Was Mi-pham a Dialectical Monist? On a Recent Study of Mi-pham's Interpretation of the Buddha-Nature Theory
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9893928 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Dorji Wangchuk (0000-0001-6183-8657, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2012 |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 15-38 |
| Publication date | 2012-02-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Indo-Iranian Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0019-7246 • E-ISSN: 1572-8536 |
| Publisher | Walter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1163/001972411x573262 |
| OpenAlex | W2022888195 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
Douglas S. Duckworth's Mipam on Buddha-Nature characterises Mi-pham's (1846–1912) philosophy (or philosophical approach) as “dialectical monism.” We should instead characterise it with a neo-Sanskritism, namely, “Yuganaddhavāda” (zung 'jug tu smra ba), lest we get bogged down by the usage of the term “dialectical monism.” While Duckworth is absolutely right in identifying Mi-pham as a proponent of “dialectical monism,” there is still a need to define and refine our understanding of Mi-pham's position, offer plausible explanations for it, and present various argumentative strategies employed for it by Mi-pham, all based on critically assessed textual sources that engage the idea of “unity” (zung 'jug: yuganaddha)
Dialectic · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy · Linguistics · Monism · Chinese history and philosophy · Indian and Buddhist Studies · Philosophy · Study and Philosophy of Religion
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,33 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2022 (3) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |