The spread of Buddhism in Tibet occurred in two main phases. The beginning or the early phase of Tibetan Buddhism, also called the old transmission (tib. Nyingma), was characterized by the rule of the Tibetan kings of the time. They favored the introduction of Buddhism along with some significant cultural changes in Tibetan society—for instance, the introduction of the Tibetan script. Qualified Indian masters such as Padmasambhava (ca. Eighth-century CE) and shantarakshita (725–788) were invited to Tibet beginning in the eighth century and participated in one of the most extensive and most profound cultural transfers mankind has ever seen.
The later phase, or second wave, called the New Transmission (Tib. sarma), began around the eleventh century when Indian and Tibetan masters and translators such as Atisha (982–1054), Marpa Lotsawa (1012–1096), Drogmi Lotsawa (992–1074) and Khyungpo Naljor (ca. 990–1135) brought further Buddhist teachings from India to Tibet. This led to a new beginning and a progressive integration of Buddhism into the way of life and culture of the Tibetans. From then on, they considered Buddhism their own indigenous religion, even though many Buddhist masters fled to Himalayan countries during the historical period of frequent Muslim attacks on India, thus prolonging the direct Indian influence on Tibet.
The practice of Buddhism has been integrated into Tibetan society through three different roles: the monastic, lay, and yogi roles. The role of a monk or nun is to follow a strict code of conduct and, at the same time, preserve the tradition as professionally as possible. The role of a layperson consists of working, taking responsibility for a family, and benefiting others in society. This role implies a constant challenge to integrate the Dharma practice into a busy daily routine. The role of a yogi or accomplisher means to keep the highest view and to practice as much as possible. In practice, this requires investing one’s whole life in spiritual development. The founding fathers of the Kagyu tradition in Tibet represented all three roles. Marpa was a layperson and farmer by profession, Milarepa was the most famous yogi in Tibet, and Gampopa, after having started a career as a physician, became the first monk in the lineage.
The subsequent flourishing of the Buddhist teachings and their practice during the early fourteenth century is often described as the most formative period of the long history of Tibetan Buddhism. Several of its most influential teachers, such as Longchenpa (1308–1363), Dölpopa (1292–1361), as well as the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje (1284–1339), were born at that time. They collected and practiced all available transmissions and brought the essential teachings into the form most widely used in the various lineages of spiritual instructions to this day.
Once all the Buddhist teachings from India had been translated into Tibetan over a seven-hundred-year period, the Third Karmapa took stock of all the works that had been handed down. He then published the first complete Tibetan edition of the Indian commentaries (the Tengyur). Even though Buton Rinchen Drub (1290–1364) officially compiled and revised the complete set of translated teachings shortly before the end of the Third Karmapa’s life, the Karmapa had already commissioned the production of the translated commentaries, as far as they existed at his time. This is evidenced by two Tengyur catalogs contained in his long-lost and only recently republished Collected Works.
From the perspective of the Kagyu tradition, the extensive scholarship required for this was based on the extraordinary ability of Rangjung Dorje: his fully developed awareness enabled him to remember a text word for word from beginning to end after reading it only once. Only the most capable scholars and meditation masters of this inspiring time, endowed with encyclopedic minds, could accomplish such a comprehensive task.
This naturally leads us to the questions, “What is an established Buddhist tradition?” and, “What does the term “lineage of spiritual instructions” mean?” Here we can also take the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje as an example. He became the holder of all the important lineages of spiritual instruction that prevailed in his time. At the same time, he was the head of only one religious order, the Karma Kagyu tradition. Since he was the holder of all the major transmission lineages, it sometimes happened that followers of other traditions regarded him as a member of their schools, e.g. in his biographies presented from the perspective of the Nyingma lineage. Therefore, the distinction between a lineage of spiritual instructions and an established order, school, or tradition should be as clear as possible.
First, it is important to clarify what the term transmission actually means. Here, there exists a broad and a narrow definition. In a broader sense, spiritual development in the powerfield of a realized teacher, e.g., in a Buddhist center, can be called the transmission of that teacher. However, the narrow meaning is stricter. According to tradition, the experience of spiritual realization is transferred from a teacher to a student. The transmission of a lineage actually takes place when a student achieves full realization of the teachings transmitted by a teacher. A lineage, therefore, consists of a historical list of lineage holders, each of whom has attained a realization of the full meaning of the teachings.
Often, especially when translators brought new materials to Tibet, they searched for a suitable place in the scarcely populated country where they could settle down and establish a new center for spreading Buddhist teachings. In several cases, this also became the starting point for a completely new religious school or tradition. In other cases, especially when it later turned out that the differences between the new school and the established schools were not significant enough to justify a separate order, the newly founded establishments were integrated into the older traditions and disappeared as independent institutions.
