348 sven bretfeld
of this claim, since the proof of unbroken transmission lineages of
authoritative texts and practices became an indispensable prerequisite
of religious legitimation in the early “later spread” period. Therefore,
a certain amount of “invention of tradition” cannot be excluded.
Nevertheless, a continuation of Buddhist tantric activity during the
“dark age” is highly probable. There is even sound evidence that major
developments of the tantric systems associated to the rNying-ma-pa
tradition, actually date from this time.^13 Also some of the tantras found
in Dunhuang seem to have been written during this period.^14 2.) The
chos-’byungs typically begin their accounts of the “later spread” with a
story of some Buddhist monks who ed Central Tibet during the time
of Glang-dar-ma’s persecution and built up small religious centres in
North-Eastern Tibet (Khams) where monastic traditions are said to have
been upheld throughout the “dark age”. This information, however,
has to be balanced in the light of certain Chinese sources that point
to an even greater amount of Buddhist activity in North-Eastern Tibet
during the tenth century.^15 3.) Some of the scattered lineages of the
royal family do not seem to have abandoned Buddhism completely after
the collapse of the empire. Thus, the erection of a Vairocana temple
in Bya-sa (Central Tibet) in the early tenth century is believed to have
been sponsored by dPal-’khor-btsan, a descendant of Glang-dar-ma.^16
Anyway, the traditional picture of Glang-dar-ma as an apostate king,
who was mislead by evil ministers to rigorously eradicate Buddhism
from Tibetan soil, has been questioned by Tibetologists, since a pros-
ecution of Buddhism is not mentioned in the earliest available sources.
It seems that the last king of the empire actually did no more harm to
the Tibetan Buddhist religion than a reduction in patronage.^17
We will probably never get an accurate picture of the religious
scenery in Tibet during the period after the downfall of the empire,
and to put forward a speculation about these matters is not in the
scope of this paper. What is important for us, is that the later Tibetan
historical sources most probably present a much simpli ed picture of
the factual state of things in their historical accounts concerning tenth
century Tibet. This might partly be due to a general lack of informa-
(^13) Cf. Germano 2002.
(^14) Cf. Kapstein 2000, pp. 12 and 208 n. 48.
(^15) Cf. Kapstein 2000, p. 12.
(^16) Cf. Richardson 1998, p. 178.
(^17) Cf. Kapstein 2000, p. 11.