Introduction

"Consciousness transference" is not a single concept but a cluster of concepts: phowa ('pho ba, transferring consciousness at death to be reborn in a pure land), drongjuk (grong 'jug, consciousness entering another's body), the great transference ('pho ba chen po, the supreme fruition of the body dissolving into light), the rainbow body ('ja' lus, the luminous-body attainment at death), and the tulku reincarnation system (sprul sku / yang srid, the institution of recognizing children to inherit seats) — these five differ from one another in doctrine, practice, and institution; they must not be conflated, let alone used to prove one another as cause and effect. This is the starting point of all the work in this study.

Phowa's Indian origins have textual attestation, but its "Sanskrit original name" is a modern construction: saṃkrānti as the Sanskrit equivalent of 'pho ba appears only in modern Tibetan–Sanskrit dictionaries and Wikipedia entries; the terms actually used in Indian tantric Buddhist literature are utkrānti (the Śaiva Mālinīvijayottaratantra, late 1st millennium CE) and parakāyapraveśa (Pātañjalayogaśāstra 3.39, c. 325–425 CE). [Documented in literature]

Drongjuk was primarily a "doctrine" in Indian Buddhism and only developed into "legend" in Tibet: no reliable source has been found for legends of Indian Buddhist mahāsiddhas personally performing drongjuk; the core Tibetan legend is that of Marpa's son Darma Dodé in the 11th century, who entered a dove and was reborn as the Indian Tipupa (the textual source being the 15th–16th-century Life of Marpa). [Documented in literature]

The great transference and the rainbow body are terms for the supreme fruition shared by Bön and the Nyingma school. In terms of datable manuscripts, Buddhist Dzogchen literature (the Dunhuang Semdé manuscripts, 10th century) predates Bön Dzogchen literature (10th–11th centuries); but both sides place their first rainbow-body achiever in the 7th–8th centuries with no contemporaneous attestation, so which came first cannot be determined, and scholarship has no one-sided consensus on the matter. [Documented in literature]

The tulku reincarnation institution: Buddhism first, Bön later. The institutionally recognized starting point is Orgyenpa's recognition of Rangjung Dorjé in 1289 (the "first" and "second" numbering of Düsum Khyenpa and Karma Pakshi being retrospective); Bön's earliest verifiable recognized reincarnation is the 14th-century Chuku Lodrö Gyaltsen (1360–1385), about a century later; moreover, the selection of Menri Tridzin, Bön's highest throne-holder, explicitly does not use the reincarnation system. [Documented in literature]

"The Tibetan Buddhist tulku reincarnation institution originated from Bön" — no clear proponent has been found. No authoritative scholar has explicitly advanced this proposition in the form of a paper or monograph. The three closest genuine statements (the Dalai Lama's 2011 statement speaking of "concepts" predating Buddhism, Xiao Jinsong's 2007 discussion of the "emanation concept" as indigenous soil, and an unsourced claim on the Chinese internet) all concern the level of concepts, not the tulku recognition institution itself.

The counter-evidence is stronger: the Dalai Lama's 2011 statement explicitly says that the reincarnation-recognition institution "gradually spread to other Tibetan Buddhist traditions, as well as Bön"; under Kvaerne's framework, institutional Bön itself took shape under Buddhist influence; the scholarly consensus is that "conceptual resources belong to India, while the institution was a 13th-century Tibetan invention."

In sum, the available evidence does not support the hypothesis that "the Tibetan Buddhist tulku reincarnation institution originated from Bön." But an honest qualification must be kept: at the conceptual level (past and future lives, emanation, indigenous sacred kingship), there are indeed pre-Buddhist indigenous elements; at the institutional level (recognizing children to inherit seats), the available evidence points to a 13th-century Tibetan Buddhist invention that subsequently spread back into Bön. Conflating "concepts" with "institutions" is the most common category error in this debate.

Guide: Evidence Grades

Each key conclusion in this study is followed by an evidence grade, four grades in total:

• [Verified by archaeology]: supported by physical evidence such as archaeological excavation or material dating of manuscripts (e.g., paleographic analysis of Dunhuang manuscripts)
• [Documented in literature]: has an identifiable textual source (scripture title, book title, author, date), including religious biographies and scholarly works
• [Folk legend]: narratives circulating in oral tradition or hagiographic literature (rnam thar), without contemporaneous textual attestation
• [Unsubstantiated]: no reliable source found, or existing sources lack citations and cannot be trusted

Two time-markers must be strictly distinguished:

• ★ Religious self-reported dates: internal chronologies of religious traditions (e.g., Bön placing its founder in BCE or the 7th–8th centuries); these belong to faith narratives and are not cited as historical fact
• ◆ Scholarly dating: dating conclusions based on manuscripts, textual criticism, and historical linguistics

Research method: open web-source searches (Chinese and English); five parallel research units covered phowa, drongjuk, the great transference and rainbow body, the reincarnation institution, and Indian sources and scholarly views respectively, then unified, written up, and cross-checked. Limitations: this study is based on web indexes and did not directly consult Tibetan or Sanskrit primary sources; some quotations are cited secondhand from secondary studies, as noted; there is almost no direct evidence at the archaeological level, and conclusions rest mainly on philological and history-of-scholarship analysis.

1. Master Timeline: Earliest Textual Nodes at a Glance

Convention: ★ = religious self-reported date (no contemporaneous attestation); ◆ = scholarly dating (with manuscript/textual evidence); all dates are Common Era

c. 325–425 (◆) [Documented in literature] Pātañjalayogaśāstra 3.39 describes "entering another's body" (parakāyapraveśa) — the Indian source of drongjuk-type practices.

308 (◆) [Documented in literature] The 普曜经 (T.186), translated by Dharmarakṣa (竺法护): the bodhisattva "contemplates the five matters and enters the womb as a white elephant" — the narrative of conscious womb-entry.

406 (◆) [Documented in literature] The 妙法莲华经 translated by Kumārajīva (鸠摩罗什) — one of the main sources of the emanation-body (nirmāṇakāya) thought in China.

Late 1st millennium (◆) [Documented in literature] The Śaiva Mālinīvijayottaratantra devotes a chapter to utkrānti (the departure of consciousness).

c. 814–824 (◆) [Documented in literature] The 翻译名义大集 (Mahāvyutpatti) standardizes nirmāṇakāya → sprul pa'i sku.

9th–10th centuries (◆) [Documented in literature] Indian mother tantras such as the 四座续 (Catuṣpīṭha) contain grong 'jug teachings; the Dunhuang Tibetan 于阗阿罗汉授记 calls the Tibetan emperor a bodhisattva emanation.

c. 10th–11th centuries (◆) [Documented in literature] Abhinavagupta's Tantrāloka, chapter 19, systematically discusses utkrānti.

No earlier than the 10th century (◆) [Verified by archaeology] The lower date limit for the copying of the Dunhuang Dzogchen Semdé manuscripts (觉性杜鹃, 小隐粟) — the earliest datable Dzogchen literature extant, belonging to Buddhism.

11th century (◆/★) [Documented in literature] Tilopa's 六法教授 (Six Dharmas Instruction) — the earliest known exposition of the six dharmas (the colophon says Nāropa and Marpa translated it together); Marpa's three journeys to India to receive teachings (traditional account).

11th century (★) [Folk legend] Darma Dodé falls from his horse, enters a dove, and is reborn as the Indian Tipupa (textual source: the 15th–16th-century Life of Marpa).

11th century (★/◆) [Documented in literature] The founding of Bön's A-khrid (Me'u Gongdzö, 1038–1096); the appearance of the Nyingma Menngakdé "Seventeen Tantras" treasure literature (claiming 8th-century originals).

12th century (◆) [Documented in literature] Gampopa's 达波文集·六法引导文 (Guide to the Six Dharmas) — among the earliest systematic Tibetan expositions of the six dharmas; Nyangrel Nyima Özer (1124–1192) claims to be the rebirth of Trisong Detsen (an isolated claim, not an institution).

1110–1193 (◆) [Documented in literature] Düsum Khyenpa lives; founds Karma Gon and Tsurphu monasteries.

1204–1283 (◆) [Documented in literature] Karma Pakshi lives; around the 1220s he is recognized by Pomdrakpa as the rebirth of Düsum Khyenpa (traditional narrative).

1289 (◆) [Documented in literature] Orgyenpa recognizes the 5-year-old Rangjung Dorjé as the rebirth of Karma Pakshi — the institutionally recognized starting point of the tulku system according to scholarship.

14th century (◆) [Documented in literature] Longchenpa (1308–1364) compiles the 四心滴 (Four Heart-Essences) — the systematic formulation of rainbow-body great transference in the Nyingma school; Bön's Chuku Lodrö Gyaltsen (1360–1385) — Bön's earliest verifiable recognized reincarnation.

15th century (◆) [Documented in literature] Palden Gyaltsen Zangpo composes the Zhangzhung Nyengyü master biographies — the earliest textual source for Tapihritsa's great-transference deeds; Tsangnyön Heruka composes the Life of Marpa (1452–1507).

1476/1478 (◆) [Documented in literature] Completion of the Blue Annals — among the earlier systematic historical accounts of Marpa's lineage.

1505 (◆) [Documented in literature] Tsangnyön Heruka compiles the Biography of Marpa the Translator — the earliest standalone biography of Marpa.

1645–1667 (★) [Documented in literature] Mingyur Dorjé reveals the "Tersar" (New Treasure) cycle, including the fivefold classification of the Transference Phowa Teaching, judged as "doctrine only, without practice instructions."

1978 (◆) [Documented in literature] T.V. Wylie publishes "Reincarnation: A Political Innovation in Tibetan Buddhism."

2011 (◆) [Documented in literature] The 14th Dalai Lama's Statement on the Issue of Reincarnation — the direct source for the claim that the institution "spread to Bön."

2. Phowa ('pho ba): Etymology, Indian Origins, and Transmission to Tibet

2.1 Etymology: the Tibetan "migration" and the truth about the Sanskrit equivalent

The Tibetan 'pho ba is a verb meaning "to migrate, shift, transfer." The essence of phowa practice is "the migration of consciousness" — at death, consciousness travels up the central channel and exits through the crown aperture (brahmarandhra) to be reborn in a pure land. The Chinese "迁识/迁识法" is a semantic translation; "破瓦/頗瓦" is a phonetic transliteration. [Documented in literature] Sources: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A0%97%E7%93%A6 ; Cichen Luozhu (慈诚罗珠), 慧灯禅修（四）·破瓦法 ("'Phowa' is a Tibetan transliteration meaning 'migration'") (https://d2e6j3zdpz3g2k.cloudfront.net/fhfy/down/mp3-down/hdcxkjc/4/慧灯禅修四_破瓦法.pdf)

A widespread misconception about the Sanskrit equivalent must be clarified. saṃkrānti (from the prefix sam- + the root kram, "to stride," literally "transition, entry") is first and foremost an astronomical/astrological term in the Sanskrit tradition, denoting the sun's "ingress" from one zodiacal house into the next (e.g., Makara-saṃkrānti, the ingress into Capricorn). As the "Sanskrit equivalent" of 'pho ba, it appears only in modern Tibetan–Sanskrit dictionaries and English/Chinese Wikipedia entries — a standard back-translation of modern lexicography. No reliable source has been found for any ancient Indian text using the term for this practice. [Unsubstantiated] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phowa

The terms actually used in Indian tantric literature are two different words:

• utkrānti ("upward departure"): the nondual Śaiva tantra Mālinīvijayottaratantra (late 1st millennium CE) devotes a chapter to the yogin's deliberate casting-off of the body (utkrānti); Abhinavagupta's Tantrāloka, chapter 19 (c. 10th–11th centuries), discusses it further and systematically, including the rite in which a master recites the brahmavidyā for a dying disciple to aid liberation. For the critical edition see Somadeva Vasudeva, The Yoga of the Mālinīvijayottaratantra, IFP/EFEO, 2004, pp. 437–445. [Documented in literature] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phowa (citing Vasudeva 2004; Mallinson & Singleton, Roots of Yoga, p. 373)
• parakāyapraveśa ("entering another's body"): Pātañjalayogaśāstra 3.39 (scholarly dating c. 325–425 CE, Maas 2013) states that "when the cause of bondage is relaxed and the movements of the mind are known, the mind can enter another's body." Note: this corresponds to the Tibetan grong 'jug (drongjuk), not to 'pho ba in its proper sense (rebirth in a pure land). [Documented in literature] Source: as above

In sum: when arguing for phowa's "Indian origins," one should use terms with textual attestation such as utkrānti and parakāyapraveśa; using saṃkrānti to argue for a "Sanskrit original name" commits an anachronism — it is a modern construction, not an ancient usage.

2.2 Its status as one of the Six Dharmas of Nāropa: a later systematization

The earliest known exposition of the six dharmas is Tilopa's Six Dharmas Instruction (Chos drug gi man ngag), whose colophon says Nāropa and Marpa translated it together at Pulihari (11th century). [Documented in literature] Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Dharmas_of_Naropa ; http://oaks.nvg.org/naropa.html

There is also Nāropa's Vajra Verses of the Whispered Tradition, in which Nāropa himself adds, beyond the six dharmas, the instruction of "self-liberation" (the Mahāmudrā view) — showing that the specific contents of the "six dharmas" fluctuated in the early transmission and were not set in stone. [Documented in literature] Source: as above

But it is crucial that the fixed number "six" is a later systematization:

• Glenn Mullin's research shows that Marpa himself taught only "four dharmas" — inner heat (gtum mo), karmamudrā, illusory body (sgyu lus), and luminosity ('od gsal); phowa, drongjuk, and the bardo were not established as independent "dharmas" but classed as auxiliary practices. [Documented in literature] Source: as above (citing Mullin)
• In Gampopa's Guide to the Six Dharmas in the 达波文集 (12th century), 'pho ba ranks sixth (last): inner heat, luminosity, dream, illusory body, bardo, transference. [Documented in literature]
• The Phagmodrupa/Tsongkhapa system lists: inner heat, illusory body, luminosity, transference (fourth), drongjuk, bardo — with drongjuk listed as a dharma in its own right. [Documented in literature]

The traditional transmission lineage is: Tilopa (988–1069) → Nāropa (1016–1100) → Marpa (1012–1097) → Milarepa → Gampopa → the Kagyü schools; later Tsongkhapa received the six-dharmas transmission from Kagyü masters and introduced it into the Geluk school. (Scholarly restatement of the traditional lineage.) [Documented in literature]

2.3 Transmission to Tibet via Marpa: dates and earliest accounts

The traditional account: Marpa Chökyi Lodrö (1012–1097, a Lhodrakpa) first studied Sanskrit for three years under Drokmi Śākya Yeshé, then journeyed three times to India, spending twelve years at Pullahari under Nāropa; the six dharmas (including 'pho ba) were received from Nāropa during this period, translated into Tibetan, and brought back to Tibet. [Documented in literature] Source: https://en.dharmapedia.net/wiki/Marpa

Two scholarly cautions: first, some modern scholars note that accounts of "Marpa meeting Nāropa in person" vary across sources, with alternative versions saying he received the lineage only indirectly through Nāropa's disciples (that Marpa was a direct disciple of Maitripa and the ḍākinī Niguma is undisputed); second, no reliable source has been found for the exact start and end years of Marpa's three journeys to India. [Documented in literature] Source: as above

The earliest Tibetan accounts (by genre):

• Earliest in historiography: the Blue Annals (deb ther sngon po) by Gö Lotsāwa Zhönnu Pel (1392–1481), completed in 1476 (some say 1478), which contains a Marpa chapter. [Documented in literature] Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Annals
• Earliest standalone biography: Tsangnyön Heruka (1452–1507) compiled the Biography of Marpa the Translator in 1505. [Documented in literature] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsangny%C3%B6n_Heruka
• Earlier "contemporaneous textual traces": Marpa's own translations (e.g., the colophon of the Six Dharmas Instruction co-translated with Nāropa, 11th century) — though these are not biographical or historiographical in genre. [Documented in literature]

2.4 Does Bön have a corresponding phowa practice? Practice exists; the textual chain is missing

What can be confirmed: the Bön tradition does have the concepts and practice of 'pho ba / 'pho ba chen po —

• John Myrdhin Reynolds's annotated Bön "bardo" text ("Commentary to the Bonpo Book of the Dead") devotes a section to "Phowa Chenpo," defining 'pho ba chen po as "direct transformation into a body of light without passing through the death process," graded by capacity into three levels (highest: transformation into dharmakāya; middling: into saṃbhogakāya; lowest: into saṃbhogakāya/nirmāṇakāya modes), and also describing the rite in which a lama performs transference for the deceased at the head of the corpse. [Documented in literature] Source: https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Commentary_to_the_Bonpo_book_of_the_dead
• Contemporary Bön still maintains an independent phowa lineage and practice, e.g., the "Bon Phowa" taught by Chongtul Rinpoche (Bon Shen Ling system), with full chanting tutorials on YouTube. [Documented in literature] Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiXPntpfZcc

What must be honestly marked as missing: within the scope of publicly searchable Chinese- and English-language web sources, no clearly named Bön phowa practice scripture (a text with a title) could be found, nor any reliable source confirming whether it belongs to the Zhangzhung Nyengyü or the Dzogchen system. Conclusion: no reliable source found. Therefore, on this point, the chronological argument that "Bön phowa predates Buddhist phowa" currently cannot stand.

One "piece of evidence" that must be discarded: the English academic quick-reference site en-academic's "Phowa" entry states, "Phowa is also the discipline that has developed the Tulku lineages within the Bonpo…," a sentence with no citation whatsoever — graded [Unsubstantiated], it may not be used in the overall argument. Moreover, 'pho ba (a transference practice) and tulku (a reincarnation institution) are two different concepts to begin with.

2.5 Earliest Chinese renderings: a scholarly blank

"破瓦/頗瓦" is a Tibetan phonetic transliteration; "迁识/迁识法" is a semantic translation. During the Tang–Song era of esoteric translation, most of the highest yoga tantras to which 'pho ba belongs had not yet been translated into Chinese, so no Chinese rendering of this practice is found in the Chinese Tripiṭaka (based on searches that found none). The earliest datable Chinese usage of "破瓦法" this research could establish is from Lu Shengyan's (卢胜彦) 虹光大成就 1996–1997 teaching transcripts: "破瓦法是那洛六法中的一法……" ("Phowa is one of the Six Dharmas of Nāropa…"). [Documented in literature] Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTmFGyyIG-A

Who first used the Chinese renderings "破瓦/迁识" and in which book (whether they are neologisms of the late-20th-century Tibetan-Buddhist Chinese translation movement) — no scholarly examination has been found; no reliable source. This is a blank spot in the history of Tibetan–Chinese translation.

2.6 Appendix: the fivefold classification of phowa (Nyingma "Tersar" lineage)

The Nyingma "Tersar" treasure text Transference Phowa Teaching: Explanation divides phowa into five kinds — a classification that best shows the internal hierarchy of "transference" branches and best clarifies its relationship to reincarnation and drongjuk:

1. Dharmakāya phowa: one who has realized through Mahāmudrā or Dzogchen trekchö practice in this life; at death, mother and child luminosity meet, resting in samādhi for seven days, etc., transcending subject–object transference — the phowa of ultimate truth. Outer signs of accomplishment: the sky clear and cloudless; inner signs: the aggregates and complexion long undeclined. [Documented in literature · Treasure text]
2. Saṃbhogakāya phowa: what is usually meant by the main practice of phowa (visualizing the seed syllable traveling up the central channel and out through the brahmarandhra). [Documented in literature · Treasure text]
3. Nirmāṇakāya phowa: lying on the right side in the auspicious lion posture, visualizing a buddha image, vowing "may I be born as an emanation to guide all beings," consciousness exiting through the left nostril. — This is the point where "transference" and "reincarnation" meet in meaning: vowing rebirth in a womb by means of transference. [Documented in literature · Treasure text]
4. Drongjuk phowa: consciousness transferred into another's body. The judgment: "In Tibet, because the auspicious interdependence is incomplete, this dharma is not authorized for practice; therefore there is doctrine but no oral instruction of actual practice lineage." [Documented in literature · Treasure text]
5. Ordinary-person phowa (also called forceful transference, instantaneous transference): the phowa commonly so called — at death, visualizing Amitābha or Guru Rinpoché above the crown and forcefully directing the mind to the crown wheel for ejection. [Documented in literature · Treasure text]

The significance of the fivefold scheme: Tibetan Buddhism itself long ago classified "emanation (rebirth)" and "drongjuk" as two different transferences — no. (3) is vowing womb-rebirth (the reincarnation sense), no. (4) is consciousness entering another's body (the drongjuk sense). Both belong to the broad category of "transference," yet their meanings and practices are not confused with each other. This also confirms, from intra-traditional textual sources, the distinction this study stresses throughout: phowa (a transference practice) ≠ the reincarnation institution. [Documented in literature · Conceptual analysis] Source: https://garchencanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Transference-to-the-land-of-great-Bliss-頗瓦法講解.pdf

2.7 Appendix: brief introduction to each of the Six Dharmas of Nāropa

For completeness, the six branches listed briefly (in Gampopa's order), to show 'pho ba's place among them:

1. Inner heat (gtum mo, Skt. caṇḍālī): the practice of inner-heat bliss at the navel wheel; the root of the six dharmas; mother tantras such as Cakrasaṃvara and Vajravārāhī are its scriptural warrant. [Documented in literature]
2. Luminosity ('od gsal, Skt. prabhāsvara): practice of the mind's luminous aspect; the father tantra Guhyasamāja is its warrant. [Documented in literature]
3. Dream (rmi lam, Skt. svapnadarśana): dream practice, turning dreams to the path. [Documented in literature]
4. Illusory body (sgyu lus, Skt. māyākāyā): the practice of knowing all as illusion; the father tantra Guhyasamāja is its warrant. [Documented in literature]
5. Bardo (bar do, Skt. antarābhava): practice for the intermediate state after death. [Documented in literature]
6. Transference ('pho ba): the dharma of transferring consciousness at death, ranked last. [Documented in literature]

A 2025 IJCRT paper's three-roots/three-branches scheme broadly corresponds: the three roots are inner heat, illusory body, and luminosity; the three branches are transference (Catuṣpīṭha), drongjuk (Catuṣpīṭha), and bardo. [Documented in literature · Contemporary review] Source: https://ijcrt.org/download.php?file=IJCRT2510566.pdf

What this shows: 'pho ba's status as "one of" the six-dharma system is the result of systematization from Gampopa onward; Marpa himself taught only four dharmas (inner heat, karmamudrā, illusory body, luminosity), with transference, drongjuk, and bardo classed as auxiliaries. This layered character should be kept in mind when discussing its "origins." [Documented in literature]

3. Drongjuk ('pho ba grong 'jug): the Practice and Legends of Consciousness Entering Another's Body

3.1 Etymology and definition

The full term 'pho ba grong 'jug consists of two parts: 'pho ba (transference) + grong 'jug. Here grong means "city, town," and 'jug means "to enter"; the compound literally translates as "entering the city" — a metaphor: the body is likened to a city, the faculties (the senses such as eye and ear) to the city gates, and consciousness to the city's resident. The Kagyü oral-instruction English translation Esoteric Teachings of the Tibetan Tantra (trans. Garma C.C. Chang) quotes the Tibetan instruction: "Grong (literally meaning city or house) here refers to the bodily organs such as the eyes and ears (since they are like the house in which consciousness resides)… consciousness entering another's not-yet-decayed corpse is called Gronghjug — entering another's house." [Documented in literature] Source: https://res.cloudinary.com/dtbg46l7q/raw/upload/ebooks/pdf/esoteric-teachings-of-the-tibetan-tantra.pdf

The Chinese "夺舍破瓦" is the "dharma of transference into another's body"; English scholarship often renders it "forceful projection."

The origin of the Chinese term "夺舍" needs clarification: as a term, its widespread usage is directly tied to the Chinese translation of the Tibetan grong 'jug (e.g., the Nyingma "Tersar" Transference Phowa Teaching: Explanation writes one of the five phowas directly as "奪舍破瓦"). But whether "夺舍" has an independent origin in Chinese Buddhist scriptures (predating Tibetan translation) — no reliable source has been found; searches located no definitive earliest entry in the electronic texts of the Taishō Tripiṭaka or the Chan lamp records.

What must be strictly distinguished from "夺舍" is the Chinese Buddhist concept of "夺胎" (womb-seizing): Yuan Jiao's Tang-dynasty 甘泽谣 (c. 9th century) records that the Chan master Yuanze foresaw entering a pregnant woman's womb, giving a laugh three days later as the sign, and meeting again thirteen years later at Tianzhu in Hangzhou (the source of the "three-lives stone" legend). This is "womb entry," not "entry into a dead body." [Documented in literature] Source: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/三生石

3.2 Drongjuk cases in Indian legend: absent in Buddhism, one famous case in Hinduism

Indian Buddhism: this research found no clear legend of an Indian Buddhist mahāsiddha (e.g., among the eighty-four mahāsiddhas) personally entering a corpse and reviving. In the Indian Buddhist context, grong 'jug exists mainly as a tantric doctrine — the Catuḥpīṭha-mahāyoginī-tantra (scholarly dating c. 9th–10th centuries, translated into Tibetan in the 11th) is regarded by Tibetan commentarial tradition as one of its scriptural bases, with Sampuṭa, Vajradaka, and other mother tantras also cited in surveys. [Documented in literature] Source: https://ijcrt.org/download.php?file=IJCRT2510566.pdf (note: a low-impact journal; treated as a cited reference)

This "absence" is noteworthy: grong 'jug in India appears mainly as a canonical doctrine; only in Tibet did it develop into a rich hagiographic literature.

Hinduism: the most famous drongjuk legend is that of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, who by yogic power (parakāya-praveśa) entered the freshly dead body of King Amaru, remained for a month experiencing sensual pleasure to study the Kāmasūtra, in order to win a debate. The textual source is Mādhava's (14th century) Śaṅkara-dig-vijaya (Life of Śaṅkara), chapter 9. [Documented in literature] Source: https://mail.estudantedavedanta.net/Sankara-Digvijaya.pdf Note: religious tradition places Śaṅkara in the 8th century (traditionally 788–820), but the Śaṅkara-dig-vijaya's author is a 14th-century figure — a later hagiographic work.

3.3 The Tibetan drongjuk case: Darma Dodé — Tipupa

Tibet's core drongjuk legend centers on Marpa's son Darma Dodé (Dar ma mdo sde, 11th century):

Darma Dodé was thrown from his horse in a riding accident and dragged to death. Marpa, by his accomplished power, extended his dying son's life and conferred the dharma of transferring consciousness into a corpse; as no uninjured human corpse could be found at the time, Darma Dodé first transferred his consciousness into a freshly dead dove; the dove flew over the Himalayas to India, died beside the freshly dead corpse of a thirteen-year-old (some say sixteen-year-old) brahmin boy, and his consciousness transferred again into the boy's body; the boy rose from the funeral pyre revived, and grew up to become the great Indian yogin Tipupa (Ti phu pa, meaning "dove," 11th–12th centuries). Tipupa later transmitted the dharma to Rechungpa, Milarepa's disciple.

