No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
*{{i|INTRODUCTION|1}} | *{{i|INTRODUCTION|1}} | ||
*{{i|CHAPTER 1. RNGOG LO-TSĀ-BA BLO-LDAN SHES-RAB AND THE RNGOG-LUGS OF EPISTEMOLOGY|29}} | *{{i|CHAPTER 1. RNGOG LO-TSĀ-BA BLO-LDAN SHES-RAB AND THE <br>RNGOG-LUGS OF EPISTEMOLOGY|29}} | ||
*{{i|CHAPTER 2. PHYA-PA CHOS-KYI SENG.-GE AND THE TSHAD-MA BSDUS-PA YID-KYI MUN-SEL|59}} | *{{i|CHAPTER 2. PHYA-PA CHOS-KYI SENG.-GE AND THE TSHAD-MA <br>BSDUS-PA YID-KYI MUN-SEL|59}} | ||
*{{i|CHAPTER 3. SA-SKYA PANDXTA KUN-DGA' RGYAL-MTSHAN AND THE TSHAD MA RIGS-PA'I-GTER|97}} | *{{i|CHAPTER 3. SA-SKYA PANDXTA KUN-DGA' RGYAL-MTSHAN AND THE TSHAD MA RIGS-PA'I-GTER|97}} | ||
*{{i|CHAPTER 4. A TOPICAL OUTLINE OF GO-RAM-PA'S PRAMĀNAVĀRTTIKA COMMENTARY THE "RADIANT LIGHT OF SAMANTABHADRA"|116}} | *{{i|CHAPTER 4. A TOPICAL OUTLINE OF GO-RAM-PA'S <br>PRAMĀNAVĀRTTIKA COMMENTARY THE "RADIANT LIGHT OF SAMANTABHADRA"|116}} | ||
*{{i|BIBLIOGRAPHIES|241}} | *{{i|BIBLIOGRAPHIES|241}} | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
*{{i|ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS|330}} | *{{i|ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS|330}} | ||
|AddRelatedTab=No | |AddRelatedTab=No | ||
|StopPersonRedirects=No | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 17:20, 24 July 2020
The present paper is a considerably revised version of my doctoral dissertation entitled "Contributions to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist Logic - from the eleventh to the fifteenth century." This dissertation was submitted to the Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Hamburg, in January of 1979. The title has been changed for two reasons. The first of these is a conceptual one. Namely, in the course of my subsequent studies of Buddhist tshad-ma (pramāṇa), I have decided to translate this fundamentally untranslatable term by 'epistemology'. While this rendition does also not do justice to its semantic range, I feel that it has at least the merit of being less misleading than the more widely used 'logic', especially for those who have no background in Indian or Tibetan studies, and who may chance to come across this title. It is and remains an untranslatable term.
The second reason for my changing the original title of my dissertation, is that I felt obliged to change its scope. The vast literature on Tibetan Buddhist epistemology, which has become available during the last few years, necessitated such a curtailment. Especially the presently available Dga'-ldan-pa contributions by Rgyal-tshab-rje and Mkhas-grubrje, in particular, need to be properly assessed, and this takes time. Moreover, much but not all of the subsequent Sa-skya-pa literature in this area by Go-ram-pa and Gser-mdog Pan-chen must be read with the particular theories of these Dga'-ldan-pa philosophers in mind. To undertake such a comparative study cannot be done in a hurried fashion. Some references to the Dga'-ldan-pa contributions have, however, been made in the course of this paper on the basis of my original access to but a limited number of their writings. Nonetheless, a significant portion of my dissertation that deals with the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, has been included in the footnotes of the present paper where I was concerned with historical or bio-bibliographical details. (van der Kuijp, preface, vii)
| Citation | Kuijp, Leonard W. J. van der. Contributions to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology: From the Eleventh to the Thirteenth Century. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 26. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1983. https://www.scribd.com/document/255465514/Contributions-to-the-Development-of-Tibetan-Buddhist-Epistemology. |
|---|---|