The decisive factor in this process was always the close teacher-student relationship. In the early period of Tibetan Buddhism—as in many cases in India previously—this was often a one-to-one situation where a single teacher had only a single student. This method maintained the high quality of transmission but, at the same time, was rather risky for the preservation of the lineage. Therefore, the system changed later, and one teacher had many students. However, among these many students, there was usually one principal student who became the lineage holder of the complete transmission passed on by the respective teacher. In this way, the risk of interrupting or even losing the transmission lineage was counteracted.
Thus, when concerning Tibetan Buddhism, we distinguish between a transmission lineage of spiritual instructions passed down from teacher to student and a religious order or tradition. The religious order is the established, organized, or even institutionalized form of the studies, rituals, and practices associated with a particular transmission lineage. In some cases, a transmission lineage did not have any established structure but relied exclusively on a traveling teacher and his students. In other cases, such an establishment, like a monastery or religious center, could also be linked to two or even more transmission lineages. Characteristic examples were the monasteries and retreat centers of the Third Karmapa and the First Kongtrul Lodrö Thaye (1813–1899). However, this did not mean that ordinary practitioners followed several lineages at the same time, but rather that they focused on one lineage and respected all others.
When analyzing the established institutions, we can define various categories, either according to their historical order of origination, usually related to a particular translator and the transmissions he brought to Tibet or, according to their emphasis on certain studies, rituals, and practices that corresponded to the mentality and abilities of their respective students. It is important, however, to be as consistent as possible in presenting these types of categories, even if they sometimes overlap to a certain extent.
When summarizing the development of Tibetan Buddhist orders or schools (Tib. chö lug), it should be noted that the actual institutionalization mainly took place very late in the history of Tibetan Buddhism. Although the process had already begun in the eleventh century with the founding figures of the various lineages, the construction of the first monasteries and well-established Dharma centers did not take place until much later—usually the twelfth century. Over the course of time, large organizations developed, extending over many monasteries, colleges and meditation centers. It was not before the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries that these orders took on an institutional form which remained more or less unchanged until the Chinese takeover in the twentieth century.
What we think of today as a particular institutionalized tradition is often projected back to the beginning of the corresponding lineage of spiritual instructions in Tibet but should not, in fact, be regarded as identical with that. This is also one of the main reasons for speaking of the fourteenth century as the formative period of Tibetan Buddhism.
Because there were very few established schools in the eleventh century, it is also difficult to assign clear categories for the existing lineages to this period. Here it should be sufficient to propose a classification of the various traditions in Tibet based on clear paradigms. It seems reasonable to follow Geoffrey Samuel, at least to some extent, who uses the terms “shamanic and clerical Buddhism,” although the term “shamanic” would be better replaced by the term “practice-oriented.” In this way, just two main categories emerge, the practice-oriented traditions of the Nyingma, Sakya, and Kagyu schools, and the discipline- and scholarly-oriented traditions of the earlier Kadampa school and the later Gelug tradition.
Of course, we should consider these terms as a very rough outline, which just present a general emphasis. Upon closer examination, the practice-oriented traditions were also institutionalized and scholastic to some extent, and the clerical traditions stressed the importance of meditation practice after many years of scholastic training or had smaller practice-oriented branches. Nevertheless, this distinction shows the strongest inclinations of the followers of these lineages. In the practice-oriented Kagyu school, the basic idea of a lineage of spiritual instructions is closely related to the openness towards a chosen teacher. The origin and early development of this lineage, and its essential contents as handed down and practiced until today, will be discussed in more detail in the following two articles of this series.
Further reading: The Kagyu Lineage, Part 2 (Indian Origins and Early Tibetan Master)
Selected Sources
Kongtrul Lodrö Thaye, Jamgon. Jamgon Kongtrul’s Retreat Manual. Translated by Ngawang Zangpo. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications, 1994.
Nydahl, Lama Ole. The Way Things Are: A Living Approach to Buddhism. Hampshire: O Books, John Hunt Publishing, 2012.
Rang byung rdo rje, Karma pa III (1284-1339). Kar ma pa rang byung rdo rje gsung ’bum, vols. 16. The Collected Works of Karmapa Rangjung Dorje. Lo yag bkra shis, Ziling, 2006.
Samuel, Geoffrey. Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies. Washington & London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993.
Seegers, Manfred. The Lord of the Teachings: Life and Works of the Third Karmapa Pa Rung Byung Rod Rje (1284-1339), M.Phil. thesis. Canterbury, UK: University of Kent, 2009.
