Chapter 2. The beginning of the Later Diffusion¶

The Early Diffusion ended with Langdarma's persecution and the dissolution of the Tibetan Empire. For nearly a century afterward, central Tibet was largely without organized Buddhist activity. Monasteries lay destroyed and monks were scattered. The ordination lineage existed in little more than name, and connections to Indian sources had also been severed.

The concept of the "Later Diffusion" (phyi dar, the "later spread of the Dharma," as opposed to the Early Diffusion, snga dar) is a way in which Tibetan Buddhist tradition organized the narrative of its own history. It marked the Buddhist activities reemerging from the east and west around the turn of the ninth to tenth centuries as Buddhism's "rebirth" in Tibet. The narrative of rebirth is itself partly constructed, since the complete extinction of Buddhism in the center and its sudden revival at the margins did not occur so neatly. Yet the narrative identifies a real historical turning point. Around the tenth century, Tibetan Buddhism began to develop again in a new form under new political conditions.

1. Embers in the east: the Lower Route and the preservation of the monastic community¶

The flight of three monks and the lineage in Amdo¶

During Langdarma's persecution (c. 836 to 842), almost all ordained monks in central Tibet were forced into lay life or expelled. According to Tibetan sources, three monks escaped during the persecution, carrying the Vinaya lineage eastward until they reached what is now the Amdo region of Qinghai. Tibetan narratives give their flight almost mythic significance, crediting them with preventing the complete disappearance of the ordination lineage.¹

The historical circumstances may have been more complex. Eastern Tibet already had a certain Buddhist presence during the Early Diffusion. Langdarma's persecution was concentrated in the center and reached the peripheral regions only to a limited extent. The book therefore infers that the preservation of the ordination lineage may have depended more on the opportunities for survival within the east's own Buddhist environment.

The monks active in Amdo later resumed conferring full ordination on Tibetans, including Lachen Gongpa Rabsal (c. 832 to 915). According to the records, the three refugees alone could not provide the number required for the formal act of full ordination. They invited one Chinese monk to make up the number and were thus able to ordain Gongpa Rabsal. He became an important figure at the center of Buddhist activity in Amdo. Through his efforts and those of his students, the ordination lineage was preserved there in relatively complete form.

Around the end of the tenth century, Lumey (Lu-mes), Lodön (Lo-sdon), and other successors to Gongpa Rabsal's Vinaya lineage led a group of monks back to central Tibet to reestablish monasteries and monastic communities. The movement back from Amdo to the center is called the "Lower Route of Diffusion" in Tibetan narratives, because Amdo lies east of central Tibet.²

The Lower Route was chiefly concerned with restoring the Vinaya lineage, rather than introducing new doctrines or systems of practice. It addressed the institutional question of whether there were legitimately ordained monastics. The question of what to practice was addressed chiefly through another line of development, the Upper Route from the west.

2. Patronage in the west: the kingdom of Guge and Rinchen Zangpo¶

Descendants of the Tibetan imperial house and Guge¶

After the Tibetan Empire dissolved, members of the royal family dispersed and established several small kingdoms in western Tibet, in what is now the Ngari region. Guge was the most important center of Buddhist patronage among them. Situated in present-day Ngari and facing the Indian subcontinent, it could maintain contact with India more easily than central Tibet could.

The tenth-century king of Guge, Yeshe Ö (Ye-shes-'od, c. 947 to 1024; the precise dates are disputed), was one of the most important patrons of the Later Diffusion. He became a monk while retaining political influence and devoted enormous energy to reviving Buddhism in Tibet. He sent young Tibetans to study in India and invited great Indian scholars to Tibet.³

Rinchen Zangpo, founder of the age of new translations¶

The group Yeshe Ö sent to study included Rinchen Zangpo (Rin-chen-bzang-po, 958 to 1055), who would become the most important translator of the Later Diffusion. He traveled to India three times and studied there for a total of about seventeen years. He mastered Sanskrit, Buddhist philosophy, and tantra, and translated a great many texts after returning to Tibet. They included numerous new tantras and non-tantric treatises that had not been translated into Tibetan during the Early Diffusion.

