WHAT IS A TREASURE

The Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism is home to a transmission of Buddhist teaching known as the “Treasure tradition” (gter lugs), a unique religious system that only recently has become the focus of attention in the West.1

This tradition propagates the reverence of religious material known as “Treasure” (gter ma), blessed words and objects said to originate in the enlightened intent of buddhas and bodhisattvas.

Broadly, the Treasures belong to a tripartite system of scriptural and oral transmission defined by the Nyingma School as the “three great transmissions” consisting of

(a) the long lineage of Transmitted Precepts,

(b) the short lineage of Treasure, and

(c) the profound Pure Vision Teachings.

2 According to the Nyingma School, the Treasures are most often comprised of spiritual instructions concealed by enlightened beings for the purpose of discovery at a later predestined time when their message will invigorate the Buddhist teaching and deepen spiritual understanding.

Central to this process is the figure of the Treasure revealer (gter ston)—the person who acts as a medium for the re-emergence of this inspired material into the human world.

4 Accordingly, beginning in the eleventh century and continuing into the present, the Nyingma School identifies a large number of Treasure revealers and grants authoritative status to their discoveries.

5 The idea that religious truth lies concealed within the world of phenomena awaiting discovery by spiritually gifted people is by no means a concept exclusive to the Nyingma School or Tibetan Buddhism as a whole. Throughout Buddhist literature there are numerous descriptions of teachings being inherently present in the phenomenal world ready to be perceived by individuals possessing inspired levels of consciousness and, accordingly, spiritual

revelations have surfaced on numerous occasions throughout the course of Buddhist history.6 The Nyingma School is therefore unique not so much in its acceptance of revealed truth as in its institutionalization of such spiritual discovery and its ability to maintain a continued revelatory output.7 Considering the fluidity of the Buddhist canons in India and the central role of scriptural production and revelation in the religious life of medieval

Indian Buddhism where the Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna traditions continuously accommodated, accepted, and authenticated inspired revelation as the genuine voice of the buddha(s),8 it is paradoxical that the Tibetans, in their attempt to adopt and preserve the Indian Buddhist traditions, should abandon this approach to revelation and give rise to an essentially non-Mahāyānic notion of a closed canon.9 Regardless, the Tibetan acceptance of a closed canon meant that the

Treasure tradition, since its early days, has found itself at the center of disputes of authenticity, defending the validity of its scriptures against the criticism of skeptics. This situation will be discussed later, but first we must look more closely at the Treasures and see how they were defined and understood by the tradition itself. Although the Nyingma School developed numerous systems of Treasure classification according to their content, nature, manner of concealment, etc., all Tibetan Treasures share the claim that they were concealed during the golden age of the Yarlung dynasty (seventh to ninth

centuries C.E.) by enlightened Buddhist masters who considered the needs and inclinations of future followers. During this period Buddhism entered Tibet and became the state religion through the sponsorship of so-called “religious kings” (chos rgyal) who embraced Buddhism and supported its spread.10 This

was also a time when Tibet enjoyed considerable prosperity and political fortune on the international scene. At the height of its glory the Tibetan empire traced its southern border along the Ganges River in the Indian plains; to the east large parts of China had been conquered, and Tibet had emerged as one

of the dominant powers in the region. It is therefore understandable that a number of Tibetan historians later would come to look at this period as the epitome of political as well as religious Tibetan greatness.11 As Tibet converted to Buddhism, considerable wealth acquired from victory in warfare was

reinvested into the task of propagating Buddhist thought and culture. Later legends, revealed as Treasure from the twelfth century onwards, recount this part of Tibet’s history by focusing on the Indian esoteric master Padmasambhava (eighth/ninth century) and his role in the conversion process. In these

texts we are told that, having been invited to Tibet in order to pacify demonic obstacles to the construction of Samye, Tibet’s first monastery, Padmasambhava stayed on and assumed the leading role in transmitting the tantric tradition to Tibet.12 Although these later Tibetan accounts accredit

Padmasambhava with this central and all-important role in the conversion of Tibet, little historical data exist to verify these claims.13 At any rate, over time the followers of the Nyingma School continued to reveal a vast number of Treasure texts centering on Padmasambhava’s religious feats in Tibet whereby

his status and importance retroactively became embedded in a legendary narrative that came to play a pivotal role in the self-conception of the Nyingma School. In this literature Padmasambhava is described as the main author and concealer of the Treasures.14 It is recounted how he taught a small group of students at the court of the Tibetan king Trisong Detsen (ca. 740–798), subsequently concealed a great number of these teachings, and prophetically

declared that they would be discovered in the future by reincarnations of those very students. The future Treasure revealers would then propagate Padmasambhava’s teachings to audiences whose karmic needs and propensities would call for such instructions. In addition to this soteriological purpose, on a more mundane level the Treasures also appeal to a basic human fondness for novelty, which undoubtedly also contributed to their success and popularity.

