The Twenty-One Tārās of Jigme Lingpa and the Twenty-One Tārās of Atīśa: A Dzogchen-Oriented Comparison
The Twenty-One Tārās of Jigme Lingpa and the Twenty-One Tārās of Atīśa: A Dzogchen-Oriented Comparison
This essay examines two of the most influential configurations of the Twenty-One Tārās as they appear in Vajrayāna practice and literature. The first is the system associated with Atīśa (Dīpaṃkara Śrījñāna) and the wider Nāgārjuna–Atīśa iconographic lineage. The second is the vision revealed by Rigdzin Jigme Lingpa within the Longchen Nyingthik treasure cycle, particularly in his Treasure Vase (Bumpa) revelation and complementary Tārā practices.
Rather than simply listing names, colours, and attributes, the essay aims to illuminate how each system communicates meaning to contemporary practitioners. Historical origins, textual sources, visual language, ritual applications, and soteriological intentions are all explored. Above all, we consider how these two traditions can be understood within a Dzogchen framework, where view, meditation, and conduct are inseparably intertwined.
1. Why compare two systems of the Twenty-One Tārās?
Tārā, the swift, radiant, and ever-compassionate mother of liberation, occupies a central place in Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna devotion. The short and long Praises to the Twenty-One Tārās function not only as liturgies of homage but as concise maṇḍalas of skilful activity. Each of the twenty-one forms embodies a precise mode through which awakened compassion responds to the diverse needs of living beings.
Although the idea of twenty-one emanations is ancient, it did not remain monolithic. Over the centuries, several distinct systems arose, each emphasising particular iconographic, ritual, or contemplative themes. Among these, the systems associated with Atīśa and with the Longchen Nyingthik of Jigme Lingpa became especially widespread. While they share a number of names and general features, they diverge significantly in atmosphere, symbolic depth, and practical orientation.
For practitioners grounded in Dzogchen, these differences are far from trivial. They highlight which components belong to the sphere of skilful means, which facilitate direct experience of the nature of mind, and how visualisations or mantra sequences may be integrated into natural meditation. Comparing the two systems allows us to distinguish historical inheritance from experiential insight. It also demonstrates how terma traditions reinterpret earlier material with a prophetic sensitivity to the needs of later generations.
Modern scholars identify several major lineages of the Twenty-One Tārās: the Sūryagupta cycle, the Nāgārjuna–Atīśa family, the Longchen Nyingthik cycle, the revelations of Chokgyur Lingpa, and others. The Atīśa and Jigme Lingpa traditions appear closest when placed side by side, yet differ profoundly in tone, imagery, doctrinal framing, and meditative application.
2. Genealogies and textual origins
2.1 Early foundations: Sūryagupta, Nāgārjuna, and the shaping of the twenty-one
The revelation of twenty-one forms of Tārā is attested in a range of Indian and early Tibetan sources. The Sūryagupta tradition presents elaborate tantric imagery, with Tārās possessing multiple faces, arms, and dynamic postures. These forms are symbolically rich and esoterically nuanced.
By contrast, the Nāgārjuna–Atīśa family tends toward simplification. Here Tārā typically appears with one face, two hands, and a serene seated posture. Distinctions between the twenty-one forms are expressed primarily through colour and through variations in the vase or lotus. Because this system was simple to reproduce, it spread widely in Tibetan monastic settings and became a standard for liturgy, thangka painting, and communal ritual.
2.2 Atīśa and the development of an iconographic standard
Although Atīśa (982–1054) did not compose the Praise to the Twenty-One Tārās nor originate the system itself, Tibetan tradition strongly associates a particular configuration with his transmission. The Atīśa system is characterised by its harmonious colour scheme and the emblematic vase (bumpa) that distinguishes each Tārā. Each form embodies a discrete field of enlightened activity: healing, protection, prosperity, longevity, magnetising influence, subjugation of obstacles, and other aspects of compassionate intervention.
The coherence of this system made it ideal for monasteries, where uniformity facilitated group ritual, iconographic consistency, and easy dissemination across regions.
2.3 Jigme Lingpa and the Longchen Nyingthik terma
Jigme Lingpa (1730–1798), one of the greatest tertöns of the Nyingma tradition, revealed a vast cycle of teachings known collectively as the Longchen Nyingthik. Among these is the Treasure Vase (Bumpa), which includes a visionary presentation of the Twenty-One Tārās. Although visually reminiscent of the Atīśa system, Jigme Lingpa’s rendering is saturated with Dzogchen insight.
Here the twenty-one Tārās are not merely individual beneficent goddesses. They are luminous expressions of the primordial feminine wisdom-energy, intricately linked with subtle-body practices and yogic methods such as the inner female (yum) processes. Their activities correspond to pacifying, increasing, binding, and liberating functions, understood not simply as external effects but as manifestations of the natural compassion of the Ground.