Textual source: Tsangnyön Heruka's (gTsang smyon He ru ka, 1452–1507) Life of Marpa, English translation by the Nalanda Translation Committee, Shambhala Publications, 1982. [Documented in literature] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiphupa Religious self-dating places it in the 11th century; the biography was composed in the late 15th–early 16th century — later-diffusion hagiographic literature, not accepted by scholarship as historical fact.

Related legends include:

• Nāropa conferring the dharma and Milarepa requesting it: according to the Life of Marpa, at the urging of his disciple Milarepa (who had received a ḍākinī's prophecy in a dream), Marpa requested from Nāropa the dharma of "transferring consciousness into a corpse"; Nāropa then conferred on Marpa the secret instruction received from the ḍākinī. [Folk legend]
• The "no auspicious conditions in Tibet" saying: the Life of Marpa explains why no usable human corpse could be found — "because the instruction by which transference and drongjuk bring liberation without meditation had no auspicious conditions to spread in Tibet, not even one uninjured male corpse could be found." This saying is the biographical basis for the later judgment that "Tibet lacks the auspicious interdependence, hence drongjuk is not taught as actual practice." [Folk legend] Cited in https://www.scribd.com/document/56442086/trongjug
• The claim that Lhalungpa caused Darma Dodé's fall (Geluk oral tradition, Alexander Berzin interview): Lhalungpa, foreseeing that Darma Dodé's holding of the grong 'jug lineage would be "disadvantageous for Tibet and the future," used supernormal power to engineer the accident that threw him from his horse; the present Tsenshap Serkong Rinpoche is regarded as Darma Dodé's rebirth. [Folk legend] Source: https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-buddhism/spiritual-teachers/tsenshap-serkong-rinpoche/interview-about-tsenshap-serkong-rinpoche-dr-berzin

3.4 Tibetan Buddhist schools' records and evaluations: doctrine exists, practice does not

The situation by school is as follows. Kagyü: doctrine exists (a branch of the Six Dharmas of Nāropa), but the practice lineage was cut short by Darma Dodé's early death (per the biographies' own account); the representative source is the Life of Marpa (Tsangnyön Heruka, 15th–16th centuries). Nyingma: doctrine exists (Tersar treasures), but "there is doctrine without oral instruction of an actual practice lineage"; the representative source is the Tersar Transference Phowa Teaching: Explanation (Mingyur Dorjé's treasure, religious self-dating 1645–1667 for its revelation). Geluk: doctrine exists (Tsongkhapa's Three Faiths Complete), outwardly discontinued, continuing only in secret oral transmission, "never discussed openly"; the representative source is Tsongkhapa's Profound Path Six Dharmas of Nāropa: Three Faiths Complete (composed 1357–1419). Sakya: no dedicated discussion found; no practice lineage found — a limitation of the search, not proof that Sakya lacks the teaching. [Documented in literature]

Two key textual bases:

1. The Nyingma "Tersar" lineage's explicit judgment: the Transference Phowa Teaching: Explanation divides phowa into five — dharmakāya phowa, saṃbhogakāya phowa, nirmāṇakāya phowa, drongjuk phowa, ordinary-person phowa (forceful transference) — and no. (4) states plainly: "奪舍法，在西藏因其不具足緣起而不授權修此法，因此只有教法沒有實修傳承的口訣" ("As for the drongjuk dharma: in Tibet, because the auspicious interdependence is incomplete, this dharma is not authorized for practice; therefore there is doctrine but no oral instruction of an actual practice lineage."). This is the direct textual source of the saying that "Tibet lacks the auspicious interdependence, hence actual practice is not conferred." [Documented in literature] Source: https://garchencanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Transference-to-the-land-of-great-Bliss-頗瓦法講解.pdf
2. Tsongkhapa's Geluk account: per the University of Virginia Library exhibit summary, Tsongkhapa says drong-juk was brought from India to Tibet by Marpa and transmitted to his son Darma Dodé; with Darma Dodé's sudden early death, "the genuine drong-juk wisdom went with him"; yet the dharma continues in secret oral transmission, "never discussed openly." [Documented in literature] Source: https://explore.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/show/dead/texts/artofdying

Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche (1910–1991) is cited as explaining: "If someone is old and will not live long, but still wishes to continue practicing for the benefit of beings, they may enter a fresh corpse that is young and strong." (cited from the "TRONGJUG" chapter of Tibetan Death and Délog Experiences) [Documented in literature]

3.5 Corresponding Bön statements and cases: scriptural provisions absent; only one ethnographic legend

• Bön has 'pho ba instructions (e.g., citations from the Zhangzhung Nyengyü), but for explicit doctrinal provisions on grong 'jug (or "consciousness entering another's body") in Bön scriptures, this research found no reliable source.
• Only one 20th-century ethnographic legend was found: a 2025 IJCRT paper cites Tsering Thar's ethnography (New Horizon in Bon Studies, 2000, p. 423), reporting that in the early 20th century, when the first Khyungmo Tulku of the Amdo Trikha region passed away, he transferred his consciousness into the corpse of a young man. (The book's editor Karmay is an authority on Bön studies; provisionally graded [Documented in literature] — verification against the original book recommended.)

In sum: drongjuk legends themselves cannot serve as evidence for "the reincarnation institution originated from Bön" — Bön scriptural provisions on drongjuk are absent, and the sole case is a 20th-century ethnographic citation.

3.6 How drongjuk and tulku reincarnation differ in meaning: they must be distinguished

• Tulku reincarnation (yang srid / sprul sku): an attested bodhisattva autonomously entering a womb, living a complete life, with the monastic community locating and recognizing the child through ritual — an institutional reincarnation lineage.
• Drongjuk (grong 'jug): a yogin transferring consciousness into another's already-dead body (usually an adult corpse), continuing the same life's work; no womb entry, birth, or growing up; no reincarnation-recognition procedure required.
• The core difference: womb-entry rebirth vs. corpse-entry revival — the former begins a new life incorporated into a reincarnation lineage; the latter is the continuation of one and the same mind-stream in another dead body.
• The traditions' own explicit distinction: the Nyingma Tersar Transference Phowa Teaching: Explanation lists them as two parallel, different dharmas — no. (3) "nirmāṇakāya phowa" (vowing rebirth as an emanation to guide beings, i.e., the reincarnation sense) and no. (4) "drongjuk phowa" (consciousness entering another's body) — described item by item, not confused. [Documented in literature]

A boundary-blurring case: after Darma Dodé continued through the dove and the boy's body, the biography fashions him as the Indian mahāsiddha Tipupa — functionally close to "reincarnation"; while Geluk oral tradition recognizes Serkong Rinpoche as Darma Dodé's rebirth (yang srid), i.e., incorporating a drongjuk practitioner into a reincarnation lineage. This shows that in Tibetan religious practice the boundary between the two can be fluid, though doctrinally they remain two distinct concepts. [Documented in literature]

3.7 The scholarly anthropological view: Tanya Zivkovic's "in-between bodies"

Anthropologist Tanya Zivkovic, in Death and Reincarnation in Tibetan Buddhism: In-between Bodies (Routledge, 2014), lists "a migrating presence that can reign in the body of another" as one of several post-mortem continuities of a lama, discussed alongside reincarnation, relics, and the rainbow body. [Documented in literature] Source: https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/images/e/e6/Death_and_Reincarnation_in_Tibetan_Buddhism_In-Between_Bodies_%28_PDFDrive_%29.pdf (note: only the bibliographic information and quoted passages were verified; the relevant chapters were not read in full)

This means: in the contemporary religious-studies/anthropological view, drongjuk (grong 'jug) is regarded as a "mode of continuity" in Tibetan Buddhist death culture that stands alongside reincarnation yet differs from it. It can neither be reduced to a predecessor of the reincarnation institution nor used as evidence for it — the two have long coexisted in Tibetan religious practice, each in its own place. [Documented in literature · Academic review]

4. The Great Transference ('pho ba chen po): The Highest Fruition Contested by Bön and Nyingma

4.1 Defining the Term: The Highest Fruition Shared by Both Schools

The "great transference" is the highest-fruition term shared by both schools, with fully corresponding definitions:

• In Bön's Zhangzhung Nyengyud it is called 'pho-ba chen-po'i 'od-sku (the light-body of great transference);
• In Nyingma it is called 'ja' lus 'pho ba chen po (the rainbow body of great transference);
• Both are the highest of the three levels of rainbow body (rainbow body → light body → great transference) — the practitioner transforms the flesh body in this very life into an indestructible rainbow-light body and may remain in the world for centuries. The Rangjung Yeshe dictionary explicitly cites Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra as exemplars of this attainment.[Documented in literature] Sources: https://www.padmakara.pt/glossary-term/-'ja-lus%2C-'ja'-lus/pt-2534cb99-5f7d-4a72-b114-340390197130 ; https://rywiki.tsadra.org/index.php/R

4.2 Definition and Status within Bön's Zhangzhung Nyengyud System

Within Bön's Dzogchen (Zhangzhung Nyengyud) system, 'pho ba chen po is the highest attainment a practitioner may realize: transformation directly into a body of light without passing through the process of death. The Bön Book of the Dead literature annotated by Reynolds divides practitioners into three capacities: those of highest capacity transfer consciousness directly into dharmakaya (natural wisdom), middling ones into sambhogakaya (luminosity), and the lowest transfer by visualization (in the manner of nirmanakaya).[Documented in literature] Source: https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Commentary_to_the_Bonpo_book_of_the_dead

The double narrative on chronology must be kept separate:

• Bön's own account (★): the Zhangzhung Nyengyud was written down in Zhangzhung script in the 8th century by Je Pon Namkha Drolod, translated into Tibetan in the 10th century by Bonchen Tsangpo, and compiled into its present form at the end of the 11th century by O Gon Kundul and Yangton Sherab Gyaltsen; the tradition stresses that it was "never concealed as terma and never interrupted" (bka' ma), and on this basis argues for its antiquity.
• Academic dating (◆): Bön Dzogchen literature is regarded by scholars as a product of the 10th–11th centuries (Karmay); the root texts of A-khrid are traceable to the 11th-century Meu Gongzod (1038–1096). Bön's own "8th-century Zhangzhung-script record → 10th-century Tibetan translation → late-11th-century compilation" genealogy appears only in Bön self-accounts as relayed by Reynolds, with no archaeological evidence or manuscript-material dating to support it.[Documented in literature]

A frequently overlooked asymmetry: Bön's self-account uses its "uninterrupted" oral-transmission lineage to argue for antiquity, yet scholars point out precisely that an "uninterrupted" oral lineage cannot be verified through manuscripts — while Nyingma at least possesses 10th-century Dunhuang manuscript originals.

4.3 Tapihritsa (Ta pi hri tsa): The Emblematic Figure of Bön's Great Transference

Tapihritsa is a key patriarch of Bön's Dzogchen lineage, under whose name stands the Twenty-One Nails (a core text of the extremely secret class). Bön literature says he realized the light-body of great transference after a nine-year retreat.[Documented in literature]

The chronology must be layered:

• Religious self-account (★): 7th century (Bön literature in Reynolds' English translation) / circa 7th–8th centuries (English Wikipedia).[Folk legend] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapihritsa
• Academic dating (◆): the earliest identifiable textual carrier of these events is the 15th-century biography of Zhangzhung Nyengyud lineage masters composed by sPa bsTan-rgyal bZang-po; the actual date of composition of the Twenty-One Nails under his name is undetermined.[Documented in literature] Source: https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=THE_GREAT_PERFECTION%E2%80%99_IN_THE_TRADITION_OF_THE_BONPOS

That is: between the 7th-century claim and the 15th-century textual carrier lie some eight hundred years, with no contemporaneous corroboration in between.

4.4 Nyingma's Corresponding Concept and Earliest Literature

Nyingma ranks 'ja' lus 'pho ba chen po as the highest level of rainbow-body attainment. Popular biographies say Padmasambhava and Mandarava, after practicing in the Maratika cave in Nepal, both realized the deathless rainbow-light body of phowa chenpo; when the master departed Tibet he "rode a horse into the sky" to the Copper-Colored Mountain in the southwest, and Nyingma's official doctrinal presentations describe him as "abiding in the immortal rainbow-body of great transference."[Folk legend] Sources: https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/130022/ ; http://manjushri.com/Teachings/t-Nyingma.htm

On the level of datable literature:

• The Dunhuang Dzogchen Semde manuscripts (The Small Hidden Grain, IOL Tib J 594; The Cuckoo of Awareness, IOL Tib J 647): paleographically dated no earlier than the 10th century, with the cave sealed in the early 11th century; Buddhist. These are the earliest datable Dzogchen literature in existence. But note: the two are Semde "non-meditation"-style texts in which no systematic exposition of rainbow body / great transference is found — they can only prove that Dzogchen literature existed in the 10th century, not that the rainbow-body doctrine existed at the same time.[Verified by archaeology] Source: http://earlytibet.com/category/nyingma/page/2/ (Sam van Schaik)
• The Upadesha "Seventeen Tantras": scholar Rudolph Bauer identifies them as 11th-century revelatory literature claiming to be translations of 8th-century originals.[Documented in literature] Source: https://philarchive.org/archive/BAUACO-5
• The Heart-Essence (snying thig) tradition: David Germano states explicitly that the Heart-Essence tradition began with innovative new scriptures revealed in 11th-century Tibet, becoming Nyingma's dominant form in the 14th century.[Documented in literature] Source: Germano lecture intro, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUpSXGu-aa8
• Longchenpa (1308–1364): compiled the Four Heart-Essences and composed the Seven Treasuries, gathering the Semde, Longde, and Upadesha transmissions into one crucible and elaborating the Upadesha's profound meaning; the doctrinal fixing of the rainbow-light great transference is connected with this.[Documented in literature]

One honest caveat is required: this search found no reliable source proving that the term "rainbow-body great transference" originates in the Illusory Net Tantra (that tantra belongs to Mahayoga; the systematic exposition of rainbow body belongs to Dzogchen literature); nor was any reliable source found for the earliest verbatim occurrence of 'ja' lus 'pho ba chen po in Nyingma literature.

