A Historical Survey of the Shentong Tradition in Tibet

A Historical Survey of the Shentong Tradition in Tibet

Stearns, Cyrus. "A Historical Survey of the Shentong Tradition in Tibet." Chapt. 2 in The Buddha From Dolpo: A Study of the Life and Thought of the Tibetan Master Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen. Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion Publications, 2010.

This advice by the omniscient Dölpopa should be kept as the key point in our hearts: "If buddhahood will be reached merely as a result of having heard the term 'sugata essence,' what need to mention what will happen from actualizing that by means of faith and devotion, and meditating on it? Thus compassionate experts should teach it even if they might lose their lives and so forth, and those who strive for liberation should seek it out and listen even if they must cross a great pit of fire."

Jamgön Kongtrul

Little is known about the early Tibetan proponents of philosophical points of view that would later come to be known as shentong. According to Lhai Gyaltsen, many persons with partial realization of the teachings of definitive meaning had appeared in Tibet before the fourteenth century, most of them dedicated practitioners. But no one until Dölpopa had mastered all the teachings of definitive meaning in the various scriptures, treatises, and esoteric instructions, and then formulated that realization into a coherent philosophical tenet. Tāranātha traces one lineage for what he calls "instructions on the view of the Madhyamaka emptiness of other," and a second lineage for the Kālacakra teachings passed down in the Jonang tradition. The first of these concerns the practical instructions that epitomize the intentions of all the sūtras and commentaries of the third turning of the Dharma wheel. This lineage is primarily traced through Maitreya and the Indian brothers Asaṅga and Vasubandhu, who are considered the founders of the doctrine, but a transmission is also traced from Nāgārjuna. This first text is a record of the names of teachers who taught the shentong view based on the teachings of the Mahāyāna scriptures and commentaries. Jetsun Tāranātha's second text, concerned with the lineage of the Kālacakra teachings transmitted in the Jonang tradition, records the names of teachers who taught the shentong view based on the tantras, specifically as articulated in the Kālacakra Tantra and related literature. Examples of the writings of very few of the Tibetan masters in each of these lineages before the time of Dölpopa seem to have survived.

1. The Shentong Tradition in Tibet before Dölpopa

According to Tāranātha, one of the earliest Tibetan masters in the shentong lineages based on Mahāyāna teachings was Drimé Sherab, better known as Tsen Khawoché (b. 1021), who was most intimately connected with the transmission of the Highest Continuum (Uttaratantra). In his important collection of one hundred guiding instructions from various lineages, Kunga Drölchok preserved some instructions of this teacher, which are the earliest extant materials about the shentong view in Tibet. Kunga Drölchok first provides some historical context.

As for the guiding instructions on the view of an emptiness of other, Tsen Khawoché said, "Sañjana, the paṇḍita of Kaśmīr, made this very significant statement: 'The Conqueror turned the Dharma wheel three times. The first wheel taught the four truths, the middle one taught the lack of defining characteristics, and the final one made carefully thorough distinctions. Of these, the first two did not distinguish between the real and the imaginary. The final one, at the point of certainty concerning the absolute, taught by distinguishing between the middle and the extremes, and distinguishing between phenomena and true nature. Only the original manuscripts of Distinguishing Phenomena and True Nature and the Highest Continuum were rediscovered. If these two texts had been lost, it would have indicated Maitreya's passing away into bliss.'"
      Appearing in an old notebook of Tsen Khawoché himself bearing the title Lotus Hook, this is persuasive against the later claim that the distinction of an "emptiness of other" was totally unknown in India and only appeared later in Tibet with the omniscient Dölpopa. Please also closely examine the statement appearing in one of the all-knowing Butön's replies to questions, where he mentions the earlier existence of the philosophical tenet of Tanakpa Rinchen Yeshé that seems to have been later enhanced and maintained by Dölpopa.

Kunga Drölchok considers this statement by Tsen Khawoché to be a very important example of an early precedent for the philosophical distinctions later formulated by Dölpopa. Here Tsen Khawoché refers to his teacher Sañjana's opinion that only the third turning of the Dharma wheel, where clear distinctions are made between phenomena and true nature, represents the definitive meaning of the Buddha's teachings. Kunga Drölchok feels that this refutes Tibetan critics who claimed the shentong view was completely unknown in India and Tibet until the time of Dölpopa. He further remarks that even the great Butön commented that Dölpopa had enhanced an earlier Tibetan philosophical tenet held by one Tanakpa Rinchen Yeshé, and directs the reader to one of Butön's written replies to questions. Unfortunately, there is no mention of Dölpopa in the replies of Butön that have been preserved. However, Dölpopa did indeed study with the Tanak master Rinchen Yeshé. When still quite young, just before his teaching debut at Sakya in 1313, Dölpopa spent about three months at Tanak, where he studied with Rinchen Yeshé and received an explanation of the Five Treatises of Maitreya, two of which are the Highest Continuum and Distinguishing Phenomena and True Nature. The question of such important influences on Dölpopa's formulation of the shentong view will be discussed below.

      The lineage of the Kālacakra teachings transmitted in the Jonang tradition emphasized the definitive aspect of the doctrine long before the time of Dölpopa. This is most obvious in a group of short works entitled Set of Four Bright Lamps (Gsal sgron skor bzhi), composed by the eleventh-century Kālacakra master Yumowa Mikyö Dorjé. Yumowa is clearly dealing with some of the same themes that Dölpopa later elaborated. Tāranātha even identifies Yumowa as having "initiated the tradition of the philosophical tenets of tantric shentong." But it is very significant that none of the key terms associated with Dölpopa's theories, such as gzhan stong (emptiness of other) or kun gzhi ye shes (universal-ground primordial awareness) appear in the extant writings of Yumowa, nor does he use the terminology that Dölpopa apparently borrowed from certain Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises.

      Nevertheless, seven hundred years after Yumowa, the Geluk master Tuken Losang Chökyi Nyima (1737–1802), who despised the shentong view, says in his Crystal Mirror of Philosophical Tenets that Yumowa was the founder of the shentong teachings, which he so named, and that they were passed down orally until the time of Dölpopa as a hidden doctrine without any written texts. The earlier comments of the Kagyü master Gö Lotsāwa Shönu Pal (1392–1481) in a letter to the Jang ruler Rikden Namgyal Draksang simply focus on the teachings of the sugata essence and definitive meaning:

I have a slight understanding that this Dharma language of the sugata essence is the excellent heart of the ultimate doctrine of definitive meaning. In ancient times, most spiritual friends in Central Tibet and Tsang turned away from discussion of discriminating self-awareness. The doctrine started from the great adept Yumowa's composition of the treatises of the Four Bright Lamps. At a later time, the great omniscient Dharma lord [Dölpopa] spread and increased it.

Dölpopa actively taught Yumowa's Four Bright Lamps, yet he neither mentions Yumowa in his own writings nor quotes directly from his texts. But the early Jonang master Kunpang Tukjé Tsöndrü does specifically identify the Four Lamps as the crucial source of direct introduction to the essence of the Six-branch Yoga of Kālacakra.

      Yumowa's four brief treatises are ultimately concerned with the correct practice of the Six-branch Yoga, the completion-stage meditation system grounded in the Kālacakra Tantra. The four texts focus on unity (zung 'jug), the Great Seal (phyag rgya chen po), luminosity ('od gsal), and emptiness (stong nyid). A prayer to the masters in the transmission line of the Kālacakra teachings according to the Jonang lineage is appended to the first of the four texts, indicating that the extant manuscript was passed down in the Jonang tradition.

      Yumowa discusses many tantric topics in his writings that are beyond the scope of this book. But one of his recurrent concerns is to emphasize that he does not accept the opinion of most scholars that the path consists of realizing the true mode of the existence of phenomena, or the true nature of all phenomena, to be an emptiness not established by any intrinsic nature, free from the extremes of existence, nonexistence, both, and neither. He identifies this as the meaning of the view, the philosophical tenet that establishes the true mode of existence of all entities. This is not what is to be cultivated as the path according to the stages of esoteric instruction. In short, Yumowa teaches that emptiness in the context of the path of meditation absolutely must be experiential. An emptiness of any nature whatsoever cannot be directly experienced. For Yumowa, emptiness that is the valid path is experienced during the practice of the Six-branch Yoga, when "images of emptiness" are actually beheld. This is the direct experience of emptiness as the path according to the teachings of the Kālacakra Tantra. Yumowa says that emptiness arrived at through reasoned analysis and emptiness without mental activity are not the path; it is the emptiness seen with the eyes during meditative concentration that is the subject of his work. Concerning these images of emptiness, the Jonang master Kunpang Tukjé Tsöndrü writes, "Precisely that is beholding the face of the divine chosen deity of the absolute true nature." Echoes of this point of view will be found in the works of Dölpopa.

      The texts translated in part 2 of this book will show that the teachings of Dölpopa were solidly grounded in the doctrine of the tantras, especially the Kālacakra Tantra, and that his treatises do not simply follow established philosophical tenets, but represent a synthesis of the view and practice of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna Buddhism.

2. Dölpopa and the Shentong View

Early Tibetan masters such as Tsen Khawoché and Yumowa, who taught what was later referred to as the shentong view, did so only to small groups in the context of private instruction. Very few texts written by any of the later members of their lineages, from the eleventh century until the late thirteenth century, have survived. It was not until Dölpopa proclaimed his realization and gave his doctrine the name "shentong" that this term and the teachings now associated with it became widely known in Tibet. The circumstances surrounding Dölpopa's initial proclamation of the shentong were described in chapter 1, and the nature of his ideas will become clear in chapter 3 and in part 2. Here some of the influences behind his theories, his innovative use of language, his motivation, and the method by which he approached the Buddhist scriptures will be discussed.