Still, while the Treasures appeal in their recency, they ironically also possess a concomitant attraction to Tibetans by linking the present “dark age” to the celebrated past when Buddhism was introduced and the empire was at its zenith.15 The transmission of the Treasures is traditionally described in terms of six events, or stages, whereby the teaching moves from its original formulator in a dharmakāya realm to the devotee in the present.16 Among these six

stages, the first three are the well-known transmissions of tantric material according to the teachings of the Nyingma School: the realization lineage of the conquerors, the symbolic lineage of the vidyādharas, and the hearing lineage of ordinary people.17 The remaining three transmissions, specific to Treasure revelation, are: empowerment by aspiration, prediction of the transmission,18 and entrustment to the çākinīs.19 According to Longchenpa (1308-

1363), these three events unfold within the symbolic lineage of the vidyādharas.20 During these latter stages Padmasambhava first teaches a suitable student and ensures that his or her understanding is authentic and genuine. Once the student has properly received the teaching, Padmasambhava prophesizes the circumstances of the future revelation and finally conceals the teaching and entrusts the çākinīs to guard it until the time has come for revelation. As

Treasure revelation in Tibet dates back almost 1000 years, it is not surprising to observe significant changes to the tradition over this period. Recent

western studies have focused on the works of late Tibetan exegetics like Jamgön Kongtrul (1813-1899), Do Drupchen Tenpe Nyima (1865-1926), and Dudjom Yeshe Dorje (1904-1987),21 who view the tradition through a syncretic lens that occasionally leaves out historical developments in consideration of philosophical clarity and traditional homogeneity.22 Due to the prominent position held in contemporary Tibetan religious circles by these late exemplars of Treasure

ideology, their views have at times been portrayed as normative for the Treasure tradition at large or, when discrepancies are found, as authoritative.23 Although this may be justified in view of the influence of these works on contemporary Tibetan religion, there remain, however, a number of historical details to be discovered only outside of these later sources.24 In the following we shall look closer at some of these as they relate to the topic of

Treasure identification and classification. During the history of visionary revelation in Tibet various systems of Treasure taxonomy developed. The many classificatory systems of the Treasures still await a detailed study, and here we shall merely examine a few influential systems of classification, selected for their philosophical variety as well as their historical representation of several centuries of Treasure revelation. To establish a preliminary

genealogy of Treasure taxonomy, we shall study the taxonomical classifications of early figures in the Treasure tradition such as Nyangral Nyima Özer (1124-1192), Guru Chökyi Wangchuk (1212-1270), Urgyen Lingpa (1323-?), Longchenpa Drime Özer, and Ratna Lingpa Pal Zangpo (1403-78) and compare these to the later position formulated by members of the famed, but little studied, nineteenth century ecumenical tradition (ris med) as represented by Jamgön Kongtrul,

Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo (18201892) and Chokgyur Dechen Lingpa (1829-1870).25 This present survey is neither exhaustive in its scope nor final in its conclusions, but aims to offer some initial reflections on which a firmer genealogy of Treasure identification and classification may later be constructed. Although the Nyingma School traditionally traces the beginnings of Treasure revelation in Tibet to the master Sangye Lama (eleventh century); Nyangral Nyima Özer’s writings a century later are the first to show a self-conscious movement with actual descriptions of the tradition including taxonomical features. The primary source is the seminal hagiography of Padmasambhava known as the Copper Temple Life Story after its place of discovery at the Samye monastic complex south of Lhasa.26 As part of Nyangral’s account of Padmasambhava’s feats in Tibet, two short chapters discuss his concealment of the Treasures.27 They divide the Treasures into two major rubrics of “religious Treasures” (chos gter) and “wealth Treasures” (nor gter).28 In this way, during