4.5 The Key Comparison: Which Came First?

Item-by-item comparison on the level of hard evidence (datable manuscripts/literature):

The Dunhuang Dzogchen manuscripts (Semde): academically dated to manuscripts no earlier than the 10th century, cave sealed in the early 11th century; the religious self-account attributes them to Budhagupta (8th–9th centuries?).[Verified by archaeology]

Nyingma Upadesha "Seventeen Tantras" / Heart-Essence revelatory literature: academically dated as 11th-century revelations (Germano, Bauer); the religious self-account claims them as translations of 8th-century originals.[Documented in literature]

The present Bön Zhangzhung Nyengyud literature: academically dated as a 10th–11th-century product (Karmay); the religious self-account claims an 8th-century Zhangzhung-script record → 10th-century Tibetan translation → late-11th-century compilation.[Documented in literature]

Bön's A-khrid root literature: academically traceable to the 11th-century Meu Gongzod (1038–1096); the religious self-account has no corresponding claim.[Documented in literature]

Longchenpa's Four Heart-Essences and Seven Treasuries: academically dated to the 14th century.[Documented in literature]

The Zhangzhung Nyengyud master biographies (sPa bsTan-rgyal bZang-po): academically dated to the 15th century; the religious self-account records 7th–8th-century figures.[Documented in literature]

Conclusion: in terms of datable manuscripts/literature, the earliest extant Dzogchen literature is the Buddhist (Nyingma-lineage) Semde Dunhuang manuscripts (10th century), earlier than Bön Dzogchen literature (10th–11th centuries). But this can only prove that "Dzogchen Semde literature" is earlier than "Bön Dzogchen literature" — it cannot directly prove which came first, the "rainbow body / great transference" doctrine: the Dunhuang Semde fragments contain no systematic exposition of rainbow body, while the systematic exposition of rainbow body in both schools belongs to the later Upadesha/Nyengyud textual stratum. Equating "earlier manuscript" directly with "earlier doctrine" is a logical leap.[Documented in literature · synthetic judgment]

On the level of legend: Bön places Tapihritsa in the 7th–8th centuries, Nyingma places Garab Dorje and the Padmasambhava lineage in the 7th–8th centuries; neither has contemporaneous documentation or archaeological evidence, and both sides' narrative texts (Bön's 15th-century master biographies; Nyingma's later master biographies and terma biographies) postdate the events by centuries. Which came first cannot be determined.[Folk legend]

What scholars say about "who borrowed from whom": there is no one-sided consensus; three views coexist —

1. Karmay (mainstream: Buddhist → Bön): Dzogchen as a philosophical doctrine only became mainstream in the 10th century; Bön Dzogchen literature (the Golden Turtle etc., 11th century) resembles Nyingma Semde; the source of Bön's philosophical and religious system lies in Indian Buddhist thought (Karmay 2005:160–62).[Documented in literature] Source: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110758870-003/pdf
2. Samuel / Powers (mutual borrowing): "Bon texts are similar to Buddhist texts and thus suggest a considerable amount of borrowing between the two traditions in the tenth and eleventh centuries. While it has generally been assumed that this borrowing proceeds from Buddhist to Bonpo… some of it may well have been in the opposite direction."[Documented in literature] Source: relayed from https://www.scribd.com/document/724053328/Bon
3. Namkhai Norbu / Berzin (common-origin mutual borrowing): after seeing the Dunhuang Dzogchen manuscripts, Norbu argued for the historical authenticity of Dzogchen predating sectarian division; Berzin holds that Buddhism (especially Dzogchen) may have entered Tibet along two routes at once — from India and from the Khotan/Iranian cultural sphere — "each side borrowed from the other… probably closer to the truth."[Documented in literature] Sources: http://earlytibet.com/category/nyingma/page/2/ ; https://www.scribd.com/document/98075511/Bon-and-Tibetan-Buddhism

No scholar has issued a verdict of "'ja' lus / 'pho ba chen po was invented by one school and plagiarized by the other." The closest thing to a consensus is: the 10th–11th centuries were the common formative period of both schools' Dzogchen literature, with dense two-way textual flows.[Documented in literature · scholarly overview]

5. The Rainbow Body ('ja' lus): The Earliest Records in Bön and Nyingma

5.1 The Earliest Records of Rainbow-Body Attainment in Bön

• Tapihritsa (Ta pi hri tsa): Bön's own account says he realized the light-body of great transference in the 7th century (see 4.3); the earliest textual carrier is the 15th-century master biography by sPa bsTan-rgyal bZang-po.[Folk legend]
• A modern case: Sharza Tashi Gyaltsen realized the rainbow body in 1935 — Bön's modern rainbow-body case with a clear date on record.[Documented in literature]
• For the rainbow-body records of the others among Bön's twenty-four masters apart from Tapihritsa, which specific texts they come from was not verified one by one here; recorded as no reliable source found.

5.2 The Earliest Records of Rainbow-Body Attainment in Nyingma

Nyingma tradition has compiled a series of rainbow-body masters (collected in the Chinese Brief Account of Tantric Rainbow-Body Attainments, said to cite Longchenpa's Great History of Dzogchen Heart-Essence), arranged by the religious self-account's chronology:

1. Garab Dorje (dGa' rab rdo rje): the first patriarch of Dzogchen in the human realm; at the banks of the Shanto River he "attained a stainless body of light and dissolved into the dharmadhatu." Dating: Nyingma's self-account includes the claim of "360 years after the Buddha's parinirvana"; Western scholarly tables give "late seventh century?" (uncertain).[Folk legend] Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garab_Dorje ; https://www.scribd.com/document/596185712/卐密宗虹身成就略记
2. Mañjuśrīmitra: in the charnel ground he "turned into rainbow light" at death, then reappeared from the mass of light to teach Śrī Siṃha.[Folk legend]
3. Śrī Siṃha, Jñānasūtra, Vimalamitra: all transmitted as having passed away in rainbow body; Vimalamitra is moreover the standard exemplar of 'ja' lus 'pho ba chen po.[Folk legend]
4. gNubs chen Sangs rgyas ye shes (Nubchen Sangye Yeshe, 772–882): realized the rainbow-light body in 882 CE.[Documented in literature] Source: the same Brief Account of Tantric Rainbow-Body Attainments cited above.
5. The Longde transmission's "five generations of rainbow body": according to the preface of Christopher Wilkinson's English translation of the Longde tantras, Vairocana (8th century) received the Longde transmission from Śrī Siṃha, and "each of the five generations of masters attained rainbow body at passing."[Folk legend]

The "earliest" from a scholarly perspective: the Western scholarly "table of early Dzogchen figures" lists Zurchung Sherab Tra (11th century) as "one of the first to expound bodily dissolution (rainbow body)" — i.e., from verifiable literature, the systematic exposition of "bodily dissolution" (rainbow body) comes from an 11th-century figure.[Documented in literature] Source: https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/images/1/19/Rainbow_Body_and_Resurrection_Spiritual_Attainment%2C_the_Dissolution_of_the_Material_Body%2C_and_the_Case_of_Khenpo_A_Ch%C3%B6_%28_PDFDrive_%29.pdf

Modern Nyingma rainbow-body cases: Ayu Khandro (1953), Khenpo A Chö (1998).[Documented in literature]

Verified by archaeology: none. For Garab Dorje, Padmasambhava and the rest, no contemporaneous inscription or manuscript confirms their historical existence, let alone any material evidence of rainbow body.

5.3 Summary

Both schools push their "first rainbow-body attainer" back to the 7th–8th centuries (Bön's Tapihritsa vs. Nyingma's Garab Dorje–Padmasambhava lineage), yet both sides' narrative texts postdate the events by centuries with no contemporaneous corroboration; from verifiable literature, the systematic exposition of rainbow body comes from an 11th-century figure (Zurchung Sherab Tra). "Who attained rainbow body first" cannot be determined on the present evidence.[Documented in literature · synthetic judgment]

6. The Tulku Institution (སྤྲུལ་སྐུ་/ཡང་སྲིད་): A Timeline Comparison of Buddhism and Bön

6.1 Buddhism: Establishment of the Karmapa Reincarnation Lineage

The First Karmapa, Düsum Khyenpa (Dus gsum mkhyen pa, 1110–1193): a disciple of Gampopa; in 1147 he founded Karma Dansa Monastery in the Karma region of Kham, and in 1187 founded Tsurphu Monastery in Tolung (the principal monastery of the Karma Kagyu). Religious tradition holds that the great scholars of his time, Shakya Shri and the Lama of Latse, regarded him as an emanation of Avalokiteśvara, and that his advent was prophesied in the Samādhirāja Sūtra and the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra; before passing away he left a prediction letter with his heart-disciple Drogön Rechen, detailing the location and circumstances of his next rebirth. [Documented in literature] Source: https://www.palpung.eu/en/about-us/lineage/vajrayana/karma-kagyu/gyalwang-karmapa/the-17-gyalwang-karmapas/

The recognition of the Second Karmapa, Karma Pakshi (1204–1283) (traditional narrative): the recognizer was Pomdrakpa (1170–1249), who identified a child among his disciples as the rebirth of Düsum Khyenpa through "an exceptionally clear pure vision"; the prediction letter Düsum Khyenpa had given to Drogön Rechen served as corroborating evidence. Before his own passing, Karma Pakshi in turn disclosed the details of his next rebirth to his heart-disciple Orgyenpa (1220–1309). [Documented in literature] Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Pakshi ; Charles Manson's Library of Congress lecture Karma Pakshi and Two Mongol Emperors: Genesis of the Reincarnate Lamas Tradition (2023-01-11)

Key scholarly correction: the contemporary academic consensus, represented by the University of Virginia Mandala Collections topical study Trülku/Yangsi: Recognition of Reincarnations (Karma Phuntsho), holds that—

• the practice of formally recognizing a young child as the rebirth of a former teacher and enthroning him as lineage holder began in the 13th century;
• the first case historians generally identify: in 1289, Orgyenpa Rinchen Pal recognized the 5-year-old Rangjung Dorje (1284–1339) as the rebirth of Karma Pakshi and enthroned him as the Third Karmapa;
• the so-called "previous lives" — Karma Pakshi and Düsum Khyenpa — were retroactively counted as the Second and First: i.e., the lineage numbering is a retrospective construction;
• therefore, the trülku/yangsi tradition as a socio-religious institution was truly established in the late 13th century (around 1289), motivated chiefly, it is thought, by the monastic community's desire to preserve the deceased teacher's religious influence and the labrang estates after his passing (with a variant view: "to secure their position at Khubilai's court"). [Documented in literature] Source: https://texts.mandala.library.virginia.edu/text/tr%C3%BClkuyangsi-recognition-reincarnations

The Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) website's account is broadly consistent: "the tulku system began with Karma Pakshi (1206–1283)... by the time of the Third Karmapa Rangjung Dorje (1284–1339), the belief in reincarnation was established in 13th-century Tibet" (citing Gamble 2018; Kuijp 2013). [Documented in literature] Source: https://tibet.net/the-tibetan-tradition-of-reincarnation-and-ccps-assertion-to-reign-sovereignty-over-living-buddhas/

Summary: traditional narrative places the starting point at "Düsum Khyenpa's prediction → Karma Pakshi's recognition" (early 13th century); contemporary historiography places the "institutional" starting point at Orgyenpa's 1289 recognition of Rangjung Dorje and the retrospective construction of the "First and Second". The two differ by a little over half a century, but both fall within the 13th century. [Documented in literature]

Diffusion after establishment: the Red Hat lineage (Shamarpa) — its First, Drakpa Senge (1283–1349), was recognized by the Third Karmapa as another emanation of Karma Pakshi (14th century); thereafter the various schools followed suit, with the Dalai Lama lineage only formally established at the Third, Sönam Gyatso (1543–1588). [Documented in literature] Sources: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/夏瑪巴 ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulku

6.2 Scattered Pre-13th-Century Rebirth Claims (Buddhism): Claims Without an Institution

Scholarship distinguishes "rebirth claims" from the "institutionalized tulku system": the former existed sporadically before the 13th century; the latter did not.

