nightmares, and meditation. He lives in Berlin, Germany. See: integraldeeplistening.com and his YouTube channel. He can be contacted at: [email protected]

SEE MORE ESSAYS WRITTEN BY JOSEPH DILLARD

Problems With the Two Truths Doctrine

Joseph Dillard

In 1969-70, at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, I studied philosophy, psychology, and comparative religion. My professor of comparative religions was F.J. Streng, who had studied in India, could read Sanskrit, and had written his PhD thesis on Nagarjuna's sunyata and its relationship to Wittgenstein's philosophy. I wrote a paper on Nagarjuna's Two Truths Doctrine for a graduate level course he taught. I give this background to explain that I have more than a passing familiarity with this topic.

The Two Truths Doctrine, particularly in Madhyamaka Buddhism, doesn't always posit absolute truth as a metaphysical “thing,” such as Brahman or consciousness. Nagarjuna's formulation emphasizes emptiness (Sunyata) as ultimate truth, meaning no phenomena have inherent essence, not that a transcendent reality exists. It uses relative truth as a skillful means to point toward ultimate truth, emptiness, which liberates by revealing the interdependent, non-substantial nature of all things. It's less about asserting a metaphysical absolute than deconstructing illusions to foster wisdom and compassion.

The doctrine dismantles dogmatic views by showing that all concepts, even Buddhist ones, are empty of inherent truth, freeing the mind from fixation. The Two Truths Doctrine is designed to promote a “middle way” avoiding the eternalism of the belief that things exist absolutely and the nihilism of “nothing matters.” Practically, The Two Truths Doctrine encourages acting compassionately in the relative world while understanding its ultimate emptiness, leading to liberation from suffering.

For decades I accepted The Two Truths Doctrine unquestionably. I understood that its usage within Madhyamika Buddhism serves as a heuristic to balance practical the relative truth of engagement with the world and the ultimate truth of liberation from attachment, not necessarily to justify beliefs. Currently, while I am still on board with the interdependent co-origination of all things and their essential emptiness, I believe that no phenomena have inherent essence or ontological status. But unlike Nagarjuna, I do not view that belief as ultimate truth. Over the years since I encountered Integral AQAL in the early 1980's, it slowly dawned on me that the Two Truths Doctrine not only could be, but actually was being used for different purposes, and that I did not agree with them.

The problem is that absolute truth can be taken out of its original context and used to justify any belief system. Claims to religious, ideological, or spiritual ultimate truth have been wielded to silence dissent, enforce dogma, or excuse abuses. In spiritual contexts, this manifests when gurus or teachers claim unchallengeable authority based on their supposed access to absolute reality. I am going to use Tibetan Buddhism, Osho (Rajneesh), Da Free John, Andrew Cohen, Marc Gafni, and Ken Wilber as examples of what looks to me as bona-fide misappropriations of The Two Truths Doctrine.

Of course, I may be mistaken about any and all of these examples, and I invite alternative perspectives. The broader context of this essay is to alert students of the transpersonal to the very real danger of the misuse of this important concept rather than to warn them off of its use entirely. Nor am I interested in pushing the conclusion that because of some purported misuse of The Two Truths Doctrine that any of the above sources are not to be acknowledged or respected for their various accomplishments and strengths.

Tibetan Buddhist Lineages and Guru Authority

The Two Truths Doctrine can be invoked to dismiss criticism or questioning by framing dissent as rooted in “relative” ignorance, unable to grasp the “ultimate” perspective of a teacher or tradition. This creates a hierarchy where dissenters are marginalized as spiritually inferior. For example, in some Tibetan Buddhist traditions, the Two Truths Doctrine has been used to reinforce guru devotion via samaya vows, where questioning a lama's actions is framed as misunderstanding ultimate reality. For instance, in the 1990s, critics of Sogyal Rinpoche, author of The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying, raised concerns about his alleged sexual misconduct and authoritarian behavior. Defenders, including senior students, cited the doctrine, arguing that Sogyal's actions were “unconventional” expressions of ultimate wisdom, beyond relative moral judgment.[1] Dissenters, including former students like Marion Dapsance, were labeled as lacking the spiritual insight to see his “ultimate” intent, silencing their critiques until public pressure led to investigations in 2017.[2] By claiming critics operate only at the relative level in that they are judging behavior by conventional ethics, while the guru embodies the ultimate truth of emptiness or enlightened intent, the doctrine stifles debate. This dismisses valid concerns as illusory, discouraging open inquiry.

