Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: A greater perfection? : scholasticism, comparativism and issues of sectarian identity in early 20th century writings on rDzogs-chen
Author: Pearcey, Adam Scott
ISNI:       0000 0004 7655 9222
Awarding Body: SOAS University of London
Current Institution: SOAS, University of London
Date of Award: 2018
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Full text unavailable from EThOS. Please try the link below.
Access from Institution:
This study concerns the rDzogs-chen tradition and its relationship to other traditions during the early decades of the twentieth century. This was an era of flourishing scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools in Eastern Tibet, especially the rNying-ma and Sa-skya. It was also a period when a supposed nonsectarian (ris med) movement occurred. These two developments - in education and intersectarian relations - are at the heart of this inquiry. Following a brief introduction, which discusses the notion of tradition in the context of Tibetan Buddhism, Chapter One charts the expansion of scholasticism among the non-dGe-lugs schools. The same chapter also explores the non-sectarian movement. Chapters Two and Three then focus on the writings of the Third rDogrub- chen, 'Jigs-med bstan-pa'i-nyi-ma (1865-1926). They consider his role as an authority within the tradition and his repeated comparisons of rDzogs-chen to Highest Yoga Tantra. Chapter Four then focuses on a text by g.Yu-khog Chosdbyings- rang-grol (1871-1952), a follower of 'Jigs-med bstan-pa'i-nyi-ma. This short work is of particular interest because it demonstrates the influence of the scholar 'Ju Mi-pham rnam-rgyal rgya-mtsho (1846-1912) on the rDzogs-chen preliminaries. Finally, Chapter Five turns to the writings of mDo-sngags Chos-kyi rgya-mtsho (1903-1957), who advocated a synthesis of rNying-ma and dGe-lugs ideas. The study offers evidence that rDzogs-chen authors variously ignored, championed or challenged many of Mi-pham's scholarly innovations during this period. Moreover, I shall argue, these choices reflected differing attitudes towards intersectarian relations.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral