Fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhist logical studies.

Fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhist logical studies.

Collected works of Dmu-dge Bsam-gtan, predominantly on Buddhist doctrines, grammar, and history, including autobiographical writings (v.1), poetic works, refutations, etc.

History and development of Buddhism in general and Tibet in particular; includes comparative philosophy of Buddhism with Hinduism.

On Buddhist logic and dialectical studies.

History and development of Buddhism in general and Tibet in particular; includes comparative philosophy of Buddhism with Hinduism.

History and development of Buddhism in general and Tibet in particular; includes comparative philosophy of Buddhism with Hinduism.

Study on Buddhist logic (pramāṇa) system and its development in Tibet.

Study on Pramnānabhūta, Buddhist logic of authoritative.

Study on the Buddhist logic and its origin and development.

An analytical study on Samye debate held in 792-794 A.D. between the Indian monastic tradition headed by Pandit Kamalashila and the Chinese tradition of Ch'an (Zen) by Hoshang Buddhist monk for which form of Buddhism should prevail in Tibet.

Exegetical work on Buddhist logic (pramāṇaśastra); includes questions/answers format on Prajñāpāramitā.

Analytical study on the fundamentals of philosophy.

Study on Budhist Pramāṇa-vāda (doctrine of proof: an epistemological study of the nature of knowledge) and Hetu-vidya (science of causes: a system of logic).

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

A close reading of the three Bhavanakramah texts, written by Kamalasila, reveals that their author was aware of two competing concepts of meditation prevalent in Tibet at the time of their composition. The two concepts of meditation,associated with the Sanskrit words bhavana and dhyana, can be related respectively to the Indian and Chinese sides of the well-known debates at bSam yas. The account of the Mahayana path outlined in these texts implies an acceptance of the precedence of bhavana over (...) dhyana. In this paper I argue that Kamalasila advocated bhavana – a conception of meditation which encompasses non-conceptual dhyana, but which also includes a discernment of reality that is conceptual in nature. Such conceptual discernment should not be understood simply as a process of ordinary rational understanding but rather as constituting a special kind of meditative wisdom. A failure to recognize the subtle differences between Kamalasila’s employment of the terms dhyana and bhavana, along with his advocacy of the latter, could easily lead to mistranslation and, with this, a basic misunderstanding of his position. In particular, it could lead to a conception of insight that is overly intellectual in nature. Given the historically important role that these texts played in the formation of Tibetan Buddhism, the implications of such a misconception could be far-reaching. This paper attempts to clarify the key meditation terminology found in the Bhavanakramas as well as demonstrate the rationale for using ‘meditation’ as the default translation for bhavana. (shrink)