THE PERIOD OF THE “LATER SPREAD”

by Michelle Janet Sorensen

In this chapter I will provide a brief survey of the cultural landscape of the period during which Machik Labdron was active and in which her form of Prajnaparamita Chod was developed. This will provide some background for later discussion of how Machik could participate in the regeneration of canonical Mahayana teachings while remaining independent of strict institutional or doctrinal affiliations. The unique and the traditional aspects of Chod can be

better understood in the context of eleventh- to fourteenth-century Tibet, which witnessed both innovative and conservative cultural activities due to the negotiations of political power among various clans on the Tibetan Plateau. Because of conflicts between conservative and innovative impulses, this period supported a variety of new communities with new ideas about authority and legitimation.

The eleventh to fourteenth centuries in Tibet were characterized by scholars, translators and practitioners making a profusion of teachings available in Tibet for the first time. It was a time of cultural change, with ruling clans and classes reimagining themselves through the construction of an indigenous Buddhist identity. Translations, interpretations, disseminations and practice of Buddhist teachings were thus of vital importance. This period, generally

referred to as the “Later Spread” (phyi dar), fostered charismatic personalities who promoted particular interpretations of Buddhist philosophy and praxis. Machik flourished in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. She developed her ideas alongside the importation and adoption of novel

esoteric and exoteric intellectual and spiritual systems. As Ronald Davidson has noted, during the twelfth century Tibetans had become comfortable enough with their interpretations of imported systems that they considered themselves to be “authentically Buddhist enough to support the process of innovation” (2005, 276). However, during this time there was a struggle over social and spiritual authority between two tendencies of Buddhist ideas and practices in Tibet. On one hand, many teachers emphasized the need for order and control over the plethora of teachings in circulation. On the other hand, many teachers expressed skepticism toward the value of orthodoxies, especially when they served to curtail and devalue supposedly heterodox practices.

The first tendency toward order is represented by the early efforts of the ruler of Mnga' ris in the western region of the Tibetan plateau, Lha Bla ma Ye shes ‘od (ca. 947-1024 CE). Early in his leadership, Ye shes ‘od supported multiple trips of the great translator Rin chen bzang po (958-1055 CE) to Kashmir for study in Buddhist teachings and the Sanskrit language, with the aim of developing authoritative translations for the transmission of Buddhavacana. Of special concern to Ye shes ‘od were teachings characterized as “Tantra,” which emphasized personal practice over scholarly learning and

monastic discipline. Like Ye shes ‘od, many conservative thinkers in this period saw these teachings as corruptions or perversions of the Dharma. Such teachings were not necessarily “new” to the Tibetan region: for example, they included Nyingma teachings (including the practices of Dzokchen) that had been underappreciated, if not suppressed, in various regions of Tibet during the ninth century when Buddhism had lost favor among the ruling classes under

Glang dar ma (ca. 863-906 CE). The foundations of what would later be referred to as the “Nyingma” teachings were introduced to Tibet by Padmasambhava several centuries earlier and had been embraced by the ruling classes as well as certain members of the general population until conflicts occurred during the rule of Glang dar ma.

Later, Ye shes ‘od would invest in sending several missions to bring the great scholar Atisa from the Buddhist center of learning, Vikramasila. However, ultimate success in bringing Atisa from India would not be attained the mid-eleventh century (dates vary from 1041¬1043 for his arrival), after the death of Ye shes ‘od and under the direction of his nephew, Byung chub ‘od (ca. 984-1078 CE). Samten Karmay points out that while Dzokchen was regaining popularity from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries, it was precariously situated: key figures such as Gnubs Sangs rgyas Ye shes were losing prominence, while the Kadampa lineage was being defined and gaining support following the arrival of Atisa in 1042 (Karmay 1975, 150).

In addition to these efforts to identify, establish and perpetuate authentic Buddhist teachings through authoritative figures, Ye shes ‘od and his successors, including Zhi ba ‘od (d. 1111), issued written edicts (bka' shog) expressing their disapproval of particular unorthodox but popular Vajrayana practices. One of Ye shes ‘od's edicts was directed toward tantric practitioners (sngags pa) in central Tibet sometime in the late 10th century, prior to

Rin chen bzang po's return in 985. In addition to claims of rapid attainment of Mahamudra realizations and claims of being a fully enlightened buddha due to one's inherently pure nature, three practices were of especial concern to these political ministers during this time: ritual sexual union (sbyor), ritual murder for the sake of liberation (sgrol), and ritual food offerings (tshogs).

The ordinance of Ye shes ‘od also mentions the religious practices of sanctified medicine (sman sgrub), an activity called “bam sgrub” which might refer to making effigies, and forms of offering (mchod sgrub) as worthy of concern and possible prohibition (Karmay 1980a, 152ff). Approximately a century later, Zhi ba ‘od would follow his ancestor Ye shes ‘od and issue his own edict denouncing similar practices.