• Nyangrel Nyima Özer (1124–1192): 12th-century Nyingma treasure revealer who, in his treasures and in his Chöjung Metok Nyingpo system, claimed to be the "magical display" of King Trisong Detsen (742–797), styling himself an "emanation" (nirmāṇakāya). Scholarly assessment: this was a personal, self-declared rebirth claim serving to bolster the legitimacy of his treasures ("the treasures were mine all along"), with no institutional chain of child-search, recognition, enthronement, and succession — hence not an institutionalized tulku. [Documented in literature] Source: Daniel Hirshberg's paper (http://archivenepal.s3.amazonaws.com/digitalhimalaya/collections/journals/bot/pdf/bot_2009_01_03.pdf)
• The bodhisattva-emanation narrative of the Tibetan emperors: religious tradition holds Songtsen Gampo to be an emanation of Avalokiteśvara and Trisong Detsen of Mañjuśrī, as found in indigenous texts such as the Mani Kabum. Scholarly assessment: this is an emanation-theology narrative about the "prior divine identity" of deceased emperors — not the recognition of a living child as a rebirth — and bears no direct line of succession to the tulku institution. [Documented in literature] Source: https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/buddhas-dharma/talk-on-reincarnation-by-h-h-dalai-lama.html

Conclusion: before the 13th century, Tibet saw scattered cases of "someone claiming to be the return of an ancient figure," but not a single case exhibits the complete institutional form of "teacher's prediction — child search — senior-lama recognition — enthronement and succession." The unanimous scholarly view: the institutionalized tulku system began with the 13th-century Karmapa lineage. [Documented in literature · scholarly survey]

6.3 Bön's Reincarnation-Recognition Tradition: About a Century Later Than Buddhism, and Its Highest Seat Does Not Use the Tulku System

First the conclusion: Bön's highest seat, the Menri Trizin, is not a reincarnation lineage. Menri Monastery (founded 1405 by Nyamme Sherab Gyaltsen) had 32 abbots through 1966, and its abbatial selection explicitly does not rest on family bloodline or reincarnation status but on auspicious signs, scholarly-spiritual accomplishment, and the blessings of the protectors — this is Bön's own official body's (Akar Bon Center) account. [Documented in literature] Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menri_Monastery ; https://akarboncenter.org/about-us/tashi-menri-monastery/

A notable exception: the 33rd Menri Trizin, Lungtok Tenpai Nyima (1929–2017), was once identified as the rebirth of the scholar Kayak, but he himself declined the recognition and rose to the abbacy through scholastic examination. [Documented in literature] Source: http://ybmcs.org/biography-of-hh33rd-menri-trizin-rinpoche/

Bön's highest seat is precisely the "counter-example": it proves the tulku system is not Bön's inherent, universal succession institution.

Bön's earliest attestable reincarnation recognition: the "Four Tulkus" (sprul sku rnam bzhi) of the 14th-century "New Bön" movement—

• Tulku Loden Nyingpo (1360–1385): note that his name already carries the title "sprul sku (Tulku)"; he unearthed the Ziji (gzi brjid, Tonpa Shenrab's longest biography);
• his rebirth Techen Mishik Dorje was likewise famed as a treasure revealer;
• two more in the 18th century: Tulku Sangye Lingpa (1705–1735) and the First Kundrol Drakpa (1700–).
• Together the four are called the "Four Tulkus" and regarded as the most important source of the New Bön transmission. [Documented in literature] Sources: https://treasuryoflives.org/bo/foundations/view/14 (following Jean-Luc Achard's research); https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bon

This is the earliest currently traceable cluster of Bön cases with explicitly documented reincarnation relationships, dated to the 14th century — about a century after the Karmapa lineage. (Note: the earliest Tibetan textual source for Loden Nyingpo's "sprul sku" title could not be directly verified against the Tibetan original in this study; it relies on second-hand accounts such as Achard's.)

A contemporary Bön tulku-recognition example: Tulku Puntsok Yeshe Tenzin (born 1996 in Mexico) was, from 1997 onward, observed through dream signs and searched for jointly by Yongdzin Rinpoche and the Menri Trizin, and finally recognized as the rebirth of Sangye Tenzin (1917–1978), the first Lopön of Menri Monastery in India. [Documented in literature] Source: https://speechofdelight.org/first-you-are-a-reincarnation-just-by-the-name-but-then-you-have-to-earn-it-tulku-ponse-jigme-tenzin-says/

Bön religious tradition's own "emanation" concept (e.g., both Tonpa Shenrab and Shakyamuni described as sprul sku / nirmāṇakāya) belongs to the Mahāyāna three-kāya doctrinal level and is a different matter from the "child reincarnation-recognition institution" — the two must not be conflated.

Any Bön rebirth cases earlier than the 13th century? This research found no reliable source. Though Bön texts contain retrospective attributions such as "the emanation of Drenpa Namkha (8th century)," these are internal religious "emanation genealogies" assigned retroactively; no 13th-century-or-earlier institutional record of "child search — recognition — enthronement" has been found. Any claim of "Bön reincarnation earlier than Buddhism" made before such evidence is [Unsubstantiated].

6.4 Chronological Comparison: Buddhism First, Bön Later

A side-by-side comparison of the earliest attestable institutionalized reincarnation nodes in the two traditions: Tibetan Buddhism (Karma Kagyu) — Karma Pakshi's recognition as Düsum Khyenpa's rebirth (traditional narrative); Orgyenpa's 1289 recognition of Rangjung Dorje with retrospective lineage construction (the academically recognized point of institutional establishment), dated to the 13th century; Bön — Tulku Loden Nyingpo (1360–1385) and his rebirth Techen Mishik Dorje, the "Four Tulkus" genealogy, dated to the 14th century. [Documented in literature]

1. Chronology: Buddhism first, Bön later, separated by about a century. [Documented in literature]
2. Direct documentary evidence of "imitation": not found. No text from either side explicitly states "established the tulku system in imitation of the other." But there is one key directional piece of evidence: the Dalai Lama states explicitly in his Talk on Reincarnation — "...this tradition of formally recognizing reincarnations of teachers gradually spread to other Tibetan Buddhist traditions, and Bon, in Tibet" ("This system of recognizing the reincarnations gradually spread to other Tibetan Buddhist traditions, and Bon, in Tibet."). [Documented in literature] Source: https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/buddhas-dharma/talk-on-reincarnation-by-h-h-dalai-lama.html
3. This is Tibetan Buddhism's highest authority personally characterizing the direction of spread: from the Buddhist schools to Bön, not the reverse.
4. The scholarly consensus (the Wylie–Tucci–Karma Phuntsho line): the tulku system is a Tibetan indigenous invention (13th century), driven by monastic politics and economics (preserving the labrang); the various schools then emulated it; Bön, as a tradition long interpermeating with Buddhism, likewise adopted it after the 14th century. [Documented in literature · scholarly survey]

6.5 The Semantic Drift of sprul sku: First "Emanation of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas," Only Four Centuries Later "Reincarnate Lama"

• The Old Tibetan verb sprul: in Old Tibetan documents it describes the emperor (btsan po) "taking a human body and descending into the world" — an indigenous religious concept, not an Indian Buddhist one. [Documented in literature] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulku
• 8th–9th centuries: in early-diffusion-period Sanskrit–Tibetan translation, sprul pa'i sku / sprul sku was fixed as the translation equivalent of Sanskrit nirmāṇakāya (emanation/apparitional body), denoting the physical body a buddha displays to mature beings (e.g., Shakyamuni is nirmāṇakāya). That is: when sprul sku entered Tibetan, it was first a doctrinal translation term for "the Buddha's emanation," with nothing to do with reincarnation recognition. [Documented in literature] Source: https://www.gosokrinpoche.com/glossary/tulku/
• After the 13th century: with the establishment of the Karmapa lineage, sprul sku broadened from "the Buddha's emanation" to "a person who reliably takes rebirth again and again"; yang srid ("re-existence, rebirth") is Tibetan's own corresponding vernacular term. [Documented in literature] Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulku ; https://texts.mandala.library.virginia.edu/text/tr%C3%BClkuyangsi-recognition-reincarnations
• The 12th-century Nyangrel Nyima Özer was already called nirmāṇakāya (sprul sku), but that was still in the "emanation" sense, not the institutional-tulku sense. [Documented in literature]
• When "Tulku" appears in the names of 14th-century Bön figures (Tulku Loden Nyingpo), the word's "reborn one" sense must already have been current in Tibet — itself collateral evidence that the Buddhist tulku discourse came first. [Documented in literature · synthetic assessment]

6.6 The 1289 Recognition in Detail and Its Institutional Significance

The academically recognized starting point of institutionalization — Orgyenpa's 1289 recognition of Rangjung Dorje — deserves a close look at its "institutional" weight:

• The recognized: Rangjung Dorje (1284–1339), only 5 years old at recognition;
• The recognizer: Orgyenpa Rinchen Pal (1220–1309), heart-disciple of Karma Pakshi;
• The content of recognition: the child was recognized as the rebirth of Karma Pakshi (1204–1283) and enthroned as lineage successor — "enthronement as successor" is the key institutional marker, distinguishing it from all prior scattered rebirth claims;
• Retrospective construction: his "previous life" Karma Pakshi was posthumously counted as the Second, Düsum Khyenpa as the First, completing the lineage numbering. [Documented in literature · scholarly consensus] Source: https://texts.mandala.library.virginia.edu/text/tr%C3%BClkuyangsi-recognition-reincarnations

Institutional motives (scholarly explanations): Wylie (1978) proposed the "political innovation" thesis — the tulku system solved the monastic succession problem: the reincarnate lama is unconstrained by the precept against accumulating wealth, has no family ties, and thereby avoids embezzlement and rebellion; it effects the transition from "personal charisma" to "charisma of office." Ramin Etesami (1998, University of Chicago doctoral dissertation The Tulku System in Tibetan Buddhism) further argued the economic motive of labrang (monastic estate) inheritance. [Documented in literature] Source: https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/images/c/c4/5._The_Tulku_System_in_Tibetan_Buddhism_by_Ramin_Etesami.pdf

Spread into a pan-Tibetan institution: the Red Hat (Shamarpa) lineage established in the 14th century; the Dalai Lama lineage only formally established its reincarnation line at the Third, Sönam Gyatso (1543–1588); the Panchen, Drepung, and others came later still. From then on, reincarnation recognition became the standard succession institution across Tibetan Buddhist schools. [Documented in literature]

6.7 Timeline of the Establishment of Major Reincarnation Lineages by School

The establishment dates of the major reincarnation lineages are as follows. Karmapa (Black Hat): first retrospectively counted figure Düsum Khyenpa (1110–1193); institutional node Orgyenpa's 1289 recognition of Rangjung Dorje; late 13th century. [Documented in literature] Shamarpa (Red Hat): first retrospectively counted figure Drakpa Senge (1283–1349); institutional node the Third Karmapa's recognition of him as another emanation of Karma Pakshi; 14th century. [Documented in literature] Dalai Lama lineage: first retrospectively counted figure Gendun Drupa (1391–1474, retrospectively counted); institutional node the Third, Sönam Gyatso (1543–1588), formally established; 16th century. [Documented in literature] Bön "Four Tulkus": first retrospectively counted figure Tulku Loden Nyingpo (1360–1385); institutional node the recognition of his rebirth Techen Mishik Dorje; 14th century. [Documented in literature]

This timeline shows at a glance: within Buddhism, the schools' lineages were established at different times (13th–16th centuries), and Bön's reincarnation recognition (14th century) falls precisely within the interval of diffusion among the Buddhist schools — not before Buddhism. This corroborates the directional evidence that "the tulku system gradually spread from the Tibetan Buddhist traditions to Bön." [Documented in literature · synthetic assessment]

7. Indian Buddhist Precedents and the Central Asian Link: The Earliest Sources of Reincarnation Thought

7.1 India's Three Layers of Conceptual Resources

Scholarship agrees that the conceptual resources of the tulku institution belong to India, while the institution itself is a Tibetan invention. All three layers of Indian conceptual resources are confirmed by textual evidence:

1. The "former lives" concept in the Jātaka tales: compiled ca. 3rd century BCE–5th century CE, establishing the narrative formula of "the Buddha recognizing his former lives" — the Buddha recounting his past-life bodhisattva deeds. [Documented in literature]
2. The bodhisattva's "conscious entry into the womb": in buddha-biography literature, the narrative of the Buddha "choosing the time and place of birth" — the Lalitavistara (T.186, translated ca. 308 by Dharmarakṣa), where the bodhisattva "dwells in Tuṣita, observes the five considerations, and enters the womb as a white elephant"; the Vaipulya Lalitavistara (T.187, translated 683 by Divākara) likewise describes it in detail. [Documented in literature]
3. The Mahāyāna "emanation" (nirmāṇa / nirmāṇakāya) concept: the Lotus Sūtra's "Chapter on the Apparition of the Jeweled Stūpa" with its emanation buddhas, and the "Universal Gateway" chapter's "appearing in whatever body is needed to convert them" (in Kumārajīva's 406 translation); the Avataṃsaka Sūtra's teaching of Vairocana's emanational display (the 60-fascicle version of 418–421 / the 40-fascicle version of 796–798); the Mahāyāna treatises of ca. 4th–6th centuries (Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Buddhabhūmiśāstra) establishing the three-kāya terminological system, with the terms nirmāṇa/nirmāṇakāya taking shape. [Documented in literature]

The translation anchor nirmāṇakāya → sprul pa'i sku: the Mahāvyutpatti (ca. 814–824) explicitly lists "निर्माणकायः ‖ nirmāṇakāyaḥ ‖ sprul pa'i sku" (collated per the Rangjung Yeshe dictionary). (Note: no reliable source has been found for the "first attested usage" in Tibetan-translated Buddhist scriptures, honestly recorded as a gap; the specific entry number in the Mahāvyutpatti likewise lacks a reliable source and should not be given in a formal article.) [Documented in literature]

The key qualification: all three layers above are conceptual resources. The institution of "formally recognizing a child as a reincarnation and enthroning him as successor" never existed in India — the first case was the 1288/1289 recognition of Rangjung Dorje as Karma Pakshi's rebirth. [Documented in literature]

There is also a disputed hypothesis: Hugh Richardson held that 'phrul in the Old Tibetan 'phrul gyi lha btsan po ("miraculously divine emperor") prefigured the later sprul pa'i sku (emanation body) — a transition from indigenous royal sacrality to reincarnation thought; Ariane Macdonald explicitly objected ("the emanation sense did not exist before the 11th century"). The hypothesis remains disputed and cannot serve as a conclusion. [Documented in literature]

7.2 The Central Asian Link: Khotan Has Textual Evidence, Kucha Does Not

Khotan: there is directly relevant textual evidence—

• The Prophecy of Khotan (Tibetan Li yul lung bstan pa, Dunhuang Tibetan manuscript; R.E. Emmerick's 1967 English translation Tibetan Texts Concerning Khotan): it describes Khotan's royal line, saying "the first kings were buddhas," and depicts future arhats and protectors as "emanations of the tathāgatas and bodhisattvas." [Documented in literature]
• The Prophecy of the Arhats of Khotan (Li yul gyi sgra bcom pas lung bstan pa, 9th–10th-century Dunhuang Tibetan manuscript; published by F.W. Thomas in 1935, re-studied by Sam van Schaik in 2016): it calls an unnamed Tibetan emperor "an emanation of a celestial bodhisattva dwelling in a higher realm" and depicts him spreading Buddhism, building monasteries, and establishing the sangha. [Documented in literature]

Assessment: these materials show that at the same time Buddhism was entering Tibet (the Tibetan imperial period), the idea that "kings/saints are bodhisattva emanations" was already current in the Khotan–Dunhuang–Tibet Buddhist cultural sphere — admissible as evidence of an ideational "intermediate station" in the westward spread of India's emanation thought into Tibet. But two qualifications apply: (i) these are Tibetan-language Dunhuang documents reflecting Buddhist writing in Khotan under Tibetan imperial rule, not necessarily an independent invention of Khotan's own tradition; (ii) they speak of "emanation," not of a "reincarnation-recognition institution" (tulku system).