Nyangral’s time, we can see that the Treasures were classified based on their content and general nature which is much different from the later taxonomies of

the ecumenical tradition where, as we shall see below, the Treasures instead were arranged according to their various modes of revelation. As for religious Treasures and wealth Treasures, neither of these two terms was created by Nyangral as both commonly appear throughout translations of Indian Mahāyāna sūtras but in Nyangral’s writings they refer specifically to Treasures concealed by Padmasambhava in Tibet and as such both terms become enduring categories

in the Treasure tradition. Besides these two important terms, the Copper Temple introduces several Treasure subcategories that were elaborated upon in the works of subsequent commentators. In addition to the categories of religious Treasures and wealth Treasures, Nyangral speaks of “life force Treasures” (bla gter), “black magic Treasures” (mthu gter), “handicraft Treasures” (bzo gter), “medicinal Treasures” (sman gyi gter), and “spiritual Treasures” (thugs

gter).29 However, the Copper Temple does not describe most of these beyond merely mentioning their names so any conclusive interpretation of these terms is rendered problematic. Nevertheless, the category of spiritual Treasure is particularly important. The Copper Temple seems to understand it simply as a precious teaching originally formulated in the spirit (thugs) of a buddha or a realized master. Passages stating that Padmasambhava concealed his spiritual

Treasures in physical locations such as the hermitage of Chimpu and a cave at Namke clearly refer to a physical substance rather than a mental event.30 In the fourteenth century, however, this notion of spiritual Treasure appears to function as the etymological inspiration for the concept of “mind Treasure” (dgongs gter), which, although at first a semantic synonym for spiritual Treasure, is developed by later writers such as Jamgön Kongtrul and Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo into a prominent Treasure category by denoting a Treasure that is concealed in and revealed from the Treasure revealer’s mind. Still, before pursuing this discussion further, we must first consider the revelations of Guru Chöwang who, a century after Nyangral, was the second major contributor to Treasure taxonomy and one of the most influential Treasure hermeneutists in the entire history of the Nyingma School. The interpretation of

spiritual Treasure as referring simply to a precious teaching rather than a specific Treasure is supported by Guru Chöwang’s Great Treasure Chronicle, which likewise speaks of spiritual Treasures as physical entities.31 Contextual awareness is therefore required when relating to this term and, in any case, its

semantic equivalence to later understandings of mind Treasure must be doubted. The Great Treasure Chronicle, composed in the thirteenth century, is the earliest known detailed treatise on the Treasure tradition. In this text, Chöwang uses four main categories to define the Treasures. The first is “ordinary material Treasures” (thun mong rdzas kyi gter). This grouping contains the subdivisions of “supreme material Treasures” (mchog gi rdzas gter), which refers

to Buddhist ritual substances such as skull cups and the flesh of humans who have had seven consecutive Brahmin births;32 “special material Treasures” (khyad par gyi rdzas gter), referring to jewels; and “ordinary material Treasures” (thun mong gi rdzas gter), such as valleys, water, building materials, and magic tricks.33 The second is “especially purposeful Treasures” (khyad par yon tan gter), again subdivided into the categories of “Treasures of

truthful speech of emanated Bön” (bon ‘phrul ngag bden pa’i gter), “astrological Treasures” (rtsis kyi gter), “medicinal Treasures” (sman gyi gter), “handicraft Treasures” (gzo’i gter), and “magic Treasures” (‘phrul gyi gter).34 Third is the category of “supreme Treasures of body, speech, and mind” (mchog gyur sku gsung thugs kyi gter). “Body” refers to the physical appearance (revelation) of a buddha manifesting in the world, self-manifested

representations of enlightened form, and representations made by humans. “Speech” refers essentially to the entire Buddhist teaching, while “mind” includes physical representations of buddha mind such as stūpas and vajras.35 The last main category is the “definitive Treasure of suchness” (de kho na nyid nges pa’i gter), which represents the realization of all the buddhas. This realization is said to be self-secret and is considered a Treasure because it is

concealed from the general perception of sentient beings.36 In presenting these categories, Chöwang argues that Treasures are not only religious texts and artifacts hidden by Padmasambhava and his students but should be understood in broader terms as the complete Buddhist textual corpus and, on an even larger scale, indeed the entire world. In support of this Chöwang quotes the Sūtra of Mañjuśrī’s Play:

Mañjuśrī! Just as the four elements appear from the Treasure of the sky so all teachings appear from the spiritual Treasure of the Victorious one. Therefore, you must know to appreciate the significance of Treasures.37 Thus, Chöwang attempts to root the Treasure tradition within the normative Mahāyāna philosophical tradition where the “articulated dharma” (lung gi chos) is said to manifest precisely through the creative potential of the “dharma of realization” (rtogs kyi chos). As a description of the kind of Treasures that Chöwang and his Tibetan Treasure tradition commonly would come to reveal it is, of course, very broad indeed. Chöwang can therefore not be said to engage in an actual phenomenological study of Tibetan Treasure revelation, but

rather a philosophical exercise to connect the Treasure tradition to the nondescript dharmakāya reality from which, according to Mahāyāna Buddhists, purposeful activity ceaselessly manifests in any conceivable form. This is no insignificant point, however, and one that Tibetan Treasure analysts repeatedly returned to as Chöwang’s classifications were adopted by some of the most influential commentators of the Nyingma School.38 The earliest

occurrences of the term “mind Treasure” appear to stem from the fourteenth century works of Longchenpa (in particular his Innermost Essence of the ïākinī)39 and Urgyen Lingpa (in his famous Chronicle of Padmasambhava),40 although in the latter the term occurs only twice among a plethora of other general Treasure categories.41 The Chronicle of Padmasambhava presents four main Treasure categories: “ancestral Treasures” (mes gter), “filial Treasures”

(sras gter), “magistral Treasures” (dpon gter), and “essential Treasures” (yang gter), each containing 18 different kinds of Treasure (each one again subdivided 18 times!).42 Unfortunately, these terms are not further defined in the Chronicle of Padmasambhava and their meaning is elusive. The term translated here as “essential Treasure” is the same designation later used by Kongtrul, where it is probably best rendered “rediscovered Treasure.”

However, in the early sources the meaning of “rediscovered” appears absent and the term seems instead to refer to an “essential” or “particular” Treasure.43 Mind Treasure, however, is not a prominent category in Urgyen Lingpa’s writings. Longchenpa, on the other hand, uses that term much more frequently in the Innermost Essence of the ïākinī where it appears to have a similar meaning to the earlier notion of spiritual Treasure. Here Longchenpa

speaks of mind Treasure in reference to both the Innermost Essence of the ïākinī (his own writing) as well as the Heart Essence of the ïākinī (a Treasure already in circulation),44 which indicates a much different understanding of the term from that of later scholars, such as Kongtrul and Do Drubchen, for whom mind Treasures are immaterial revelations that are utterly isolated from any potential interpolation by the Treasure revealer.45 An explanation for

Longchenpa’s attribution of his own works to the category of Treasure is found in the writings of Dudjom who explains that the Innermost Essence of the ïākinī was dictated directly to Longchenpa by Padmasambhava, Yeshe Tsogyal, and the protector Yudrönma,46 thus implicating Padmasambhava as the source of Longchenpa’s writings (although, arguably, one would expect this to situate the Innermost Essence of the ïākinī within the lineage of pure vision rather

than the lineage of the Treasures). Still, this would not exclude the possibility that during the fourteenth century the meaning of this concept was identical, or closely related to, the similar term spiritual Treasure (i.e., a precious teaching) and that only later did a real distinction develop between these two. In that case, the attribution of both the Heart Essence of the ïākinī and the Innermost Essence of the ïākinī as precious teachings

would seem accurate. Still, this period of Treasure history warrants more thorough research, and drawing firm conclusions is at present a doubtful enterprise. We should note, however, that Kongtrul also displays some ambiguity in classifying Longchenpa’s Treasures by listing him as a revealer of both “earth Treasures” (sa gter) and mind Treasures.47 The classification as revealer of earth Treasures is based on Longchenpa reportedly receiving the Heart Essence of the ïākinī “in actuality” from the çākinī Shenpa Sokdrubma even though these texts had already been previously revealed by Rinchen Tsultrim Dorje (thirteenth century).48 His mind Treasure revelation is the Innermost Essence of the ïākinī just described. Interestingly, although Kongtrul mentions that Longchenpa’s mind Treasures were “established in the form of treatises”49 (i.e., their identity as Treasures might not be readily apparent to the