      Dölpopa's statements show that the most important scriptural sources for his controversial theories were the set of texts known as the Bodhisattva Trilogy, which are the definitive Indian commentaries on the Kālacakra Tantra, the Hevajra Tantra, and the Cakrasamvara Tantra. For example, in a text that he sent to the ruler of the region of Jang, Dölpopa specifies these works as the key influences in his conversion from the view of absolute reality as an emptiness of self-nature. Of these, the Stainless Light of Kalkī Puṇḍarīka held special significance for him. Dölpopa once remarked, "All the key points of the profound definitive meaning were discovered in the great commentary to the Kālacakra Tantra, so it has been remarkably kind."

      Dölpopa was a consummate practitioner of the Six-branch Yoga, the completion-stage practices of Kālacakra. He based his doctrinal discussions on scripture, particularly the cycles related to the Kālacakra Tantra, but his own experience in meditation was crucial to the formation of his theories. As George Tanabe has emphasized in his study of the Japanese master Myōe, "Buddhists have long insisted that the primary experience—and experience is primary—is that of meditation and practice." Dölpopa obviously felt that he had experienced the definitive meaning of the Buddha's message that was known in the mystical land of Shambhala, but not understood in Tibet. He once claimed to have actually gone to Shambhala during an evening meditation session. The next morning he gave an extensive teaching about the layout of Shambhala, its relation to the rest of the universe, and the esoteric instructions of the Kālacakra Tantra. After directly beholding Shambhala, he composed eulogies to it, declaring in one that he had discovered precisely how Shambhala and Kailash exist, which was previously unknown to Indian and Tibetan scholars.

      When giving personal meditation advice to his students, Dölpopa most often speaks of the special knowledge he had discovered. He emphasizes that many in Shambhala understand the experiences that arise from meditation on the Six-branch Yoga, but no one understands in Tibet except for him. His own awareness is due solely to the kindness of the Kalkī emperors. For example, he writes the following verses in an instruction to one of his disciples:

Generally, if I speak frankly,
other people don't like it.

If I speak what other people say,
it would deceive my students.

It is difficult to be a teacher nowadays.

Nevertheless, I will speak frankly to you.

The Kalkī lives in Shambhala to the north.

In the Dharma palace of Kalāpa
live many who understand these
types of experiences.

In the snowy land of Tibet,
just I understand
these types of experiences.

And to another disciple he writes:

These days this procedure
is not known by most
who are famed as scholars,
who claim good meditation
and high realization,
and who are conceited great adepts,
but I have discovered it
by the kindness of the Kalkī.

The combination of Dölpopa's experience in meditation on the Six-branch Yoga, his visionary contact with the land of Shambhala and its Kalkī emperors, and their special blessings, certainly provided the primary inspiration for his views. But many of the themes of interpretation that came to fruition in his teaching had been present in the Buddhist traditions of Tibet for centuries. The teachings of Tsen Khawoché and Yumowa mentioned in the previous section are just two examples of earlier Tibetan teachers whose views certainly provided a precedent for some of Dölpopa's theories.

      In this context, it is very interesting that some Tibetan sources also speak of the Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorjé, as a possible direct influence on Dölpopa, or even as the first adherent to the shentong. The earliest available account of the meeting between these two teachers is by the sixteenth-century Sakya master Mangtö Ludrup Gyatso:

Moreover, this lord [Dölpopa] met with Karma Rangjung Dorjé and, it is said, when [Dölpopa] upheld the philosophical tenet of the emptiness of self-nature, the Karmapa prophesied that he would later become an adherent of the emptiness of other. In general, I think the tradition of the emptiness of other was first upheld by Karma Rangjung Dorjé. Those at Jonang became adherents to the emptiness of other after the great omniscient [Dölpopa].

According to Tāranātha this meeting seems to have taken place when Dölpopa was twenty-nine or thirty years old, just prior to his trip to Jonang to meet Yönten Gyatso in 1322:

Then [Dölpopa] traveled to Lhasa, Tsurpu, and so forth. He had many discussions about Dharma with Dharma lord Rangjung. Rangjung could not match the scriptural reasoning of this lord, but he had fine clairvoyance and prophesied, "You will soon have a view, practice, and Dharma language much better than this that you have now."

Tāranātha apparently quotes from the Karmapa's prophecy, but makes no mention of him as a possible source for Dölpopa's development of the shentong view. Unfortunately, no record of this meeting is found in the early biographies of either teacher. However, a later history of the Karma Kamtsang tradition written by Situ Panchen Chökyi Jungné (1700–1774) specifies that Dölpopa still adhered to the view of an emptiness of self-nature at the time of the meeting. According to the chronology of this work the meeting between the two masters occurred between 1320 and 1324.

      One of the most innovative aspects of Dölpopa's philosophical approach was his development of a new Dharma language (chos skad) to express a wide range of themes found in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna scripture. Tāranātha mentions that when Dölpopa first taught the shentong he wrote a number of texts containing a certain Dharma language that was incomprehensible to many scholars, who upon reading them experienced a state of what might be called "hermeneutical shock." As just mentioned, Karmapa Rangjung Dorjé also prophesied that Dölpopa would soon develop a new and superior terminology.

      Dölpopa did two things with language that were largely unprecedented in Tibet. Much research remains to be done, but it is probable that he first developed a special terminology or Dharma language that involved the appropriation of key terms from Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises, terms that were acceptable in their original context within scripture, but were almost never used in ordinary scholarly discourse. Then he created, or a least made first extensive use of, several Tibetan terms such as gzhan stong (shentong, "emptiness of other") and kun gzhi ye shes ("universal-ground primordial awareness") to express scriptural themes he wished to emphasize. He also drew into his vocabulary some key terms such as dbu ma chen po ("Great Madhyamaka") that had been in use in Tibet for centuries, but are not found in any Indian scriptures or commentaries. In this second phase he employed what may be referred to as source-alien terminology, utilizing previously unknown terms to explicate ideas and themes already present in many Buddhist scriptures.

      In his unique use of language Dölpopa first borrowed loaded terminology from Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises and incorporated it into his own compositions. A few examples will illustrate this unusual facet of his work. One of the controversial points in his teaching is the assertion that ultimate truth, referred to by terms such as sugatagarbha ("sugata essence"), dharmadhātu ("basic space of phenomena"), and dharmakāya ("dharma body"), is permanent or eternal. Statements to this effect are certainly not unusual in many Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises, but for most scholars in Tibet the hermeneutical approach was to view those statements as provisional (neyārtha, drang don) and in need of interpretation. For Dölpopa, such statements in the scriptures and commentaries were of definitive meaning (nītārtha, nges don) and to be understood literally. He began to freely use the terminology of these scriptures in a way suggesting that no interpretation was required, and this was no doubt shocking. For instance, the Tibetan terms bdag (ātman), rtag pa (nitya), and brtan pa (dhruva), as well as ther zug, g.yung drung, and mi 'jig pa (all used to translate Sanskrit śāśvata), are found in the Tibetan translations of treatises such as the Highest Continuum and sūtras such as the Laṅkāvatāra, Ghanavyūha, Aṅgulimālīya, Śrīmālā, and Mahāparinirvāṇa, where they are used to describe the dharmakāya, the Tathāgata, and the buddha nature, or sugata essence. These terms, which can be translated as "self," "permanent," "stable," "everlasting," "eternal," and "indestructible," are used by Dölpopa throughout his writings, not just when discussing the meaning of a passage in scripture. Butön Rinchen Drup's refutations of the Jonang interpretation of these very terms as used in scripture clearly shows that this was one of the areas where Dölpopa's contemporaries reacted strongly.

      In one of Dölpopa's early and brief compositions, General Commentary on the Doctrine, which is considered a major work, most of these terms from the sūtras and Indian treatises are already in use. In another early and important text, Exceptional Esoteric Instructions on Madhyamaka, which he wrote at the request of his teacher Sönam Drakpa, several of these terms are also found and some of the themes he would later develop are present in embryonic form. The crucial terms continue to be found in all of his later writings. In his last major works, the Fourth Council and its Autocommentary, Dölpopa frequently uses all the terms listed above, as well as other unusual compounds such as "eternal kāya" (g.yung drung sku, ther zug sku).

      Dölpopa never dated his major works, but it may be possible in the future to establish an approximate chronology of his writings through analysis of the terminology used in the different texts. For example, General Commentary on the Doctrine and Exceptional Esoteric Instructions on the Madhyamaka do not contain the terms gzhan stong or kun gzhi ye shes. This gives the impression that they are very early works and that the borrowing of vocabulary from scriptural sources, which is present in these works, was the first step in the evolution of his use of terminology, later to be followed by the creation of his own Dharma language.

      The term gzhan stong (shentong) is most often associated with Dölpopa, who is usually thought to have coined it. However, there is some evidence of at least a few isolated occurrences of the term before his time. Dölpopa himself quotes a master called Lord Poripa, who makes a statement that could have come from Dölpopa:

Relative truth is empty of self-nature
and absolute truth is empty of other.

If the mode of emptiness
of the two truths is not understood
in this way, there is danger
of denying complete buddhahood.

This is certainly the most significant occurrence of the term by a writer who may predate Dölpopa, but very little is known about any earlier master called Poripa. The single possible identification is with the obscure early Kagyü teacher Poriwa Könchok Gyaltsen.

      Another example of the use of the term gzhan stong is found in the biography of Ra Lotsāwa Dorjé Drak (eleventh–twelfth centuries), who contrasts it to the term rang stong in a mystical song. But there are strong reasons to conclude that this biography was extensively reworked in the seventeenth century, and so the occurrence of the term is probably not significant.

      Dölpopa's contemporary, the famous Nyingma master Longchen Rabjampa, also mentions the term when discussing the three-nature (trisvabhāva) theory of the Yogācāra tradition. He contrasts the three categories of "empty of self-nature" (rang gis stong pa), "empty of other" (gzhan gyis stong pa), and "empty of both" (gnyis kas stong pa), but with none of the connotations inherent in Dölpopa's usage. During a discussion of the buddha nature, the expression gzhan stong is also used once in a text attributed to Padmasambhava in the Heartdrop of the Dakinis (Mkha' 'gro snying thig), which was revealed in the thirteenth century by Pema Lendrel Tsel. Once again, the usage of the term is not similar to that found in Dölpopa's works.

      This evidence shows that the term gzhan stong had been used in Tibet before the time of Dölpopa, albeit only in isolated instances. The tradition itself certainly considers him as the one who coined the term, but it is perhaps more accurate to say Dölpopa made use of an obscure term that had very limited use before him, and gave it a place of fundamental importance in the expression of his philosophy.

      Another central theme of Dölpopa's thought is the contrasting of universal-ground consciousness (kun gzhi rnam shes) and universal-ground primordial awareness (kun gzhi ye shes). The term kun gzhi ye shes is not found in the writings of any earlier Tibetan authors, and Dölpopa includes it in a list of topics previously unknown in Tibet that he had realized and explicated. The phrase "mirrorlike universal-ground primordial awareness" (kun gzhi me long lta bu'i ye shes) is found in one of the works of Longchen Rabjampa, where he uses it to characterize the dharmakāya and contrast it with the universal-ground consciousness as one of the eight modes of consciousness. In this one instance there are some similarities with Dölpopa's ideas, but Longchenpa's usual position is to identify the universal ground (kun gzhi) only with impure states of mind.

      Until 1322, when he was thirty years old, Dölpopa had primarily studied Buddhist literature, philosophy, and practice according to the Sakya tradition. For most of the previous decade he had studied and taught at Sakya Monastery itself. He would certainly have been very familiar with the works of Sakya Paṇḍita Kunga Gyaltsen (1182–1251), such as Distinguishing the Three Vows, which are fundamental to the education of a Sakya scholar and practitioner. The similarities between Sakya Paṇḍita's statements about his motives for composing his controversial works, and Dölpopa's statements about his own motives are as striking as the fact that the two masters were at opposite ends of the spectrum of doctrinal interpretation.

      A example of Dölpopa's familiarity with Sakya Paṇḍita's work and his sympathy for the Sakya master's sentiments is found at the end of the Autocommentary to the "Fourth Council". Dölpopa takes a couplet directly from Distinguishing the Three Vows and then extends Sakya Paṇḍita's metaphor by repeating it in a series of verses. The gist of Sakya Paṇḍita's verse is that no matter how many traditions of Dharma there may be, if they are not linked to an authentic source, they are lifeless, like gaming pieces that are off the board and irrelevant. Dölpopa uses the first couplet of Sakya Paṇḍita's verse as a point of departure and, through its repetition, addresses a number of related issues. For example, he says there may be numerous teachings of the degenerate Tretāyuga, but if they are not linked to the perfect Kṛtayuga they are lifeless, like dead bodies. He continues in this vein, contrasting the fully established nature with the imagined nature, the absolute with the relative, emptiness of self-nature with emptiness of other, and so forth. This borrowing was certainly deliberate and would have called to mind the themes and tone of Sakya Paṇḍita's treatise, especially since it was one of his descendants, Lama Dampa Sönam Gyaltsen, who had requested Dölpopa to compose the Fourth Council and its Autocommentary.

      Some of Dölpopa's clearest comments about his motives and sentiments are found at the end of his Brief Analysis, which he sent to the ruler of the principality of Jang to explain his doctrinal views. It is a significant spiritual and autobiographical testament:

These [investigations] lay a plumb line straight upon reality's true mode of being, just as it is. They are not contaminated with impurities such as prejudice, partiality, and the notion that a claim is stronger just because it was made earlier. I have taken as witnesses the opinions of the omniscient Buddha, the Blessed One; the excellent lords on the tenth level, such as the Lords of the Three Families, Vajragarbha, and Maitreyanātha; the great founders and excellent realized experts such as noble Asaṅga, the great brahmin Saraha, and the great paṇḍita Nāropa. I have avoided exaggeration and denial and have written after fully comprehending their intentions exactly as they are.
      You might think, "You are arrogant about having realized their intentions exactly as they are, but do your ideas actually disagree with those of other Tibetan teachers because you have not realized them?"
      That is not the case. The causes for not understanding are certainly inferior intelligence, lacking the oral instructions of an excellent master, little study, no experience and realization in meditation, being filled with pride and arrogance, defining true and false on the basis of the notion that a claim is stronger just because it was made earlier, popularity, and so forth. But I first engaged in much study of the great scriptural traditions, then I engaged in the practice of the oral instructions of India and Tibet that are known to be profound, and then the precise experience and realization of each of them actually arose.
      Then, based on the infusion of a little of the blessing of having encountered the definitive meaning of the great root tantras, the oral instructions of glorious Kalāpa, the profound uncommon heartfelt advice of the Kalkīs on the tenth level, I discovered many profound key points that have not been discovered, have not been realized, and have not been fully comprehended by self-clinging paṇḍitas, most dedicated meditators endowed with experience and realization, and most who are arrogant about being great upholders of secret mantra. A fine realization burst forth from within. Therefore, not only most dedicated meditators endowed with experience and realization, and those who are arrogant about being great upholders of secret mantra, but even the Buddha definitely could not turn me back from this truth, because I have an exceptional certainty with no doubts to ask about.
      You might also think, "All that certainty is from blurred and dim meditation or from misunderstanding; you have no perfect scriptural quotations for proof."
      That is not lacking, because there are very many clear quotations, together with reasoning and with esoteric instructions, from those on the twelfth level, those on the tenth level, and excellent realized experts such as Nāgārjuna and his spiritual sons, and the great paṇḍita Nāropa. Nevertheless, I have not written them here from fear of being verbose. But if you wish and are so interested, I will write and offer them later.
      Of these points, several exceptional ones certainly disagree with some that have been known in Tibet before. But you have been accustomed to an earlier philosophical tenet for a long time, so the propensity for it has become firm, and many in Tibet adhere to that tradition. So there is certainly a difference of firm and unstable propensities for these previous and later philosophical tenets, and a difference in the number of adherents. However, without giving in to the influence of those differences, please take as witnesses the scriptures of the Buddha and the bodhisattvas, and examine them with an attitude of unbiased honesty as to which [system] is true.

As this and many other passages make clear, considerable opposition to Dölpopa's theories certainly arose. Specifically, he felt that most people had already closed their minds to the teachings of definitive meaning. The mistaken notion that a claim is stronger just because it was made earlier, and the prejudice inherent in the established traditions of his time were some of the greatest factors inhibiting the widespread acceptance of his ideas. He was presenting his case to a prejudiced jury. It is therefore curious that not a single contemporary text has survived in which hostile testimony against Dölpopa is preserved. Perhaps full reaction to his doctrine did not develop and gain open expression until after his death.

3. The Shentong Tradition after Dölpopa

Dölpopa was surrounded by a group of experts as formidable as any in fourteenth-century Tibet. His most influential successors in the Jonang tradition were probably Choglé Namgyal, Nya Ön Kunga Pal, and Mati Panchen Lodrö Gyaltsen. Important works by all these masters are extant and demonstrate the extent to which they followed Dölpopa's example concerning crucial doctrinal issues. In particular, it was apparently the teachings of Choglé Namgyal and Nya Ön that provoked polemic responses and negative reactions.

      The most famous and influential early opponent of the Jonang tradition was the Sakya master Rendawa Shönu Lodrö (1348–1413), who was also one of the most important teachers of the great Tsongkapa Losang Drakpa (1357–1419). Rendawa is generally credited with establishing the Prāsaṅgika form of Madhyamaka philosophy in Tibet, but he came to be viewed by the Jonang tradition as a vicious opponent of the teachings of definitive meaning so successfully spread by Dölpopa. For example, a pseudo-prophecy said to be Dölpopa's last testament, but surely composed much later by a Jonang follower and added to his biography, describes Rendawa as an evil demon who would spread the view of nihilism. Moreover, he would refute the doctrine of the buddha nature, or sugata essence, as the ultimate ground, deny the Six-branch Yoga as the ultimate path, and deny the existence of the ultimate result as a separation from all taints. He would also criticize the Kālacakra Root Tantra because it did not begin with the words "Thus have I heard," as do other sūtras and tantras, and would make various criticisms of the Condensed Kālacakra Tantra. Finally, he would gather copies of the Stainless Light and have them thrown into rivers.

      These are serious allegations, but are also tainted with a considerable degree of hysteria. Rendawa's biography specifically points out that he was famous in Tibet for having said that the Kālacakra Tantra was not Dharma, but that this was incorrect. While he did see internal contradictions in a literal reading of the Kālacakra, he did not dismiss it as a non-Buddhist teaching (chos min). Rendawa makes this clear at the end of the Jewel Garland, the text where he voiced his objections to specific points in the Kālacakra Tantra:

Nevertheless, while it
may or may not have been
composed by a Noble One,
seeing that it also has many fine explanations,
I have not denied this totally
by saying, "It is not an entryway
for those who wish liberation."

Rendawa's main quarrel was not actually with the content of the Kālacakra Tantra itself, but with the prevalent practice of understanding its words literally. This is specified in his Reply to Questions, a text in which he specifically defends the Kālacakra Tantra against some of his own earlier objections:

Nowadays arrogant scholars
in the land of glacial mountain ranges
have become conceptually attached
to the literal meaning of the words
in the Kālacakra Tantra and its commentary,
which present the profound
by means of implicit language.

After seeing the spread of many
wrong distinctions that contradict
the collection of pure sūtras and tantras,
I have written this by means of objection and analysis,
as though straightening a crooked stick.

Rendawa is indeed the most famous (or infamous) critic of the Kālacakra tradition in Tibet. But he had first studied with some of Dölpopa's major disciples, such as Nya Ön Kunga Pal and Mati Panchen, and been extremely impressed with the Jonang philosophical tenets. He then decided to fully investigate the fundamental Indian texts emphasized by his Jonang teachers, such as the Kālacakra Tantra, the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, Maitreya's Highest Continuum, Nāgārjuna's Eulogy to the Basic Space of Phenomena, and so on. He analyzed these works three times. After the first reading he was certain that the Jonang position was correct. On the second reading he became uncertain as to whether it was correct or incorrect. After the third reading he was sure that the Jonang interpretations were incorrect. Rendawa then went to Sakya and reported to another of his teachers, the great abbot Sangyé Pel, that he had decided the Jonang doctrine was wrong, and his conclusion was encouraged. He then apparently embarked on a crusade to discredit the Jonang tradition and call into question the internal contradictions he perceived in a literal reading of the Kālacakra Tantra. First he sent a message to his teacher Nya Ön telling him what he had decided. Nya Ön was very displeased at this reversal in Rendawa's view. Nevertheless, Rendawa felt that because of Nya Ön's great intellectual powers, and specifically his consummate knowledge of epistemology, he could be convinced that the Jonang view was wrong if Rendawa could demonstrate this through reasoning and scriptural quotations. He was sure that once Nya Ön was converted, all the other members of the Jonang tradition would change their views. Nya Ön is certainly portrayed here as one of the leading proponents of Dölpopa's teachings.

      However, when Rendawa went to Tsechen Monastery to speak to Nya Ön, his old teacher indicated his displeasure in many ways, and Rendawa recognized there was no point in broaching the subject. Instead, he returned to Sakya and composed the Jewel Garland, his famous critique of the Kālacakra Tantra. In front of a huge assembly presided over by Drung Zhitokpa (1339–99) at Sakya, Rendawa debated against the Kagyü scholar Karma Könshön (b. 1333) on the question of internal contradictions in the Kālacakra Tantra. Then he was invited to Jonang itself, where he debated on the status of the buddha nature. According to Rendawa's biography, he was successful in converting many Jonang monks, caused others to doubt their views, and prevented still others from joining the Jonang tradition. In short, he seems to have led a strong reactionary movement against the Jonang philosophical tenets less than thirty years after the death of Dölpopa.

      Rendawa's Jewel Garland provoked a series of written refutations, beginning with a harsh rebuttal by the master Jangchup Sengé, who succeeded Choglé Namgyal on the monastic seat of Jonang in 1381. In the fifteenth century, Rikden Namgyal Draksang, the Sakya teacher Taktsang Lotsāwa Sherab Rinchen, and the Kagyü master Gö Lotsāwa Shönu Pal all wrote further refutations of Rendawa's work.

      Nevertheless, it is now clear that Rendawa's attitude was considerably more ambivalent than the account in Tibetan historical sources. In the latter part of his life he lived in semi-seclusion at a hermitage in the region of Gangbulé. During this time he composed his most substantial work on the Kālacakra Tantra, entitled Jewel Lamp Illuminating the Definitive Meaning of the Glorious Kālacakra. Unlike his two earlier polemic works, the first of which was certainly written while Rendawa was not yet thirty years of age, this fascinating treatise is a thorough and positive analysis of the Kālacakra meditation practices. The text is obviously an attempt to extract the profound essence of these teachings while correcting some errors of interpretation made by others. In light of Rendawa's reputation as an opponent of the Jonang tradition and a critic of the Kālacakra Tantra, it is shocking to find the following passage in this final work:

According to the tradition of this tantra, the classification of the two truths is like this: all the phenomena of the incidental stains that arise from the confusing circumstances of ignorance are relative truth, because they obscure the perception of thatness and are reference points for total affliction. Because that is also not established as the object of a perfect primordial awareness, it is empty of self-nature, a nihilistic emptiness, and an inanimate emptiness. All the phenomena of luminosity, the nature of original mind, are absolute truth. And not because it has been proven able to withstand reasoned analysis . . . It is the absolute because it is a nonconceptual field of experience. Because the incidental stains are absent, it is empty of other, and because it is experienced through a discriminating self-awareness, it is not a nihilistic emptiness and an inanimate emptiness . . .
      Because the emptiness of self-nature falls into the extreme of nihilism, its realization is not the perfect path of liberation; only the emptiness of other, the true nature of mind, luminosity, an immutable inner pure awareness experienced through the force of meditation and through a discriminating self-awareness, is accepted as the perfect path.

Could Rendawa have actually come to accept that the definitive meaning of the Kālacakra Tantra was compatible with the shentong view held by the Jonang tradition? Nevertheless, at other points in this important text he continues to strongly condemn the notion of a permanent and eternal absolute reality, which he equates with the teachings of the Vedic scriptures. Without a more careful study of Rendawa's works it is difficult to know how he was able to admit the validity of the shentong in the context of the definitive view of the Kālacakra Tantra, but reject the various other aspects of the theory, such as the permanent and eternal status of the buddha nature. In any case, it is certain that later generations in Tibet continued to view Rendawa as a determined enemy of both the Jonang tradition and the teachings of the Kālacakra Tantra, despite the evidence to the contrary in his final work on the subject.

      Even with such doctrinal backlash against the Jonang tradition in the late fourteenth century, Dölpopa's legacy remained powerful for many decades in the province of Tsang before other influences gained the upper hand. Tāranātha later remarked that the prophecy about Dölpopa found in the Sūtra of the Great Drum was correct, since the practice of the Six-branch Yoga that he spread throughout Tibet, and the teaching of the Sūtras on the Essence, the Highest Continuum, and other key texts of the third turning of the Dharma wheel that proclaimed the buddha nature remained strong in all teaching institutes for more than eighty years. After that point, Tāranātha said, the teaching of those scriptures was not as influential as before, because many people became obsessed with the provisional meaning and having the highest view, as well as gaining reputation, power, and large entourages. This is clearly a negative reference to the rise of the Geluk tradition founded by lord Tsongkapa, whose main disciples, Khedrup Gelek Palsang (1385–1438) and Gyaltsap Darma Rinchen (1364–1431), led the attack against the Jonang tradition in the fifteenth century. Nevertheless, Tāranātha continued, even around the beginning of the seventeenth century the practice of the Six-branch Yoga and the teachings on the buddha nature had still managed to survive.

      From the period after Dölpopa's immediate disciples up until the time of Kunga Drölchok (1507–66), very few texts are available that were written by Jonang masters concerned with the shentong view and other issues raised by Dölpopa. And Kunga Drölchok just mentions the shentong in a few of his texts. This situation would change only with the writings of Tāranātha, who began to revive the tradition around the beginning of the seventeenth century.

      For this period of almost two hundred years (from the beginning of the fifteenth century until the beginning of the seventeenth century) most available information about the Jonang tradition and the shentong teachings is thus found in polemic writings from other traditions, nearly all hostile, with the notable exception of the Sakya master Serdok Panchen Shākya Chokden (1428–1507). Presently available sources portray Shākya Chokden as one of the most influential advocates of the shentong in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. This impression is strengthened by Tāranātha, who composed a fascinating text about twenty-one differences in the views of Dölpopa and Shākya Chokden concerning profound points of Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna doctrine. In the late eighteenth century the Geluk critic Tuken Losang Chökyi Nyima does not mention any shentong masters after Dölpopa's direct disciples until he singles out Shākya Chokden with particular venom. This role as an important upholder of the shentong view (although somewhat different than that of the Jonang tradition) is all the more remarkable because Shākya Chokden was, with the possible exception of Goram Sönam Sengé (1429–89), the greatest Sakya scholar of his time.

      Where did Shākya Chokden come in contact with the shentong teachings and how did he remain a staunch Sakya master while upholding this view? There is not total agreement about the source of the shentong received by Shākya Chokden. One of his main teachers was the Sakya master Rongtön Sheja Kunrik (1367–1449). The modern Tibetan scholar Dhongthog Rinpoché says Shākya Chokden followed the example of his teacher Rongtön in professing the shentong in secret and refuting the exegetical tradition of lord Tsongkapa through logical reasoning. While Rongtön's views cannot be examined in detail here, there is probably some truth to Dhongthog Rinpoché's statement. For example, a eulogy to Dölpopa composed by Rongtön has survived, which at least indicates that this prominent Sakya teacher had great respect for Dölpopa and his views.

      In the Kagyü tradition, the Seventh Karmapa, Chödrak Gyatso (1454– 1506), is said to have inspired Shākya Chokden to accept the shentong point of view. As previously mentioned, the Third Karmapa, Rangjung Dorjé, is sometimes named as an influence on Dölpopa's initial development of the shentong teachings. At the present stage of research the dynamics of how the shentong came to be accepted by many members of the Kagyü tradition, especially in the Karma Kamtsang branch, is not well understood, but it was certainly a powerful force within this lineage, perhaps from the time of the Third Karmapa.

      The earliest available source on the life of Shākya Chokden, written by Jonang Kunga Drölchok, says he met Karmapa Chödrak Gyatso on two occasions, but contains no mention of the shentong or similar topics. These meetings can be dated to the year 1502. The most significant event was the second meeting, at the Rinpung court of Dönyö Dorjé, who was the most powerful ruler in Tibet. According to the Kagyü historian Pawo Tsuklak Trengwa (1504–66), who was writing between the years 1545 and 1564, about twenty to thirty thousand people are said to have gathered from throughout the Tsang region to welcome the Karmapa on his arrival in Rinpung. Shākya Chokden stayed with the Karmapa for about one month. During this period he received many of the Kagyü hierarch's uncommon profound instructions, which greatly enhanced his experience of renunciation and realization in meditation, and caused him to accept the Karmapa as his main master.

