THE SNOW LION NEWSLETTER

His opponents, who followed the Indic model of the five paths and ten levels, contended that the process of awakening gradually removes mental afflictions. Because these are deeply rooted and are the result of countless lifetimes of familiarization with negative thoughts and deeds, they cannot be extirpated all at once. It is no more possible for an ordinary being to become a buddha in one moment of awakening than for a mountain climber to scale a high peak in one jump.

It is clear from Tibetan and Chinese records that both sides had popular support, and to settle the dispute the king arranged for a debate between representatives of the Indian school and Heshang Moheyan and his followers. The Indian side was headed by Kamalasila, a student of Shantarakshita's. According to Pudön, Shantarakshita had foreseen the conflict before his death and had told the king that when it occurred Kamalasila should be invited to Tibet to argue for the Indian position.

The Council of Lhasa: An Apocryphal Story? In a study of this story in Minor Buddhist Texts II, Giuseppe Tucci argues against the idea that the debate could have been held in Lhasa. He contends that at the time Lhasa was a small and isolated town, and during the season in which the debate is purported to have occurred, travel there would have been difficult. He believes that the debate probably took place at Samyé, the nexus of Tibetan Buddhism at that time. Paul Demiéville, whose groundbreaking study La Concile de Lhasa followed the traditional story of a single debate in Lhasa, later emended his position and stated that there was probably a series of exchanges between proponents of sudden and gradual awakening that took place over a period of many years, with the Indian gradualist faction eventually triumphing. Other scholars—Yoshiro Imaeda, for instance—doubt that a debate even occurred, and Luis Gómez contends that while there were probably disputes between the two factions, they were not settled in a single, definitive council, but rather took the form of "a haphazard series of indirect confrontations." Gómez bases this conclusion on discrepancies in documents that purport to give an account of the debate.

Whether or not the debate took the form reported in traditional sources (and even if it never occurred at all), the story is an important one for Tibetan Buddhists, who believe that the council resulted in a clear victory for Indian gradualist Buddhism and the defeat of Chinese teachings of sudden awakening. At the very least, the prevalence of the story indicates that during the eighth century there was a conflict between Indian Buddhist models of gradual awakening and Chinese teachings of sudden awakening and that the Indian model eventually won out. If there was a single council, it seems probable that it did not end the conflict and that the relative merits of the two approaches were the subject of later disputes. All available sources agree that the Chinese suddenist teachings were popular in Tibet, but they subsequently declined. The widespread disapproval of such doctrines even among contemporary Tibetan scholars may be seen in the fact that schools which speak of sudden awakening often feel compelled to argue that their teachings are significantly different from those of Heshang Moheyan.

Pudön's Account. The most influential Tibetan account of the debate is found in Pudön's History of Buddhism, which states that Chan doctrines and practices had gained many adherents in Tibet, to the dismay of people who followed Indian models. In order to counteract the perceived heresies of the Chinese, their opponents convened a council in which they would be required to defend their positions. The greatest concern of the Indian faction was the purported antinomianism of Heshang Moheyan. Pudön reports that the Heshang and his followers eschewed the practice of moral cultivation, saying that it is irrelevant to the goal of buddhahood. Awakening, he claimed, is only found by those who attain a state of complete inactivity in which thought ceases. According to Pudön, the Heshang wrote treatises that denounced traditional dharma practice and claimed that awakening is gained by those who remain in a sleeplike state. In Pudon's account, Heshang Moheyan began the debate by summarizing his position:

He who has no thoughts and inclinations at all can be fully delivered from Phenomenal Life. The absence of any thought, search, or investigation brings about the nonperception of the reality of separate entities. In such a manner one can attain (Buddhahood) at once, like (a Bodhisattva) who has attained the tenth Stage.

Kamalasila replied:

If one has no thought concerning any of the elements of existence and does not direct the mind upon them, this does not mean that one can cease to remember all that one has experienced and to think of it....If the mere absence of (consciousness and) recollection is regarded as sufficient, it follows that in a swoon or at the time of intoxication one comes to the state where there is no constructive thought....Without correct analysis there is no means of attaining liberation from constructive thought.

