[page 187] Texts of the bsdus grwa genre were some of the most influential works of Tibetan philosophical literature, since more than any other genre of text they determined how scholastics in the predominant dGe lugs pa tradition of Tibetan Buddhism reasoned and conceptualized. The term bsdus grwa or bsdus rwa originally probably meant bsdus pa slob pa'i sde tshan gyi grwa or "the schools or classes in which [primary students] learn bsdus pa or summarized topics [of logic or dialectics]." Later, the term was etymologized as rig pa'i rnam grangs du ma phyogs gcig tu bsdus pa'i grwa, or "the class where many arguments are summarized together."1 In modern usage, the term has both a general and a more restricted meaning. bsDus grwa in its broad sense means the introductory course or classes in dialectics, which consist of the three categories: bsdus grwa (in the narrow sense; ontology), blo rigs (epistemology) and rtags rigs (logic). Without mastering these basic stages, a student cannot advance any further in the dGe lugs pa tradition of Tibetan Buddhist scholasticism.

Although there exist a few differences in the dGe lugs pa monastic curricula among different colleges, in the main there are five principal subjects to be taught, which are known as the "five books" (po ṭi lnga): (1) Pramāṇa (tshad ma), (2) Prajñāpāramitā (phar phyin), (3) Madhyamaka (dbu ma), (4) Vinaya ('dul ba), and (5) [page 188] Abhidharmakośa (mngon mdzod). Each of these subjects is divided into small classes (called 'dzin grwa), and by advancing through these classes—a process which takes at least ten years—one can finally attain the degree of dge bshes (see Newland, in this volume).

Here we should remark that the last four of these five subjects, i.e., Prajñāpāramitā, Madhyamaka, Vinaya and Abhidharmakośa, are studied in direct dependence upon original Indian texts (rgya gzhung). As for Pramāṇa, however, the initial study by dGe lugs pa monks is undertaken exclusively on the basis of the native Tibetan bsdus grwa literature, rather than Indian texts, and at this initial stage the subject of study is commonly called bsdus grwa or rigs lam, instead of tshad ma (pramāṇa: Indian Buddhist logic and epistemology) properly speaking.

All monastic universities are composed of a number of grwa tshang, or self-supported colleges, and most of these colleges have a few khang tshan, or regional houses. Students live in khang tshans associated with their native place, and during the school term they attend their appointed class ('dzin grwa) in the grwa tshang. One year is divided into seven or eight school terms. Apart from the two terms of mid summer and mid winter, lessons are held inside the college.2

As we have said, the course of bsdus grwa can be divided into the following three stages: bsdus grwa (in the narrow sense), blo rigs and rtags rigs. Roughly speaking, these three treat of ontology, epistemology and logic, respectively. This threefold classification is sometimes expressed as the study of "objects" (yul), "subjects" (yul can), and "the ways to cognize objects" (yul de rtogs pa'i tshul). The precise contents of bsdus grwa texts are not completely uniform, but these texts do nonetheless share a corpus of principal subjects or "lessons" (rnam bzhag).

Let us now briefly examine the contents of bsdus grwa, blo rigs and rtags rigs by focusing on a few representative subjects. The first stage of the primary course is bsdus grwa in its narrow sense, generally comprised of three lessons. The first, which is common to all colleges, is known as "kha dog dkar dmar," which literally means "white and red colors." Some colleges even assign a separate class ('dzin grwa) to the subject. At this stage, students learn [page 189] about the notion of pervasion or entailment (khyab pa), as occurs, for example, between white color and color itself—the former entailing the latter. Similarly, students learn to differentiate between general propositions involving pervasions, such as "whatever is red must be a color" (dmar po yin na kha dog yin pas khyab), and those involving specific topics (chos can), such as "take as the topic, red; it is a color" (dmar po chos can kha dog yin) (see Tillemans: 286).