Atisa composed a number of teachings reflecting similar anxieties while staying at Mtho lding, a centre of Buddhist learning in Tibet that was home to Rin chen bzang po. While at Mtho lding in the mid-eleventh century, Atisa composed the Bodhipathapradipa (and probably the Bodhimargadipa-pahjika, also attributed to him), which discourages practitioners from engaging in erroneous praxes and declares that two of the four *anuttaratantra consecrations are

inappropriate for celibate monastics. According to Karmay (1980a, 152), “[a]ll chos-‘byung speak of wrong tantric practices during this period, but none gives any precise account as to which or what kind of tantras were involved,” although he presumes that one of the Tantras being called into question was the Gsang ba snying po from the Mahayoga cycle of the Nyingmapa. Given the profusion of texts and interpretations circulating in Tibet, this heightened concern regarding the authenticity of teachings and the desire to discriminate between exoteric and esoteric teachings is not surprising. Erroneous

interpretations of Tantras and the system of Mahamudra were of particular concern to many teachers, who strove to exert order and control in order to avoid dangerous praxes. Matthew Kapstein makes the generalized observation that “[i]n the world of Tibetan Buddhism, as for Indian religious traditions more generally, orthopraxy was crucial, orthodoxy less so” (2000, 119). Yet, given that praxis is often informed by doxa, efforts toward establishing orthodoxa are also in evidence during this period, especially by more conservative interpreters and institutions. One source of anxiety over doctrine was the difficulty of defining—and thus regulating—

Tantra teachings such as the Mahamudra and Dzokchen, the latter of which is explicitly referred to in the letter composed by Ye shes ‘od. David Ruegg observes that “whereas some Mahamudra teachings were fully recognized as genuine and valid, others were rejected either as execrable abominations . . . or

as innovations having no canonical foundation” (1994, 376). Even though the principle of justifying authenticity through canonicity is not grounded in Indian Buddhism, Tibetans in this period made efforts to establish the authenticity of teachings through taxonomies of doxa together with hierarchies of categorization and codifications of terminology. Jacob Dalton (2005) discusses the range of Indian and Tibetan doxographical systems, arguing for a

reevaluation of the primacy of the four-fold schema of Kriya, Carya, Yoga and *Anuttarayoga or *Niruttarayoga which became paradigmatic in Tibet. He claims that these categories are not only ahistorical, but also conceal competing interests, philosophical views and systems of ritual practice. According to

Dalton, the Tibetans strove to homogenize and control the “foreign intrusion of chaotic texts and rituals” that “arrived en masse” from the eighth to tenth centuries (2005, 162). The Tibetan system of codification was in place by the twelfth century and supported the primary doxographical division between “Nyingma” and “Sarma” textual and ritual traditions.

Counter to these efforts to order and regulate newly discovered teachings, this period also evidenced a tendency of skepticism—or even cynicism—toward attempts to formulate scholastic orthodoxies. Proponents of contemplative practices, regarded as heterodox by many conservative systematizers, often subverted attempts at dharma regulation by returning to canonical teachings, such as those contained in the Prajnaparamita corpus. For example, the Second Karmapa, Karma Pakshi, argued that the limitations and circumscriptions promoted by 13th-century tenet systems fostered limited realization, myopia and

ignorance rather than an understanding of the true nature of actuality (Kapstein 2000, 101-106). Karma Pakshi draws on the authority of the Prajnaparamita to support his position: “‘Tenets are like the edge of a sword. Tenets are like a poisonous plant. Tenets are like a flaming pit. Tenets are like the

[[[Wikipedia:poisonous|poisonous]]] kimpaka fruit. Tenets are like spittle. Tenets are like an impure container. Tenets are reviled by all.' Therefore, whatever tenets—whether good, bad, or mediocre—you might harbor are the causes of good, bad, or mediocre [[[conditions]] of] samsara. They are devoid of the life-force of nirvana.” As we will see, Karma Pakshi's iconoclasm echoes key teachings in works attributed to Machik over a century earlier.

In comparison with the snga dar period of the eighth and ninth centuries, the period of the “Later Spread” was both vital and unruly, featuring an unrestricted influx and circulation of teachings and practices. Kapstein characterizes the period as one of “tantric free-for-all” (2000, 61). However, it should be remembered that conservative views on orthodoxy were not necessarily restricted to scholastics (Davidson 2005, 154). The problem of establishing

the orthodoxy of teachings was common to many Tibetan Buddhists. Critics of the new scholastic systems argued against regimented practices and for the necessity of individual cultivation of lived experiences in the development of spiritual realizations. But of course, such individual cultivation resisted institutional control, inspiring the efforts of those advocating doxological constraints and appropriate methods for legitimating “Buddhadharma.”