Chapter 1. The Early Diffusion, Buddhism's entry into imperial Tibet, and the Samye Debate¶

Geographically, Tibet is an enclosed highland world, separated on all sides by mountains and deserts from India, Central Asia, China, and Southeast Asia. In the history of civilizations, however, it stands precisely between the two great Buddhist traditions of India to the south and China to the east. Its eventual choice shaped the whole subsequent character of Tibetan Buddhism. The chapter examines how that choice came about between the seventh and ninth centuries CE. It traces Buddhism's entry into Tibet and its establishment there, as a debate and a persecution helped define what "Tibetan Buddhism" would mean.

1. The difficulty of the sources¶

Writing the early history of Tibetan Buddhism presents a structural difficulty familiar to almost any historian working outside a religion's own perspective. The most important sources are religious histories written one or two centuries after the events, all by later authors with clear commitments.

Among Tibetan accounts of the introduction of Buddhism into the Tibetan Empire, the most highly regarded is the Dba' bzhed. Its date of composition remains unresolved. The surviving versions descend from a lost common ancestor and mostly belong to the beginning of the Later Diffusion, whereas Tibetan tradition claims that its earliest form can be traced to the closing period of the empire. The work is essentially a narrative that treats the great monastery, Samye, and its Indian tradition of gradual practice as orthodox, while deliberately excluding Chinese Chan. Later Tibetan histories, including Butön's History of Buddhism and the Blue Annals, and the lineage histories of the various schools further reinforced this framework.¹

The discovery of the Dunhuang manuscripts in the early twentieth century opened another window. The manuscripts include firsthand documents left by Chinese and Tibetans during the imperial period. Chinese accounts of the Samye Debate among them differ markedly from the Tibetan narrative. Recent scholarship comparing these various sources has greatly changed our understanding of early Tibetan Buddhism.²

The book acknowledges the commitments of each source and draws a credible outline from several sources. It marks uncertainty with phrases such as "on this evidence, we may infer" and "the book's position." Where material appears only in an account with a particular allegiance and favors its narrator, the book identifies its source.

2. The encounter between Bön and Buddhism¶

Before Buddhism arrived, Tibet had its own religious traditions, usually called Bön. Two points about their character need to be made clear.

Bön was not a monolithic religious system. Early Bön, more accurately called the traditional religion of imperial Tibet, consisted chiefly of ritual specialists serving royal power. The specialists belonged to different groups, and the documents attest at least two priestly groups, bön and shen. Their functions included conducting funerals, performing divination and delivering oracles, and invoking mountain gods and spirits. Royal worship treated mountain gods as ancestors of the royal family. Early Bön had no unified canon or doctrinal system and was closer to a shamanic ritual tradition.³

The "Bön" we see today is largely a product of Buddhist influence. After Buddhism entered Tibet, Bön gradually developed its own scriptures, stages of practice, and philosophical discourses through prolonged competition and interaction with Buddhism. Many of its forms closely resemble Buddhist ones. Today's Bön tradition claims more ancient origins, but its present forms took shape historically later than the beginnings it claims.

Early Tibetan kingship was closely bound to Bön traditions. Bön rites, especially funerary and sacrificial rites, sustained the sacred status of royal power. When Buddhism first arrived, it both challenged these traditions directly, by abandoning certain rites, and incorporated them, by placing certain local deities within Buddhist cosmology. The tension persisted throughout the Early Diffusion and continued in different forms during the Later Diffusion.

3. Songtsen Gampo and three beginnings¶

Tradition credits the first phase of Buddhism's introduction into Tibet to Songtsen Gampo (Srong-btsan-sgam-po, c. 617 to 650), the founding monarch of the Tibetan Empire, who unified the Tibetan plateau.

In legend, Songtsen Gampo is an incarnation of the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī. His two wives, Princess Bhrikuti of Nepal and Princess Wencheng of the Tang dynasty, each brought a famous image of Śākyamuni; the Jowo Rinpoche now in the Jokhang is traditionally said to be the image Wencheng brought. In this account, he founded the Jokhang and was the founder of Tibetan Buddhism. The book regards the deified portrait as doubtful. Historically, the following can be stated with greater confidence:

• Songtsen Gampo had marriage alliances with the Tang dynasty and Nepal, through which Buddhist elements entered Tibet.
• Tibetan histories record that he ordered his minister Thonmi Sambhoṭa (Thon-mi Sambhoṭa) to study Sanskrit in India and that, on his return, the minister created the Tibetan alphabet. Modern scholarship questions the account because the commission, the person, and the dates are all difficult to establish. What can be established is only that written Tibetan emerged around the seventh to eighth centuries, modeled on the Indian Brāhmī script system and adapted to Tibetan phonology. Whoever created it, this was the most important technical foundation in the history of Tibetan Buddhism. Writing made translation possible, and translation made a Tibetan Buddhist system of learning possible.²
• The Jokhang and Ramoche temples were founded during this period, a claim supported by archaeology and inscriptions.

The association of the Tibetan alphabet with Songtsen Gampo's reign belongs to the traditional account. Chapter 1 notes that the person, royal commission, and date cannot be securely established.

4. Trisong Detsen: inviting teachers, founding a monastery, and large-scale translation¶

Trisong Detsen (Khri-srong-lde-btsan, r. c. 742 to 797) was the most important king of the Early Diffusion and the key figure in promoting the comprehensive introduction of Buddhism into Tibet.

Śāntarakṣita and Padmasambhava enter Tibet¶

Around 762, Trisong Detsen invited the Indian scholar Śāntarakṣita (c. 725 to 788) to Tibet. Śāntarakṣita represented the Nālandā and Vikramaśīla tradition and held the philosophical position of Yogācāra-Svātantrika Madhyamaka. His philosophical system is discussed in 8.3 and will not be repeated here.

According to Tibetan accounts, when Śāntarakṣita first entered Tibet he encountered various "calamities" from Bön deities, including epidemics and floods, which were interpreted as resistance to Buddhism. He therefore recommended inviting Padmasambhava (Tibetan: Pema Jungné, c. eighth century). Padmasambhava came from Uḍḍiyāna, in what is now northwestern Pakistan, and was a tantric master known for subduing demons.

The boundary between history and legend is harder to draw for Padmasambhava than for Śāntarakṣita. The later Nyingma, or Old Translation, tradition revered him as the "Second Buddha" and surrounded him with abundant accounts of miracles. What can be stated with confidence is that he entered Tibet in the eighth century, participated in the foundation of Samye, and brought important parts of the Vajrayāna tantric tradition. There is a considerable distance between the historical figure and his mythic image in the Nyingma tradition.⁴

Examining the claim that "Padmasambhava introduced sexual yoga"

A fairly widespread claim in Chinese Buddhist circles holds that Padmasambhava introduced "dual cultivation," meaning sexual yoga or practice in male-female union, into Tibet and is therefore responsible for the later presence of tantric consort practices in Tibetan Buddhism. The claim serves different purposes in different settings. Some use it to criticize Tibetan Buddhism for presenting "sexual misconduct" as religion; others use it to defend certain modern sexual activities carried out under the Tibetan Buddhist banner. Both uses call for historical examination.

The actual place of "dual cultivation" in Tibetan tantra

What is called "dual cultivation" usually corresponds in tantric terminology to the "action seal" (karma-mudrā, rendered phonetically in Chinese as 羯摩明妃, jiemo mingfei). It is an advanced practice within the system of Highest Yoga Tantra (Anuttarayogatantra), involving ritual bodily union with an actual or imagined consort. Its purpose is to bring about a particular epistemic breakthrough, awareness of emptiness, through the experience of the nonduality of bliss and emptiness. Descriptions of such practices appear in several major Indian tantras, including the Hevajra Tantra, the Cakrasaṃvara Tantra, and the Guhyasamāja Tantra. All these texts came to Tibet from India through multiple lines of transmission.

Padmasambhava's relationship to the tradition

Padmasambhava was closely associated with tantric traditions and is regarded as one of the important transmitters of Highest Yoga Tantra. In the Nyingma tradition, his principal consorts are Yeshe Tsogyal (Ye-shes mtsho-rgyal) and Mandāravā. However, the claim that he was "the person who introduced sexual yoga" requires several historical corrections.

First, sexual yoga was neither Padmasambhava's invention nor a practice he alone brought to Tibet. It formed part of the tantric tradition of late Indian Buddhism and had taken shape in India well before him.

Second, the attribution of particular practices to Padmasambhava's "transmission" rests chiefly on treasure texts (terma) discovered later. The treasure texts are said to have been "hidden" by Padmasambhava and "discovered" by later treasure revealers. Scholars characterize treasure texts historically as later literary reconstructions of an earlier age, not as firsthand materials left by Padmasambhava himself in the eighth century (see the discussion of Nyingma in 11.3). Using treasure texts to establish that "Padmasambhava personally transmitted a particular practice" is methodologically quite unreliable.