In the next class, called gzhi grub (literally, "established bases"), students are introduced to some ontological notions construed more or less in accordance with the system of the Indian Sautrāntika school, especially as it is portrayed by Dharmakīrti. Here again, students pay special attention to the inclusions and differentiations holding among the key concepts.

After completing this initial class, students proceed to the next, where they learn more abstract and theoretical notions. At this level, schemata necessary for logical thinking such as concept (ldog pa, literally "isolate"), cause and effect (rgyu dang 'bras bu), genus and species (spyi dang bye brag), relations and contraries ('brel ba dang 'gal ba) and definition and definiendum (mtshan nyid dang mtshon bya) are introduced and examined.3 In the last class of this first stage, students learn to use the thal 'gyur (prasaṅga) argumentation form, i.e., "consequences" or "reductio ad absurdum" (see Onoda, 1986, 1988) and other logical operators such as "implicative negations" and "non-implicative negations" (ma yin dgag dang med dgag). In short, the purpose of this first stage, i.e., bsdus grwa as more narrowly conceived, is not only to introduce students to basic theoretical schemata, but also to allow them to acquire the practical mastery of debating techniques which will be indispensable for more advanced dialectical study.

When a student has finished the initial stage of bsdus grwa classes, he is allowed to proceed to the next stage, i.e., blo rigs, which is largely concerned with epistemological matters. The main subjects are the classifications of cognition in terms of "valid and invalid means of cognition" (tshad ma dang tshad min), "conceptual and non-conceptual cognition" (rtog pa dang rtog med), "self-awareness and other-awareness" (rang rig dang gzhan rig) and "mind and mental factors" (sems dang sems byung). These classifications in turn frequently admit of sub-classifications. For example, invalid means of cognition (tshad min) is divided into five: subsequent cognition (dpyad shes), true presumption (yid dpyod), inattentive cognition (snang la ma nges pa), doubt (the tshom), and erroneous [page 190] cognition (log shes). Valid means of cognition (tshad ma) is divided into two: direct perception (mngon sum gyi tshad ma) and inference (rjes su dpag pa'i tshad ma). It should be noted that this type of sevenfold division of cognition (blo rigs bdun du dbye ba) is said to have originated with Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge (1109-1169) (see van der Kuijp, 1979).

The last stage, rtags rigs (see Onoda, 1981), introduces an Indian type of logic centered around the elaboration of the threefold criteria—the so-called tshul gsum (or trairūpya)—which enables one to distinguish between correct, or valid, logical marks (rtags yang dag) and those which are invalid, or more literally are pseudo-marks (rtags ltar snang).

These three types of texts—bsdus grwa, blo rigs and rtags rigs—teach students the practical applications of disputation or debate (rtsod pa). One of the main reasons why adepts of such a training are called mtshan nyid pa is that they pay special attention to terms and definitions (mtshan nyid), memorizing them and analysing them for inconsistencies, insufficiencies and redundancies. A further reason as to why this preliminary training is so indispensable is that the school manuals (yig cha) for advanced classes such as Prajñāpāramitā and Madhyamaka are written in the special style and format which we find in bsdus grwa texts. This format, where arguments are presented largely by means of prasaṅgas (thal 'gyur), was christened thal phyir, or "sequence and reason," by Stcherbatsky (55), who maintained that it probably had its origins with Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge (see Jackson, 1987: 152, n. 28; cf. van der Kuijp, 1983: 294, n. 220).

