For convenience sake, after Buddhist sectarian strife, Kublai Khan picked a side and installed Sakyas to settle that.
By 1578, the Mongols had lost control of China but still had a relationship with Tibet. Mongolia had a massive spread of translations of Buddhist texts into Mongolian and relations were friendly. They installed the first "Dalai Lama" (actually, the current Dalai Lama explains "Dalai" was just a Mongolian translation of the man's name), but they kept having to prop him up. By this point political and religious authority were all mixed together in one bag for Tibet.
By the 17th century, even Mongolian influence had faded from Tibetan politics, so the Tibetan religious factions were free to fight amongst themselves.
Then the Manchurian Chinese emperors kept sending garrisons to prop up the later Dalai Lamas and park an ineffective advisor who would be ignored as convenient for the Tibetans. By the time British showed, the Chinese presence was so minimal, Younghusband didn't even know they were a factor.
So, bottom line: No. This isn't a characterization of "conquering leader" and "evil despot." Rather, the ancient translations were done during the old Tibetan Empire, while the various multitudes of later translations were done after the Tibetan Empire.
It's a political distinction, having on the part of the sarma the claim: "oh, none of the old translations survived, so your Buddhism isn't the real thing."
And on the part of the nyingma the claim: "oh, your Buddhism is a later, lesser version further from the original source. Oh. Wait. Make that versions."
So, yes, they had tons of sectarianism, but not the sectarianism you were suggesting.
P.S. Note that Christianity was in Tibet during this medieval period (some Jesuits translated parts of the bible into Tibetan), and various Bonpo schools continued as well. Later on Islam came to Tibet also.
no subject
By 1578, the Mongols had lost control of China but still had a relationship with Tibet. Mongolia had a massive spread of translations of Buddhist texts into Mongolian and relations were friendly. They installed the first "Dalai Lama" (actually, the current Dalai Lama explains "Dalai" was just a Mongolian translation of the man's name), but they kept having to prop him up. By this point political and religious authority were all mixed together in one bag for Tibet.
By the 17th century, even Mongolian influence had faded from Tibetan politics, so the Tibetan religious factions were free to fight amongst themselves.
Then the Manchurian Chinese emperors kept sending garrisons to prop up the later Dalai Lamas and park an ineffective advisor who would be ignored as convenient for the Tibetans. By the time British showed, the Chinese presence was so minimal, Younghusband didn't even know they were a factor.
So, bottom line: No. This isn't a characterization of "conquering leader" and "evil despot." Rather, the ancient translations were done during the old Tibetan Empire, while the various multitudes of later translations were done after the Tibetan Empire.
It's a political distinction, having on the part of the sarma the claim: "oh, none of the old translations survived, so your Buddhism isn't the real thing."
And on the part of the nyingma the claim: "oh, your Buddhism is a later, lesser version further from the original source. Oh. Wait. Make that versions."
So, yes, they had tons of sectarianism, but not the sectarianism you were suggesting.
P.S. Note that Christianity was in Tibet during this medieval period (some Jesuits translated parts of the bible into Tibetan), and various Bonpo schools continued as well. Later on Islam came to Tibet also.