ordinary person), he simultaneously hails Longchenpa as the king of all revealers of mind Treasure.50 Still, such seeming paradoxes seem to have posed no difficulty for the followers of the Nyingma School, who appear to have been comfortably settled in the belief that the manifestations of enlightened wisdom ultimately defy mundane conceptual structures. Thus, schemas and classifications become imbued with an elasticity that allowed for the harmonious union of

otherwise seemingly contrasting classificatory notions. Finally, we may note that Longchenpa appears to have been the first Treasure commentator to identify the Treasures with the classical five-fold division of body (sku), speech (gsung), mind (thugs), qualities (yon tan), and activity (phrin las), thus further contributing to the taxonomic richness of Treasure hermeneutics.51 In the century following Longchenpa we find an influential Treasure treatise, lauded by

Jamgön Kongtrul as one of the most significant authorities on the polemical defense of the Treasures, the Great Treasure Chronicle: The Illuminating Lamp by Ratna Lingpa Pal Zangpo.52 Like Guru Chöwang before him, Ratna Lingpa claims to have a two-fold purpose for composing his treatise: to elucidate the philosophy of Treasure interpretation as construed by the Nyingma School and to counter continuing criticism raised against the

Treasures by outside skeptics. Having discoursed at length on the nature of the Treasures, he remarks: In this way... although these instructions have elucidated individually the general, specific, and particular categories of Treasure, in reality the

Transmitted Precepts and the Treasures are said to be an indivisible unity. Nevertheless, I have presented them here so that those who possess the eye of wisdom and have valid, honest minds may feel confidence and become uplifted. For those who are linked through past aspirations and positive karmic residue and today feel interest in the Treasures, follow them, practice them genuinely, and are able to gain accomplishment, this treatise will increase their

experience of joy and inspiration, give rise to limitless devotion and conviction through certainty, and engender renunciation, diligence and so forth. Even so, I have also explained extensively in order to defeat those sectarian intellectuals who lack vast learning, understanding, and reasoning; who are

destitute with respect to renunciation, pure perception, and wisdom; who are devoid of any real understanding although they know the names of a few categories; who pretend to be learned while deluded by ignorance; and who do not benefit themselves by training and meditation nor help others through teaching and exposition.53

We shall return to discuss the gentlemen for whom this latter part was intended. First, however, let us consider the divisional elements in Ratna Lingpa’s Treasure taxonomy. The text is divided into five main chapters that explain: 1) that all the teachings of the Buddha are Treasures; 2) how the classical Buddhist teachings of India were all revealed as Treasure; 3) the way the Treasures were revealed in Tibet; 4) the way Ratna Lingpa’s individual Treasures

were revealed; and 5) apologetic arguments in favor of Treasure revelation.54 The primary discussion of Treasure definitions is found in chapters one to three. Although the inspiration of Guru Chöwang’s Great Treasure Chronicle is felt throughout these first chapters, there are nevertheless notable differences in terms of topical structure and emphasis. While Chöwang devotes the majority of his treatise to defining the Treasures, Ratna Lingpa focuses primarily on the process of concealment and revelation, leaving the explanation of Treasure identity as a secondary theme that only occasionally surfaces

throughout his larger account. Ratna Lingpa adheres predominantly to the categories defined by Chöwang centuries earlier, such as those of body, speech, and mind (statues, teachings, and stūpas), as well as Treasures of astrology, medicine, and handicraft (notably, no mention of Bön). However, he also renames Chöwang’s four primary Treasure divisions with terminology of his own. Thus, Ratna Lingpa presents a Treasure category termed “outer variegated Treasures” (phyi sna tshogs pa’i gter) referring to the elements, valleys, wealth, etc. Next are the “inner Treasures bestowing eminence” (nang mchog stsol ba’i gter) comprising the specifically Buddhist Treasures of body, speech, and mind. Third are the “secret, naturally appearing, naturally concealed, and naturally realized Treasures” (gsang ba rang byung rang gab rang rtogs pa’i gter). This category is not further defined by Ratna Lingpa but we may reasonably assume

that it refers to the realization of the buddhas classified by Chöwang as “the definitive Treasure of suchness.” Last in the group of four is the category of “indefinite variegated Treasures” (ma nges sna tshogs pa’i gter), which refers to the arts of medicine, astrology, magic, and handicrafts.55 In this way

