the relationship between Indian Buddhism and Ti-
betan identity. Another teacher, PADMASAMBHAVA,
was a relatively obscure tantric guru whose inspira-
tion became important later.
Translation bureaus in DUNHUANGand Central
Tibet were opened by the Tibetan emperors, from
Khri srong lde’u btsan (Trisong détsen, ca. 742–797)
through Ral pa can (r. 815–838), but unofficial trans-
lations were recognized sources of concern. While the
official bureaus emphasized the MAHAYANAmonastic
texts, unofficial translations tended to feature more
radical tantric works. During the reign of Sad na legs
(r. 804–815) a council was convened to regularize Ti-
betan orthography and to establish both translation
methods and a lexicon of equivalents for official
translators. The result was the emergence of classical
Tibetan, a literary language developed to render both
sophisticated Buddhist terminology and foreign po-
litical documents into the rapidly evolving Tibetan
medium.
Translations were initially made from several lan-
guages, but principally from Sanskrit and Chinese, so
that a consistent tension between Indian and Chinese
Buddhist practice and ideology marked this period.
The Northern CHAN SCHOOLwas present in Tibet, but
from 792 to 794 a series of discussions between Indian
and Chinese exegetes at the BSAM YAS DEBATEwas ul-
timately decided in favor of the Indians. Eventually,
Buddhist translations from Chinese were abandoned
for exclusively Indic sources.
Fragmentation and the later spread of
the dharma
The last of the emperors, Dar ma ’U dum btsan (r.
838–842) began a campaign of suppression of Bud-
dhism contemporary to the Huichang suppression in
China. Dar ma was assassinated by a Buddhist monk,
and the vast Tibetan empire fragmented over imperial
succession. The period from 850 to 950 was a chaotic
time marked by popular revolts and warlordism. Sur-
viving Buddhist monks fled, and monastic practice was
eclipsed in Central Tibet for approximately a century.
Aristocratic clans that had accepted Buddhism, how-
ever, continued to develop indigenous rituals and new
literature based on the received tradition. This is the
time that the classical persona of the nonmonastic re-
ligious teacher coalesced: the lay LAMA, sometimes a
mystic inspired by visions of imperial preceptors. With
the reestablishment of records in the late tenth century,
we see active lay Buddhist behavior—PILGRIMAGE, lay
rituals, autochthonous divinities as protectors, and so
on—that was to endure to the present.
Yet the monastic religious form was closely allied to
the memory of the empire, and Bsam yas stood empty.
Eventually several Tibetans under the leadership of Klu
mes from Central Tibet traveled to Dan tig Temple, in
modern Xining, and received monastic ordination
from Tibetan monks who had maintained it. Return-
ing to Central Tibet around 980, Klu mes and others
began to refurbish Bsam yas as well as construct net-
works of new temples. Their position, though, was of-
ten threatened by the lay lamas called Ban de, and the
new monks were sometimes physically attacked.
One line of the imperial house established itself in
Gu ge, in West Tibet, and some two dozen men, pre-
eminently Rin chen bzang po (958–1055), were sent to
study in Kashmir. Like the Tibetan emperors, the Gu
ge kings supported Mahayana scholarship and were
critical of extreme tantric behavior, whether Tibetan
or Indian. While Rin chen bzang po principally trans-
lated esoteric works, many other translators, especially
Ngog Blo ldan shes rab (1059–1109), specialized in
Mahayana philosophical treatises, rendering many
into Tibetan for the first time. Thus, the Five Treatises
of Maitreyaand much of the work of DHARMAKIRTI
and other scholastic authors were introduced to Ti-
betans through their activity. A great translator’s con-
vocation, where scholars discussed their texts and
procedures, was called by the Gu ge king in 1076.
In Central Tibet, the later translation movement be-
gan with ’Brog mi (ca. 990–1060), who studied in
Vikramas ́la and elsewhere in India. Following him,
Dgos lo, Rwa lo, Mar pa, Kyung po rnal ’byor, and
other scholars began the new translation or revision of
Indian works. Many of these eleventh-century Central
Tibetan translators were concerned with the newly
evolving TANTRAs, which they presumed had not been
revealed to earlier Tibetans. They also believed that the
imperially sponsored systems had become mixed with
indigenous Tibetan practices and derided them as “old
style” (rnying ma).
For their part, certain RNYING MA (NYINGMA)
teachers—especially Rong zom Chos kyi bzang po (late
eleventh century)—were also translators and defended
their own texts by decrying perceived inadequacies of
the new translators and their Indian informants. Rong
zom also composed the first synthetic Tibetan treat-
ment of the Buddhist path in a detailed manual called
the Theg chen tshul ’jug(Entering the Method of the Ma-
hayana), which begins with monastic Buddhism andTIBET