      An eighteenth-century history of the Karma Kagyü tradition elaborates further, saying that the Karmapa accorded Shākya Chokden the incredible honor of sitting on a throne of equal height in the midst of the assembly, and that they spent the month in discussion of the most profound topics. On this occasion the Karmapa said his mind and Shākya Chokden's mind had blended into a single mindstream (thugs rgyud gcig pa). A passage later in the same work finally mentions that in his writings Shākya Chokden accepted, as did the Karmapa, that the ultimate view of the two great traditions of the Mahāyāna was the shentong view of the absolute as only empty of other relative phenomena. Shākya Chokden was already seventy-three or seventy-four years old, but this event is often considered to have been the deciding factor in his acceptance of the shentong. However, it now seems more likely that Shākya Chokden had upheld the shentong view for many years, and that this lengthy discussion with the Karmapa was more of a further validation and enrichment of his realization than a change of view. If this were not the case, it would have to be accepted that all his works dealing with an emptiness of self-nature and an emptiness of other were composed in the last five years of his life.

      In addition to Shākya Chokden's biography, Kunga Drölchok also wrote a biography of Rikden Namgyal Draksang (1395–1475), the great ruler of the region of Jang, who was a master physician and scholar. Namgyal Draksang studied with many teachers of different traditions, but described himself as a follower of the Jonang teachings, especially those of the Kālacakra and the Six-branch Yoga, and considered Dölpopa to be the ultimate authority on these topics. Like Dölpopa before him, Namgyal Draksang was believed to be an emanation of the Shambhala emperor Kalkī Puṇḍarīka and wrote many important works, but very few seem to have survived. Shākya Chokden and Namgyal Draksang corresponded by letter and met on several occasions. Their last meeting was in 1475 at the elderly ruler's residence near Ngamring, which Shākya Chokden visited on his return trip from a lengthy stay in Mustang, in present-day Nepal. During this visit, the sovereign master (who passed away soon after) resolved all Shākya Chokden's remaining doubts and questions about the Stainless Light, the great commentary on the Kālacakra Tantra. Shākya Chokden also received initiation in the maṇḍala of the Mahāsamvara form of Kālacakra from Namgyal Draksang and accepted him as his sublime vajra master (mchog gi rdo rje slob dpon chen po).

      In this specific context Kunga Drölchok quotes Shākya Chokden at length concerning his early interest in the Great Madhyamaka and the teachings of definitive meaning. When he was a child, Shākya Chokden once accompanied his teacher Dönyö Palwa on a visit to the great scholar Khenchen Pema Sangpo. This teacher stressed that the Five Treatises of Maitreya were all Great Madhyamaka, which was different that what Dönyö Palwa accepted. In Shākya Chokden's own words:

[Pema Sangpo] looked at me and said, "Wise young nephew, closely investigate topics such as this!" and also gave me a gift of tea.
After that time I closely investigated the definitive meaning, but did not really record it in great detail in treatises strictly devoted to the works of the philosophical tenets. I just spoke of it a little bit in conversation. Later, because I received the command of the great Rikden [Namgyal Draksang], I have specially emphasized it.

Kunga Drölchok further notes that Shākya Chokden spoke of this often in the monastic assembly, and that if his works written before the trip to Mustang, in Ngari, and the works he wrote after that time are carefully examined with the "eye of wisdom," certainty about this distinction will arise.

      Kunga Drölchok was the greatest upholder of Shākya Chokden's transmission of the Sakya teachings, and these quotations and comments clearly point to the Jonang master Namgyal Draksang as the key influence in Shākya Chokden's decision to openly write about the shentong or teachings of definitive meaning during the last thirty-two years of his life. It seems significant that Kunga Drölchok does not refer to any Sakya or Kagyü influences on Shākya Chokden's views.

      The works of Shākya Chokden were later banned in Tibet during the middle of the seventeenth century. Bigoted supporters of the Geluk tradition, who held political power, sealed the printery where the blocks for his writings were kept and ordered copies of his works to be confiscated. But a unique manuscript of his collected writings survived in Bhutan and was finally published more than three hundred years later. The banning of Shākya Chokden writings in Tibet no doubt had a lasting effect on the later doctrinal development of the Sakya tradition.

      Shākya Chokden's works often focus on a theme of reconciliation and synthesis between traditions that have become polarized over doctrinal issues. His brand of shentong differs in many respects from that of Dölpopa, although they agree about the ultimate import of the view. In one brief work Shākya Chokden compares the views of Dölpopa and Butön (both of whom he considers to be Sakya) and comes to the startling conclusion that in the ultimate sense there is no basis for disagreement between the Jonang and Shalu traditions concerning emptiness of self-nature and emptiness of other, because in the context of the definitive meaning of the tantras Butön's tradition also accepted the view of the emptiness of other.

      The theme of synthesis, or at least accepting an absence of contradiction between these two points of view, was also the approach of the Seventh Karmapa, Chödrak Gyatso, as recorded by his disciple Karma Trinlepa (1456–1539). The text that best exemplifies this is Karma Trinlepa's brief versified response to some written questions he had received. This work, which must surely be the one mentioned two hundred years later by Belo Tsewang Kunkhyap as "the brief treatise that shows there is no contradiction between an emptiness of self-nature and an emptiness of other," specifically summarizes the view of the Seventh Karmapa on this topic. As several modern writers have already noted, the Eighth Karmapa, Mikyö Dorjé (1507–1554), also wrote a text on the shentong view, although later in his life he changed his mind and wrote refutations of Dölpopa and Shākya Chokden.

      The yogin Shongchen Tenpai Gyaltsen, who lived in the sixteenth or seventeenth century, also wrote an interesting short text attempting to bring the views of an emptiness of self-nature and an emptiness of other into harmony. Shongchen was responsible for codifying the teachings on Severance (Gcod) that had been passed down in an oral transmission from the great adept Tangtong Gyalpo (1361? –1485), who claimed to be the rebirth of Dölpopa. Shongchen's work is a versified presentation of the key points involved in the philosophical tenets of Great Madhyamaka.

      From the late fifteenth century through the late sixteenth century the Sakya position concerning the Jonang teachings of the shentong and related topics is extremely complex. With the exception of Shākya Chokden and Gorampa, only a handful of writings by Sakya masters of the period are available that specifically discuss these issues. However, a number of brief passages in biographies and some minor texts give indications of the situation. Important information is found in the biographies of Gorumpa Kunga Lekpa (1477–1544), who held the monastic seat of Jonang for many years while he was also a leading exponent of the Sakya teachings of the Path with the Result (Lam 'bras); the great Tsarchen Losel Gyatso (1502–66), who was the most highly regarded master of the Path with the Result in the sixteenth century and who received many teachings from Gorumpa; Jonang Kunga Drölchok, who was the main holder of Panchen Shākya Chokden's lineage of Sakya explication and practice; and Jamyang Khyentsé Wangchuk (1524–68), who studied with all three of these masters.

      The biography of Gorumpa is a major source regarding the situation at the great hermitage of Jonang from the late fifteenth century to the middle of the sixteenth century. The Jonang tradition was still obviously strong in the Tsang region and Dölpopa's major treatises such as the Mountain Dharma, the Fourth Council and its Autocommentary, and the General Commentary on the Doctrine were being transmitted and studied at Jonang. In 1516 Gorumpa ascended the throne at Jonang and held the monastic seat there until 1527. During this time, and during the tenure of his hand-picked successor, Namkha Palsang, who held the position from 1527 to 1543, Dölpopa's teachings of definitive meaning were preserved without any corruption. Gorumpa taught not only the Jonang specialties, but many tantric instructions of the Sakya tradition, such as the Path with the Result. During these years he was clearly a prominent example of what must have not been an uncommon situation—the practice and study of both Jonang and Sakya teachings without any serious obstacles to such an approach. Gorumpa seems to now be remembered only in the Sakya tradition.

      Kunga Drölchok is one of the most famous masters of the Jonang tradition. Like Dölpopa more than two hundred years earlier, he was born in a region (Mustang) that is now inside the borders of Nepal, was raised and educated in the Sakya tradition, and then traveled to Tibet for advanced studies. He first received teachings in Tibet from major disciples of Panchen Shākya Chokden at the Sakya monastery of Serdokchen, and later visited other regions and received a vast number of teachings from masters of every lineage. Kunga Drölchok was particularly attracted to the teachings of the Six Dharmas of Niguma in the Shangpa tradition, which he practiced and taught very widely. He received the Jonang transmissions of the Kālacakra Tantra and the Six-branch Yoga from the master Lochen Ratnabhadra (1489−1563), who became one of his most important teachers.

      Kunga Drölchok was invited to take the monastic seat of Jonang in the middle of the sixteenth century and become the leader of the tradition. Before making a decision, he traveled to Jonang to offer prayers in front of the image of the omnisicient Dölpopa. Just as Kunga Drölchok's name was read out three times by one of the masters in attendance, an earthquake occurred, which caused all the bells on the great stūpa of Jonang to jingle. Kunga Drölchok felt that this was a perfect omen, indicating the spread of the teachings of definitive meaning, and immediately wrote out his letter of acceptance. In one of his autobiographical writings he says he was now able to partially benefit the Jonang tradition because, in a previous lifetime, he had been a fellow student along with Dölpopa at Sakya Monastery. Receiving many tantric teachings together from the master Kyitön Jamyang Drakpa, they became vajra brothers bound by the sacred commitments.

      Kunga Drölchok's extensive autobiographies, his One Hundred Guiding Instructions of Jonang, and his other miscellaneous works show that he was authentically unbiased and truly represented many lineages. The three main systems of tantric practice most important to him were the esoteric instructions of the Shangpa Kagyü, the Jonang tradition of the Six-branch Yoga, and the Sakya practices of the Path with the Result. He constantly bestowed these teachings throughout his life. In the present context, what is striking is the apparent lack of any strong attempt to spread the shentong view of Dölpopa. Kunga Drölchok seems to have been more interested in creating an atmosphere of tolerance for all lineages of explication and practice than furthering that of only one. This is also perhaps indicative of the situation in which the Jonang tradition now found itself.

