BUDDHISM IN THE TIBETAN CULTURAL AREA 283Buddhist doctrine as a whole than in systematizing Dzogchen theory and prac-
tice. He held to the Nyingma position that all Buddhist teachings, no matter
how contradictory they might seem on the surface, were equally valid as alter-
native approaches to the truth-as different teachings were suitable for differ-
ent temperaments-but that they all were ultimately inadequate as descriptions
of the realizations to be gained through the practice of Dzogchen. However,
by his time a variety ofDzogchen traditions had developed, and he felt called
upon to impose some order on them.
He ultimately delineated three valid Dzogchen traditions, two lower ones
tracing their lineage from a Chinese monk in Kashmir, and a higher one pur-
portedly founded by Samantabhadra (see Section 5.4.4) and brought from
India to Tibet by Vimalamitra. The higher one taught two approaches to
Awakening-both equally effective, but the second the more spectacular of
the two. The first, a sudden method, was trekcho (khregs chod, cutting through
rigidity), in which one simply broke through to the innate purity and simplic-
ity of awareness and then stabilized one's ability to remain in touch with that
purity. The second, a more gradual method, was togal (thod gral, passing over
the crest), in which yogic techniques were used to stabilize the attainment of
light acquired in the earlier stages to the point where one attained the rain-
bow-body, whereby one's physical body would dissolve into light after death.
These practices are obviously shamanic in origin, related to the Bon myth
of the creation of the world from light. Longch' en, however, rationalized them
with Buddhist doctrine by identifying the pure awareness realized in trekcho
with the Dharmakaya, and the rainbow-body attained in togal with the sam-
bhogakaya. However, he was careful to point out that the Dharmakaya was
not identical to the store-consciousness (see Section 4.3), for unlike the store-
consciousness it has been pure and nondual all along. Thus a recurrent ques-
tion in later Dzogchen teachings has been how to distinguish the two in
practice.
Longch' en Rabjam's systemization of Dzogchen has remained definitive
up to the present, but it solved few problems for those thinkers who respected
the inconsistencies they found among the various schools of Buddhist thought.
At the same time, his life-he reportedly sired a number of illegitimate chil-
dren-did not provide a satisfying model for those who respected the Bud-
dhist teachings on morality. Only later in the fourteenth century did
Tsongkhapa (Tsong kha-pa; 1357-1419), a native of northeast Tibet, formu-
late a system accommodating both of these concerns that was to win wide-
spread approval.
Tsongkhapa had become a novice in boyhood and received Tantric initia-
tions before going to central Tibet. There he studied the exoteric Mahayana
treatises for years and visited all the notable centers of learning, regardless of
their affiliation, his special interests being logic and Vinaya. Taking full ordina-
tion in the Kadam order at age 25, he began to ponder the central question of
Mahayana philosophy: the meaning of the doctrine of emptiness. Did it com-
pletely negate the validity of conventional norms and reality-including other
Buddhist doctrines-or did it leave them intact? After years of study and