In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

xvii Buddhisms and Other Conventions Italics: Titles of texts, literary collections, and foreign words. Hyphenation is not used in titles of texts but it is employed in all Tibetan terms (e.g., bde-smon) and proper nouns (e.g., Tsong-kha-pa), and in most foreign terms (e.g., buddha-kṣetra). Transliteration: Wylie system for Tibetan; Pinyin for Chinese. The first root letter in Tibetan compounds is capitalized in titles of texts and in proper nouns (e.g., sMin-gling) but not in Tibetan terms (e.g., rtsa-rlung). ( ): All foreign terms in parentheses are in Tibetan, unless otherwise indicated . Parentheses also include glosses and comments. [ ]: Interpolations and clarifications. The term “Mahayana” (Great Vehicle) refers to a religious orientation, not a single unitary phenomenon, which has diverse social and geographical origins and multiple religious and philosophical expressions. Nevertheless, as a matter of usage it has come to be regarded as a coherent movement despite its polysemic and nonsectarian antecedents. The problem of pinning down precisely to what the term may refer has been addressed by many scholars, more recently by Ruegg (2004). In this book, as in scholarship and more demotic pronouncements on the subject, Mahayana is understood as a generic category connecting Buddhist schools, texts, and practices that, while they were not necessarily always in mutual support of each other, can be said to champion the soteriological vocation of bodhisattvas. Conventionally speaking, the term “Pure Land Buddhism” provokes associations with the cult of Buddha Amitābha and his buddha field, Sukhāvatī. Apropos and in order to avoid confusion, it has been adopted in this book despite some conspicuous reservations, such as the fact that it was coined originally to highlight East Asian developments of Mahayana Buddhism. Furthermore, Mahayana literature features numerous buddhas and pure lands and the common use of “Pure Land Buddhism” excludes other celestial buddhas presiding over their enlightened world-systems, such as the Medicine Buddha, Maitreya, and Akṣobhya, among others. There is enough xviii Buddhisms and Other Conventions internal diversity in the scriptural reasoning and conceptual morphology of Pure Land Buddhism in India, China, Japan, and Tibet to challenge the initial formulation of the term altogether. Pure Land Buddhism is not the Buddhism of pure lands that, according to Jan Nattier, consists of all Buddhist teachings that look forward to the possibility of rebirth in another world-system (lokadhātu) or Buddha-field (buddha-kṣetra), where a [b]uddha is presently teaching the Dharma. (2000, 74–75) Under the rubric of “Tibetan Buddhism” we may identify several Buddhist schools and sub-schools spread across many regions and existing at different times. Tibetan Buddhism encompasses numerous sources of cultural production including, but not limited to, vibrant monastic institutions with distinct and shared Mahayana lineages of teachers and doctrines, a vast corpus of philosophical and ritual texts, and an assortment of soteriological and non-soteriological contemplative techniques grouped together in yet another deceptive (though necessary) “-ism.” It may also be understood to refer to lay communities of devotees primarily in Tibet, but also in the Himalayan regions of India, Nepal, Bhutan; across Asia, in Mongolia, China, and other Asian regions; and in other parts of the world, including Europe, America, and Australia. In this work, Tibetan Buddhism denotes all of the above, while it is conceptually and scripturally synonymous with Vajrayana—a religious orientation that stands for a heterogeneous collection of esoteric texts and practices geared toward the speedy development of one’s own inborn potential for liberation. ...

Share