Talk:Tibetan Buddhism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Tibetan Buddhism, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
[edit] Archives
[edit] What school is tibetan buddhism from?
I've been trying to figure this out lately. Is it the Mahayana or Vajrayāna? Is it a combination? Is it not a combination? Does it use certain practices from each? I'm somewhat lost about the school its from and its origins. Does Tibetan Buddhism not associate itself with directly one school of thought? In other words, is it simply a clashing of different teachings into one unified religion? I really think if that it is in this wikientry, it's not very clear. That's why the term Lamaism is bothering me. I'm sure someone said the word has Chinese origins, but Tibet is not in China. Because Tibet is in China, I don't see why it's called Lamism. - User: Cyberman (not logged in)
Vajrayana is not divided from Mahayana in Tibet, although not all Mahayanists are Vajrayanists per se. The Tibetan tradition was rich and complete in systems of philosophical Buddhist argument, tending toward the Indian style of Buddhism rather than the Sinitic. There are traditional elements of the native Bon faith included to varying degrees as well. Lamaism was a term applied by early European academics familiar with only other forms of Buddhism such as Theraveda and the Mahayana of other nations (as Tibet was a closed nation for many years), and lacking any training or expertise in the mantrayana, so really the use of the term is an ethnocentrically derived relic without any sound basis in thought. It has been used at times as a dismissive epithet, in much the same way as some have inexactly considered the Theravedin traditions to be "Hinayana". The word 'lama' is Tibetan and is equivalent to the Sanskrit 'guru'. Tibet is as much a part of China as Hawaii has historically been part of the United States, but with more historical conflict. If diplomacy had worked out slightly differently Tibet might have been a British protectorate instead of a nation raped for its resources by the iconoclastic postMaoist regime. Dorje0000 21:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
'..raped for its resources...'. What resources?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.60.106.5 (talk • contribs). Zero sharp 16:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AD vs. CE
CE for Common Era is an accepted, non-denominational alternative to 'AD' (which stands for Anno Domini and is explicitly Christian). I don't feel that 'CE' is "wrong" particularly in an article about a non-Christian religion. Zero sharp 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