His monastery building and translation work in western Tibet formed the core of the Upper Route of Diffusion from the west. Traditional accounts credit him with founding 108 monasteries in Ngari, a symbolic number that may not be exact. He laid the linguistic and textual foundations of the Later Diffusion's New Translation tradition.⁴

Rinchen Zangpo occupies a distinctive place in Tibetan Buddhist history. He initiated the New Translation movement of the Later Diffusion and linked two eras. Living to nearly a hundred, he witnessed the beginnings of several new traditions of learning nurtured by the texts he had translated. Atiśa is said to have met the elderly Rinchen Zangpo after arriving in Tibet, and the two are said to have discussed certain questions of tantric practice. If the meeting took place, the two strands of the Later Diffusion converged at that point in history.

3. Atiśa enters Tibet and establishes the tradition of the stages of the path¶

The invitation¶

Yeshe Ö recognized that Rinchen Zangpo's translations needed the authoritative endorsement of an Indian scholar of the highest standing. The state of practice in Tibet, with its misuse of tantra and lax discipline, also called for a reforming force from India. He repeatedly sent invitations to India, ultimately seeking Atiśa, then the most famous of India's great scholars (full Sanskrit name: Dīpaṃkaraśrījñāna, 982 to 1054).

According to Tibetan accounts, Yeshe Ö was captured in a military conflict, possibly by a neighboring Muslim state. His captors demanded a large ransom. His nephew Jangchub Ö (Jangchub-'od) informed Atiśa and conveyed the old king's final wish. The king would rather exchange his life for Atiśa's coming to Tibet. Later Tibetan tradition places great emphasis on the narrative, which the book treats as an account with some historical core, amplified by religious literature. In any event, Atiśa entered Tibet in 1042, when he was about sixty. He worked there for twelve years until his death at sNe-than (Nyetang) in 1054, never returning to India.⁵

Atiśa and the Lamp for the Path to Awakening¶

Atiśa was born into a royal family in eastern India and received a full Indian Buddhist scholarly education. He studied successively at major monasteries including Nālandā and Vikramaśīla, eventually becoming one of Vikramaśīla's abbots. His learning encompassed Madhyamaka, especially Candrakīrti's Prāsaṅgika tradition, Yogācāra, logic, and various tantras. He was also known for strict observance of the Vinaya.

Soon after reaching Tibet, he composed the Lamp for the Path to Awakening (Bodhipathapradīpa; its Tibetan title means "a lamp illuminating the path to awakening"), one of the most influential texts of the Later Diffusion. The treatise organizes the entire Buddhist path into three successive levels according to practitioners' capacities. Those of lesser capacity are concerned with this life and the next and seek favorable human or divine rebirths. Those of middling capacity seek liberation and escape from saṃsāra. Those of greater capacity generate bodhicitta and follow the Mahāyāna path with buddhahood as their goal. The scheme encompasses the whole non-tantric and tantric path.⁵

The framework of "paths for three capacities" is one of the most influential structures in Tibetan Buddhist theory of practice. Tsongkhapa later systematized it in the Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Awakening (Lamrim Chenmo) as the core teaching of the Gelug school (discussed further in 11.6).

Atiśa's philosophical positions¶

Several philosophical positions of Atiśa deserve emphasis because they decisively influenced the subsequent direction of Tibetan Buddhism:

Endorsement of Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka. Atiśa explicitly supported Candrakīrti's Prāsaṅgika Madhyamaka rather than choosing Śāntarakṣita's Svātantrika Madhyamaka. The Early Diffusion had been shaped by Śāntarakṣita's Svātantrika system. Atiśa's arrival brought the authority of Prāsaṅgika to Tibet and prepared the ground for Tsongkhapa's later ranking of it as the highest view (discussed further in 11.7).

Strict qualifications for tantric practice. Atiśa criticized the disorder in contemporary Tibetan tantric practice. Many people practiced tantra without sufficient grounding in non-tantric teachings or the requisite empowerment. He insisted that tantra was the highest level of practice, open only to those who had systematically mastered the stages of the non-tantric path and received legitimate empowerment. Tantric practice could not proceed independently of its non-tantric ethical and philosophical foundations. The requirements were the historical source of the Gelug school's later strict regulation of tantra.