Kucha: no direct evidence found. This research found no reliable evidence in Kucha (Kuchean) Buddhist texts directly related to reincarnation/emanation thought. Honestly recorded as "no reliable source found"; no conjecture should be attached.

Summary: the Central Asian evidence supports an "India → (Khotan/Dunhuang) → Tibet" transmission chain for emanation thought, but only at the "conceptual" level; at the "institutional" level, it remains a 13th-century Tibetan indigenous invention. [Documented in literature · synthetic assessment]

7.3 The Formation of Three-Kāya Theory: The Doctrinal Place of nirmāṇakāya

As a term, nirmāṇakāya (emanation/apparitional body) took shape in the Mahāyāna treatises of ca. 4th–6th centuries: the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and Buddhabhūmiśāstra established the three-kāya terminological system of dharmakāya, saṃbhogakāya, and nirmāṇakāya. There, the emanation body denotes the physical body a buddha displays to mature beings (e.g., Shakyamuni's sixteen-foot golden body). [Documented in literature]

The vicissitudes of the Chinese translated names are also worth noting: Kumārajīva (in his 406 translation of the Lotus Sūtra) used "ying-shen" (the body appearing in accord with beings' capacities), while after Xuanzang "hua-shen" (the body displayed through transformation) became standard; Tibetan sprul pa'i sku takes the "display-through-magical-emanation" sense. This translation history shows: "emanation" was first a doctrinal term in Mahāyāna buddha-body theory, whose original meaning was "the Buddha's displayed body" — a thousand years removed from the institutional meaning of "a teacher's reincarnation." Equating the "emanation" of three-kāya doctrine directly with the reincarnate lama is a literalist misreading. [Documented in literature · conceptual analysis]

8. Scholarly Views: Accounts by Four Scholars

8.1 T.V. Wylie — The "Political Innovation" Thesis

Turrell V. Wylie, "Reincarnation: A Political Innovation in Tibetan Buddhism", Proceedings of the Csoma de Kőrös Memorial Symposium (ed. Louis Ligeti), Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1978, pp. 579–586. (Note: some Chinese paraphrases mistakenly cite 1964; 1978 is authoritative.) Chinese translation: 汪利平's translation, "活佛转世制度：西藏佛教的一次政治改革" (The Tulku Institution: A Political Reform in Tibetan Buddhism), in 《藏傳佛教活佛轉世制度研究論文集》 (Collected Papers on the Tulku Institution in Tibetan Buddhism), 中国藏学出版社 (China Tibetology Publishing House), 2007. [Documented in literature]

Core argument: the tulku institution was a political reform / political innovation in Tibetan Buddhism, not a natural extension of purely religious doctrine. Wylie identified "three benefits" of the reincarnation idea: (1) general acceptance of the "reincarnation" of a charismatic abbot would provide continuity of rule and clothe political power in the guise of a "god in human form"; (2) a reincarnate lama is theoretically a monk bound by vows of non-accumulation, with no family ties, and thus unconnected with the acquisitiveness that provokes rebellion; (3) with reincarnations recurring generation after generation, the "god in human form" thus created loses individuality, facilitating a transition from a "person with divinely granted power" to an "institution with divinely granted power" — i.e., from charisma of person to charisma of office.

Scholarly standing: one of the most-cited classic papers on the origins of the tulku institution in Western scholarship; its weakness is that it explains the institution almost entirely through political function, saying little about religious motivations. Later scholars (e.g., Gamble 2018, Tuttle 2017) mostly revise within this framework rather than overturning it. [Documented in literature · scholarly survey]

8.2 Samten Karmay — The Tulku Institution and Tibet's Political Unification

Samten Gyaltsen Karmay (1936– ), born in Amdo and educated in a Bön monastery, later studied Buddhism at Drepung Monastery in Lhasa; PhD from SOAS, University of London; directeur de recherche emeritus at the CNRS (France); elected president of the International Association for Tibetan Studies (IATS) in 1995; an authority on Bön studies. [Documented in literature] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samten_Karmay

• Most direct source: the commentary "Coalition of Religion and Politics (chos srid zung 'brel)", published September 2008. Its section "An incarnate Lama as ruler" is Karmay's sharpest scholarly critique of the tulku institution: "The head of the state in Tibet, however, was never meant to be a tulku, a reincarnate lama… Perhaps one does not need to raise the question as to whether this tulku system ever served the national interest of Tibet at all… throughout the history of Tibet the tulku institution has invariably been the cause of schism, political intrigue and sectarian squabbles." [Documented in literature] Source: http://info-buddhism.com/Religion_Politics_Tibet_Samten_Karmay.html
• Monograph: The Arrow and the Spindle: Studies in History, Myths, Rituals and Beliefs in Tibet, Vol. III, Kathmandu: Mandala Book Point, 2014, whose third part is devoted to how the tulku institution damaged Tibet's political unity. [Documented in literature]

Summary of core views: Karmay does not discuss the "India vs. Bön" question of the tulku institution's origins (that is not his concern); instead he treats the tulku institution as the central pathology in the history of Tibetan religion–politics relations: designed for religious succession, it was politicized into an instrument of power succession, repeatedly causing schism and turmoil. His account runs in the same direction as Wylie's "political innovation" thesis but stresses its negative historical consequences rather than its functional rationality.

Key clarification: Karmay himself came from a Bön monastery and is a leading scholarly defender of the "Bön as an independent religion" position, yet no statement by him claiming that "the tulku institution originated from Bön" has been found.

8.3 Per Kvaerne — Determining the Nature of Bön and Its Constraint on the "Originated from Bön" Claim

Per Kvaerne (1945– ), professor of Tibetology at the University of Oslo, Norway, and one of the founders of Bön studies. Major work: The Bon Religion of Tibet: The Iconography of a Living Tradition, London: Serindia Publications, 1995, pp. 9–13. [Documented in literature]

Core view: Kvaerne divides "Bon" into three distinct referents: (1) the indigenous religious practices of Tibetans before the arrival of Buddhism; (2) the hybrid religion that arose in the 10th–11th centuries — with marked similarities to Buddhism in doctrine, discipline, and practice, which Kvaerne in his early writings characterized as "an unorthodox form of Buddhism"; (3) the broad, mixed popular beliefs.

Significance for this study's key question: within Kvaerne's framework, Bön in the modern sense (the second meaning) was itself formed after the arrival of Buddhism by extensive borrowing from Buddhism. Therefore, if one asks "did the tulku institution originate from Bön?", the burden of proof under Kvaerne's logic points in exactly the opposite direction — it is rather Bön's tulku institution (e.g., the reincarnate lamas of Bön monasteries) that was more likely borrowed from Tibetan Buddhism. This is fully consistent with the Dalai Lama's 2011 statement that "the system of recognizing reincarnations gradually spread to other Tibetan Buddhist traditions and Bon."

Stated as found: this research did not find any article or chapter by Kvaerne devoted specifically to "the origins of the tulku institution"; his relevance is indirect and framework-level. The Kvaerne–Karmay opposition on the nature of Bön ("unorthodox Buddhism" vs. "independent religion") is a celebrated case in the history of Bön studies, but neither side has awarded the invention of the tulku institution to Bön.

8.4 Geoffrey Samuel — The Reincarnate Lama within the "Civilized Shamans" Framework

Geoffrey Samuel, anthropologist; Civilized Shamans: Buddhism in Tibetan Societies, Washington / London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1993. [Documented in literature] Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=JsVcPwAACAAJ

Overall framework: Tibetan religion is the product of a dynamic mixture of "Indian Buddhist currents" and "indigenous spirit worship"; Tibetan Buddhism has two orientations — clerical (monastic/scholastic) and shamanic (shaman/yogin) — and the lama's social role lies precisely in incorporating shamanic techniques of communication into Buddhism.

Connection with the tulku institution: Samuel places the reincarnate lama directly into his framework: "They [lamas] were often recognized reincarnations of past lamas… and they were generally expected to be competent magical ritual practitioners (hence the 'civilized shamans' of my book title)." — the reincarnate lama is the typical example of the "civilized shaman": half of his authority derives from the Buddhist lineage (recognition of reincarnation), half from shamanic ritual competence. [Documented in literature] Source: https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Tibetan_Buddhism_as_a_World_Religion:_Global_Networking_and_its_Consequences

Stated as found: this research did not find the original text of any chapter in which Samuel specifically discusses "where and when the tulku institution originated"; his contribution is an interpretive framework, not an origins study. Within his framework, the "Indian component" (the bodhisattva-emanation doctrine) and the "indigenous component" (sacred persons / shamanic authority) of the tulku institution coexist in mixture, which makes it impossible for him to support a simplistic "originated from Bön" or "originated from India" answer.

8.5 The Key Question: "The Tibetan Buddhist tulku institution originated from Bön" — Proponent, Earliest Source, and Scholarly Reception

Conclusion first: no clear proponent has been found. This research found no authoritative scholar who has explicitly advanced the proposition that "the Tibetan Buddhist tulku institution (as an institution) originated from Bön" in the form of a paper or monograph. The claim appears occasionally in Chinese-language internet and popular writings, mostly as [Unsubstantiated] (no source, no argument).

The three actual statements closest to it must be strictly distinguished as three different propositions:

Proposition A (the past-and-future-lives idea predates Buddhism): "Before the arrival of Buddhism, the indigenous Tibetan Bon tradition already asserted past and future lives." - Proponent: the 14th Dalai Lama, "Statement on the Issue of His Reincarnation," 24 September 2011; original text: "Past and future lives were asserted in the indigenous Tibetan Bon tradition before the arrival of Buddhism." [Documented in literature] Source: https://www.tibetanbuddhistaltar.org/statement-of-his-holiness-the-fourteenth-dalai-lama-tenzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation/ - Key qualification: the Dalai Lama immediately qualified the scope of the statement — "the system of recognizing and numbering their reincarnations did not occur in India," while "the present tradition of formally recognizing the reincarnations of masters first began in the early 13th century," and "This system of recognizing the reincarnations gradually spread to other Tibetan Buddhist traditions, and Bon, in Tibet." That is: the conceptual resources may predate Buddhism, but the institution itself is a 13th-century Tibetan Buddhist invention that spread in reverse into Bön. Reducing the Dalai Lama's words to "the tulku institution originated from Bön" misreads the original text.

Proposition B (the indigenous precursor of the emanation idea): "Before the arrival of Buddhism, Tubo, under the influence of Bon celestial-deity worship, already had a 'celestial deities manifesting as humans' idea, a precursor of the later emanation doctrine." - Proponent: 萧金松 (Xiao Jinsong), "「活佛轉世制度」略探" (A Brief Inquiry into the Tulku Institution), in 《藏傳佛教活佛轉世制度研究論文集》, 中国藏学出版社, 2007. His evidence is the records in Tibetan historical works such as the Butön's History of Buddhism that Songtsen Gampo was an emanation of Avalokiteśvara and Trisong Detsen an emanation of Mañjuśrī. [Documented in literature] Source: http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ013/bj013372539.pdf - Key qualification: Proposition B concerns the indigenous soil of the emanation idea, not the reincarnation-succession institution; and its evidence (the Butön's History of Buddhism, a 14th-century Buddhist historian's retrospective) is post-Buddhist textual retrospection with limited probative force.