The Indian scholar Jñanendra pressed the point by asking the Chinese faction, "If you can attain buddhahood at any time, what are you doing now?" In other words, if they had the potential to become buddhas at any moment, why were they wasting their time discussing it, rather than doing it? He then stated the Indian Mahayana view that awakening is the result of gradual perfection of compassion and wisdom, a process that begins with moral cultivation and meditation practice. These remove mental defilements and lead to progressively deeper understanding of reality, culminating in omniscience. Jńanendra contended that if one were to follow the Chan path it would be impossible to attain the state of buddhahood, since one would simply sleep and do nothing.

According to Pudön's account, the Chinese were unable to answer these charges and remained silent. The king declared that the position of the Indian gradualists was victorious and decreed that henceforth the teachings of Heshang Moheyan should be banned. The members of the Chinese faction acknowledged their defeat and returned home to China. Pudön adds that Heshang Moheyan was so upset by this loss of face that he committed suicide with a number of his followers. Kamalasila, however, was not able to savor his victory for long, because some surviving disciples of the Heshang hired Chinese assassins to kill him. Pudön states that they murdered Kamalasila by squeezing his kidneys.

The Chinese record composed by Wangxi contradicts Pudon's statement that the Indian faction won. Wangxi reports that Heshang Moheyan and his teachings were declared the winners of the debate, but he adds that the Heshang was so upset by the degeneration of dharma in Tibet that he committed suicide along with some of his followers. This seems rather suspicious, since if he had been victorious he would presumably have felt vindicated, and not suicidal.

The story of the defeat of Heshang Moheyan is well known among Tibetan Buddhists, who view it as clear evidence of the superiority of Indian gradualist Mahayana. Chinese Buddhism is widely regarded as a system that diverges from the tradition founded by Shakyamuni, but the original motivation for this belief may have been as much political as doctrinal. While the Chinese, Tibetan, and Indian sources give evidence of marked differences in outlook and practice, the aversion that developed toward Chinese forms of Buddhism may have been at least partially motivated by political considerations. Tibetan relations with India were generally amicable, but Tibet and China had a long and bitter history of conflict. Both were major powers in Central Asia, and both were involved in armed competition for supremacy in the region. Given their history, it is unlikely that the king would have ruled in favor of the Chinese faction. Moreover, even if he were as devout as traditional sources claim, his duties as ruler of a large empire probably prevented him from studying Buddhist philosophy in depth, and so in all likelihood he lacked the background knowledge to be able to understand the subtleties of the competing positions.

More about the book . . .

This is the most comprehensive and authoritative introduction to Tibetan Buddhism available to date. Beginning with a summary of the Indian origins of Tibetan Buddhism and how it eventually was brought to Tibet, it explores Tibetan Mahayana philosophy and tantric methods for personal transformation. The four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism as well as Bon are explored in depth from a non-sectarian point of view. This new and expanded edition is a systematic and wonderfully clear presentation of Tibetan Buddhist views and practices.

"The vitality of Tibetan Buddhism in exile has exceeded anything anyone could have predicted; hence the need of a book that presents its history, doctrines, lineages, practices, and tantric essence in a comprehensive and cogent way. John Powers' Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism does this!"—Prof. Huston Smith

"...presents the wide spectrum of Tibetan Buddhism in clear, concise form with Western methodology and critical appreciation. This work beautifully elucidates the nature of the complex religious and philosophical disciplines of Tibet."—Lobsang Lhalungpa, author of The Life of Milarepa

"A comprehensive and eminently comprehensible overview... Powers' substantial Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism...is able to discuss even the most complex aspects of Tibetan Buddhism in a straightforward and engaging manner.... He conveys the drama of the history of this multifaceted tradition...while his descriptions of Tibetan geography, architecture, ...[etc.] give us a vivid picture of life in Tibet."—Booklist

"The best single-volume introduction to Tibetan Buddhist practice and culture."—Library Journal

This is a second edition of Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism.

More about the author . . .

John Powers received an M.A. in Indian Philosophy from McMaster University and a Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from the University of Virginia. A specialist in Indo-Tibetan philosophy and meditation theory, he has published widely on Buddhist thought and practice. He teaches at the Center for Asian Societies and Histories at the Australian National University.

Read an interview with John Powers on Becoming a Well-Educated Buddhist—Why It Matters.

Books by John Powers

• Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism
• Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism, 2nd edition