Both the conventional style and contents of the so-called bsdus grwa literature are widely said to have originated with the eighteen bsdus grwa subjects of Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge. According to A khu rin po che's list of rare books, Phya pa wrote two Pramāṇa summaries: one entitled Tshad [ma'i] bsdus [pa] yid kyi mun sel (MHTL 11805) and the other Tshad ma'i bsdus pa yid kyi mun sel rang 'grel dang bcas pa (MHTL 11804). Probably one was a verse work and the other was its autocommentary. According to Śākya mchog ldan (1428-1507), Phya pa wrote not only these Pramāṇa summaries but also an dBu ma bsdus pa ("Madhyamaka Summary"). Aside from Phya pa, other scholars of gSang phu Monastery are also [page 191] said to have written texts entitled bsdus pa. For instance, rGya dmar ba Byang chub grags who was a student of rNgog lo tsā ba (1059-1109) is said to have written several Tshad ma'i bsdus pa (MHTL 11810).4 gTsang nag pa brTson 'grus seng ge (twelfth century) wrote an dBu ma'i bsdus pa. Chu mig pa (thirteenth century) who was an abbot of gSang phu Upper Monastery, also wrote a Tshad ma bsdus pa (NTTR: 453). Even among the works of 'U yug pa (thirteenth century) of the early Sa skya pa we can find the title bsDus pa rigs sgrub, though this may simply be an abridgment of his famous Pramāṇa work. Although we cannot be sure about the contents of these works until the texts themselves appear, the term bsdus pa in their titles probably can be translated as "Summary." But as noted above, such a term was not used only for Pramāṇa summaries in the early period (twelfth to thirteenth centuries).

According to Klong rdol bla ma (1719-1794/5),5 Phya pa summarized Pramāṇa theories into the following eighteen subjects in his Tshad ma'i bsdus pa yid kyi mun sel:

1. (1) white and red colors (kha dog dkar dmar)
2. (2) substantial phenomena and conceptual phenomena (rdzas chos ldog chos)
3. (3) contraries and non-contraries ('gal dang mi 'gal)
4. (4) genus and species (spyi dang bye brag)
5. (5) related and unrelated ('brel dang ma 'brel)
6. (6) difference and non-difference (tha dad thad [= tha dad] min)
7. (7) positive and negative concomitances (rjes su 'gro ldog)
8. (8) cause and effect (rgyu dang 'bras bu)
9. (9) the three times (snga bcan bar bcan phyi bcan)
10. (10)definition and definiendum (mtshan mtshon)
11. (11) [prasaṅgas] with multiple reasons and multiple predicates (rtags mang gsal mang)
12. (12) exclusionary negations and determinations (dgag pa phar tshur)
13. (13) direct and indirect contraries (dngos 'gal rgyud 'gal)
14. (14) equal pervasions (khyab mnyam)
15. (15) being and non-being (yin gyur min gyur)
16. (16) negation of being and negation of non-being (yin log min log)
17. (17) cognizing existence and cognizing nonexistence (yod rtogs med rtogs)
18. (18) cognizing permanence and cognizing real entities (rtag rtogs dngos rtogs)[page 192]

The great scholar Sa skya Paṇḍita Kun dga' rgyal mtshan (1182-1251), in his Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter, criticised many of Phya pa's theories, showing how the latter's ideas differ from those of Indian Buddhist philosophers, who for Sa paṇ were the only source of authentic Buddhism. Sa skya Paṇḍita's criticisms relied predominantly on Dharmakīrti's own texts, with the result that after Sa paṇ, the theoretical focus of Pramāṇa studies in Tibet slowly but gradually shifted away from Phya pa's so-called Tibetan style to Sa skya Paṇḍita's more Indian-based orientation. Nonetheless, on the practical level, most dGe lugs pa and to some extent even Sa skya pa scholars continued to practice Phya pa's style of logic, debating on such typical Phya pa subjects as substantial and conceptual phenomena (rdzas chos ldog chos), even though some were aware that such subjects were simply Tibetan in origin.6 Especially in the dGe lugs pa school, with the establishment of the big monastic universities, it was the bsdus grwa tradition propagated by Phya pa that continued as the primary practice for beginners in dialectics.

