Towards an Ethics of Extraction: Insights from the Tibetan Treasure Tradition

This paper analyzes the Tibetan Buddhist Treasure (gter ma) tradition through the lens of its extractive practices, highlighting possibilities for a relational ethics of extraction. While extractivism today often connotes capitalism and consumerism, humans have always relied on natural resources for subsistence—including those hidden within the earth. As we find ourselves ensnared in systems that make us increasingly dependent on extraction, this paper asks whether alternative models might acknowledge human resource needs while establishing an ethics of responsibility and respect for the more-than-human world. The Treasure tradition offers one such model for inspiration as we are called to diversify our imagination of possible ways of being on this planet.

The Treasure Tradition as Resource Extraction

For over a millennium, the Treasure tradition has purported to unearth spiritual and material resources hidden within the Tibetan landscape for future generations’ benefit. These Treasures—Buddhist scriptures, statues, relics, and mineral resources—are thought to be revealed by destined visionary masters as part of their awakened activity. The continuity between spiritual and material wealth is also evidenced by the etymology of the Tibetan word for Treasure (Tib. gter), which referred primarily to mineral resources before the advent of Buddhism in Tibet. Moreover, while secondary literature often speaks of Treasure “revelation” (Tib. ston), the more common verb describing this unearthing process is actually “extraction” (Tib. bton), a close cognate that reinforces the material nature of this practice.

The connection between spiritual and material wealth becomes further evident in the prevalence of serpentine water-beings (Tib. klu, Skt. nāga) and tree or mountain spirits (Tib. gnod sbyin, Skt. yakṣa) throughout Treasure revelation narratives. Both classes of beings were indigenously associated with wealth guardianship. In Tibet and India respectively, gnod sbyin and yakṣas served as territorial guardians controlling subterranean wealth, while klu and nāgas governed agricultural prosperity and guarded treasures. With Buddhism’s advent, these beings were incorporated into Buddhist cosmology as guardians of spiritual wealth as well, starting with the Buddha’s relics in some of the earliest histories of Buddhism, and eventually coming to guard the Buddhist teachings themselves.

Indeed, Treasure apologia—beginning with the first Treasure history (gter byung) written by Guru Chöwang in the 13th century—typically cite Nāgārjuna's descent to the nāga realm to retrieve the Perfection of Wisdom (Skt. prajñāpāramitā) scriptures as the Indic precedent for Tibetan Treasure revelation. Accounts of Treasure revelation throughout the centuries have then abounded with encounters and negotiations with klu and other territorial guardian of Treasures. These successive layers of Buddhist relationships to nature spirits and deities in India and Tibet reveal the intimate relationship between the land, material wealth, and the Buddhist teachings that has formed the Treasure tradition. 

The Ethics of Resource Extraction in Tibet

The earliest narratives of Tibetan imperial resource management appear in foundational texts like the Maṇi Kabum (Ma ṇi bka' 'bum) and the Mirror Illuminating the Royal Genealogies (Rgyal rabs gsal ba'i me long). These sources present Emperor Songtsen Gampo (Srong brtsan sgam po) as not merely conquering territory but establishing reciprocal relationships with local deities who controlled access to resources. The emperor’s project of geomancy and temple construction represents a systematic approach to managing the country’s energetic resources—subduing malevolent forces while establishing sustainable relationships with the land’s sentient proprietors.

These imperial narratives establish a crucial precedent: resource extraction in Tibet requires negotiation with more-than-human stakeholders. This framework carries forward into the Treasure tradition, where extraction becomes explicitly embedded within ritual, ethical, and ecological constraints. A key element of this relational contract can be found in the treasure substitute (gter tshab), an object of equivalent value which must always be given in exchange for extracted Treasure. Treasure substitutes are seen to be essential for maintaining the fertility of the earth, and therefore the accompanying environmental and social prosperity, which was previously ensured by the Treasure. Tellingly, these substitutes often take the form of precious mineral resources such as gold or silver.

Case Study: Chokgyur Lingpa at Sengö Yumtso

Chokgyur Lingpa’s (Mchog gyur gling pa) 1866 revelation activities at Sengö Yumtso (Wild Lion Turquoise Lake) offer a compelling case study of the more-than-human relational contracts within which Treasure revelation can take place. The episode, which includes negotiations or subjugation of tempestuous klu king and the retrieval of Treasure from its lake abode, is of particular interest in terms of its differing versions: according to some, the lake Treasure included a Buddhist scripture, while according to others, it consisted of clumps of gold that the assembled crowd partook of. These accounts thus reveals the material-spiritual ambiguity characteristic of treasure revelation.

In all accounts, however, elaborate ritual preparations were needed before the Treasure could be extracted at all, including offerings, oblations, and ritual feasts—all understood as necessary ethical preliminaries to extraction. Likewise, all accounts include the negotiations with the klu king who had to be placated in order for the revelation to occur at all. Though this episode may be a particularly colorful one among Chokgyur Lingpa’s revelations, it is nevertheless emblematic of the role and agency of the landscape and its sentient inhabitants in any act of Treasure extraction. 

This episode reveals several of the ethical principles evident throughout much of the Treasure literature: the recognition of landscape agency through the acknowledgment of territorial deities and spirits; the reciprocal oblications implied by Treasure substitution (gter tshab); the temporal and circumstantial constraints (rten ʼbrel) that limit when extraction can occur; and an emphasis on communal benefit rather than individual gain—as evidenced by Chokgyur Lingpa's immediate sharing of the revelation with the King of Dergé and a crowd of three hundred people.