Scholarlink

<p>The Buddhist monastic debate is an essential element of the curriculum of Tibetan monastic institutions. The Tibetan Buddhist debate (TBD) has been held since the twelfth century, primarily in Tibetan monasteries, and has recently spread to contemporary schools. This paper reviews studies on the practice of TBD in different academic institutions, its application, and its impact on debaters. We searched three electronic databases, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, and selected studies published between 2000 and 2024. The systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist and flow diagram. Finally, 25 studies met all our selection criteria and were included in the final review. This analysis revealed that only a few studies, most of which used a qualitative approach, had addressed the TBD. While the impact of TBD was mostly observed in the cognitive domain, notably in terms of conceptual learning and thinking abilities, the effect was also noted in the debater’s emotions. Regarding the research field and methodology, a considerable disparity was observed. Further studies will need to address the observations and claims that were mostly discussed qualitatively in the existing literature.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Practice of Tibetan Buddhist Debate in Academic Institutions: A Systematic Literature Review

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月26日

查看全文
  • Tenzin Pedon,
  • Jatinder Grover

摘要

The Buddhist monastic debate is an essential element of the curriculum of Tibetan monastic institutions. The Tibetan Buddhist debate (TBD) has been held since the twelfth century, primarily in Tibetan monasteries, and has recently spread to contemporary schools. This paper reviews studies on the practice of TBD in different academic institutions, its application, and its impact on debaters. We searched three electronic databases, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, and selected studies published between 2000 and 2024. The systematic literature review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist and flow diagram. Finally, 25 studies met all our selection criteria and were included in the final review. This analysis revealed that only a few studies, most of which used a qualitative approach, had addressed the TBD. While the impact of TBD was mostly observed in the cognitive domain, notably in terms of conceptual learning and thinking abilities, the effect was also noted in the debater’s emotions. Regarding the research field and methodology, a considerable disparity was observed. Further studies will need to address the observations and claims that were mostly discussed qualitatively in the existing literature.