摘要
In the Circle of Tibetan Buddhism, many Scholars holds that the idia of “zhan?stong”, is the unique doctrine of Jo?Nang Pa, as an heathen fallacy without evidential support form Indian Buddhist Scriptures, and thus simply brushes it aside. Through detailed comparison and contrast of various Han Chinese and Tibetan versions of scriptures directly translated from Indian Buddhist Scriptures, this article has intensively traced the original meaning, the appellation, and the headwater of “zhan?stong” as a dey Jo?Nang Pa concept. As a result, it validated the fact that both content and appellation of “zhan?stong” are strictly in accordance with the original Buddhist Scriptures’ normal idealism (sTag?Drub Pa’i Sems?Tsam). It is neither a heresy falling away from the Indian Scriptures and Comments, nor an arbitrary fabrication. In this light, the article tries to put an end to an academic case that has lasted for a thousand years in the history of Tibetan Buddhism.
In the Circle of Tibetan Buddhism, many Scholars holds that the idia of “zhan?stong”, is the unique doctrine of Jo?Nang Pa, as an heathen fallacy without evidential support form Indian Buddhist Scriptures, and thus simply brushes it aside. Through detailed comparison and contrast of various Han Chinese and Tibetan versions of scriptures directly translated from Indian Buddhist Scriptures, this article has intensively traced the original meaning, the appellation, and the headwater of “zhan?stong” as a dey Jo?Nang Pa concept. As a result, it validated the fact that both content and appellation of “zhan?stong” are strictly in accordance with the original Buddhist Scriptures' normal idealism (sTag?Drub Pa'i Sems?Tsam). It is neither a heresy falling away from the Indian Scriptures and Comments, nor an arbitrary fabrication. In this light, the article tries to put an end to an academic case that has lasted for a thousand years in the history of Tibetan Buddhism.
出处
《哲学研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2001年第9期60-71,共12页
Philosophical Research
