Talk:Two-Volume Lexicon: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:Yes, Han. The original statement was simply adapted from the ''Tshig mdzod chen mo'', but it would be good if you could create a section called perhaps "Origins" and discuss this in more detail with references to traditional sources and modern scholarship... | :Yes, Han. The original statement was simply adapted from the ''Tshig mdzod chen mo'', but it would be good if you could create a section called perhaps "Origins" and discuss this in more detail with references to traditional sources and modern scholarship... | ||
:--[[User:Adam|adam]] ([[User talk:Adam|talk]]) 16:09, 5 April 2018 (CEST) | :--[[User:Adam|adam]] ([[User talk:Adam|talk]]) 16:09, 5 April 2018 (CEST) | ||
Okay, but I will first need to do more research. Any idea why the tshig mdzod chen mo is wrong here? Is it a well-known mistake in the tradition ? | |||
Revision as of 08:15, 6 April 2018
Adam, kapstein writes in The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism: Conversion, Contestation, and Memory, page 229, note 31: However, by the early ninth century, when the emperor Khri Lde-srong-btsan issued his preface to the Sgra-sbyor-bam-gnyis (Simonsson 1957; Ishikawa 1990),
Thus, it seems scholars agree it was not during the time of Ralpachen but Senalek who wrote the preface.
- Yes, Han. The original statement was simply adapted from the Tshig mdzod chen mo, but it would be good if you could create a section called perhaps "Origins" and discuss this in more detail with references to traditional sources and modern scholarship...
- --adam (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2018 (CEST)
Okay, but I will first need to do more research. Any idea why the tshig mdzod chen mo is wrong here? Is it a well-known mistake in the tradition ?