[Buddha-l] Lamas and such

[JKirkpatrick]

"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." 
-------
Well, there's always Alexandra David-Neel on magic and mystery in
Tibet.
Someone wrote an interesting biography of her. Wikipedia has an
informative article plus an innocent/fairy-like photo of her from
the 19th c before she went ascetic (see the next photo) while on
pilgrimage to Lhasa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_David-N%C3%A9el .

"David-Néel wrote over 30 books about Eastern religion,
philosophy, and her travels"--- more than Blavatsky? I always
found her a much more interesting phenomenon than Mme. B.

Cheers, Joanna

===================


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?

Steve wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
buddha-l mailing list
buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l