The historical background to Atiśa's criticism of tantric disorder

Atiśa's criticism had a specific historical basis, outlined in the diagram below.

The collapse summarized here concerns central Tibet; the chapter also records the survival of ordination lineages in Amdo. The diagram labels the Kadam school's establishment as 1057, while the text dates the beginning of construction at Reting to 1056 and the arrival of disciples from 1057 onward.

Atiśa's criticism addressed a structural problem that had long existed throughout the tantric tradition. Highest Yoga Tantra, especially texts involving consort practices, was in theory intended for practitioners with a full non-tantric foundation and very advanced realization. In actual transmission, however, these qualifications were extremely difficult to verify. There were therefore always people who bypassed the foundations and acted in the name of "tantra being above the precepts." Atiśa confronted this problem directly, and the historical significance of doing so extends beyond Tibetan Buddhism. The problem is structurally similar both to its manifestations in late Indian tantra and to a recurring logic in any religious movement that combines "advanced practice" with "exemption from ordinary precepts."⁶

The stages of practice give priority to discipline. In Atiśa's system, observing the precepts is the foundation of all practice, and bodhicitta is the core of the Mahāyāna path. A correct view of emptiness is the deepest understanding. Tantra is the highest practice but must proceed on these foundations.

4. The Kadam school and Atiśa's direct transmission¶

Atiśa's most important Tibetan disciple during his stay was Dromtönpa ('Brom-ston Rgyal-ba'i-'byung-gnas, 1005 to 1064). Dromtönpa was a lay practitioner known for his exceptionally strict way of life. He attended Atiśa throughout his time in Tibet and absorbed his teacher's complete teachings, which he continued to transmit after Atiśa's death.

At New Year in 1056, Dromtönpa arrived at Reting and began building Reting Monastery (Tibetan: Rwa-sgreng). Disciples began arriving in 1057. The monastery became the principal seat of the Kadam school (Bka'-gdams-pa, "those who follow the instructions of the Buddha's word"). Kadam teachings gave weight to both sūtra and tantra and to graduated study and practice. Its institutional core consisted of systematic learning, strict discipline, and Atiśa's framework of the stages of the path.⁷

Several features distinguish the Kadam school:

• Priority to non-tantric teachings: Kadam placed the strictest restrictions on tantric practice and devoted much of its work to non-tantric study and the practice of discipline.
• The stages of the path framework: Atiśa's paths for three capacities organized practice, which was gradual and systematic, with no stages skipped.
• Open transmission: The school tended to make teachings available to anyone willing to learn, without imposing special requirements based on tantric rank.
• Four scriptural supports: Particular emphasis was placed on studying Atiśa's Lamp for the Path to Awakening and several other classic treatises.

Kadam, previously an independent school, was largely absorbed into Gelug following Tsongkhapa's reforms in the fourteenth to fifteenth centuries. Gelug regarded itself as Kadam's successor and an advance upon it, and was sometimes called "New Kadam." Reting became an important Gelug monastery.

5. The great translators and the beginnings of the schools¶

The history of the Later Diffusion extends beyond Atiśa's line of transmission. At almost the same time, several other great translators brought entirely different lineages from India, planting the seeds of other schools that would emerge later.

Appendix: an overview of major Buddhist translators in Tibet

Translation was a distinct sacred profession in Tibetan Buddhist history. Its practitioners, called lotsāwa, "translators," enjoyed exceptionally high status. The table below lists the most important translators of the Early and Later Diffusions, identifying the sources of their lineages and where those lineages led:

The standardized language of translation during the Early Diffusion, set out in the Mahāvyutpatti around 814, was jointly developed by translators under royal sponsorship. The institutional arrangement secured relatively uniform translation quality. During the Later Diffusion, each translator sought Indian sources independently, bringing different lineages and sometimes different terminology. Differences in the history of the texts thus explain why schools with markedly different doctrines coexisted during the Later Diffusion.⁸

Marpa (Mar-pa Chos-kyi-blo-gros, traditionally 1012 to 1097) traveled to India three times, receiving tantric teachings such as the Six Dharmas of Nāropa chiefly from Nāropa and Maitrīpa. On returning to Tibet, he transmitted them to Milarepa (Mi-la-ras-pa), thereby initiating what became the Kagyu (Bka'-brgyud) lineage (discussed further in 11.4).

