[Buddha-l] Lamas and such

[S.A. Feite]

On Dec 4, 2009, at 10:29 PM, Chris Fynn wrote:

> S. A. Feite wrote:
>> On Dec 4, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Dan Lusthaus wrote:
>> 
>>> 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 would think "Tantric Buddhism" (or Vajrayana/Mantrayana) would do  
>> well for most areas that would be considered "Lamaistic"--former  
>> Tibet, the Himalayan Kingdoms, Mongolia, Kalmykia and Buryatia.
> 
> This doesn't quite work as Tibetans etc. insist that their Buddhism 
> follows all three yana: shravakayana, mahayana and mantrayana.

Picky, picky. :-)

But I'm not talking so much about Tibetans (or Tantric Buddhists in general even), instead representations in Western scholarship of Tibetan, Sanskrit and Chinese lingo *into Western languages*. 

Of course Tibetans or other Tantric Buddhists would prefer lingo in their own languages.

I would hope the nine-fold division of the Nyingmapas (and the Bon Po) would suffice. The way to simplify this is to reduce the 9 to 3: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen. But who wants to use that in conversation? Two syllables or less is better. Suggestions? 

Besides, the higher, "non-little" yanas *are all Tantric*.

Yes. Tantra is definitely a misunderstood word in the West, in India it's often worse, parsed as "black magic". All the more reason to use the words in an attempt to reeducate and raise the level of appreciation. I believe the uniqueness of these dharmas is their presentation of the higher, not lower yanas, so therefore it's important to acknowledge this in Western translated speech.

.02 USD