[Buddha-l] Lamas and such

[Dan Lusthaus]

>
> The first mention of "lama jiao" is in 1775 during the reign of the
> Manchu Emperor Qianlong. The first occurrence of "Lamaism" in a
> European language is in 1769 by the German naturalist Peter Simon
> Pallas.

Audrius Beinorius, in "Buddhism in the Early European Imagination: A 
Historical Perspective" ACTA ORIENTALIA VILNENSIA 6.2 (2005): 7-2, writes on 
p.20 n.40 of the term "Lamaism": "...Perhaps the first occurrence of this 
term in a European language appears in the reports of the German naturalist 
Peter Simon Palls in 1769."

That "perhaps" is crucial. I would add the same qualification to the claim 
about the first Chinese appearance of the term. Lots of literature would 
have to be sifted through before one could say with confidence what the 
first occurrences were -- that is what I don't have time to do. What are the 
chances that Palls simply invented the word, rather than encountering it 
somewhere? Unlikely, I should think.

To another point, the discourse in China during the Manchu dynasty (Qing) 
was not anti-Tibetan. On the contrary, great effort at that time was placed 
on bringing the Mongolians, and through them the Tibetans, into the fold. 
The Chinese, through the Mongolians, put the Gelugpas in power. Highly 
recommended reading in that regard is Johan Elverskog's _Our Great Qing: The 
Mongols, Buddhism and the State in Late Imperial China_ (U. Hawaii Press, 
2006).

Despite the seductions of the Lopezian rant (which has not won favor with 
many Tibetanists, such as R. Thurman), the problem with these sorts of 
subaltern approaches is that, once they are done complaining about the 
"dominant" discourse and narrative and their hegemony (and reducing 
everything to the most "evil" version and motives), the subaltern seeks to 
replace it with a more strident, emaciated hegemonic narrative -- their own. 
And the subaltern takes its own metonymic vision as the whole enchilada.

If we pull back from thinking about the term "Lamaism" simply as whether 
it's PC to use it, what "colonialist" agenda is it camouflaging or exposing, 
etc., and instead ask, in a more neutral way, what actual use or purpose has 
the term provided, and is this a usage easily handled without the term, then 
a different set of issues emerge.

First, it is instructive and important to pay attention to the fact that the 
term initially is used to indicate Mongolian Buddhism, not directly Tibetan. 
By extension, it came to mean Tibetan Buddhism as well, and now is commonly 
conflated with Tibetan (in Western and Chinese sources, though more 
typically contemporary Chinese sources will be quick to point out 
non-Tibetan "Lamaist" traditions/places -- Sikkim, Nepal, etc.). So viewing 
the term strictly in the context of current Tibetan-Chinese politics 
distorts the picture (esp. when pretending this is the full history and 
origin), and simultaneously renders all the non-Tibetan "Lamaists" 
invisible -- creating a new subaltern, or set of subalterns in need of a 
voice (Mongolians are starting to "organize").

That points to an important, if problematic function the term has served 
until recently. There are a variety of Buddhisms that share something in 
common, of which Tibetan Buddhism is one, that we have no other simple, 
single term to designate. That, for many scholars, was what the term 
"Lamaism" designated: viz., the set of Tibetan, Mongolian, Sikkimese, 
Ladakhan, et al. Buddhisms. Reducing them all to "Tibetan" Buddhism is 
historically anachronistic, but that precisely is a Tibetan and Western 
fantasy [subalternists beware!! You are guilty of what you are accusing 
others of]. Do a Google Scholar search for "Lamaism" and you will find 
countless works of scholarship using the term precisely in this way -- as a 
blanket term for "Lamaist" forms of Buddhism throughout central Asia, 
including but not limited to Tibet, and without any overt or hidden evil, 
demeaning, imperialist, colonial agenda. Once the term is declared 
derogatory (because -- as I stated -- it wrongly makes the Lamas the main 
object of veneration, the "popology" complaint, or because some in the West 
used it as a synonym for degenerate Buddhism -- Lopez's beef, but as I 
mentioned, by the end of the 19th century "Mahayana" meant "degenerate 
Buddhism," Lamaism was just one type of unscrubbed, lice-infected 
"Mahayana") then the problem becomes, what to replace it with? This is 
analogous to the term "Hinayana" -- it's fine to declare the term a 
Mahayanist pejorative fantasy (their version of degenerate Buddhism, or 
"inadequate" Buddhism). Problem is, we have no readily available term to 
replace it: Theravada not only does not cover all the non-Mahayana schools 
(various Sarvastivada schools, Mahi"sasikas, Sammitiyas, Dharmaguptas, etc. 
etc.), the Theravadins are often ignored in the medieval Buddhist polemic 
intra-Buddhist debates, where one most needs a descriptive blanket term. I 
don't know how others are solving this, but I have taken to using the 
uncomfortable and similarly problematic term "non-Mahayanic" as its 
replacement. That still privileges Mahayana and positions all other forms of 
Buddhism vis-a-vis Mahayana, so not a good solution. Anyone have a better 
replacement?

I am not recommending we retain Lamaism or Hinayana -- there are good 
reasons to kick them to the curb -- but let's at least be honest about it, 
and not succumb to the impoverishment of a sliver narrative that pretends to 
account for a totality, with peace and justice for all.

Dan.