About three centuries after Phya pa's activity, mChog lha 'od zer (1429-1500),7 who occupied the abbatial seat of gSang phu just as Phya pa had previously done, composed the manual known as the Ra bstod bsdus grwa. This text was widely used as the beginner's manual not only in the dGe lugs pa monasteries but also, it is said, in one or two Sa skya pa seminaries (such as at modern Na-lendra). mChog lha 'od zer wrote this text mostly based on Phya pa's tradition but also adopted a few elements of Sa skya Paṇḍita's position.8

Even after the three major dGe lugs pa monasteries in the Lhasa area had developed their own sets of debate manuals (yig cha), the Ra bstod bsdus grwa was still used by dGe lugs pa monks when they began their basic Pramāṇa studies. Another famous bsdus grwa text, the bTsan po bsdus grwa, was written at the Ra bstod college of gSang phu by gSer khang pa Dam chos rnam rgyal (seventeenth century), who served as the twenty-first abbot of the Ra bstod college, i.e., fourteen abbots later than mChog lha 'od zer (Vostrikov: 61) (see Onoda, 1989c, 1991). Unfortunately, since the text is lost, we know only the subject headings in the bTsan po bsdus grwa, but [page 193] they can be seen to exhibit a close resemblance to those of mChog lha 'od zer's work.9

The bTsan po bsdus grwa was written in response to a request from Ngag dbang 'phrin las lhun grub (1622-1699). The word "bTsan po" stands for "bTsan po no mon han," which was the honorific title of Ngag dbang 'phrin las lhun grub, the teacher of the celebrated dGe lugs pa author of scholastic manuals 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa'i rdo rje (1648-1721), who in turn served as the teacher of Sras Ngag dbang bkra bshis (1678-1738), author of the influential Sras bsdus grwa used in 'Bras spungs sGo mang College. So, in short, we can say that Ngag dbang 'phrin las lhun grub was probably the person who served as the link between the 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa tradition of bsdus grwa and the bsdus grwa tradition which had been handed down at gSang phu Monastery since Phya pa Chos kyi seng ge.

It is as yet unknown how many bsdus grwa texts Ngag dbang 'phrin las himself actually wrote, but we are informed (van der Kuijp, 1989: 16) that he wrote a bsDus grwa'i rnam bzhag cha tshang ba'i rig gnas legs bshad bang mdzod (Smith: 70), which has the following six subjects:

1. (1) pervasions (khyab mtha')
2. (2) negation of being and negation of non-being (yin log min log)
3. (3) cause and effect (rgyu 'bras)
4. (4) definition and definiendum (mtshan mtshon)
5. (5) genus and species (spyi bye brag)
6. (6) substantial phenomena and conceptual phenomena (rdzas ldog)

It should be noted that in the Complete Works of 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa'i rdo rje there is a bsdus grwa text entitled Kha dog dkar dmar,10 which has exactly the same six subjects as Ngag dbang 'phrin las lhun grub's shorter work. Here then is possible further confirmation of the relationship between the gSang phu lineage of bsdus grwa studies of Ngag dbang 'phrin las and that of sGo mang College.

The Complete Works of 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa'i rdo rje has four other titles which are concerned with bsdus grwa:11

1. (1) Presentation of bsdus grwa called "elegant description" (bsDus grwa'i rnam bzhag legs par bshad pa)[page 194]
2. (2) A summary of the advanced presentation of prasaṅga (Thal 'gyur che ba'i rnam bzhag mdor bsdus)
3. (3) Advanced presentation of bsdus grwa called "the golden key to open the art of science" (bsDus chen gyi rnam bzhag rigs lam gser gyi sgo 'byed)
4. (4) The essence of bsdus grwa called "the treasury of whole presentations" in verse (bsDus sbyor gyi snying po kun bsdus rig pa'i mdzod rtsa tshig)