      Since the time of Dölpopa, the great majority of Sakya teachers had increasingly distanced themselves from the Jonang view and doctrinal position. But there was not such a rift between the two traditions concerning practice, as illustrated by the presence of four great Jonang masters in the lineage of the Sakya teachings of the Path with the Result. The writings of both Shākya Chokden and Kunga Drölchok show that many members of the Sakya tradition during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were influenced by the unique views of lord Tsongkapa, whose supporters had continued to increase in number. Quite a few Sakya scholars after Rendawa had rejected the theories of Dölpopa and apparently adopted views more compatible with the new Geluk tradition of Rendawa's disciple, lord Tsongkapa, even though Tsongkapa's theories were very questionable in light of the ancient teachings of the original Sakya masters. Shākya Chokden and Kunga Drölchok refer to this trend among some Sakya followers as the "lately arisen Sakya tradition" (phyis byung sa skya pa), and discuss a tension between the "new and old Sakya traditions" (sa skya pa gsar rnying), especially in regard to the teachings of the Path with the Result. They saw this new development as a serious corruption of the teachings of the original Sakya founders, whose ultimate intentions they felt were closer to those of the Jonang tradition than those of the Geluk. Kunga Drölchok saw these adherents to a "new Sakya" movement as wolves in sheep clothing who were destroying the true Sakya teachings. In short, they were Geluk followers masquerading as members of the Sakya tradition. On the other hand, some Sakya followers may also have been attracted to the shentong orientation precisely in order to counteract the dominant Geluk influence in Tibetan politics and religion.

      One of Kunga Drölchok's great strengths is an exceptional ability to focus on the specific teachings of a given lineage without being influenced by those of other lineages, even the Jonang tradition he represented. If he is writing about the Sakya teachings of the Path with the Result, he carefully distinguishes its view from that of traditions that have different approaches, and when discussing the Jonang teachings of the Six-branch Yoga, he keeps precisely to Dölpopa's interpretation as the ultimate authority. In the latter context he once referred to himself as Dölpopa, the embodiment of the buddhas of the past, present, and future, once again returned to sit on his teaching throne and preserve his tradition:

As the physical embodiment
of the three regal masters,
and the single protector of mother
living beings in the three realms,
wasn't Sherab Gyaltsen the name
of the glorious Dölpopa, Embodiment
of the Buddhas of the Three Times?

Sitting on that lord's Dharma throne,
and maintaining that lord's tradition,
am I not the yogin Rangdröl,
the lord Buddha from Dölpo returned again?

When teaching instructions in a lineage that came from Dölpopa, Kunga Drölchok did not hesitate to use terminology reminiscent of his great predecessor, speaking of "the great kingdom of natural luminosity, the permanent and stable stone mountain of the basic space of phenomena," and "the immutable and permanent kāya of primordial awareness."

      Jonang was flourishing during this period. Tsarchen Losel Gyatso, considered the greatest Sakya master of tantra in the sixteenth century, received the Jonang instructions of the Six-branch Yoga from Gorumpa, as well as many Sakya teachings of the Path with the Result. In 1539 Tsarchen visited Jonang and, reminiscent of Dölpopa's initial experience there, looked up at the stone meditation huts on the mountainside and was filled with awe at the tradition of continuous meditation retreat that had been maintained there:

The next morning we visited the great Stūpa That Liberates on Sight, the temple of the lineage of the Six-branch Yoga, and so forth. When I gazed from afar at the hermitages, my mind went out to them and I was enthralled. A distinctly vivid pure vision dawned in the center of my heart and I thought, "The early excellent masters established a continuous meditation center in a site such as this. Placing many people on the path of liberation, their way of life was so amazing and so incredible. When will we also practice for enlightenment in an isolated site such as this?"

Tsarchen revisited Jonang two years later, when a model of the great stūpa of Svayaṃbhunāth in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal was being erected in the center of the Jonang teaching arena, and was warmly greeted by his younger friend and teacher, Kunga Drölchok. Generally speaking, there were clearly very cordial relations between Sakya and Jonang masters at this time.

      Jamyang Khyentsé Wangchuk, whose instruction manuals for major tantric practices in the Sakya tradition are authoritative to the present day, studied with Gorumpa as a youth and later with Tsarchen. He also received various teachings from Kunga Drölchok. In particular, from Gorumpa he received the full transmission of the Jonang teachings of Dölpopa, the Sakya teachings of the Path with the Result, and other esoteric instructions. Then he received all the Sakya esoteric transmissions (and many Shangpa and Nyingma teachings) from Tsarchen and became his principal Dharma heir. Khyentsé's autobiography shows that he was deeply committed to meditation practice, of both the Jonang and Sakya traditions, in contrast to scholastic studies. On one occasion he expressed his deep wish to go into isolated retreat far from everyone and practice (the Sakya) Naro Khachöma for the creation-stage meditation and (the Jonang) Six-branch Yoga of Kālacakra for the completion stage. This is indeed remarkable for a master who would later ascend Butön's teaching throne at Shalu Monastery.

      One revealing episode occurred when Khyentsé Wangchuk visited the Kagyü monastery of Ralung in 1550. He listened quietly one day as a group of scholars discussed points of doctrine and practice and heard one of them declare that Dölpopa had maintained that a permanent entity existed (rtag pa'i dngos po yod), which was the buddha nature. No one disputed this. Khyentsé Wangchuk thought to himself that Dölpopa certainly did accept that the buddha nature was permanent, but he did not accept that it was an entity. In all his writings Dölpopa had said that the ground of emptiness was unconditioned natural luminosity (stong gzhi rang bzhin 'od gsal 'dus ma byas), and while you could object to this, it was not something that could be proven or refuted through vain argumentation. In any case, Khyentsé Wangchuk commented, Butön had said the same thing! Once again the impression is that there was really no serious disagreement between the ultimate intent of the greatest masters, only between later interpreters who did not fully comprehend their teachings.

      Unlike the works of Kunga Drölchok, in which evidence of Dölpopa's theories is scarce, the writings of Kunga Drölchok's reincarnation, Jetsun Tāranātha, are filled with the teachings of the shentong and related themes. In the history of the Jonang tradition Tāranātha is second in importance only to Dölpopa himself. He was responsible for the short-lived Jonang renaissance in Tsang and Central Tibet during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, and the widespread revitalization of the shentong theory in particular. Like Kunga Drölchok, Tāranātha also practiced and taught a wide variety of tantric teachings from different lineages and was very nonsectarian in his approach to realization. He was also one of the last great Tibetan translators of Sanskrit tantric texts. Tāranātha was respectful of all forms of authentic Buddhism, including the tradition of Butön and that of the Geluk, which were both antagonistic toward the Jonang. He also emphasized the practice of the Sakya teachings of the Path with the Result and the esoteric instructions of the Shangpa Kagyü, as had Kunga Drölchok, but focused on the explication of the Kālacakra and the practice of the Six-branch Yoga as the most profound of all the teachings given by the Buddha. It is especially clear in his writings that Tāranātha considered Dölpopa to be the ultimate authority in matters of doctrine and practice.

      Tāranātha's autobiography gives exceptional access to the condition of the Jonang tradition from the viewpoint of its leader. He took upon himself the responsibility of causing Dölpopa's insights to once again reach a wide audience and was determined to revive what he saw as a priceless transmission lineage in danger of being lost. For example, in the early 1590s Tāranātha wrote that it had been many years since the complete instructions of the Six-branch Yoga had been given in the Jonang assembly. The instruction manual of Dölpopa's Dharma heir, Choglé Namgyal, was still being used at Jonang to teach the Six-branch Yoga transmitted from Dölpopa, but very few people understood the philosophical tenets of Dölpopa and his disciples. It was even more worrisome that some of the previous holders of the monastic seat of Jonang, such as lord Orgyan Dzongpa, had given initiations and instructions according to the Jonang tradition, but had also criticized and refuted Dölpopa's vajra proclamations of the ultimate view of shentong, which Tāranātha felt was the secret teaching of all the buddhas and bodhisattvas. As a result, many unfortunate things had occurred. Even though Tāranātha personally disavowed any ability to refute another system, on this occasion he felt the need to defend the original views of Dölpopa through refutation of erroneous opinions, and to establish the correct interpretations according to his lineage.

      In 1604, after a decade of great efforts to revive the original Jonang teachings, all of Tāranātha's work was threatened by serious political conflict between the regions of Jang and Tsang. Jonang itself was in immediate danger of being attacked by hostile armies. While meditating at Dölpopa's great stūpa, Tāranātha became very despondent and, seeing all his efforts about to be wiped out and the tradition itself perhaps destroyed, felt only like going into retreat to practice far away from all the troubles created by deluded and impassioned people. Then, one morning at dawn, the image of Dölpopa at the stūpa clearly transformed into Dölpopa himself and spoke to Tāranātha, encouraging him to continue as before, and assuring him that his efforts would not be in vain. The next night Tāranātha prayed to Dölpopa, who manifested in the divine form of the bodhisattva Dharmodgata and spoke four lines of verse that expressed the essence of his doctrine. At that very moment Tāranātha arrived at the deepest level of Dölpopa's shentong teachings, and all his uncertainties and doubts were completely removed. He felt that a great key had been placed in his hands with which to open all the doors of the Buddha's doctrine. As an expression of his realization he then composed the versified text entitled Ornament for the Madhyamaka Emptiness of Other, which is one of his most important works devoted solely to the explication of the shentong view, and a companion text of quotations from scripture in support of the ideas therein. Describing the same vision of Dölpopa in another of his autobiographical writings, Tāranātha mentions that he received several prophecies from him, and from that time on met him many times, both actually and in dreams. He comments, "That is the reason I am now an expert in the great omniscient Dölpopa's view and preserve his true intentions."