Proposition C (reverse: Bön's tulku institution originated from Buddhism): - Supporters: the Dalai Lama (2011, see above); Per Kvaerne's account of Bön's nature; Ethnologia Polona 37 (2016/2017) citing the scholarly consensus: "In the fifteenth century the Bönpo began to organize their monastic life modelled on that of Buddhist monasteries," together with the academically confirmed list of "Bön → Buddhism" ritual borrowings (prayer flags, bsang, gtor ma, oracle, cham, etc., citing Namkhai Norbu 1995; Kvaerne 1990, 1995; Karmay 1998) — the tulku institution is not on the list, indicating that while scholars acknowledge two-way borrowing, the borrowing direction of the tulku institution is judged to be Buddhism → Bön. [Documented in literature] Source: https://m.iaepan.pl/ethp/article/download/67/47/65

Overall assessment of scholarly reception: - The tulku institution as a 13th-century Tibetan invention (mainstream consensus): Wylie 1978; Mandala / Karma Phuntsho surveys; Dalai Lama 2011. Conceptual resources are Indian (jātaka / womb-entry / emanation), but the institution of "recognizing a child — succeeding to the seat" has no Indian precedent; the first case was Rangjung Dorje's recognition as Karma Pakshi's reincarnation in 1288/1289. [Documented in literature · scholarly survey] - Political-function explanations of the institution: Wylie; Karmay 2008/2014; Etesami 1998 (University of Chicago doctoral dissertation, discussing the labrang estate-inheritance motive). [Documented in literature] - The "originated from Bön" claim: no authoritative scholar has explicitly advanced it; the closest are the Dalai Lama's Proposition A (conceptual level) and Xiao Jinsong's Proposition B (emanation-idea level). [Documented in literature] - Reverse (Bön's tulku institution originated from Buddhism): Dalai Lama 2011; Kvaerne's framework; the account of 15th-century Bön modeling its organization on Buddhism. [Documented in literature]

9. Testing the Core Hypothesis: "The Tibetan Buddhist Tulku Institution Originated from Bön" — Supporting and Rebutting Evidence Presented Separately

This chapter takes no prior position. The two columns below present verified supporting and rebutting evidence separately, for readers to weigh for themselves.

9.1 Evidence Supporting the "Originated from Bön" Claim (all that could be found, honestly listed)

1. The past-and-future-lives idea predates Buddhism at the conceptual level: the Dalai Lama's 2011 statement acknowledges, "Past and future lives were asserted in the indigenous Tibetan Bon tradition before the arrival of Buddhism." — i.e., the idea of rebirth / past and future lives existed in the indigenous Bon tradition before Buddhism arrived. (Note: this concerns ideas, not institutions.) [Documented in literature]
2. The indigenous soil of the emanation idea: Xiao Jinsong (2007) argues that before Buddhism arrived, Tubo, under the influence of Bon celestial-deity worship, already had a "celestial deities manifesting as humans" idea, a precursor of the later emanation doctrine; the Old Tibetan verb sprul was used for the btsan-po "taking a human body and descending into the world," which is an indigenous religious idea, not something owned by Indian Buddhism alone. (Note: this concerns the emanation idea, and much of its evidence is post-Buddhist textual retrospection.) [Documented in literature]
3. Bön genuinely has a 'pho ba practice tradition: Reynolds's annotated Bön bardo texts and the contemporary Bon Phowa lineage of Chongtul Rinpoche prove that Bön has an independent transference practice. (Note: 'pho ba is a practice, tulku is an institution; the two cannot be made cause and effect of each other; moreover, the named-scripture and chronological chain of Bön 'pho ba is missing.) [Documented in literature]
4. Mutual borrowing does not exclude some reverse borrowing: Samuel / Powers hold that there was extensive mutual borrowing between the two traditions in the 10th–11th centuries, and "some of it may well have been in the opposite direction." (Note: this is a general judgment about doctrines such as Dzogchen, not specifically about the tulku institution.) [Documented in literature]
5. The academically confirmed list of "Bön → Buddhism" borrowings: rituals such as prayer flags, bsang, gtor ma, oracle, and cham were indeed absorbed by Buddhism (Namkhai Norbu 1995; Kvaerne 1990, 1995; Karmay 1998). (Note: the tulku institution is not on the list — this evidence precisely delimits, from the negative side, the boundary of the "originated from Bön" claim.) [Documented in literature]

Summary: all evidence in the supporting column stays at the level of ideas/practices (the past-and-future-lives idea, the emanation idea, the transference practice); not a single item proves that the "reincarnation-recognition institution" itself originated from Bön.

9.2 Evidence Rebutting the "Originated from Bön" Claim

1. Chronology: Buddhism's institutionalized reincarnation (13th century) predates Bön's (14th century) by about a century. Buddhism: Orgyenpa's recognition of Rangjung Dorje in 1289 (the institution's starting point as recognized by scholars); Bön: Tulku Loden Nyingpo of 1360–1385 (the earliest attested case). [Documented in literature]
2. The Dalai Lama's own characterization (reverse transmission): the original text of the 2011 statement — "This system of recognizing the reincarnations gradually spread to other Tibetan Buddhist traditions, and Bon, in Tibet." This is the highest authority of Tibetan Buddhism directly characterizing the direction of transmission: from the Buddhist schools toward Bön. [Documented in literature]
3. The counterexample of Bön's highest seat: the selection of the Menri Tridzin explicitly does not rely on reincarnate identity — the tulku system is not Bön's inherent, universal succession institution; if the tulku institution had originated from Bön, it would be hard to explain why Bön's highest seat abandoned it. [Documented in literature]
4. The logical constraint of Kvaerne's framework: on Kvaerne's account, Bön in the modern sense (the hybrid religion that arose in the 10th–11th centuries) was itself formed under Buddhist influence, borrowing extensively from Buddhism; then "the tulku institution originated from Bön" would logically first require overturning this framework, for which there is currently no such evidence. [Documented in literature]
5. 15th-century Bön modeled its organization on Buddhism: the scholarly consensus that "in the fifteenth century the Bönpo began to organize their monastic life modelled on that of Buddhist monasteries"; the borrowing direction is Buddhism → Bön; the tulku institution is not on the "Bön → Buddhism" borrowing list. [Documented in literature]
6. The "originated from Bön" claim has no clear proponent: no authoritative scholar has explicitly advanced this proposition in the form of a paper/monograph; the claim appears occasionally on the Chinese-language internet, mostly as [Unsubstantiated]. One can imagine the scholarly standing of a hypothesis whose proponent cannot even be found.
7. Clarification of conceptual confusion: 'pho ba (transference practice) ≠ tulku (reincarnation institution); grong 'jug (the siddhi of entering another's body) ≠ yang srid (reincarnation lineage); nirmāṇakāya (emanation theology) ≠ the reincarnation-recognition institution. Many "originated from Bön" arguments are in fact using the antiquity of ideas/practices to prove the origin of the institution — a category error. [Documented in literature · conceptual analysis]

9.3 Weighing

• Supporting column: 5 items, all staying at the idea/practice level; none touches the institution itself.
• Rebutting column: 7 items, spanning six dimensions: chronology, authoritative characterization, institutional counterexample, scholarly framework, proposition tracing, and conceptual analysis.
• The balance of evidence clearly tilts toward rebuttal. But the honest qualification that must be retained is: at the conceptual level (past and future lives, emanation, indigenous sacred kingship), there are indeed pre-Buddhist indigenous elements; at the institutional level (recognizing a child — succeeding to the seat), the existing evidence points to a 13th-century Tibetan Buddhist invention that spread in reverse into Bön. Confusing "ideas" with "institutions" is the most common category error in this debate — and the entire work of this study has been undertaken precisely in order not to commit it.

Appendix: Three common category errors (for readers to check their own arguments against):

1. Ancient practice → ancient institution: using the Indian origins of 'pho ba (phowa) or the existence of Bön transference practice to prove that the "tulku institution" originated from Bön/India. The former is a practice, the latter an institution; the two belong to different categories and cannot be made cause and effect of each other.
2. Pre-existing idea → pre-existing institution: using the antiquity or indigenous pre-existence of the "past and future lives" idea or the "emanation" idea to prove the antiquity or indigenous origin of the "reincarnation-recognition institution." Ideas are the intellectual resources of institutions, not institutions themselves; India has the emanation idea but no tulku institution — a clear illustration.
3. Same name → same referent: using the antiquity of sprul sku's "emanation" meaning (an 8th–9th-century translation term) in Tibetan to prove the antiquity of the "reincarnate lama" meaning. The same term underwent a semantic shift around the 13th century; using the earlier meaning to vouch for the later institution is an anachronism.

10. Conclusion

1. The "consciousness-transference" concept cluster must be internally stratified: phowa is a deathbed transference practice (Indian origins traceable; the "Sanskrit original name" claim is a modern construction); drongjuk is a yogin's siddhi (doctrine in India, legend in Tibet, absent from Bön scriptural provisions); 'pho ba chen po / 'ja' lus is the supreme fruition shared by both schools (datable Buddhist texts slightly earlier; which school's patriarch narrative is earlier cannot be determined); the tulku institution is a succession institution invented indigenously in 13th-century Tibet (conceptual resources Indian). The five cannot be made cause and effect of one another. [Documented in literature · synthetic judgment]
2. Overall chronological judgment: India (the Yogasūtra commentary of 325–425 → Śaiva tantras of the late first millennium → 9th–10th-century mother tantras) → Central Asia (9th–10th-century Khotan–Dunhuang emanation ideas) → Tubo/Tibet (8th–9th-century standardization of translation terminology → 11th-century transmission of the Six Dharmas → 13th-century establishment of the tulku institution → 14th-century Bön adoption of reincarnation recognition). This is a chain of "ideas transmitted westward, institution invented indigenously." [Documented in literature · synthetic judgment]
3. Answer to the core question: the existing evidence does not support the hypothesis that "the Tibetan Buddhist tulku institution originated from Bön." Institutionalized reincarnation: Buddhism first (13th century), Bön later (14th century); the Dalai Lama personally stated the institution "spread to Bon"; Bön's highest seat abandoned the tulku system; the hypothesis has no identifiable proponent in the scholarly literature. The indigenous pre-existence at the conceptual level (past and future lives, emanation, sacred kingship) is factual, but that is not the same as the institution originating from Bön. [Documented in literature · synthetic judgment]
4. Methodological lesson: religious self-reported chronology (e.g., Bön's 7th-century Tapihritsa, Nyingma's Garab Dorje 360 years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa) must be stratified from academic dating; "earlier manuscript" does not mean "earlier concept"; "ancient idea" does not mean "ancient institution." This study's four-grade evidence labels and two-layer chronological labels were designed precisely for this purpose.

11. Unresolved Questions and Suggestions for Follow-up Research

1. Sanskrit textual attestations of saṃkrānti: whether any ancient Sanskrit tantra uses this term to denote 'pho ba practice — requires consulting Sanskrit manuscript catalogues and critical editions; currently no reliable attestation found.
2. Names and dates of Bön's named 'pho ba scriptures: requires consulting Reynolds's annotated translation of Bön bardo texts, works by Bön scholars such as Kvaerne, or the catalogue of the Tibetan Bon Kanjur.
3. The earliest verbatim occurrence of 'ja' lus 'pho ba chen po in Nyingma literature: requires searching the electronic text of the Tibetan Nyingma Gyübum.
4. Codicology of Zhangzhung Nyengyud texts: not seen in open online sources; requires consulting French monographs by Achard and others.
5. The Tibetan originals of Pomdrakpa's recognition of Karma Pakshi (e.g., the Biography of Karma Pakshi) and the textual status of Düsum Khyenpa's prophecy letter: only English second-hand accounts were seen this time.
6. The earliest Tibetan source of Tulku Loden Nyingpo's "sprul sku" title: relies on Achard / Treasury of Lives accounts; the Tibetan original was not checked.
7. In which book the Chinese translations "破瓦/迁识" first appeared: whether they are neologisms of the late-20th-century Tibetan–Chinese translation movement — no scholarly study seen.
8. The independent Chinese source of "夺舍" (duoshe) in Chinese Buddhist scriptures: Ding Fubao's Buddhist Dictionary entry on "夺舍" was not verified.
9. Sakya-school dedicated discussions of grong 'jug: not found this time; not found does not mean non-existent.
10. Kucha Buddhism and reincarnation/emanation ideas: no direct evidence found this time; the western segment of the Central Asian link remains blank.

Appendix 1: Appendix 1: Core Tibetan–Chinese–English Terminology

• འཕོ་བ་ — Chinese: 破瓦法、遷識法； English: Phowa, transference. Gloss: the practice of ejecting consciousness through the central channel out the cranial aperture at death, to be reborn in a pure land.
• འཕོ་བ་གྲོང་འཇུག་ — Chinese: 夺舍破瓦； English: Phowa drongjuk, forceful projection. Gloss: the practice of transferring consciousness into another's body (mostly a fresh corpse).
• གྲོང་འཇུག་ — Chinese: 夺舍； English: Drongjuk, entering another's body. Gloss: the metaphor of "entering a city": consciousness taking lordship over another's body.
• འཕོ་བ་ཆེན་པོ་ — Chinese: 大迁转； English: Great transference. Gloss: the supreme fruition of Dzogchen: transforming the flesh body in this life into the indestructible rainbow body.
• འཇའ་ལུས་ — Chinese: 虹光身； English: Rainbow body, 'ja' lus. Gloss: the accomplishment of the flesh body dissolving into rainbow light at death.
• སྤྲུལ་སྐུ་ — Chinese: 化身、祖古、活佛； English: Tulku. Gloss: originally "the Buddha's emanation" (translation of nirmāṇakāya); after the 13th century extended to mean reincarnate lama.
• སྤྲུལ་པའི་སྐུ་ — Chinese: 化身（身）; English: Nirmāṇakāya. Gloss: one of the Mahāyāna three bodies; the form body the Buddha displays to deliver sentient beings.
• ཡང་སྲིད་ — Chinese: 转世； English: Yangsi, rebirth. Gloss: Tibetan colloquial term for a lama's rebirth.
• བར་དོ་ — Chinese: 中阴； English: Bardo, antarābhava. Gloss: the intermediate state between death and the next life.
• རྣམ་ཤེས་ — Chinese: 心识、神识； English: Consciousness, vijñāna. Gloss: the subject of transference.
• རྫོགས་ཆེན་ — Chinese: 大圆满； English: Dzogchen, Great Perfection. Gloss: one of the supreme doctrinal systems shared by Tibetan Buddhism and Bön.
• ན་རོ་ཆོས་དྲུག་ — Chinese: 那洛六法； English: Six Dharmas of Naropa. Gloss: the collective name for gtum mo, illusory body, luminosity, transference, drongjuk, and bardo (the fixed number of six is a later systematization).
• saṃkrānti (Skt.) — Chinese: (modern back-translation "迁转"); English: —. Gloss: originally an astronomical term; its use as the Sanskrit equivalent of 'pho ba is a modern lexicographical construction.
• utkrānti (Skt.) — Chinese: 出离、上迁； English: —. Gloss: the term for "consciousness departure" actually used in Indian Śaiva tantras.
• parakāyapraveśa (Skt.) — Chinese: 入他身； English: —. Gloss: the term of Yogasūtra commentary 3.39, corresponding to drongjuk-type practice.