In addition to these bsdus grwa of 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa, a number of other influential bsdus grwa texts were written as college manuals for the dGe lugs pa monastic universities.12 Blo gsal gling College of 'Bras spungs Monastery used Paṇ chen bSod nams grags pa's (1478-1554) bsdus grwa. sGo mang College used not only the above-mentioned bsdus grwas of 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa, but also that of Ngag dbang bkra shis, which was commonly known as the Khri rgan tshang gi bsdus grwa or Sras ngag dbang bkra shis bsdus grwa because the author was a chief disciple (sras) of 'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa'i rdo rje (Vostrikov: 61).13

Perhaps nowadays the most widely used bsdus grwa is the Phur lcog bsdus grwa, which was adopted as a school manual in the Byes pa College of Se ra Monastery (Perdue). The text is also called the Yongs 'dzin bsdus grwa (Onoda, 1981) because its author, Phur bu lcog Byams pa tshul khrims rgya mtsho dpal bzang po (1825-1901), was the personal teacher (yongs 'dzin) of the Thirteenth Dalai Lama.14

The bsdus grwa of the Sa skya pa has so far hardly been studied at all. Here I will just enumerate the few such treatises known to me, without trying to indicate their relation to the dGe lugs pa bsdus grwa or earlier gSang phu traditions. To begin with, 'U yug pa Rigs pa'i seng ge (b.1250s or 1260s) who was a disciple of Sa skya Paṇḍita, is said to have written a (Tshad ma'i) bsDus pa which was entitled bsDus pa rigs sgrub (ZNDG: 469.3) or bsDus don rigs pa'i sdom (DGPK: 323). According to the list of the sDe dge printing house, a certain Byang chub dpal wrote a Tshad bsdus legs bshad rig pa'i 'od zer (DGPK: 145) and this may be an early Sa skya pa tshad ma'i bsdus pa. The outstanding scholastic gYag ston Sangs rgyas dpal (1348-1414) wrote a rtags rigs work (SCNT: 74). Likewise, mKhas grub bstan gsal (fl. fifteenth century), disciple of [page 195] Byams chen rab 'byams pa (1411-1485), is said to have written a Tshad ma'i rtags rigs chen mo (see van der Kuijp, 1989: 17). Go rams pa bSod nams seng ge (1429-1489) is said to have learned bsdus grwa in Khams using the bsDus grwa of dGe ba rgyal mtshan (1387-1462), who was the third abbot of Na-lendra Monastery (Jackson, 1989: 34). Go rams pa's disciple Kong ston dBang phyug grub (late 1400s), who was the second abbot of rTa nag Thub bstan rnam rgyal Monastery, wrote a Tshad ma'i spyi don blo rtag[s] (SKKC: 67). In about the same period, Glo bo mkhan chen bSod nams lhun grub (1456-1532) wrote blo rigs and rtags rigs texts entitled Blo'i rnam bzhag sde bdun gyi snying po and rTags kyi rnam bzhag rigs lam gsal ba'i sgron me (Jackson, 1987: 564). Such works continued to appear in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Mang thos Klu sgrub rgya mtsho (1523-1596), for instance, is said to have written a Blo rigs chen po (mo?) (SKKC: 100), and the famous Sa skya pa scholar Ngag dbang chos grags (1572/3-1641/2) wrote a blo rigs entitled Blo rigs gi legs bshad (SKKC: 108). Within the later lineage of Go rams pa's monastery, rTa nag Thub bstan rnam rgyal, there appeared the most famous recent Sa skya pa bsdus grwa, the Chos rnam rgyal gi bsdus grwa. A copy of this text is preserved at the Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, Dharamsala. The author, Chos rnam rgyal (fl. seventeenth century) also wrote a rtags rigs.16 The most recent of such works in the Sa skya pa tradition were written by Blo gter dbang po (1847-1914?), who also got his initial training at rTa nag Thub bstan rnam rgyal Monastery. The bsdus grwa works he composed were entitled Blo rigs zur bkol, rTags rigs zur bkol (SKKC: 162), and Tshad ma rtags rigs skor gtan la 'bebs par byed pa sde bdun sgo brgya 'byed pa'i 'phrul gyi lde'u mig (DGPK: 326).