      Throughout Tāranātha's life he often encountered resistance and opposition to the Jonang doctrine of the shentong. For example, he once spent considerable energy trying to explain the shentong view to the ruler of Jang, the abbot of Ngamring Monastery, and a group of scholars who had gathered at Trompa Lhatsé. His audience was interested, but gained absolutely no comprehension of the actual nature and significance of the teachings he gave. The main cause for the inability to understand was that these learned people identified the shentong doctrine with the tradition of the Cittamātra that did not accept the validity of a cognitive image (sems tsam rnam rdzun pa). The scholars were completely unable to comprehend the great differences between shentong and Cittamātra. Even masters such as the sixth Shamarpa hierarch of the Kagyü tradition, Chökyi Wangchuk (1584–1635), with whom Tāranātha exchanged letters in about 1620, had mistaken assumptions about the Jonang view. The Shamarpa was under the impression that the Jonang philosophical tenet of a permanent, stable, and eternal absolute entailed the acceptance that the first turning of the Dharma wheel taught the existence of a veridically established absolute, the second taught the nonexistence, and the third taught the existence. Tāranātha wrote that the Jonang accepted that all three turnings had a single intention, not that the later ones found fault in the earlier ones.

      Shortly before his death, Tāranātha appointed his disciple Sangyé Gyatso (d. 1635) as his successor on the monastic seat of Takten Damchö Ling. However, Sangyé Gyatso passed away not long after Tāranātha himself. Thus another of Tāranātha's disciples, Kunga Rinchen Gyatso, was appointed to the monastic seat and led the Jonang tradition for the next fifteen years. A series of events then occurred that were crucial for the future of the Jonang tradition, but that have not been clearly explained. It has generally been said in Western works on Tibetan history that the suppression of Jonang and the conversion of its monasteries to the Geluk tradition occurred in 1658. This is only partially correct. The political situation of the seventeenth century was extremely complex, and to the future misfortune of the Jonang tradition Tāranātha was one of the main religious advisors to the rulers of Tsang during their struggle against the Geluk powers of Central Tibet for political supremacy. Some modern authors have even blamed Tāranātha's role for the eventual Jonang downfall. Although the details are still quite sketchy, a somewhat more complete picture of the situation can now be drawn.

      In 1642, seven years after the death of Tāranātha, an alliance of Mongol armies led by Gushri Khan finally defeated the Tsang rulers and enthroned the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Losang Gyatso (1617–82), as the supreme political ruler of all Tibet. In his autobiography the Dalai Lama briefly touches on the fate of the Jonang tradition. At the instigation of a certain Jamyang Trulku, a Geluk teaching institute was established at Takten Damchö Ling, the monastery built by Tāranātha not far from the original site of Jonang. The philosophical tenet of the monastery was thus converted from Jonang to Geluk in the Iron Tiger Year (lcags stag, 1650). This was when the shentong doctrine was banned at Takten by order of the victorious Geluk authorities. The year 1650 also matches the end of the tenure of Kunga Rinchen Gyatso, who went to live for the latter part of his life at the monastery of Sangak Riwo Dechen.

      It was originally the prompting of the Jamyang Trulku that provided the pretext for the Dalai Lama to intervene at the Jonang monastery of Takten Damchö Ling. But who was this figure? Fortunately, much earlier in his autobiography the Dalai Lama identifies Jamyang Trulku as the son of the Khalkha Tushiyetu king. Now the situation becomes even more interesting. Jamyang Trulku was the son of the Khalkha Mongol Tushiyetu Khan Gönpo Dorjé, and the grandson of Erke Mergen Khan. Better known by the names Yeshé Dorjé and Losang Tenpai Gyaltsen (1635–1723), Jamyang Trulku had actually been recognized by the Fifth Dalai Lama, the First Panchen Lama, Losang Chökyi Gyaltsen (1567–1662), and the Tibetan State Oracle as the rebirth of Tāranātha and as the first of the series of Mongol incarnations known as the Khalkha Jetsun Dampa. He was generally referred to as Jamyang Trulku, "emanation of Jamyang," because he was believed to also be the rebirth (sku skye) of Jamyang Chöjé (1357–1419), the founder of the great Geluk monastery of Drepung, after which he was said to have appeared as Tāranātha's reincarnation (yang srid). The earlier lifetime as Jamyang Chöjé was understandably emphasized by the Geluk authorities to establish a profound prior connection with the Geluk tradition and lord Tsongkapa himself. However, the gap of 156 years between the death of Jamyang Chöjé and the birth of Tāranātha was not explained, and Kunga Drölchok, Tāranātha's predecessor, is not mentioned in the incarnation line of Jamyang Trulku, the Khalkha Jetsun Dampa. The Jonang tradition seems to have played no part in the recognition of its great master's reappearance as a Geluk teacher who now demanded the conversion of Takten Damchö Ling into a Geluk establishment.

      The biography of the Khalkha Jetsun Dampa contains some interesting material about his recognition as Tāranātha's reincarnation. According to an earlier source quoted in the biography, just before Tāranātha passed away his Jonang disciples and patrons prayed for him to reincarnate for the purpose of spreading the Jonang doctrine. In this source he is quoted as having given the following reply:

Be satisfied with just this much expansion of our Jonang doctrine. Through the force of supplications by the Ganden protectors and the force of previous prayers, I will now spread the doctrine of lord Tsongkapa in a barbarian borderland.

Tāranātha's own extensive autobiographical writings and religious works are filled with evidence of his devotion to Dölpopa and the teachings of definitive meaning that characterize the Jonang tradition. It seems highly unlikely that he would have made such a statement or chosen to be reborn in the very tradition that became the instrument for the destruction of Dölpopa's Jonang tradition as a viable independent school in Tsang and Central Tibet. This statement is also not recorded in modern Jonang accounts of Tāranātha's last days. And yet, the most unlikely of scenarios appears to have actually occurred.

      One of Tāranātha's major disciples was a woman known as Jetsun Trinlé Wangmo, or Ratna Badzriṇi (1585?–c.1668?), who became a great teacher and lineage holder of the Jonang tradition. She was also Tāranātha's primary consort. Trinlé Wangmo's autobiography, with her eyewitness account of Tāranātha's last days, has recently come to light, containing many of her private conversations with the great master. Her description is the original source of all later (and less complete) versions of these events:

Also, when [the venerable lord Tāranātha] came here [to Jonang] once from Takten, he commented, "The other day a certain Drepung monk came. Their Dharma protector also arrived behind him and said I must come to benefit the Genden doctrine. With fervent devotion in my heart, I immediately accepted. In particular, a day or two after that a letter of discussion among the officials of Takten was given to me by way of the nephew. The gist of it was insistent: 'Except for as long as the present precious rebirth himself is here, after him the master of the monastic seat must come from the progeny of our nephew.' According to these two earlier and later omens, for me to not take birth in order to maintain the religious and secular traditions is completely natural. Thus I definitely must take birth in a place that will benefit the Drepungpa doctrine."
      At that point I exclaimed, "You must regard us with compassion and remain firmly in this life, consider all sentient beings in general and, in particular, what is crucial for just this monastery. Consider the doctrine of definitive meaning and once again also benefit the doctrine of this very [tradition] with your rebirth!"
      But he replied, "Setting aside everything else, even in just all of this upper and lower valley itself there are many different opinions. You alone have a pure mind. Even so, a single-minded supplication from everyone in unison is necessary. That would be best. Nothing certain will come from just mouthing the words. Now I will fall under the control of what omens come into alignment and what is most intense. If the way to transform omens is understood, it is still possible that I may also benefit the doctrine of this [tradition].

Contrary to expectations, it is now clear that Tāranātha actually did say he would appear in his next lifetime in a place where he could benefit the Ganden, Genden, or Drepungpa (all synonyms for Geluk) doctrine. Years later, when Trinlé Wangmo finally heard that Tāranātha's reincarnation had appeared in Mongolia, she rejoiced at the news and prayed for him to benefit Tibet.

      When the fifteen-year-old Khalkha Jetsun (Tāranātha's reincarnation), who had received a strict Geluk education in Mongolia from disciples of the Dalai Lama, asked the Dalai Lama to establish the institute at Takten, Tāranātha's monastery was converted into a Geluk center. Later in 1650 the young man traveled to Tashi Lhunpo Monastery and received novice vows and various teachings from the First Panchen Lama. Then the Panchen Lama was urgently asked to go to Takten, undoubtedly for the purpose of accomplishing the conversion into a Geluk monastery. There he gave a number of initiations for the major tantric lineages followed by the Geluk tradition, and textual transmissions for many of the texts required for the liturgical practices of that tradition. He also gave teachings to the nuns at nearby Jonang during the same visit. Curiously, the Khalkha Jetsun himself does not seem to have visited Jonang or Takten at the same time.

      Trinlé Wangmo specifically says in her autobiography that the Jonang philosophical tenet at Tāranātha's monastery of Takten Damchö Ling was changed by order of the government in the eighth month of the Tiger Year (1650). The Dalai Lama notes in his autobiography that the monks who had remained there from before did not actually change their views and practices, and even newly arrived ones were predisposed toward the original Jonang teachings. The Dalai Lama uses the example of brass coated with gold to refer to them as Jonang with only a Geluk veneer. To remedy the situation, the Geluk authorities expelled the monks to other monasteries, made harsher regulations concerning the Geluk conversion, and gave the monastery the new name Ganden Puntsok Ling. These actions were all taken in 1658.