Osho

Osho, a 20th-century Indian spiritual leader, blended Advaita Vedanta and Buddhist ideas, including the Two Truths Doctrine, to teach that ultimate reality, as nondual awareness, transcends relative morality.[3] In the 1980s, his Rajneeshpuram commune in Oregon faced accusations of bioterrorism, voter fraud, and sexual exploitation.[4] Osho and his deputy, Ma Anand Sheela, justified these acts as relative means to the ultimate end of building a utopian community enlightened beyond conventional ethics. Devotees were taught that questioning such actions showed attachment to illusory relative truths, excusing abuses like the 1984 salmonella attack.[5] The doctrine's invocation allowed leaders to frame criminal behavior as spiritually necessary, delaying accountability until legal interventions. By prioritizing enlightenment and utopia as ultimate truth, the community excused crime and harm, using the doctrine to rationalize unethical conduct as part of a higher purpose.

Adi Da

Adi Da (Franklin Jones), whom Ken Wilber praised as a “great realizer”, integrated the Two Truths Doctrine into his teachings, claiming his actions and writings embodied ultimate reality via the “Bright,” a nondual state.[6] In the 1970s-1980s, his community, Adidam, faced allegations of abuse, including sexual coercion and psychological control.[7] Da's defenders used the doctrine to enforce his dogma, asserting that his controversial behaviors, such as demanding devotees' sexual or financial submission, were “divinely ordained” expressions of ultimate truth, beyond relative critique. Followers were taught that rejecting Da's authority meant rejecting enlightenment itself.[8] This dogma stifled alternative views, creating a cult-like adherence until lawsuits and defections in the 1980s exposed the abuses. The doctrine framed Da's teachings as ultimate, rendering dissent heretical. Relative truths in the form of ethical norms, were dismissed as irrelevant, locking followers into his worldview.

Andrew Cohen

Cohen's teachings, particularly during his time as a spiritual teacher with EnlightenNext, emphasize a nondual perspective influenced by Advaita Vedanta and his early experiences with his teacher, H. W. L. Poonja (Papaji). While Cohen doesn't always explicitly reference The Two Truths Doctrine, his focus on “evolutionary enlightenment” and awakening to a timeless, absolute dimension of consciousness aligns with its spirit. In dialogues with Wilber, Cohen critiques traditional interpretations of absolute truth as static or culturally bound, advocating for a dynamic, evolutionary understanding of enlightenment. His later reflections, as in When Shadow Meets the Bodhisattva (2023), suggest a nuanced shift, acknowledging the pitfalls of absolutist claims, but his earlier work strongly implies an acceptance of an absolute truth beyond relative phenomena. Thus, it's reasonable to say he subscribes to a version of the doctrine, though less formally than Wilber.

Cohen used The Two Truths Doctrine to quell dissent in his EnlightenNext community from 1988 to 2013. Former students, like William Yenner, report that Cohen framed his teachings as reflecting the ultimate truth as nondual consciousness and evolutionary enlightenment, while portraying critics as trapped in egoic, relative perspectives.[9] When students questioned his harsh methods, including public humiliation and financial demands, Cohen or senior members invoked the doctrine, suggesting dissent reflected a failure to transcend personal attachments.[10] This created a culture where questioning was equated with spiritual weakness, silencing members until the community's collapse in 2013. Cohen's use of ultimate truth as a transcendent ideal invalidated relative concerns, including emotional harm, discouraging dissent by framing it as a barrier to awakening.