Ratna Lingpa provides yet another demonstration of the innovative spirit that continuously shaped and developed the Nyingma School during the first centuries of revelatory activity where, even as commentators increasingly saw themselves as belonging to a textually institutionalized tradition (and so must have felt inclined to adopt already established taxonomies), the creative urge of these writers gained the upper hand, and the taxonomy of the

Treasures was reinvented with almost every new commentarial scripture. The Treasure ideology of the ecumenical tradition, several centuries later, is most thoroughly presented in Jamgön Kongtrul’s monumental hagiographical survey of the Treasure revealers entitled Precious Lapis Lazuli Rosary that Briefly Presents the Emergence of the Profound Treasures and the Accomplished Treasure Revealers, which introduces his famous anthology of Treasure revelations, the Store of Precious Treasures.56 According to this text there are two main categories of Treasure: earth Treasure and mind Treasure.57 As we have seen, these concepts are already found in Longchenpa’s writings, although without the prominence attributed to them by Kongtrul. The presentation of earth Treasure and mind Treasure as the two major Treasure classifications in fact has roots prior to the ecumenical tradition that Kongtrul represents (at least

to the revelations of Jigme Lingpa in the eighteenth century),58 but precisely how far back is not certain. In any case, although this bipartite Treasure system had been an element of Treasure taxonomy for at least a century, Kongtrul and his colleagues are unique in developing it into a four-fold sub-classification constructed around the visionary activity of Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo and Chokgyur Dechen Lingpa. The system is based on the following prophecy revealed by Chokgyur Lingpa:

The river of seven descents— The unbroken spoken lineage, Profound actual earth Treasures as well as mind Treasures, Rediscovered Treasures and recollected Treasures, Pure vision and the hearing lineage— Will flow into the fortune of the father and son. It will enrich the teachings of the degenerate age And spread the sunshine of the profound and vast.

Accordingly, in this classification, the earth Treasures are divided into “actual earth Treasures” (sa gter ngos) and “rediscovered Treasures” (yang gter), while mind Treasures consist of “actual mind Treasures” (dgongs gter ngos) and “recollected Treasures” (rjes dran gter). The basic division of earth and mind Treasures forms the primary structure for Kongtrul’s work while the remaining sub-categories are encountered throughout the text as he discusses the

revelations of individual figures, in particular those of Khyentse and Chokling.60 Following Kongtrul, this system was adopted by subsequent scholars in their treatment of the Treasure literature.61 According to this presentation, earth Treasures are revealed in dependency on a physical locality and constitute the only kind of Treasure that is not exclusively transmitted in and revealed from the mental realm. As the name indicates, this kind of

Treasure is hidden in the ground, a rock, or another physical location. It may be actual texts but can also consist of religious objects such as vajras, kīlas, or buddha statues, sub-classified as material Treasure, as well as jewels and precious metals, designated wealth Treasures.62 Rediscovered Treasures are teachings that previously were revealed but, as the conditions for successful revelation were not met, were re-concealed and now discovered anew. Mind Treasures are revealed purely from the mind of the Treasure revealer where Padmasambhava is claimed to have originally concealed them. Recollected Treasures are remembrances from a former life. The Treasure revealers recollect their past existences as spiritual teachers and propagate their earlier teachings once again. The purpose of this form of revelation is to revive past teachings that have been lost or whose spiritual lineage has been interrupted. This particular form of Treasure is predominantly associated with the

revelations of Khyentse Wangpo who, as Kongtrul mentions time and again, revived the spiritual transmission of many Treasure lineages in this way. Lastly, we may note that the great diversity of Treasure classifications is partly mirrored in the multiplicity of masters responsible for their revelation, the Treasure revealers themselves. Commentaries often speak of more than one thousand Treasure revealers to appear in Tibet but focus on a much smaller number

of important figures of which the most comprehensive list is found in Kongtrul’s treatise on the Treasure revealers mentioned above.63 From the early days of the tradition, to be considered a major Treasure revealer an individual was required to discover sufficient material to constitute an entire path to enlightenment, which in this case meant teachings related to Padmasambhava, the Great Perfection, and the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara.64 Within the larger group of major Treasure revealers there are numerous sub-divisions such as the recent “five royal Treasure revealers”,65 the “three supreme nirmāòakāyas”,66

the “eleven Lingpas”,67 and the most general and common grouping of the “108 great Treasure revealers”.68 We have witnessed here some of the complexity involved in classifying and identifying revealed Treasures and seen how the tradition over time went through significant taxonomical and philosophical developments. On that basis it may come as a surprise that the Nyingma School was even able to maintain a unified stance in propagating the Treasures as a continuously increasing number of visionaries all claimed to have discovered the profoundest Treasure of all. While there certainly were voices within the