      From this point the Jonang tradition ceased to exist as an independent entity in Tsang and Central Tibet. The Jonang teachings of the shentong and the Kālacakra continued to be transmitted even in those regions, but the tradition's monasteries and hermitages in the far eastern area of Amdo now became the only remaining institutions that were openly Jonang. The connection between Jonang in Tsang and the eastern regions of Tibet had been established more than three hundred years before, when Jampa Khawoché had studied with Dölpopa himself for six years and then returned home to found a hermitage in Kham. The master Ratnashrī (1350–1435) later traveled from the east to Central Tibet and Tsang and received a vast number of teachings from several of Dölpopa's great Dharma heirs, such as Choglé Namgyal, Mati Panchen, and Nya Ön Kunga Pal. After returning home, in 1425 Ratnashrī founded the monastery now known as Chöjé Gön in Dzamtang, which became the main monastery of the Jonang tradition in Amdo.

      In the seventeenth century, Lodrö Namgyal (1618–83) received the Jonang transmissions in Tsang from Tāranātha and Kunga Rinchen Gyatso, and later lived and taught at Tsangwa Gön in Dzamtang for many years. Soon after the death of Tāranātha in 1635, the master Kunga Palsang traveled to Tsang and received the Jonang teachings at Takten and Jonang from several of Tāranātha's major disciples, such as Kunga Rinchen Gyatso, Lodrö Namgyal, and especially Jetsun Trinlé Wangmo, and later established the monastery of Drogé Gön in the Ngawa region. The Jonang tradition has continued to thrive in eastern Tibet, with a strong presence today in the areas of Dzamtang, Gyalrong, Ngawa, and elsewhere.

      The shentong view and the Kālacakra practices are thus fully maintained in the Jonang tradition in Amdo at the beginning of the twenty-first century. However, these teachings have been passed down in the mainstream of Tibetan Buddhism primarily due to the efforts of several great Nyingma and Kagyü masters from the area of Kham in eastern Tibet. The Jonang tradition itself has flourished in the relative isolation of Amdo, but it does not seem to have had widespread influence outside of that region.

      The Nyingma master Katok Rikzin Tsewang Norbu (1698–1755) began a general renaissance of the Jonang teachings of the shentong and the Kālacakra by introducing them to some of the leading Kagyü teachers of his time. In one of his versified autobiographical accounts, Tsewang Norbu notes that even as a child he felt great faith whenever he heard the names of Dölpopa and his immediate disciples. His natural affinity for the shentong view and the Kālacakra teachings became understandable later when the master from whom he received the transmission of the Jonang teachings recognized him as the rebirth of Dölpopa's disciple Mati Panchen Lodrö Gyaltsen, one of the pair of translators responsible for the Jonang translation of the Kālacakra Tantra and the Stainless Light.

      In 1726, as Tsewang Norbu was passing through the Tsang region in route to the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal, he first tried to obtain the Jonang teachings from the great yogin Kunsang Wangpo, who was in strict retreat at the hermitage of Rulag Drepung, which had been renamed Ganden Khachö when converted into a Geluk establishment. Tsewang Norbu was not even able to see Kunsang Wangpo, although he spent three days trying. He was very impressed with this master's dedicated meditation practice and became even more determined to receive the Jonang transmissions from him.

      On his return to Tibet toward the end of 1728, Tsewang Norbu again approached Kunsang Wangpo, and this time succeeded in receiving the entire transmission of the Jonang teachings. Kunsang Wangpo bestowed the guiding instructions of the view of shentong, or Great Madhyamaka, the full Kālacakra initiations, the complete instructions of the Six-branch Yoga, and many nonsectarian teachings. Tsewang Norbu also received Kunga Drölchok's One Hundred Guiding Instructions of Jonang and the reading transmission of the collected works of both Dölpopa and Tāranātha. Although the Jonang monasteries in Tsang and Central Tibet had been converted to the Geluk tradition, this shows that the original teachings of Dölpopa and his great successors were still taught and practiced in those same centers even in the middle of the eighteenth century. The Fifth Dalai Lama's earlier attempts to stamp out the Jonang teachings had been successful only on the surface, as was the case in the initial phases of the conversion operation discussed above. Contrary to the general impression, the teaching transmissions had survived not only in the far eastern region of Amdo, but in the original Tsang areas near Jonang. This is further clarified by the fact that Tsewang Norbu traveled again to Jonang in 1734, ascended the teaching throne previously occupied by Dölpopa and Tāranātha, and gave many initiations, textual transmissions, and esoteric instructions of the original Jonang teachings to a large gathering. During this period at least, the Geluk authorities were obviously not exerting great efforts to prevent the teachings of the Jonang tradition from being spread or revived even in Tsang.

      Tsewang Norbu later gave the Jonang teachings in Central Tibet, where he passed a number of transmissions to the Thirteenth Karmapa, Düdül Dorjé (1733–97), and the Tenth Shamarpa, Chödrup Gyatso (1742–92). However, Tsewang Norbu's most significant role in terms of the continuation of the Jonang lineages was as a teacher of the great Situ Panchen Chökyi Jungné (1700–1774). Situ Panchen had already been to Takten and Jonang in 1723, several years before Tsewang Norbu's first visit. From the description in Situ's autobiography, it was an important event. His account mentions that Tāranātha's silver stūpa reliquary at Takten had been destroyed long before, when the Geluk conversion was ordered by the Fifth Dalai Lama at the instigation of his teacher Möndropa. Situ notes that Takten was now a Geluk institute, but some old monks had not given up the original Jonang tradition. He tried to obtain copies of Jonang writings, but they had been placed under seal by order of the Tibetan central government. Situ felt great sadness at the misfortune that had so quickly overtaken Tāranātha's monastery, and lamented the degenerate times. Going to Jonang the next day, he found about seven hundred nuns who had not changed their tradition from Jonang to Geluk.

      Twenty-five years later, in 1748, Tsewang Norbu and Situ Panchen spent time together in the Kathmandu Valley of Nepal. Situ had clearly been very interested in the Jonang tradition for many years, but it was his teacher Tsewang Norbu who now insisted that he accept the shentong view, which he taught him in great detail, apparently at the stūpa of Bodhnāth. Situ says Tsewang Norbu ordered him to uphold the profound view of the shentong and told him acceptance of this view would create an auspicious pattern of events that would lead to Situ's longevity and the vast spread of his activities. Situ also mentions several different types of shentong, among which he adhered most closely to that of the Seventh Lord and Silungpa, which was somewhat different than that of Dölpopa. In the end it would be Situ, more than anyone, who would create the environment for the widespread acceptance of the shentong teachings in Tibet during the next century. As Gene Smith first mentioned in 1970, "It was Si-tu who had blended the seemingly irreconcilable gzhan stong and Mahāmudrā positions and spread them throughout the Dkar-brgyud-pa traditions of Khams."

      The eventual result of this revival (outside the Jonang areas in Amdo) by Tsewang Norbu and Situ Panchen was the crucial role of the shentong and other Jonang teachings in the phenomenal nonsectarian (ris med) movement of nineteenth-century Kham, spread by such great masters as Dza Paltrul (1808–87), Jamgön Kongtrul (1813–1900), Jamyang Khyentsé Wangpo (1820–92), and later Mipam Gyatso (1846–1912). Jamgön Kongtrul was the most assertive of these teachers in his advocacy of the shentong, which he fully incorporated into his own immensely influential works. Kongtrul was also devoted to the Six-branch Yoga of the Kālacakra, for which he carefully followed the tradition of Dölpopa and Tāranātha.

      The shentong and the Jonang practices of the Six-branch Yoga have reached a widespread audience through the lineages of Kongtrul, Khyentsé, and Mipam, but the Jonang tradition in Amdo has continued to produce many great masters of their special teachings. The prolific author Bamda Gelek Gyatso (1844–1904) was probably the tradition's most influential teacher in the late nineteenth century, and his disciple Tsoknyi Gyatso (1880–1940) was very highly regarded. The Jonang tradition in Amdo has been graced by a series of remarkable masters into the twentieth-first century. Tsoknyi Gyatso's disciple, Ngawang Lodrö Drakpa (1920–75), was the author of a large treatise on the shentong and an extensive history of the Jonang tradition. Khenpo Lodrak, as he is often called, was perhaps the most famous Jonang master of the twentieth century. Kunga Tukjé Palsang (1925–2000) and Ngawang Yönten Sangpo (1928–2002) were also great recent teachers.

      Masters in the lineages of Kongtrul, Khyentsé, and Mipam have continued to have a great impact in Tibet, India, and beyond. Dzongsar Khyentsé Rinpoché, Jamyang Chökyi Lodrö (1896–1959), the great heir to the nonsectarian movement, greatly appreciated the shentong. In his secret autobiography he writes of a marvelous dream-vision of Tāranātha, who bestowed upon him the Kālacakra initiation. This experience in 1943 caused him to have the greatest faith in Tāranātha. More recently, the eminent masters Dilgo Khyentsé Rinpoché (1910-91), Kalu Rinpoché (1905–89), and Dudjom Rinpoché (1904–87) all accepted the shentong view. Most Kagyü and Nyingma teachers follow the lines of explication and practice passed down by these last three masters, and the shentong interpretations of Kongtrul and Mipam in particular are now prevalent.

      All the special teachings of the Jonang lineage and the vital transmission of the collected writings of Dölpopa and Tāranātha have been maintained by the Jonang tradition in Amdo. But even the reading transmission of any of Dölpopa's writings seems scarce among leading shentong adherents of the Kagyü and Nyingma traditions. When the shentong is taught by these teachers, the different works of Kongtrul and Mipam, which vary a great deal from the original teachings of Dölpopa, are usually the treatises of choice. What is now taught as the shentong view in the Kagyü and Nyingma traditions represents a synthesis that has developed over time, primarily in order to enable Dölpopa's most profound insights to be incorporated into the established doctrines of the Great Seal and the Great Perfection. Thus the shentong view and Six-branch Yoga taught by the living masters of the Jonang tradition in Amdo, based on the oral transmission and literary legacy of the ancient masters of Jonang, is certainly closer to what was transmitted centuries ago by Dölpopa and Tāranātha. In the following chapter some of the most essential aspects of Dölpopa's own doctrine will be presented as a preface to the translations of his works in part 2.