Cohen's own trajectory, as detailed in When Shadow Meets the Bodhisattva, reflects the danger of weaponizing The Two Truths Doctrine. His earlier authoritarian tendencies as a teacher, which he later acknowledged, stemmed partly from an overconfidence in his grasp of absolute truth, leading to practices that harmed students.

Marc Gafni

Gafni, through his work with the Center for Integral Wisdom and collaborations with Wilber, operates within an integral framework that implicitly accepts The Two Truths Doctrine. His teachings on “unique self” and “cosmo-erotic humanism” emphasize a nondual reality where personal and universal truths converge. While Gafni's writings, such as Radical Kabbalah, and Your Unique Self, don't always directly cite The Two Truths Doctrine, his alignment with Wilber's integral theory and his focus on a universal spiritual force suggest he endorses a distinction between relative perspectives which are personal and evolutionary, and absolute, transcendent, and nondual truths. His approach integrates Jewish mysticism with nondual perspectives, making his subscription to the doctrine likely, though expressed in his own terminology.

Supported by Wilber, Gafni has faced allegations of sexual misconduct since the 1980s.[11],[12] Gafni's teachings, rooted in integral and nondual frameworks, incorporate the Two Truths Doctrine, emphasizing a “unique self” within ultimate reality.[13] In defending himself, Gafni and supporters like Wilber have argued that allegations reflect relative misunderstandings, while his spiritual mission operates at an ultimate level.[14] For instance, Wilber's 2016 response to critics framed Gafni's errors as human flaws, subordinate to his “integral wisdom”.[15] This use of the doctrine downplayed harm, excusing abuses by prioritizing Gafni's supposed ultimate insight.

Allegations of abuse were dismissed as “relative harm” and therefore less significant than Gafni's spiritual contributions of ultimate truth, allowing supporters to justify continued endorsement despite evidence of misconduct. Gafni's teachings on “outrageous love” and integral spirituality have inspired many, but allegations of misconduct raise questions about whether claims to absolute truth can obscure relative-world failings. The doctrine's flexibility, where relative truths are subordinate, can enable rationalizations.

Ken Wilber

Wilber's integral theory explicitly incorporates the Two Truths Doctrine, distinguishing relative truths, such as AQAL quadrants and stages, and ultimate truth, nondual awareness.[16] Wilber subscribes to a version of The Two Truths Doctine, framing it within his “neo-perennial philosophy” and “integral post-metaphysics.” He explicitly engages with The Two Truths Doctrine, particularly in the context of Madhyamika Buddhist philosophy and his integral theory. In works like Sex, Ecology, Spirituality and Integral Spirituality, he interprets the doctrine as distinguishing between conventional, phenomenal reality, or relative truth and formless awareness or nondual consciousness, often equated with “the simple feeling of being,” or ultimate truth. For Wilber, ultimate truth transcends the phenomenal world and is absolute, while relative truth encompasses the categories of his AQAL model (quadrants, lines, levels, states, types). He aligns this with Advaita Vedanta and other nondual traditions, suggesting that only formless awareness exists absolutely. Wilber's support for controversial figures like Cohen, Gafni, and Adi Da, despite allegations against them, illustrates this risk.[17],[18],[19] His defense often hinges on their perceived spiritual insight, which can prioritize “absolute” realization over relative ethical accountability.

In the early 2000s, Wilber's Integral Institute fostered a culture where his framework was treated as an ultimate paradigm, discouraging competing ideas. Critics like Jeff Meyerhoff note that Wilber dismissed postmodern or scientific critiques of his model as “flatland” thinking, stuck at relative levels, while positioning integral theory as accessing ultimate reality.[20] This created a dogmatic environment where followers felt pressured to align with Wilber's views, marginalizing dissenters as less evolved.[21] By framing integral theory as a synthesis of ultimate truth, Wilber's community used the doctrine to elevate his model above critique, enforcing intellectual conformity and sidelining alternative perspectives.