Third, another important body of Highest Yoga Tantra transmission was brought from India by Marpa (1012 to 1097). The historical sources of Kagyu's stages of Mahāmudrā practice and its Cakrasaṃvara, Hevajra, and other practices are unrelated to Padmasambhava. Attributing sexual yoga to Padmasambhava alone obscures the plurality of tantric transmissions.

The book's position

The claim that "Padmasambhava introduced sexual yoga" reduces a complex historical process to one individual's act of introduction. More accurately, sexual yoga practices entered Tibet from India as part of the broader body of Highest Yoga Tantra through several channels. They included Padmasambhava's lineage during the Early Diffusion and several translators during the Later Diffusion. Nyingma is one of the largest transmitters of these practices, but it is not the only one. Using the claim as a basis for criticizing Tibetan Buddhism as a whole misreads history. Using it to defend certain modern sexual activities conducted in the name of "Tibetan esoteric practices" manufactures authority in the name of history. Both uses are distant from the historical facts.⁵

Samye and the lineage of full ordination¶

Around 779, Samye Monastery (Bsam-yas), Tibet's first formal Buddhist monastery, was completed in what is now the Shannan region of Tibet. Samye's completion was a major institutional event because it marked the formal establishment of a monastic community in Tibet. Its significance extended beyond its buildings. Indian monks came to Tibet to conduct full ordination for the first group of Tibetan monks, giving the Tibetan Empire its own monastic lineage.

The beginning of the great translation project¶

After Samye was founded, systematic translation began on a full scale. Trisong Detsen established a translation committee that brought together Indian scholars and Tibetan translators (lotsāwa) to begin translating Sanskrit and Chinese Buddhist texts systematically into Tibetan.

Translation terminology was standardized, one of two developments that deserve particular attention. Around 814, the court compiled the Mahāvyutpatti, prescribing Tibetan equivalents for some twenty thousand Buddhist terms and standardizing translators' vocabulary. The systematic work on language secured a high degree of terminological consistency across texts produced by different translators in different periods. Such foundations were indispensable to a translation project of this scale.

The second development was the choice of a framework governing content. The Indian scholarly framework that Śāntarakṣita brought included Madhyamaka, logic, and the stages of gradual practice, and it defined the priorities of translation. Decisions about what to translate and what to place at the center reflected philosophical choices. They were not neutral arrangements, and the framework profoundly influenced the later structure of Tibetan Buddhist learning.

5. The Samye Debate over sudden and gradual paths¶

Between approximately 792 and 794, a debate took place near Samye Monastery between the Indian tradition of gradual practice, represented by Kamalaśīla, Śāntarakṣita's disciple, and the Chinese Chan tradition, represented by Hvashang Mahāyāna, "the monk Mahāyāna." Trisong Detsen presided.

The discussion in 8.3 has already covered the philosophical content of the debate, including the central dispute between gradual practice and sudden awakening, the theoretical basis of Kamalaśīla's Stages of Meditation, and the particulars of Hvashang Mahāyāna's position. The present chapter focuses on how securely the historical event can be established and on its political significance.

Conflicting sources¶

Tibetan sources, represented by the Dba' bzhed, report that Trisong Detsen declared Kamalaśīla the victor and that Hvashang Mahāyāna was ordered to leave Tibet. They describe the systematic exclusion of Chinese Chan's influence. Chinese and early Tibetan documents found at Dunhuang present a different picture. Hvashang Mahāyāna's texts contain no record of a "defeat," and certain Tibetan documents also show that Chan remained active in Tibet for a considerable time. It did not vanish overnight.⁶

The book takes the debate to have a historical core. However, the narrative of "a formal debate before the king that determined victory and defeat, followed immediately by the defeated party's expulsion" bears clear signs of later construction. It served the later need of Tibetan Buddhism to define a boundary between itself and Chinese Chan. A more credible account would describe a period of competition between the two Buddhist approaches in Tibet. Royal power eventually favored the Indian gradual path, and the Chinese Chan presence was gradually marginalized. The historical outcome was real, but it came about through a political process over time, not through a single debate.

