There are, though, other studies of Buddhism that focus on many of the same
topics that we will be examining. These are works that try to introduce Buddhism
through a historical survey of its chief schools and their principal doctrines . Now we
will try to trace a historical progression as wel l . But there will be l ess concern here
than in the typical doctrinal history to say who influenced whom, what influenced
what, in the development of key Buddhist teachings. Indeed at several points we will
take things out of their historical order. This will happen where understanding
conceptual connections takes precedence over working out the historical order in
which ideas developed. But the most i mportant difference between this work and
histories of Buddhist doctrine is that the latter are more likely to present just the
conclusions of the Buddhist philosophers. Our job wil l be to look not only at their
conclusions, but also at the arguments they gave in support of their conclusions. We
will look at the objections that other Indian philosophers raised against the Buddhist
views we examine, and we will consider the responses that Buddhists gave. We will
try to come up with our own objections, and then try to figure out what (if anything)
Buddhist philosophers could say to answer them. We will try, in short, to see how
well Buddhist doctrines stand up to the test of rational scrutiny. B ecause we are
examining Buddhism philosophically, we want to know what in Buddhist teachings
represents the truth.
There are, though, other studies of Buddhism that focus on many of the sametopics that we will be examining. These are works that try to introduce Buddhismthrough a historical survey of its chief schools and their principal doctrines . Now wewill try to trace a historical progression as wel l . But there will be l ess concern herethan in the typical doctrinal history to say who influenced whom, what influencedwhat, in the development of key Buddhist teachings. Indeed at several points we willtake things out of their historical order. This will happen where understandingconceptual connections takes precedence over working out the historical order inwhich ideas developed. But the most i mportant difference between this work andhistories of Buddhist doctrine is that the latter are more likely to present just theconclusions of the Buddhist philosophers. Our job wil l be to look not only at their conclusions, but also at the arguments they gave in support of their conclusions. Wewill look at the objections that other Indian philosophers raised against the Buddhistviews we examine, and we will consider the responses that Buddhists gave. We willtry to come up with our own objections, and then try to figure out what (if anything)Buddhist philosophers could say to answer them. We will try, in short, to see howwell Buddhist doctrines stand up to the test of rational scrutiny. B ecause we areexamining Buddhism philosophically, we want to know what in Buddhist teachingsrepresents the truth.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
