Is Ratnākaraśānti a gZhan stong pa?

Journal of Indian Philosophy 46 (3):577-619 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The doctrinal position of Ratnākaraśānti is a source of great controversy among modern scholars. As diversified as the modern understanding of Ratnākaraśānti’s doctrinal position is the traditional ways in which the gZhan stong view is defined in Tibet. This paper aims to argue, with special attention paid on his presentation of the three natures, that Ratnākaraśānti defines his own doctrine as Rang bzhin gsum gyi dbu ma / *Trisvabhāva- mādhyamika in his “Core Trilogy”: the Prajñāpāramitopadeśa, the Madhyamakālaṅkāropadeśa, and the Madhyamakālaṅkāravṛttimadhyamapratipatsiddhi, demonstrate, by comparing Ratnākaraśānti’s view with that of the orthodox Jo nang authors represented by Dol po pa Shes rab rgyal mtshan and Tāranātha, that Ratnākaraśānti is arguably a gZhan stong pa in its strictest sense, and problematize Brunnhölzl and Sponberg’s classification of different accounts of the three natures in Indian, Tibetan and Chinese sources.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,509

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Tantric Context of Ratnākaraśānti’s Philosophy of Mind.Davey Tomlinson - 2018 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 46 (2):355-372.
Can We Speak of Kadam Gzhan Stong?Tsering Wangchuk - 2016 - Journal of Buddhist Philosophy 2:9-22.
Doctrinal Gnosis in Islam: Position and Significance.Halilović Tehran - 2014 - Kom: Časopis Za Religijske Nauke 3 (2):21-34.
Legal Theory and Legal Doctrinal Scholarship.Mátyás Bódig - 2010 - Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 23 (2):483-514.
The Unassumed is the Unhealed1: M. F. WILES.M. F. Wiles - 1968 - Religious Studies 4 (1):47-56.


Added to PP

21 (#536,903)

6 months
2 (#277,663)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?