The significance of the choice¶

Whatever the precise sequence of events, the reign of Trisong Detsen established the Indian, gradualist character of Tibetan Buddhism. The choice was historically decisive, with the following consequences:

• The philosophical language of Tibetan Buddhism was based on Sanskrit terminology through Tibetan translation, rather than on Chinese.
• Its theory of practice was framed in terms of gradual accumulation (discipline, concentration, and wisdom; learning, reflection, and cultivation; the five paths and ten stages), rather than sudden awakening.
• Indian traditions of logic, Madhyamaka, and Yogācāra became the standards of learning.
• The subsequent influence of Chinese Buddhism, including Chan, on Tibetan Buddhism was extremely limited.

The consequences of this choice extended throughout Tibetan Buddhist history. Both Tsongkhapa's reforms (11.6) and the Madhyamaka debates among the schools (11.7) operated with reference to this Indian framework.

6. Ralpacan, Langdarma, and the end of the Early Diffusion¶

Ralpacan and the cost of extreme patronage¶

Ralpacan (Khri-gtsug-lde-btsan Ral-pa-can, r. 815 to 838) was the last king of the Early Diffusion to support Buddhism actively, and did so with a zeal rarely seen in history. According to later Tibetan sources, he assigned seven households to support each ordained monk. He also spread out his long hair for monks to sit on, signifying that monastic rank stood above kingship. The name ral-pa-can, "the one with braids," refers to this long hair. The accounts need to be discounted because the sources were composed much later. Snellgrove and Richardson state outright that they undoubtedly contain exaggerations and cite contemporary Chinese accounts as counterevidence. The Chinese accounts describe only a weak king who left government to his ministers, saying nothing of his devotion.⁷

The extreme patronage provoked a backlash. Ralpacan was eventually murdered by court nobles around 838. His younger brother Langdarma (Glang-dar-ma, also known as Darma Tsenpo, r. c. 836 to 842; the precise dates are disputed) succeeded him and immediately began systematically suppressing Buddhism.

Langdarma's persecution and the end of the Early Diffusion¶

In Tibetan narratives, Langdarma is the archetypal "king who destroyed the Dharma." He closed monasteries, forced monks to return to lay life, destroyed Buddha images, and prohibited Buddhist rites. Religious literature has intensified the portrait, but its core account of a policy of suppression directed at Buddhist institutions is relatively credible. Around 842, Langdarma was assassinated by the monk Lhalung Pelgyi Dorje (Lha-lung Dpal-gyi Rdo-rje). The monk then fled to eastern Tibet. Suppression was less severe in the east than in central Tibet, which also explains why the ordination lineage partly survived the persecution.

After Langdarma's assassination, the Tibetan Empire rapidly fell apart. Rivalry for royal power, regional fragmentation, and external pressure combined to bring about its effective dissolution in the mid-ninth century. The disappearance of a unified state that protected Buddhism marked the end of the Early Diffusion.

7. The historical legacy of the Early Diffusion¶

The Early Diffusion lasted only about two centuries, from the mid-seventh to the mid-ninth century, yet left Tibetan Buddhism several inescapable legacies:

The Tibetan alphabet and the translation tradition. Without the alphabet there would have been no translation; without translation there would have been no Tibetan Buddhist system of knowledge. The alphabet and translation were the most basic material conditions and the most enduring legacy.

The establishment of the Indian gradual path. Whether through debate, political choice, or other means, the age of Trisong Detsen established an orientation centered on the Indian scholarly framework of Madhyamaka, logic, and the stages of gradual practice. However the schools subsequently diverged, all operated within this broad framework.

Samye and the first monastic community. The establishment of an indigenous Tibetan ordination lineage gave Buddhism an institutional means to take root locally, beyond its initial status as a court import.

Nyingma's "transmission of the Early Diffusion." The later Nyingma school, the Old Translation school (nyingma means "old"), regarded the tantric transmissions of Padmasambhava and the age of Trisong Detsen as the source of its legitimacy, calling them the "transmission of the Early Diffusion." The distinction between these and the New Translation schools (sarma), introduced during the Later Diffusion, became a fundamental dividing line within Tibetan Buddhism (discussed further in 11.3).

The psychological imprint of Langdarma's persecution. The Early Diffusion ended in persecution, leaving a deep mark on Tibetan Buddhist collective memory. The loss of a king who protected the Dharma, the shadow of persecution, and the persistence of lineages in the east formed the starting point of Tibetan Buddhism at the beginning of the Later Diffusion.

Further reading¶

• Ronald M. Davidson. Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. (Historical analysis of the translation tradition; continuities and ruptures between the Early and Later Diffusions.)

References¶