Literal explanation of the ʼJam-dbyaṅs-bźad-pa Ṅag-dbaṅ-brtson-ʼgrus's text Grub mthaʼi rnam par bźag pa ʼkhrul spoṅ gdoṅ lṅaʼi sgra dbyaṅs kun mkhyen lam bzaṅ gsal baʼi rin chen sgron me, deals on comparative study of the philosophical systems (siddhānta) of Buddhism and Hinduism.

Root text and autocommentary on Buddhist logic.

Collected works of Sman-ri-ba Mnyam-med Shes-rabs-rgyal-mtshan, Bonpo scholar on Bon doctrines, reverential prayers, sadhanas and tantric texts.

On Bonpo system of philosophical debate on logical points.

Root text with two commentaries i.e. Sde bdun mdo daṅ bcas paʾi dgoṅs pa phyin ci ma log par ʾgrel pa tshad ma rigs paʾi gter gyi don gsal bar byed pa by Go-rams-pa Bsod-nams-seṅ-ge and Tshad ma rigs paʾi gter gyi mchan ʾgrel sde bdun gsal baʾi sgron me by ʾJam-dbyaṅs Blo-gter-dbaṅ-po on principles of Buddhist logic.

Sellected collection of tantric canonical texts of the Nyingma order on Rdzogs-chen philosophy.

Critical analysis of Pramana (Buddhist logic) subject.

Exegetical works on Buddhist doctrines and philosophies according to the interpretation of Sa-skya-pa sect.

Selected writings, including those of Gʹyu-thog Yon-tan-mgon-po, 1126 to 1202, on the morality of Tibetan medicine.

Root text and autocommentary on the principles of Buddhist logic.

Basic course of study of elementary Buddhist logic and dialetrical studies.

Root text accompanied with autocommentary on Bon logic.

Exegetical work on Pramāṇavārttikā of Dharmakirtī, 7th cent.

Text with commentary of Ye-shes-rgyal-mtshan's Theg dgu spyi bciṅs kyi ʼgrel bshad nyi maʼi ʼod zer on general perspective of the philosophical concept of Buddhist doctrine.

Translation and commentaries to the famous Mongolian Buddhist philosophy work written by Zanabazar.

Collection of Buddha's teaching (Tib. Bkaʼ) translated into Tibetan (ʼgyur).

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. (shrink)

On the history, structure, and importance of the elementary Buddhist logic and dialectrical studies in Tibet.

On the fundamentals of Buddhist doctrines; including explation of the karmic law of cause and effect with stories.

Collection of commentaries on Buddha's teaching written by Indian scholars and translated into Tibetan (Tib. Bstan ʼgyur).

Commentary on Grub paʼi mthaʼi rnam par bzhag pa rin po cheʼi ʼphreng ba text authored by ʼJam-dbyangs-bzhad-pa II Dkon-mchog ʼJigs-med-dbang-po,1728-1791.

His Holiness teachings on the philosophical positions (siddhānta) of the Vaibhāṣika, Sautrāntika, Yogācārya, and Mādhyamika schools of Buddhism with Hinduism.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Jesus the World-Protector:Eighteenth-Century Gelukpa Historians View Christianity1Michael J. SweetThe assumption that religion was so seamlessly woven into non-Western and preindustrial cultures that it was not even distinguished as a separate entity, let alone regarded as an object for study, has been a commonplace among Western scholars of religion for some decades.2 From this point of view, which can be broadly characterized as postmodernist and postcolonialist, the concept of religion (...) "is not a native category... it is a category imposed from outside... it is the other... colonialists who are solely responsible for the content of the term."3 This is a somewhat reductionistic and Eurocentric perspective that ignores the universal human capacity to empathically understand other belief systems.One counterexample to this school of thought is found in the works of three eighteenth-century religious historians, all of whom were learned monks in the Gelukpa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism: Gombojab (Mgon po Skyabs, late seventeenth century–after 1766),4 Sumba Khembo (Sum pa Mkhan po Yes shes dpal 'byor, 1704–1776), and Tuken (Thu'u Bkwan Blo bzang Chos kyi Nyi ma, 1737– 1802), authors of The History of Buddhism in China, The Auspicious Wish-Fulfilling Tree,5 and The Crystal Mirror,6 respectively. These scholars had clear conceptions of their own and other religious systems (Tib.: chos lugs), and compared to earlier Tibetan accounts they present relatively tolerant evaluations of other religious philosophies—for example, Chinese Buddhism, Daoism, and the Literati Tradition (Ru jiao, "Confucianism")—while asserting the superiority of the Gelukpa form of Tibetan Buddhism.7As a case in point, we will see how they describe and evaluate Christianity, a religion that was quite foreign to them and that they appear to have understood only imperfectly. Earlier Tibetan Buddhist religious histories, of which the best-known are the Blue Annals of 'Gos Lotsawa and Bu ston's "History of the Dharma," are immensely valuable sources, but they are more parochial in their range of interest than those of the eighteenth-century Tibeto-Mongol scholars.8 For the earlier historians Indo-Tibetan Buddhism was the only religious system worth serious consideration, and Chinese Buddhism, Indian non-Buddhist religious philosophies, Bon, [End Page 173] and Islam were dealt with in a polemical or (especially in the case of Islam) a frankly hostile fashion. Something changed in the eighteenth century that produced works closer to modern comparative religion than to medieval heresiography.A major motive for this shift was surely the triumph of the Manchu Qing dynasty, which by the mid-eighteenth century had incorporated Tibet and Mongolia definitively into its sphere. Thus, the horizon of the Tibeto-Mongol intelligentsia widened to include the vast Manchu empire, whose leadership in its turn was becoming increasingly aware of other Asian societies and of the European colonial powers. I believe it is significant that Sumba Khembo, Tuken, and Gombojab were all of Mongol ethnicity, the first two from Amdo and the last from Mongolia; they were able to combine an encyclopedic mastery of Tibetan Buddhist texts and ritual with the greater objectivity available to people stemming from the geographical and cultural periphery of that tradition. All three of them were exposed to the cosmopolitan world of imperial Beijing, where they had ample opportunity to meet followers of non-Buddhist religions of a wide range of ethnicities.9By the mid-eighteenth century there were four Catholic churches in Beijing, serving thousands of Chinese Christian converts. Dozens of European priests were employed by the imperial court as well.10 The prevailing syncretic view of the three major Chinese religious philosophies (sanjiao)—Buddhism, Daoism, and the Literati Tradition—as being mutually complementary,11 prevailed in the capital. This is the view that is approvingly cited by Tuken: "there are three great traditions (lugs srol) which clarify the ultimate nature of things, the Literati Tradition, Daoism, and Buddhism."12In turning to these scholars' treatment of Christianity, we find the earliest notice of this religion in Gombojab's History of Buddhism in China,13 written around the mid-1730s.14 Gombojab renders the name of Jesus in its traditional Chinese form of Yesu; he is called the World... (shrink)

Commentary on Tshad ma rigs gter, a work on Buddhist logic by Sa-skya Paṇḍi-ṭa Kun-dgaʾ-rgyal-mtshan, 1182-1251.