On correct method of understanding various Buddhist philosophical concepts according to sutras and tantras in accordance with Karmapa VIII Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje interpreation.

Buddist literature; explanatory commentaries on Tantra philosophy, and commentary on the Mañjuśrīnāmasaṅgīti (Praise to Manjushri).

Critical study on philosophical concept of Buddhist logic interpreted by prominent Buddhist logicians; contributed articles.

Collection of texts on dialectial study of Buddhist logic.

Comparative study on philosophical position (siddhānta) of the Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācārya, and Mādhyamika schools of Buddhism.

Compilation of some important works on basic course of study of elementary Buddhist logic and dialectrical studies of Bkra-śis-lhun-po Monastery, a college of Buddhist studies in Bylakuppe, Karnataka, India.

Study on Buddhist logic and Mādhyamika philosophy according to ʾBrug-pa Bkaʾ-brgyud's interpretation.

On Buddhist doctrinal and philosophical interpretation of Sakyapa tradition.

Critical analysis on essential points of the seven texts of Buddhist logic (Sapta Pramāṇaśāstra).

Collected works of ʼJam-dbyaṅs Blo-gter-dbaṅ-po on Nyingmapa and Sakyapa doctrines, philosophy, rituals etc.

A comparative study of Tibetan Buddhist logic and Aristotelian logic of argument.

Study on Trilaksaṇa, the four seals of the Buddhist doctrine.

From the perspective of philosophy of religion, Part 1 of this essay examines the original vision of the faith ‘Brahmo Dharma’ as ‘Reform Hinduism’, a ‘sect’ within the larger religious tradition as ‘Vedantic monotheism’ founded by Raja Rammohun Roy in 1828—with the nineteenth-century ‘Bengal Renaissance’ in the background. Roy questioned the authority of revelation given in the Brahmanas in the Vedic Scriptures and endeavoured a democratization of the Vedanta, rejecting the caste system as well as idolatry. It charts the transition (...) of the Faith from ‘Reform Hinduism’ to Debendranath Tagore’s Codification given in his book Brahmo Dharma, 1850, interpreting it as an ‘independent religion’, not adhering to the authority of the Vedas including the Vedanta or any other religious scripture. This essay marks the recent legal claim in Supreme Court of the Brahmo Samaj that its Faith ‘Brahmo Dharma’ is non-Hindu, and as an ‘independent religion’, it is deserving of ‘minority’ status. The role of British colonialism pertaining to the legal history of ‘Brahmo Dharma’ is reviewed here to bring forward Brahmo Samaj’s contemporary claim of ‘Brahmo Dharma’ being ‘non-Hindu’. Focusing on ‘religious reform’ as primary to ‘social reform’, in this context, this essay reflects upon the interpretation of the Faith—arguing that ‘reform in religion’ ought to be recognizable in law, not merely customs and rituals, considering ‘the Spirit of the Faith’ which is essentially ‘Upanishad–Vedanta’. (shrink)

Exegetical notes on the explanation of philosophical positions (siddhānta) of the Vaibhāsika, Sautrāntika, Yogācārya, and Mādhyamika schools of Buddhism with Hinduism based on the Dkon-mchog ʾJigs-med-dbaṅ-po's text.

作者是西藏共產黨的創始人，也是世界第一人以辯證法證出月球存有液態水。這是一本以辯證法原理闡述的論文彙編，書中詳細分析質量的運動周期，為了解辯證結構規律及運動規律之專著。.

Critical study on Mādhyamika philosophy of Madhyamakāvatāra of Candrakīrti.

本书基本内容可分主体的社会辩证法与次体的自然辩证法两大部分。对于辩证法构成根基的逻辑公式及推动根基的周期定律,对社会及自然各主要学科的辩证分析作了扼要的论述。.

本书作者耗费数十年心血,研究和总结出来辩证法结构与运动规律的逻辑公式、周期定律及其示意图解,对社会科学和自然科学各主要学科作了辩证的分析,探索了它们的本质联系和运动规律。.

Exegesis on Buddhist logic and dialectical study; includes fundamental principles of Buddhist philosophy.

Study of a classical critic of Avicenna's views on the existence and nature of God.

The problem of cultural environment is not new, but the use of the theory on cultural environment is clearly a new approach to the consideration of familiar questions. That is the problem, is it true that the context has become such that man, as an individual, is becoming increasingly smaller, weaker, more tightly defined and restrained, in a society which is steadily developing in the direction of becoming multi-dimensional and ambiguous with its “logic of imposition”? As for the cultural environment, (...) is it true that the part in it where man has no right to choose, the part which he is compelled to adapt to, will grow bigger and bigger than the part each individual, each community can create, build, and amend? More concretely, is it true that the European rationalist and anthropological culture has become too “classical” and “secular,” now getting replaced by a “fast-food culture” or “stewing-pot culture”? Or is it only a “superficial choice” of globalization times? Is the present philosophy too weak, leaving society to the mercy of less-than-clairvoyant logics of life, in which “such environment, such man” is only one of many behavioral logics which are not too bad in modern social relation? Or has the role of philosophy itself changed - the “Flat world” philosophy now deprived of the responsibility to control, regulate, and, as necessary, determine the context, as it was in the past? Base upon reliable qualitative and quantitative datas, thepaper prover that: 1. If natural environment is the regrouping of factors outside the social-human system making conditions necessary for this system to exist and develop, then cultural environment is regrouping of factors inside the social-human system making sufficient conditions for each subsystem of this system to identify itself and progress. 2. Never in the past has the cultural environment in Vietnam been so rich and varied, so dynamic and positive, so encouraging and attractive, with so many opportunities and challenges as is now the case. The degree of richness and diversity, the dynamic and active rhythm of Vietnam’s cultural environment are now enough to foster good ideas and stimulate discovery and creation. But on the flip side, there are still many challenges andattractions, so hopefully every individual, family, and community will become vigilant before the risk of losing the way or making a mistake. (shrink)

“The Strong Programme” is put forward as a metaphysical theory of sociology by the Edinburgh School (SSK) to study the social causes of knowledge. Barry Barnes and David Bloor are the proponents of the School. They call their programme “the Relativist View of Knowledge” and argue against rationalism in the philosophy of science. Does their relativist account of knowledge present a serious challenge to rationalism, which has dominated 20th century philosophy of science? I attempt to answer this question by criticizing (...) the main ideas of SSK and defending rationalism theories in modern philosophy of science. (shrink)

On elementary Buddhist logic and dialectical studies.

Explanatory notes on the philosophical positions (sidhānta) of Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācāra, and Mādhyamika schools of Buddhism with Hinduism.