Nyingma School that adopted a skeptical attitude towards the rapidly growing number of revelations, it is remarkable that they were not more plentiful and that the tradition was able to absorb and accommodate this plethora of teachings and masters to the extent that it did.69 This philosophical ecumenicalism was no doubt in large part facilitated by the Nyingma School’s historical composition of multiple lineages that for long avoided institutional amalgamation as this school (unlike the Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug schools) never encountered the galvanizing effect of major state-scale sponsorship. Thus, even though the

approach to Treasure identification and classification developed over time, the fundamental philosophical position of the Nyingma School remained surprisingly homogenous, consistently placing the sine qua non of Treasure discovery within the inexhaustible potentiality of the dharmakāya realm. Notably, the skeptical voices within the Nyingma School were never critical of the principle of continued revelation, but instead warned against the potential danger of admitting frauds into the ranks of genuine vi

sionary masters. Ironically, it is therefore precisely within the multiplicity and variety of the tradition that we encounter its unifying force as a dominant eclecticism capable of incorporating a host of idiosyncratic Treasure systems into a relatively homogenous and well-functioning unity. This integrality in turn received its cohesive strength from a continual referral to the Treasures’ genesis in the a-historical realm personified by the

dharmakāya buddha Samantabhadra and his peers. At least since the time of Guru Chöwang there has been a broad understanding within the Nyingma School that the Treasures, in essence, embody the entirety of the Buddha’s teachings and even existence itself. Thus, in the most fundamental equation, anything and

everything belongs within the unifying dharmakāya realm from which all Treasures emerge. In spite of this position being repeatedly advanced by past thinkers of the Nyingma School it has often been ignored or downplayed in contemporary studies of the Treasures. For example, a recent study of Guru

Chöwang’s Great Treasure Chronicle portrays his inclusive outlook on Treasure definition as a unique and eccentric view developed as an apologetical tool for defending his revelations against the critique of outsiders.70 While there is no question that Chöwang’s Great Treasure Chronicle in part was meant to

rebuke the skeptics of his day,71 the inclusive interpretations of the Treasure phenomenon that are developed in this text came to influence later commentators profoundly as they adopted the main elements of Chöwang’s philosophical vision into the predominant hermeneutical position of the Nyingma School.72 Guru Chöwang’s inclusive attitude therefore represents, not an odd piece of Treasure apology, but a seminal source for the formation of the

philosophical position of the Nyingma School in matters of Treasures. Consequently, by focusing predominantly on perceived apologetic “agendas” and “strategies” in the Great Treasure Chronicle one risks losing sight of the importance and value of this text as a formative philosophical vision that came

to influence the Nyingma School for the better half of a millennium. Although new Treasure taxonomies developed in partial dependency on previous classificatory formulations, the evolutions within Treasure taxonomy gradually came to involve philosophical change on such a scale that central positions of recent Treasure commentators can be hard to identify in the earliest Treasure treatises of the Nyingma School. A prominent illustration for such

developments is the concept of mind Treasure, which, emerging in the fourteenth century from the notion of a spiritual Treasure, at first appears to denote simply a precious teaching in general, while in later Treasure commentaries it evolves into one of the most prominent Treasure categories.73 As a way

to accommodate these many variegated Treasure systems within its ranks, the Nyingma School adopted a broad interpretation of the Treasures, first formulated by Guru Chöwang, which, running parallel to the multiplicity of textual and taxonomic idiosyncrasies, came to conceive of all the buddhas’ teachings, and even existence itself, as Treasure. It was this collateral approach to Treasure hermeneutics that allowed the tradition to continue as a homogenous entity

in spite of the numerous historical neologies that continuously changed its outward appearance. Still, in spite of the warm reception given to the numerous Treasures by the followers of the Nyingma School they were often met in other quarters with a skeptical reaction that discarded their legitimacy and denounced their propagators as frauds, tricksters, or worse. In the following chapter, we shall look at these opposing positions of the devotee and the skeptic and trace their relationship in Tibet and the West.