Drogmi ('Brog-mi Śākya-ye-shes, born c. 990–1000; date of death unknown) traveled to India and received Lamdré (Lam-'bras) teachings from Virūpa's lineage. His Lamdré meditation instructions later reached Sachen Kunga Nyingpo (Sa-chen Kun-dga'-snying-po) over several generations, becoming central to the Sakya tradition (Sa-skya-pa; see 11.5).⁸

The channels of transmission show that the Later Diffusion was not a single "revival movement." Several independent channels operated almost simultaneously or in close succession, and different Indian lineages each found their own Tibetan base.

6. The dispute between new and old translations, an enduring divide¶

One of the most important structural features of the Later Diffusion was the distinction between "new translations" (gsar ma) and "old translations" (rnying ma):

The Old Translation school, Nyingma, regarded translations from the Early Diffusion, the imperial period, as orthodox. Padmasambhava's treasure lineage was its central authority, and Dzogchen its highest teaching.

The New Translation schools, which arose during the Later Diffusion, regarded newly acquired texts brought directly from India in that period as orthodox. Great translators such as Rinchen Zangpo laid their translation foundations, and each school had different Indian sources.

The central dispute concerned the authenticity of scriptures. In the eyes of the New Translation schools, many Old Translation tantras, especially treasure texts, had no verifiable Indian Sanskrit originals. The New Translation schools therefore criticized some Old Translation texts as later forgeries. The Old Translation school replied that the treasure tradition had its own legitimacy. It held that the great master Padmasambhava had hidden the texts in anticipation of later needs. It also pointed out that the authenticity of certain Indian texts on which the New Translation schools relied could equally be questioned.

In the book's assessment, the dispute continued for centuries, with both sides offering their own textual evidence and historical arguments. Modern Buddhist scholarship has supplied further historical clues concerning the authenticity of Old Translation tantras, but the question remains open. The dispute itself expresses the internal vitality of Tibetan Buddhism. The schools argued over what counted as "the true teachings of the Buddha" through textual comparison and philosophical debate, rather than simply asserting authority.

7. The convergence of several strands of the Later Diffusion¶

The Chinese diagram presents Rinchen Zangpo and Atiśa as parallel lines under western patronage. Rinchen Zangpo connects to the later Gelug tradition, while Atiśa's line reaches it through the Lamp for the Path to Awakening and Kadam. The English layout's vertical sequence does not establish a teacher-to-disciple succession between Rinchen Zangpo and Atiśa. The lower-route return is dated to approximately the late tenth century. The English Kadam box adds the founding of Reting under 1057; the text distinguishes construction beginning in 1056 from the arrival of disciples from 1057 onward. The diagram retains Marpa's 1012–1097 and Drokmi's 993–1050; Chapter 2's translator table and note question the former and give an uncertain estimate for the latter, with birth around 990–1000 and an unknown date of death. The Chinese diagram's references are Chapter 11.4 for Kagyu, Chapter 11.5 for Sakya, and Chapter 11.6 for Gelug.

As the diagram shows, several parallel developments shaped the Later Diffusion, rather than a single revival movement. The Lower Route addressed the institutional problem of ordination transmission, and the Upper Route, through Rinchen Zangpo, addressed the textual problem through new translations. Atiśa addressed questions of the scholarly framework and stages of practice. Marpa, Drogmi, and others brought back different tantric lineages that became the sources of other schools.

The parallel developments, together with the tension between new translations and the Nyingma tradition of the Early Diffusion, formed the historical setting in which the later Tibetan Buddhist schools coexisted, competed, and debated.

The next chapter turns to Nyingma. It is the oldest of these traditions and the one with the most sustained dialogue with the New Translation traditions.

Further reading¶

• Matthew T. Kapstein. The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. xviii–xix, 86–105, 119–134. (Historical analysis of the dispute between new and old translations.)

References¶