lde btsan (pronounced Trisong Detsen; r. 755–797
C.E.) is said to have formally proscribed around 785.
Buddhists tell of a subsequent Bon persecution of Bud-
dhism. Both accounts share many similar features
(banishing of priests, hiding of books for later recov-
ery, etc.), so the historicity of many of the details is
open to doubt, although nearly contemporaneous doc-
uments preserved in DUNHUANGdo indicate some ten-
sion between the traditions.
Later Bon considers its “founder” to have been the
teacher Gshen rab mi bo (pronounced Shenrap Miwo),
from the semimythical land of ’Ol mo lung ring. As in
the MAHAYANAaccount of S ́akyamuni Buddha, Gshen
rab is said to have been an enlightened being who em-
anated in this world as the preordained teacher of the
present world-age. Yet, unlike S ́akyamuni, accounts
of whom emphasize early renunciation of his king-
dom and married life, Gshen rab is said to have
remained a layman until late in life, working to prop-
agate Bon as a prince, together with his many wives
and offspring.
The documented historical period of Bon begins
with the “rediscovery” of many allegedly ancient Bon
scriptures by Gshen chen klu dga’ (pronounced
Shenchen Lugah, 996–1035) around 1017; these texts
make up a substantial part of the current Bon CANON.
Gshen chen klu dga’ was a native of west-central
Gtsang province, and the majority of early Bon insti-
tutions were centered in that area. He and his disciples
created the scriptural and institutional base for Bon
during the next four centuries. In 1405 Shes rab rgyal
mtshan (pronounced Shayrap Gyeltsen, 1356–1415)
founded the monastery of Sman ri (pronounced Men-
ree), which was to become the most important Bon
center until the twentieth century. The eminent scholar
of Bon, Per Kværne, has suggested that the Bon canon
was fixed in this period, likely no later than 1450.
Bon was reputedly persecuted again under the rule
of the fifth DALAILAMA(1617–1682) and during the
succeeding two centuries, during which time Bon
monasteries were closed, destroyed, or converted,
though some scholars downplay the extent of this per-
secution. The canon was subjected to further revision
in the mid-eighteenth century by Kun grol grags pa
(pronounced Kundrol Takpa, 1700–?), who prepared
a detailed catalogue of its scriptures. Subsequently, in
the nineteenth century, Bon experienced something of
a resurgence. The primarily Buddhist Non-sectarian
(ris med) Movement, in which the Bon teacher Shar
rdza bkra shis rgyal mtshan (pronounced Shardza
Tashi Gyeltsen, 1858–1935) collaborated, expressed
collegial respect for Bon and vice versa. The impor-
tance of the great perfection (rdzogs chen) and redis-
covered treasure (gter ma) teachings in both the
Non-sectarian Movement and Bon provided the foun-
dation for mutual recognition and cross-fertilization.
From this time until the present, there have been some
who speak of Bon as the “fifth school” of Tibetan Bud-
dhism, in addition to the RNYING MA (NYINGMA),
SA SKYA(SAKYA), BKA’ BRGYUD(KAGYU), and DGE
LUGS(GELUK).There are in fact many similarities between Bon and
the Tibetan Buddhist traditions, which make such an
identification—while ultimately untenable—not en-
tirely unreasonable. In fact, the basic teachings of Bon
are virtually identical to those found in Tibetan Bud-
dhism. Both traditions commonly refer to the ideal,
enlightened being by the term sangs rgyas(Sanskrit,
buddha) and to enlightenment itself by the term byang
chub(Sanskrit, BODHI[AWAKENING]). In addition to
these exact correspondences, one also sometimes finds
the use of alternative, but functionally equivalent,
terms. For instance, the term bonis contrasted with
chos(dharma), a key word in Buddhist thought. Yet,
bonoccurs in Bon literature in exactly the same con-
texts as chosdoes in Buddhism; Bon texts speak, for
example, of a “bon body” (bon sku), which is essen-
tially the same as the Buddhist “dharma body” (chos
sku), both serving as the first of a triad that includes
the beatific body (longs sku) and the emanation body
(sprul sku). The structure of their canons is also simi-
lar. Like the Buddhists, the Bonpos divide their sacred
scriptures into two classes—one containing scriptures
of revealed word (in the case of Bon, those attributed
to Gshen rab), the other the writings of later saints. In
both traditions, the collection of revealed scriptures is
known as the Bka’ ’gyur(pronounced kanjur). The
Buddhists refer to their collection of commentaries as
the Bstan ’gyur(pronounced tanjur), while the Bonpos
call theirs the Brten ’gyur(a homonym).Although Bon appears in many respects to be a com-
pletely “buddhicized” tradition in its forms, doctrines,
and practices, many old indigenous traditions remain
in the core of Bon, especially with regard to COSMOL-
OGY, sacred narratives, and pantheon. Thus, though the
Bon revealed in the sources available to scholars can-
not be considered the indigenous, pre-Buddhist reli-
gion of Tibet, these distinctively Bon elements do
provide a glimpse of what may have been some of the
ancient religious forms of pre-Buddhist Tibet.BON