368 sven bretfeld
not be avoided. Some polemicists among “new tantra” adherents identify
the “proto-rNying-ma-pas”, who are credited with the transmission of
the “old tantras” during the “dark age”, with the deteriorated pseudo-
Buddhists described in the “dark age” accounts of historiography. They
further conclude that the “old tantras” were faked by them, since these
texts contained “heretical” views which cannot have been taught by
Padmasambhava etc.
A major difference between the rNying-ma-pas and the “new schools”
is that they divide the class of “inner tantras” into three separate
classes (instead of one). This might sound peripheral, but has been an
important factor for rNying-ma-pa identity and a strong incentive for
polemical debates. Practice based on tantras of the rst two of these
three classes—mahyoga and anuyoga—are believed by the rNying-ma-
pas to produce the same results as the practice of anuttarayogatantras of
the “new schools”. But, according to rNying-ma-pas, there is a still
higher teaching, transmitted only in the “old tantras” and the gter-mas of
their school. This teaching is called rdzogs-chen, the “Great Perfection”,
revealed in the texts of the third tantra-class called atiyoga. It is not the
place here to go into the doctrinal and practical aspects of rdzogs-chen.^55
For us, it is important, that this opinion to possess a teaching exceeding
what the “new tantras” have to offer, has been a major element of rNy-
ing-ma-pa self-con dence throughout Tibetan Buddhist history, and,
as one might expect, has prompted sharp criticism from proponents
of the other schools.^56
On the other hand, a strong party can also be found among adher-
ents of the “new schools”, who hold the “old tantras” and rdzogs-chen
in high esteem. Especially due to a certain similarity between rdzogs-
chen and the Mahmudr teaching of the bKa’-brgyud-pas, a syntheses
between these two practices was attempted as early as the thirteenth
century by the Karma-bKa’-brgyud abbot Karma Pak i (1204–1283);
this synthesis was further developed from the seventeenth century
onwards, and formed an important foundation for the “non-sectarian
movement” (ris-med) of the nineteenth century. Within the dGe-lugs-pa
order we nd tendencies to radically reject rdzogs-chen as well as voices
who revere it as a precious special revelation of the Buddhas—the latter
(^55) To the interested reader Karmay 1988 and the recent publication by S. van Schaik
(2004) may be specially recommended.
(^56) Cf. also Achard 1999, pp. 9f.