In Wangchuk 2007, I translated “Heils-Privatismus” as “salvific privatism.” Maybe, I should now try with “salvatory privatism.” Unfortunately, the following source had been overlooked then:
LS-CP-2, pp. 526–527: “Hinzu kommt aber wohl auch die wie für die meisten indischen Religionen so auch für den frühen und ‚konservativen‘ Buddhismus charakteristische Tendenz zu einer Art ‚Heils-Privatismus‘, d. h., dass es dem einzelnen in erster Linie um das eigene Heil geht. Für den Mahāyāna-Buddhismus trifft dies allerdings nicht zu.”
Here, LS attributes “salvatory privatism” only to conservative Buddhism. I, by contrast, argued in 2007 that it applied also to Pāramitāyāna and Mantrayāna. Of course, following LS’s explanation, “salvatory privatism” would indeed not apply to those traditions insofar as their salvatory aspiration is not directed first and foremost toward oneself, but toward all sentient beings. My thinking then was that the salvatory breakthrough can only be made by the individual; no one can do that for another—not even the most skilled teacher. Teachers merely show the way, but one must do one's own walking.
LS-CP-2 = Mudagamuwe Maithrimurthi, Michael Pahlke & Alexander von Rosspatt (eds.), Lambert Schmithausen Collected Papers: Volume II: 1978–1999. Studia Philologica Buddhica Monograph Series 34b. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies of the International College for Postgraduate Buddhist Studies, 2023.
