Concerning the famous debate between Hashang Mahayana (Moheyan) and Kamalasila at Samye:
Some sources (the mainstream or institutional Tibetan ones) hold that Hashang lost, and "Hashang's view" became an epithet for an unacceptable view in Tibetan scholarly discourse.
Other sources (mostly Chinese from what I have gathered) have argued that Hashang indeed won, and that his view is not only good Dharma, but superior to Kamalasila's position.
All of this I have gathered from second or third or fourth-hand sources. I'd like to know if there are any primary-source accounts of this exchange that would let us separate the generalizations that are attributed to both parties from their actual views. Or if there are any Tibetan teachers who have reason to second-guess the straightforward rejection of Hashang's position.
I'm asking because in Sky Dancer, Keith Dowman suggests that perhaps Dzogchen is closer to Hashang's view than the institutionalized gradual approach... I'm curious to find out if this is only one man's opinion, or if there's more to it than that. Thanks.
Here's an interesting article that appears to shed light on some of your questions http://earlytibet.com/about/hashang-mahayana/
From the same website: http://earlytibet.com/category/zen/
This gives some additional background on what the source documents might be, the biases associated with them etc. It goes to the old saying that "history is written by the winners". There's always an agenda with any piece of history - you can see that evident in many things today. Often the agenda is about something contemporary to the author and he/she is using an event in the past to make their point. An example might be "The Greatest Generation" and looking at WWII as "the good war". After Vietnam (brought to us by that same greatest generation, just grown up a bit), there was a need to look at wars as something good - so we could have noble and righteous ones, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Another, less controversial example, might be A Team of Rivals, looking at the political landscape Lincoln was working with as a lesson for politicians today (which is as fractious).