The bsdus grwa logic was not just a training exercise, but was important for all levels of Tibetan philosophical studies in the gSang phu and dGe lugs pa traditions. As for the relationship to the Indian tradition, only a careful and detailed investigation and comparison of the bsdus grwa literature and the more Indian-based rigs gter tradition of the Sa skya school will enable us to discriminate meaningfully between the Indian and Tibetan elements in this system of logic. At any rate, the importance of this complex Indo-Tibetan relationship should not be underestimated. Anyone [page 196] who wishes to investigate seriously the indigenous Tibetan commentaries on such key Indian texts as the Pramāṇavārttika is confronted immediately by the fact that much of the terminology and many of the concepts used in such commentaries owe a heavy debt to the bsdus grwa.

A khu chin Shes rab rgya mtsho

MHTLdPe rgyun dkon pa 'ga' zhig gi tho yig: Materials for a History of Tibetan Literature. Part 3, pp. 503-601. Śata-Piṭaka Series30. New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1963.

bKra shis rdo rje, Ko btso

DGPKsDe dge'i par khang rig gnas kun 'dus gzhal med khang chos mdzod chen mo bkra shis sgo mang gi dkar chag rdo rje'i chos bdun ldan pa'i lde'u mig. Si khron: Si khron mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1983.

Goldberg, Margaret E.

1985Entity and Antimony in Tibetan bsdus grwa Logic. Parts I and II. Journal of Indian Philosophy 13: 153-199, 273-304.

Horváth, Zoltán

1987 Review of van der Kuijp (1983). Indo-Iranian Journal 30/4: 314-321.[page 199]

Jackson, David P.

1987The Entrance Gate for the Wise. Vienna: Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde17, Parts 1 and 2.

1989The Early Abbots of 'Phan po Na-lendra: The Vicissitudes of a Great Tibetan Monastery in the 15th Century. Vienna: Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde23.

'Jam dbyangs bzhad pa'i rdo rje

JYSBThe Collected Works of 'Jam-Dbyaṅs-Bźad-Pa'i-Rdo-Rje, Reproduced from prints from the Bkra-śis-'khyil blocks. Ed. by Ngawang Gelek Demo. 15 vols. Gedan Sungrab Minyam Gyunphel Series, vols. 40-54. New Delhi: 1972-74.

'Jam dbyangs mChog lha 'od zer

RTDGTshad ma rnam 'grel gyi bsdus gzhung shes bya'i sgo 'byed rgol ngan glang po 'joms pa gdong lnga'i gad rgyangs rgyu rig lde mig, Rwa stod bsdus grwa. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1980.

Klong rdol bla ma Ngag dbang blo bzang

TNMGTshad ma rnam 'grel sogs gtan tshig rig pa las byung ba'i ming gi grangs. Śata-Piṭaka Series100, pp. 660-712. New Delhi: 1973.

van der Kuijp, Leonard

1979Phya-pa Chos-kyi seng-ge's Impact on Tibetan Epistemological Theory.Journal of Indian Philosophy 5: 355-369.

1983Contributions to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist Epistemology. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien26. Wiesbaden.

1989An Introduction to Gtsang-nag-pa's Tshad-ma rnam-par nges-pa'i ti-ka legs-bshad bsdus-pa, An Ancient Commentary on Dharmakirti's Pramāṇaviniścaya. Otani University Collection No. 13971. Kyoto: Otani University Tibetan Works SeriesII.

Kun dga' grol mchog

SCNTPaṇḍita chen po Śākya mchog ldan gyi rnam par thar pa zhib mo rnam par 'thag pa. In Collected Works of Śākya mchog ldan, vol. 16, pp. 1-233. Thimphu: 1975.

mKhan po A pad et al., compilers

SKKCdKar chag mthong bas yid 'phrog chos mdzod bye ba'i lde mig: A Bibliography of Sa skya pa Literature. New Delhi: Ngawang Topgyal, 1987.