A summarization of abuses of The Two Truths Doctrine

• Creating a hierarchy of truth: Teachers or communities claim access to ultimate truth as nondual realization or divine will, positioning critics or victims as mired in relative illusion. This creates an unchallengeable authority, as seen with Sogyal Rinpoche and Cohen.
• Relativizing ethics: Abuses are dismissed as “relative” concerns, insignificant compared to the ultimate goals of enlightenment and cosmic evolution. Adi Da and Osho's communities exemplify this, justifying harm as spiritual discipline or necessity. Wilber's endorsements of Adi Da, Cohen, and Gafni reflect this tendency. His integral framework, which uses the doctrine to balance relative and ultimate truths, sometimes prioritizes spiritual insight over accountability, excusing flaws as relative while praising ultimate contributions, as seen in his response to the Gafni episode.
• Silencing dissent: Sogyal Rinpoche's defenders and Cohen's community dismissed critics as spiritually ignorant, using ultimate truth to invalidate relative concerns (Tricycle, 2018; American Guru, 2009).
• Enforcing dogma: Adi Da's Adidam and Wilber's integral community framed their teachings as ultimate, marginalizing alternative views as lesser.[22]
• Excusing abuses: Gafni's supporters and Osho's Rajneeshpuram justified misconduct by prioritizing ultimate goals over relative harm (New York Times, 2015; Wild Wild Country, 2018).

Wilber, Cohen, and Gafni all engage with or implicitly endorse a version of the two truths doctrine, though their interpretations vary. Wilber is the most explicit, grounding it in his AQAL model. Cohen acknowledges it through his nondual and evolutionary lens. Gafni incorporates it within his integral and mystical frameworks.

Conclusion

Beware of anyone who alludes to The Two Truths Doctrine or starts talking about “ultimate truth.” A legitimate use of The Two Truths Doctrine is to de-legitimize every position and any justification as an absolute truth. An illegitimate use is to claim that The Two Truths Doctrine justifies the prioritization of one view, one perspective, one set of actions, over others. Ask questions. What exactly are they advocating? Is there some behavior that they or their in-group wants to justify? We live in a relative, not an absolute reality. Within that relative reality social norms and consensual laws exist. Respect for each other means not to attempt exceptions for ourselves, which amounts to spiritual bypass.