Appendix 2: Appendix 2: Key Figures — Mini Biographical Index

Chronological labels: ◆ academic dating / commonly used scholarly dates; ★ religious self-reported dates

• 帝洛巴 Tilopa (◆988–1069): Indian mahāsiddha; source of the Nāro Six Dharmas; teachers included Nāgārjuna (the tantric master), Lawapa, Luipada, and others. [Documented in literature]
• 那洛巴 Nāropa (◆1016–1100): paṇḍita of Nālandā Monastery; later practiced twelve years under Tilopa; composed the Vajra Verses of the Aural Transmission. [Documented in literature]
• 玛尔巴 Marpa (◆1012–1097): the Lotsawa of Lhodrak; traveled three times to India, received the Six Dharmas from Nāropa and translated them into Tibetan; founder of the Marpa Kagyu. [Documented in literature]
• 密勒日巴 Milarepa (◆1052–1135): Marpa's heart disciple; famed for ascetic practice. [Documented in literature]
• 冈波巴 Gampopa (◆1079–1153): composed the Dagpo Collection; one of the earliest Tibetan systematizers of the Six Dharmas; founder of the Dagpo Kagyu. [Documented in literature]
• 杜松钦巴 Dus gsum mkhyen pa (◆1110–1193): Gampopa's disciple; founded Karma Densa Monastery and Tsurphu Monastery; posthumously counted as the 1st Karmapa. [Documented in literature]
• 庞竹巴 Pomdrakpa (◆1170–1249): disciple of Drokön Rinchen; recognized the young Karma Pakshi as Düsum Khyenpa's reincarnation (traditional narrative). [Documented in literature]
• 噶玛巴希 Karma Pakshi (◆1204–1283): recognized as Düsum Khyenpa's reincarnation (traditional narrative); posthumously counted as the 2nd Karmapa. [Documented in literature]
• 鄂尔坚巴 Orgyenpa Rinchen Pal (◆1220–1309): heart disciple of Karma Pakshi; in 1289 recognized the 5-year-old Rangjung Dorje — the institutionally recognized starting point of the tulku system. [Documented in literature]
• 让炯多杰 Rangjung Dorje (◆1284–1339): recognized as Karma Pakshi's reincarnation; enthroned as the 3rd Karmapa. [Documented in literature]
• 娘热尼玛俄色 Nyangrel Nyima Özer (◆1124–1192): Nyingma treasure revealer; claimed to be Trisong Detsen's reincarnation; representative of scattered pre-13th-century reincarnation claims, with no institutional form. [Documented in literature]
• 达玛多德 Darma Dode (★11th century): Marpa's son; dying after a fall from a horse, he performed transference — first into a pigeon, then into the body of an Indian brahmin youth — and was reborn as the mahāsiddha Tipupa; the textual vehicle is the 15th–16th-century Biography of Marpa. [Documented in literature · hagiography]
• 宗喀巴 Tsongkhapa (◆1357–1419): composed The Profound Path of the Nāro Six Dharmas: Endowed with the Three Convictions; the Gelug authority on Six-Dharmas commentary; judged drongjuk as "transmitted only in secret oral instruction, never to be made public." [Documented in literature]
• 楚库洛登宁波 Tulku Loden Nyingpo (◆1360–1385): leader of Bön's "New Bon" movement; head of the "Four Tulkus"; Bön's earliest attested case of reincarnation recognition. [Documented in literature]
• 塔皮热孜 Ta pi hri tsa (★7th century / ◆ textual vehicle 15th century): Bön Dzogchen patriarch; after a nine-year retreat realized the luminous body of great transference; credited with the Twenty-One Nails. [Documented in literature]
• 龙钦巴 Longchen Rabjam (◆1308–1364): compiled the Four Heart Essences and composed the Seven Treasures; the systematizer of the rainbow-body-great-transference doctrine in the Nyingma school. [Documented in literature]
• 郭扎巴·迅奴贝 Gö Lotsawa Zhönnu Pal (◆1392–1481): composed the Blue Annals (completed 1476/1478); an early systematic recorder of the Marpa lineage in historiography. [Documented in literature]
• 藏哑疯子 Tsangnyön Heruka (◆1452–1507): compiled the Biography of Marpa the Translator in 1505, the earliest single biography of Marpa. [Documented in literature]
• 弥举多杰 Migyur Dorje (★revealed treasures 1645–1667): Nyingma "Tianfa" treasure revealer; his Explanation of the Transference Phowa Practice proposed the fivefold classification of phowa and judged drongjuk as "doctrine only, without practice instructions." [Documented in literature · treasure-text]
• 梅乌贡佐 Meu Gongzo (◆1038–1096): founder of Bön's A-khrid; the datable 11th-century node to which Bön Dzogchen texts trace back. [Documented in literature]

References

General and Scholarly Overviews

• University of Virginia Mandala Collections, Karma Phuntsho, Trülku/Yangsi: Recognition of Reincarnations: https://texts.mandala.library.virginia.edu/text/tr%C3%BClkuyangsi-recognition-reincarnations
• T.V. Wylie, "Reincarnation: A Political Innovation in Tibetan Buddhism" (1978), cited via: https://tibetpolicy.net/the-tibetan-buddhist-reincarnation-system-and-chinas-political-weaponization/
• Statement of H.H. the Fourteenth Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso on the Issue of His Reincarnation (2011-09-24): https://www.tibetanbuddhistaltar.org/statement-of-his-holiness-the-fourteenth-dalai-lama-tenzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation/
• H.H. the Dalai Lama, Talk on Reincarnation: https://www.tsemrinpoche.com/tsem-tulku-rinpoche/buddhas-dharma/talk-on-reincarnation-by-h-h-dalai-lama.html
• Xiao Jinsong, 〈「活佛轉世制度」略探〉 (2007): http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-BJ013/bj013372539.pdf
• Daniel Hirshberg's paper (Bulletin of Tibetology, 2009): http://archivenepal.s3.amazonaws.com/digitalhimalaya/collections/journals/bot/pdf/bot_2009_01_03.pdf
• Treasury of Lives, "The Four Tutkus" (per Achard): https://treasuryoflives.org/bo/foundations/view/14
• Charles Manson, Karma Pakshi and Two Mongol Emperors (LOC lecture, 2023): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Pakshi
• Central Tibetan Administration official website — overview of the reincarnation system: https://tibet.net/the-tibetan-tradition-of-reincarnation-and-ccps-assertion-to-reign-sovereignty-over-living-buddhas/
• Samten Karmay's commentary (2008): http://info-buddhism.com/Religion_Politics_Tibet_Samten_Karmay.html
• Ethnologia Polona 37 (2016/2017) overview of Bön–Buddhist borrowing: https://m.iaepan.pl/ethp/article/download/67/47/65

Phowa and the Six Dharmas

• English Wikipedia "Phowa": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phowa
• Chinese Wikipedia"頗瓦": https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A0%97%E7%93%A6
• English Wikipedia "Six Dharmas of Naropa": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Dharmas_of_Naropa
• Lokesh Chandra's colophon study: http://oaks.nvg.org/naropa.html
• Khenpo Tsultrim Lodrö, 《慧灯禅修（四）·破瓦法》: https://d2e6j3zdpz3g2k.cloudfront.net/fhfy/down/mp3-down/hdcxkjc/4/慧灯禅修四_破瓦法.pdf
• Garchen Rinpoche lineage, 《修习迁识破瓦法》 (Terdak Lingpa's 天法 tradition): https://garchencanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Transference-to-the-land-of-great-Bliss-頗瓦法講解.pdf
• Reynolds' commentary on Bönpo bardo literature: https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Commentary_to_the_Bonpo_book_of_the_dead
• Bon Phowa (Chongtul Rinpoche): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiXPntpfZcc
• 《青史》: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Annals
• Tsangnyön Heruka《玛尔巴译师传》: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsangny%C3%B6n_Heruka
• Marpa biographical sources: https://en.dharmapedia.net/wiki/Marpa
• IJCRT paper (2025) — overview of phowa and drongjuk: https://ijcrt.org/download.php?file=IJCRT2510566.pdf

Drongjuk

• Nalanda Translation Committee's English translation《The Life of Marpa the Translator》(Shambhala, 1982); summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiphupa
• 《Tibetan Death and Délog Experiences》"TRONGJUG"章(cited): https://www.scribd.com/document/56442086/trongjug
• University of Virginia Library exhibit on Tibetan death literature (Tsongkhapa on drongjuk): https://explore.lib.virginia.edu/exhibits/show/dead/texts/artofdying
• Garma C.C. Chang's translation《Esoteric Teachings of the Tibetan Tantra》(PDF): https://res.cloudinary.com/dtbg46l7q/raw/upload/ebooks/pdf/esoteric-teachings-of-the-tibetan-tantra.pdf
• English translation of Madhava's Śaṅkara-dig-vijaya (PDF): https://mail.estudantedavedanta.net/Sankara-Digvijaya.pdf
• Berzin interviews Tsenshap Serkong Rinpoche: https://studybuddhism.com/en/tibetan-buddhism/spiritual-teachers/tsenshap-serkong-rinpoche/interview-about-tsenshap-serkong-rinpoche-dr-berzin
• Tanya Zivkovic《Death and Reincarnation in Tibetan Buddhism》(Routledge, 2014, PDF): https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/images/e/e6/Death_and_Reincarnation_in_Tibetan_Buddhism_In-Between_Bodies_%28_PDFDrive_%29.pdf
• 三生石 — the Yuanze奪胎 legend: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/三生石

The Great Transference and Rainbow Body

• Padmakara glossary ('ja' lus): https://www.padmakara.pt/glossary-term/-'ja-lus%2C-'ja'-lus/pt-2534cb99-5f7d-4a72-b114-340390197130
• Tsadra glossary (Tapihritsa): https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php?title=Property:Gloss-def&limit=250&offset=9830&from=&until=&filter=
• Tapihritsa: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapihritsa
• overview of Bön Dzogchen: https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=THE_GREAT_PERFECTION%E2%80%99_IN_THE_TRADITION_OF_THE_BONPOS
• Garab Dorje: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garab_Dorje
• Sam van Schaik, Early Tibet "Nyingma": http://earlytibet.com/category/nyingma/page/2/
• Rudolph Bauer on the history of Dzogchen: https://philarchive.org/archive/BAUACO-5
• David Germano's Dzogchen lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUpSXGu-aa8
• De Gruyter overview of Bön–Buddhist relations (citing Karmay 2005, 2007a): https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110758870-003/pdf
• Berzin "Understanding Bon and Tibetan Buddhism": https://www.scribd.com/document/98075511/Bon-and-Tibetan-Buddhism
• 卐密宗虹身成就略记 (with a table of early Dzogchen figures): https://www.scribd.com/document/596185712/卐密宗虹身成就略记 ；https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/images/1/19/Rainbow_Body_and_Resurrection_Spiritual_Attainment%2C_the_Dissolution_of_the_Material_Body%2C_and_the_Case_of_Khenpo_A_Ch%C3%B6_%28_PDFDrive_%29.pdf
• overview of Nyingma teachings (Padmasambhava's deathless rainbow-body great transference): http://manjushri.com/Teachings/t-Nyingma.htm
• Francis V. Tiso, Rainbow Body and Resurrection: Spiritual Attainment, the Dissolution of the Material Body, and the Case of Khenpo A Chö (North Atlantic Books, 2016) — field research and cross-religious comparative study of the rainbow-body case of Khenpo A Chö (1918–1998) (PDF): https://tibetanbuddhistencyclopedia.com/en/images/1/19/Rainbow_Body_and_Resurrection_Spiritual_Attainment%2C_the_Dissolution_of_the_Material_Body%2C_and_the_Case_of_Khenpo_A_Ch%C3%B6_%28_PDFDrive_%29.pdf

History of the Tulku Institution

• Karmapa lineage: https://www.palpung.eu/en/about-us/lineage/vajrayana/karma-kagyu/gyalwang-karmapa/the-17-gyalwang-karmapas/
• Karma Pakshi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Pakshi
• Shamarpa: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/夏瑪巴
• Tulku (encyclopedia entry): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulku
• Tulku (glossary): https://www.gosokrinpoche.com/glossary/tulku/
• Menri Monastery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menri_Monastery
• Akar Bon Center (selection of the Menri abbot): https://akarboncenter.org/about-us/tashi-menri-monastery/
• Biography of the 33rd Menri Trizin: http://ybmcs.org/biography-of-hh33rd-menri-trizin-rinpoche/
• Report on the recognition of Tulku Ponse Jigme Tenzin: https://speechofdelight.org/first-you-are-a-reincarnation-just-by-the-name-but-then-you-have-to-earn-it-tulku-ponse-jigme-tenzin-says/

End of text. The four-grade evidence labels defined in the Guide are applied throughout; religious self-reported chronology (★) and academic dating (◆) are kept in separate layers; "the Tibetan Buddhist tulku institution originated from Bön" is treated as a hypothesis under examination, with supporting and rebutting evidence presented separately and no presupposed conclusion.