Onoda Shunzo

1979Chibetto no sōin ni okeru mondō no ruikei [Pattern of the Tibetan Monacal Debate]. Bukkyō Shigaku Kenkyū [The Journal of the History of Buddhism] 22/1: 1-16.

1981The Yoṅs 'Dzin rTags Rigs: A Manual for Tibetan Logic. Studia Asiatica5. Nagoya University.[page 200]

1982Chibetto ni okeru ronrigaku kenkyū no mondai [Primary Course in Tibetan Monastic Universities]. Tōyō Gakujutsu Kenkyū [The Journal of Oriental Studies] 21/2: 193-205.

1983rJes 'gro ldog khyab ni tsuite [On rJes 'gro ldog khyab]. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū [Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies] 32/1: 437-434.

1986Phya pa Chos Kyi Seng Ge's Classifications of Thal 'Gyur.Berliner Indologische Studien, Band 2: 65-85.

1988On the Tibetan Controversy Concerning the Various Ways of Replying to Prasaṅgas.The Tibet Journal 13/2: 36-41.

1989aChibetto no Gakumonji [Tibetan Monastic Universities]. Iwanamikoźa Tōyōshiso [Oriental Thoughts]. Series 11, chapter 3.1, pp. 352-373. Iwanami Shoten: Tokyo.

1989bbsDus grwa sho no keifu [Genealogy of bsdus grwa literature]. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyū [Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies] 37/2: 825-819.

1989cThe Chronology of the Abbatial Successions of the Gsaṅ phu sne'u thog Monastery.Wiener Zeitshrift für die Kunde Südasiens 33: 203-213.

1991Abbatial Successions of the Colleges of gSang phu sNe'u thog Monastery.Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology 15/4: 1049-1071.

1992Monastic Debate in Tibet—A Study on the History and Structures of Bsdus Grwa Logic. Wiener Studien zur Tibetologie und Buddhismuskunde27. Vienna.

Perdue, Daniel Elmo

1976Introductory Debate in Tibetan Buddhism. Dharamsala: Library of Tibetan Works and Archives, 1976.

Phur bu lcog Ngag dbang byams pa

PKPBGrwa sa chen po bzhi dang rgyud pa stod smad chags tshul pad dkar 'phreng ba: Three Karchacks. Gedan Sungrab Series13, pp. 46-169. New Delhi: 1970.

Śākya mchog ldan

ZNDGChos kyi 'khor lo bskor ba'i rnam gzhag ji ltar grub pa'i yi ge gzu bor gnas pa'i mdzangs pa dga' byed. In his Collected Works, vol. 16, pp. 457-482. Thimphu: 1975.

NTTRrNgog lo tstsha ba chen pos bstan pa ji ltar bskyangs pa'i tshul mdo tsam du bya ba ngo mtshar gtam gyi rol ma. In his Collected Works, vol. 16, pp. 443-456. Thimphu: 1975.

Smith, Gene

1969Tibetan Catalogue. Seattle: University of Washington.

Stcherbatsky, Th.

1932Buddhist Logic. Leningrad; reprint Tokyo: Meicho-Fukyū-kai, 1977.[page 201]

Su dhi pra sha ka and Sras Ngag dbang bkra shis

SNDGTshad ma'i dgongs don rtsa 'grel mkhas pa'i mgul rgyan. Ed. by DMu dge bSam gtan. Beijing: Mi rigs dpe skrun khang, 1987.

Tillemans, Tom J. F.

1989Formal and Semantic Aspects of Tibetan Buddhist Debate Logic.Journal of Indian Philosophy 17: 265-297.

Vostrikov, A.

1935-37Some Corrections and Critical Remarks on Dr. Johan van Manen's Contribution to the Bibliography of Tibet.Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 8: 60-62.

Back To Top