No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
* {{i|6.3.2.2.2 Mipham's Analysis of Negation in the ''MAZL''|146}} | * {{i|6.3.2.2.2 Mipham's Analysis of Negation in the ''MAZL''|146}} | ||
* {{i|6.3.2.2.3 Mipham's Theory of the Ultimate: Gnosis and Coalescence|151}} | * {{i|6.3.2.2.3 Mipham's Theory of the Ultimate: Gnosis and Coalescence|151}} | ||
* {{i|6.3.3 Topics 3 and 4: Tsongkhapa and Mipham on Modal Apprehension and Analytical Reasoning|157}} | * {{i|6.3.3 Topics 3 and 4: Tsongkhapa and Mipham on Modal Apprehension and<br>Analytical Reasoning|157}} | ||
* {{i|6.3.3.1 Tsongkhapa on the Role of Conceptuality in Meditation|157}} | * {{i|6.3.3.1 Tsongkhapa on the Role of Conceptuality in Meditation|157}} | ||
* {{i|6.3.3.1.1 Yon tan rgya mtsho on Modal Apprehension and Analysis|160}}<br><br> | * {{i|6.3.3.1.1 Yon tan rgya mtsho on Modal Apprehension and Analysis|160}}<br><br> | ||
Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
* {{i|Index|557}} | * {{i|Index|557}} | ||
|AddRelatedTab=No | |AddRelatedTab=No | ||
|StopPersonRedirects=No | |||
}} | }} |
Revision as of 11:23, 5 August 2020
For centuries, Dzogchen—a special meditative practice to achieve spontaneous enlightenment—has been misinterpreted by both critics and malinformed meditators as being purely mystical and anti-rational. In the grand spirit of Buddhist debate, 19th century Buddhist philosopher Mipham wrote Beacon of Certainty, a compelling defense of Dzogchen philosophy that employs the very logic it was criticized as lacking. Through lucid and accessible textural translation and penetrating analysis, Pettit presents Mipham as one of Tibet's greatest thinkers. (Source: Wisdom Publications)
Citation | Pettit, John W. Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzogchen, the Great Perfection. Studies in Indian and Tibetan Buddhism. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1999. |
---|---|