NOTES

1. Finnigan, M., (2010). Behind the Thangkas.
2. See Tricycle, (2018).
3. Osho, (1974). The Book of Secrets. pp. 90-100.
4. Wild Wild Country, Netflix, 2018.
5. (The Oregonian, September 16, 1985
6. Wilber, K., The Atman Project, 1980, pp. 192-193.
7. Falk, G.D., (2007). Stripping the Gurus. pp. 210-220.
8. Adi Da, (1985). The Dawn Horse Testament, pp. 45-50.
9. Yenner, A., (2009). American Guru.
10. van der Braak, (2003). Enlightenment Blues. pp. 112-115.
11. On Controversy by Sally Kempton & Ken Wilber, marc gafni.com, September 27, 2008, marcgafni.com
12. New York Times, December 25, 2015.
13. Gafni, M., (2012). Your Unique Self. pp. 70-75.
14. Ken Wilber Statement on Marc Gafni and the Center for Integral Wisdom, December 27, 2011, marcgafni.com
15. Ken Wilber's Response to the Marc Gafni Debacle, integrallife.com, archived February 6, 2016
16. Wilber, K., (2007). Integral Spirituality. pp. 251-253.
17. Wilber collaborated extensively with Cohen, co-founding the Integral Spiritual Center and appearing in dialogues published in What Is Enlightenment? (later EnlightenNext) magazine. In Integral Spirituality (2007), Wilber credits Cohen's “evolutionary enlightenment” as a dynamic extension of his own integral theory, praising Cohen's emphasis on collective awakening (Wilber, Integral Spirituality, Integral Books, pp. 251-253). In a 2006 statement on IntegralNaked.org, Wilber described Cohen as a “rude boy” of enlightenment, applauding his intense teaching style as a necessary challenge to egoic resistance, even amidst reports of Cohen's authoritarian behavior. Their public dialogues, such as “The Guru and the Pandit” series (2003-2010), showcased Wilber's endorsement of Cohen's vision. Cohen faced allegations of emotional, physical, and financial abuse from former students, detailed in books like American Guru (William Yenner, 2009) and Enlightenment Blues (André van der Braak, 2003). Wilber's support persisted during these controversies, though he later distanced himself after Cohen's 2013 community dissolution, without publicly retracting earlier endorsements.
18. Wilber co-authored a 2008 statement with Sally Kempton defending Gafni against allegations of sexual misconduct, published on Gafni's website (On Controversy by Sally Kempton & Ken Wilber, marc gafni.com, September 27, 2008). In the 2008 statement, Wilber and Kempton called Gafni a “gifted teacher” with “basic goodness,” asserting that allegations against him were “categorically false” after reviewing extensive material. Wilber also reaffirmed his support in a 2011 statement, rejoining the Center for Integral Wisdom's Wisdom Council and praising Gafni's response to criticism (Ken Wilber Statement on Marc Gafni and the Center for Integral Wisdom, marc gafni.com, December 27, 2011). In 2012, Wilber collaborated with Gafni on dialogues about “Unique Self,” published on uniqueself.com and ievolve.org, describing Gafni's work as a “shift in the source code of enlightenment” (Unique Self Dialogue: Ken Wilber & Marc Gafni, Part 4, ievolve.org, October 30, 2012). A 2016 dialogue on “Integral Wisdom” further solidified their partnership (Audio Dialogue with Ken Wilber & Marc Gafni on Evil, worldphilosophyandreligion.org, June 15, 2023).
    Gafni has faced multiple allegations of sexual assault and manipulation since the 1980s, including a 2015 New York Times article detailing his troubled past (A Spiritual Leader Gains Stature, Trailed by a Troubled Past, December 25, 2015). Wilber's defense often emphasized Gafni's spiritual brilliance and willingness to seek therapy, framing critics as misguided (Integral Life, “Ken Wilber's Response to the Marc Gafni Debacle,” archived February 6, 2016).
19. Wilber's support for Adi Da has been explicit. Wilber's book Up from Eden (1981) and subsequent writings praise Adi Da as a spiritual master. In The Atman Project (1980), Wilber describes Da as an “adept” whose teachings align with perennial wisdom, emphasizing his realization of nondual consciousness (Wilber, The Atman Project, Shambhala, pp. 192-193). In a 1996 interview with What Is Enlightenment? magazine, Wilber called Adi Da “one of the greatest spiritual realizers of all time,” arguing that his personal controversies and allegations of abuse) do not negate his spiritual depth. He suggested Da's “crazy wisdom” methods were misunderstood by critics (reprinted in Collected Works of Ken Wilber, Vol. 8, 2000). Despite Adi Da's documented history of sexual and psychological abuse allegations in the 1980s, Wilber maintained that Da's teachings on the “seven stages of life” were groundbreaking, integrating Eastern and Western spirituality. Critics note Wilber's reluctance to address the allegations directly, focusing instead on Da's philosophical contributions (Stripping the Gurus, Geoffrey D. Falk, 2007). My own take is that moral failings in the exterior quadrants do not negate accomplishments in the interior quadrants, but neither do strengths on the lines of cognition and spiritual intelligence compensate for or excuse weaknesses on the core moral line.
20. Meyerhoff, J., (2010). Bald Ambition. pp. 150-160.
21. Bauwens, M., (1005). “The Cult of Ken Wilber,” malankazlev.com, 3 May 2005
22. Falk, G.D., (2007), Stripping the Gurus.