Was Mi-pham a Dialectical Monist? On a Recent Study of Mi-pham's Interpretation of the Buddha-Nature Theory

From Buddha-Nature

< Articles

Revision as of 22:37, 15 April 2020 by AlexC (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{Article |ArticleLayout=Academic Layout |ArticleTitle=Was Mi-pham a Dialectical Monist? On a Recent Study of Mi-pham's Interpretation of the Buddha-Nature Theory |AuthorP...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
LibraryArticlesWas Mi-pham a Dialectical Monist? On a Recent Study of Mi-pham's Interpretation of the Buddha-Nature Theory

Was Mi-pham a Dialectical Monist? On a Recent Study of Mi-pham's Interpretation of the Buddha-Nature Theory
Article
Article


Citation: Wangchuk, Dorji. "Was Mi-pham a Dialectical Monist? On a Recent Study of Mi-pham's Interpretation of the Buddha-Nature Theory." Indo-Iranian Journal 55 (2012): 15–38.

Abstract

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, "Yuganaddhavāada" (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).