3. Textual sources and their practical use
The Atīśa tradition is rooted in classical Indian praises, commentaries, and the ritual manuals that evolved within monastic institutions. These were intended to be accessible, structurally clear, and consistent across communities.
The Longchen Nyingthik tradition, in contrast, draws on the Treasure Vase revelation, its companion commentaries, and the wider Nyingthik contemplative cycles. These teachings weave the twenty-one forms into meditative processes that integrate devotional recitation, inner yogas, and non-dual awareness.
4. Forms, names, and ordering: similarities and differences
4.1 A shared foundation
Many names appear in both the Atīśa and Jigme Lingpa lists. Forms such as Nyurma Pamo, Yangchenma, Sonam Tobkyedma, Namgyalma, and Kurukullā-type deities appear across lineages. This overlap reflects the widespread influence of the long Praise, which served as a template for later developments. Practitioners familiar with one system will often find the other recognisable, at least in terms of activities and qualities.
4.2 Atīśa: colour, simplicity, and the defining vase
The Atīśa lineage maintains a preference for simple seated forms with one face and two hands. Differentiation is achieved through colour and the specific sacred item placed on the vase. This made it easy for thangka painters and ritual specialists to maintain a standardised order and appearance.
4.3 Sūryagupta: esoteric and multidimensional imagery
In contrast, the Sūryagupta tradition offers a kaleidoscope of forms, richly animated and symbolically complex. Although less common in large monastic sets, these forms are preserved in manuscripts and highly specialised iconographic traditions.
4.4 Jigme Lingpa and the Longchen Nyingthik: visual restraint with doctrinal depth
Although visually similar to the Atīśa forms, Jigme Lingpa’s Tārās are read through a distinctly Nyingma lens. Each deity possesses outer, inner, and secret dimensions. These range from practical worldly benefits, to subtle-body correlations, to the deepest Dzogchen insight that each form is an immediate revelation of openness and radiance, the twin aspects of rigpa.
The Atīśa system emphasises the activity of Tārā in the world. Jigme Lingpa’s terma explicates the same activity as the spontaneous dynamic expression of the Ground itself.
5. Mantra, liturgy, and ritual
5.1 The universal root mantra
Across nearly all traditions, the mantra Oṃ tāre tuttāre turē svāhā serves as the core of Tārā practice. Additional mantras vary according to lineage, purpose, and ritual context.
5.2 Jigme Lingpa’s integration with inner yogas and Dzogchen
In the Longchen Nyingthik, each Tārā’s functioning is interpreted on three levels.
First is the outer level, which concerns practical benefits such as protection or obstacle removal.
Second is the inner level, which involves subtle-body methods, visualisations of channels and winds, and the cultivation of the experience of bliss-emptiness.
Third is the secret level, in which each form becomes a direct gateway to the natural state, revealing the uncontrived self-liberation of appearances within rigpa.
Thus, the twenty-one recitations form a contemplative arc. The practice can begin as devotional prayer, deepen into yogic transformation, and culminate in immediate recognition of mind’s innate clarity.
6. Reading the symbolism
A practitioner-scholar must thus work with three layers of interpretation:
The literal layer concerns the colours, postures, vases, and ritual functions.
The symbolic layer relates to the classical tantric categories of pacifying, enriching, magnetising, and wrathful action.
The Dzogchen layer highlights that each Tārā is an expression of the dynamic energy of the Ground, inseparable from awareness itself.
Jigme Lingpa moves between these layers with fluidity. His terma does not merely add more symbols. It reframes the entire system so that the twenty-one forms become displays of the primordial state. While the Atīśa system can also be read in this deeper light, its historical usage focused more on symbolic and pragmatic ritual application.
7. A Dzogchen closing reflection
For practitioners on the Dzogchen path, the decision to use the Atīśa system or the Jigme Lingpa–Longchen Nyingthik cycle depends on purpose and timing.
The Atīśa system offers clarity, structure, and accessibility, making it ideal for communal rites, devotional strengthening, and practical ritual needs.
The Jigme Lingpa tradition offers greater contemplative depth, integrating subtle-body yogas with the luminous immediacy of rigpa.
Both express the compassionate activity of the Great Mother. A discerning practitioner draws upon each according to circumstances. In this way the Twenty-One Tārās become bridges between prayer and presence, between symbolic activity and direct realisation.
Ultimately, the twenty-one formn are not ends in themselves. They are signposts pointing to the unity of appearance and awareness. They guide practitioners from devotion to recognition, and from the many forms of Tārā to the boundless, ever-present display of awakened compassion.
