[Buddha-l] Lamas and such

[S. A. Feite]

On Dec 4, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Chris Fynn wrote:

> I thought Blavatsky was rather enamoured of Tibet - wasn't it where  
> her
> "mahatmas" and masters were supposed to reside?

Yes, but she apparently drew a distinction between purer (Indian)  
Buddhism and lower forms in some schools of Tibetan Buddhism, which  
she termed "Lamaism". She believed these were schools which were  
"left to the care of the uninitiated Lama and Mongolian innovators."  
I don't know if she is referring to the Bon religion or not.

Of course that's not to imply that Blavatsky should be considered an  
authority. Far from it. Today she'd just be considered a trance  
channeler who wrote imaginative novels with little basis in fact.

>
> When Wadell wrote about "Lamaism" I'm sure he looked on it as some  
> kind
> of Oriental equivalent of Catholicism or Papisism - OTOH when Blofeld
> used the term, do you think he was being disparaging?

Can academics be disparaging without meaning to be? Of course they  
can. But perhaps "insensitive" would be a better word.

Simply slapping an "-ism" on the end of a word will not always suffice.

>
> Recently I was surprised to hear some Tibetan friends referring to  
> their
> own religion as Lamaism. They don't seem to have a problem with the  
> word.

  The first Tibetan Buddhist center in the US, in New Jersey, was  
actually called the "Lamaist Buddhist Monastery of America". It has  
been used differently at different times. Suffice to say, it's not  
the most authentic descriptor, just a Western gloss over. Since it  
does not have an origin wholly in Tibetan or Sanskrit it's just not a  
very helpful neologism.