the later spread of buddhism in tibet 357
Atia on the correct way tantras have to be meditated on and nally
had to surrender to the greater experience of his younger opponent.
He then retreated from public life and for the last ten years of his life
meditated in solitude according to Atia’s method. On his way back to
India Atia met with ’Brom-ston rgyal-ba’i ’byung-gnas, who became
his main devotee. After this auspicious encounter the master changed
his plans and proceeded to Central Tibet together with ’Brom-ston,
where both continued missionary activities and visited bSam-yas, Lhasa
and many other places before he died in sNye-thang (to the south of
Lhasa) in 1054.
In Tibetan Buddhist historiography Atia’s importance considerably
exceeds that of Rin-chen bzang-po, and he may justly be regarded as
the dominant gure associated with the “later spread”. The rst Bud-
dhist school-tradition emerging from this period—the bKa’-gdams-pa,
the “ones teaching the (Buddha’s) words”—refers to Atia as its founder.
The main centre of the bKa’-gdams-pa order was founded 1057 by
Atia’s primary pupil ’Brom-ston in Rva-sgreng near Lhasa. Thus, the
story of Atia also marks a local shift in the “later spread” accounts from
Western to Central Tibet. The bKa’-gdams-pa school was of major
importance for the further development of Tibetan Buddhism.
A major factor of Atia’s success was probably the fact that he taught
a systematic approach to Buddhism based on a speci c choice of prac-
tices and a corresponding theoretical foundation. The heritage of a
clear-cut set of teachings associated with a charismatic representative of
the highly reputed masters and institutes of traditional Buddhist learning
in Northern India, was surely a vital precondition for the community
of his followers to develop an identity as a distinct Buddhist school.
His system included a reasoned mixture of conventional Mahyna
doctrine and tantric practice, as well as a characteristic synthesis of
monastic and tantric lifestyle.
Some scholars have suggested that Atias royal patrons of mNga’-ris
had expected from his invitation a more radical turn towards monastic
Buddhism than Atia had actually effected. As Samuel conjectures:
“The Tibetans who invited Atia may have wanted a fully rational-
ized and non-Tantric Buddhism.”^35 From the historian’s point of view
(^35) Samuel 1993, p. 470; compare also Snellgrove 1987, p. 481: “Having practiced
his religion earlier in life under the guidance of famous tantric yogins, he [scil. Atia]
could scarcely be expected to change his views later in order to please a few leading
people in Tibet, who wanted a far more thorough “reformation” than he was prepared
to countenance.”