I’m glad you liked the photo, and the book. You should be aware though that all of Lobsang Rampa’s writings on Tibet are works of fiction:

“The most widely read book about Tibet was written by an Englishman who claimed to be a Tibetan lama, despite the fact that he had never been to Tibet and did not speak a word of Tibetan. The Third Eye by T. Lobsang Rampa was the publishing event of 1956. It purported to be the autobiography of a Tibetan lama who, at the age of eight, underwent the operation of the third eye, in which a hole was drilled in his forehead to allow him to see auras. Such a procedure was not known in Tibet. A private detective eventually tracked down the author of the book, Cyril Hoskin, the unemployed son of an English plumber. The Third Eye was a bestseller in Europe and America. One enthusiastic reader even attempted to perform the operation on himself using a dentist’s drill. Mr. Hoskin went on to write eighteen more books as T. Lobsang Rampa, with sales of over four million copies. (The “T.” is for “Tuesday.”)”

S.

Thanks for the linguistic clarifications, and for the John and Yoko connection, which I somehow missed. I’m not sure whether a “Bed-In” is an improvement on a “Sitting-in-Bed Ceremony”, though it’s definitely more concise.

S.

The word for “bed” is, of course, nyal khri (“sleeping platform”). And, as you point out, these “platforms” are used for various purposes. Interestingly, I believe the honorifics differ: that for “bed” is gzim khri (same meaning), that for “throne” is bzhugs khri. So, not surprisingly, as you have indicated, the Chinese translation goes rather astray.

Were it not for the presence of “throne” elsewhere in the passages you cite, I’d conclude that it was another way of eliding Tibetan sovereignty.

It should also be said that the Chinese term huashen (化身), which directly translates nirmāṇakāya (sprul sku), is definitely in everyday use to refer to tulkus, as are various transcriptions of the Tibetan, but huafo is more evocative and, as you say, official.

By the way, Liu Ts’un Yan’s “Harmonious Wind” books are full of rich anecdotes on relations between Chan and Tibetan Buddhists during the Yuan era. One rarely-cited passage from the Yuan History mentions the staggering expenses incurred by Tibetan monks on pilgrimage, during which entire neighbourhoods were forcibly evicted to house groups of pilgrims (1984:62-3). I seem to remember Liu mentioning that Tibetan monks on rare occasions had Daoist students or cohorts, but I haven’t been able to trace this recently.

Yes, in Prisoners of Shangri-La, Prof. Lopez discussed “Lamaism” and I too remember some commentary about his book ignoring the agency of the Tibetans themselves. I think you may be right to imply that this language may at times been encouraged by Tibetan Buddhists. If I read the history right, the fact that the Mongols followed Tibetan Buddhism (or Lamajiao) was a major factor in the honour heaped upon Tibetan lamas by the Manchu emperors, who had both a traditional allegience to Tibetan Buddhism, and hoped to control the Mongol tribes through the influence of the Dalai and Panchen Lamas. In this they made a firm distinction between Chinese and Tibetan Buddhism.

This was apparently a bone of contention among the Chinese Buddhist communities. In a Chinese account of the 3rd (or 6th) Panchen Lama’s visit to Beijing in the late eighteenth century, there’s a story about a well-known Chinese forest-dwelling monk visiting the Panchen Lama and telling him politely but firmly that his proper place was in Tibet and that he should return there forthwith. (I’ve just discovered that the little book in which I found the translation of this account, Ludwig’s “The Visit of the Teshoo Lama to Peking” is available as a free download here.

As for “Living Buddha”:- I’ve come across a discussion suggesting that the term has been in circulation in China since the 12th or 13th century in China, referring to certain charismatic (Chinese) Buddhist teachers. To me, “Living Buddha” sounds like an idea that might crop up in Chan. But now I’m just speculating. Of course, the 13th century is also when reincarnate lineages start to appear in Tibet….

S.

As you say, the Chinese terms in question have their own history and implications. Lingtong 靈童 (aka “spirit boy”) has a sort of Daoist ring to it, but there is so much tantrism in Daoism that it could be argued that it is not inappropriate. In any case, I feel that the widely used official English translations do convey a lot of how they sound to Chinese speakers.

I somewhere recall a certain D. Lopez getting narky about the originally Sinic term “Lamaism” (Lamajiao 喇嘛教). However, if I remember right, he neglected to say anything about what Tibetans thought about it over centuries of use, or indeed, whether being treated differently to Chinese Buddhists might have helped advance Tibetans’ interests in China.