Tibetan Interest in EA Buddhism

[remm]

"The attitudes of the Tibetan Lamas from the eleventh century until today toward Chan have been, by and large, exceedingly negative, except for certain Nyingmapas like Longchenpa and Urgyan Lingpa. The Tibetan Lamas are content with their Indian-derived traditions as representing the authentic corpus of the Buddha's teachings. They have had absolutely no interest in the post-eighth-century developments of Buddhism in China, including Chan, and have had little or no contact personally with the Chinese teachers of Chan and the Japanese teachers of Zen. ... This Olympian disinterest, if not disdain, for non-Tibetan manifestations of Buddhism clearly represents a feeling on the part of Tibetans of their cultural superiority more than anything else. "
(John Myrdhin Reynolds: The Golden Letters, p. 223)

One thing I took into consideration was the Samye debate between Kamalaśīla and Héshang Móhēyǎn. The fact that Móhēyǎn lost and ultimately "suicided" showed how inferior the Northern Ch`an school was compared to the lineage of Indian Buddhism. I mean, this could be a major reason as to why Tibet seems to have disinterest in Buddhism in China.

[Astus]

One thing I took into consideration was the Samye debate between Kamalaśīla and Héshang Móhēyǎn. The fact that Móhēyǎn lost and ultimately "suicided" showed how inferior the Northern Ch`an school was compared to the lineage of Indian Buddhism. I mean, this could be a major reason as to why Tibet seems to have disinterest in Buddhism in China.

"I won’t go into the question of whether the debate actually happened, although the very different version in the Chinese text certainly suggests that we might be better off thinking of a series of discussions, mostly by exchanges of letters, rather than a debate. And the author of 10th century Lamp for the Eyes of Meditation, which is all about how to rank the simultaneous and gradual methods, fails to mention any debate. And many, if not all, of the Tibetan Chan manuscripts from Dunhuang date from after the Tibetan empire, and thus well after when the debate was supposed to have happened, suggesting that the decline of Chan in Tibet happened slowly, and for other reasons."
Tibetan Chan IV: The Great Debate

[Malcolm]

"The attitudes of the Tibetan Lamas from the eleventh century until today toward Chan have been, by and large, exceedingly negative, except for certain Nyingmapas like Longchenpa and Urgyan Lingpa. The Tibetan Lamas are content with their Indian-derived traditions as representing the authentic corpus of the Buddha's teachings. They have had absolutely no interest in the post-eighth-century developments of Buddhism in China, including Chan, and have had little or no contact personally with the Chinese teachers of Chan and the Japanese teachers of Zen. ... This Olympian disinterest, if not disdain, for non-Tibetan manifestations of Buddhism clearly represents a feeling on the part of Tibetans of their cultural superiority more than anything else. "
(John Myrdhin Reynolds: The Golden Letters, p. 223)

One thing I took into consideration was the Samye debate between Kamalaśīla and Héshang Móhēyǎn. The fact that Móhēyǎn lost and ultimately "suicided" showed how inferior the Northern Ch`an school was compared to the lineage of Indian Buddhism. I mean, this could be a major reason as to why Tibet seems to have disinterest in Buddhism in China.

it is not at all clear that Hashang "lost". He definitely did not commit suicide.

[remm]

Hi Namdrol,

Apparently he did commit suicide from the sources that I've read.

"According to Pudon'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. Pudon adds that Heshang Moheyan was so upset by his 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 Heshang hired Chinese assassins to kill him. Pudon states that they murdered Kamalasila by squeezing his kidneys." page 152

-- Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism by John Powers
2007 Snow Lion Publications

Also if you've read the book "Studies in Ch`an and Hua Yen" by Peter N. Gregory, he seems to outline the debate very specifically between Kamalasila & Heshang.

Heshang will begin the debate by stating: If one commits good or bad deeds, one (merely) reaches the higher or lower states of rebirth (respectively). Therefore, he does not attain deliverance from samsara, and the attainment of buddhahood is blocked. An example: White and black clouds alike obscure the sky. But he who does not think, he who does not wish, will be fully delivered from Samsara. He who does not think, not reflect, not investigate, brings about non-perception. By this, one enters (buddhahood) spontaneously (cig car du ‘jug pa). He is like a bodhisattva who dwells on the 10th stage.

Kamalasila: If the mere absence of recollection is regarded as sufficient, it follows that a time of faint or intoxicant one attains the state of non-reflection and thereby buddhahood. But without correct analysis, how can we come to the cognition of the non-substantiality of all phenomena? And, without the realization of emptiness, it is impossible to remove the defilements. Therefore, only correct analytical insight can cast away that which erroneously appears.

From Kamalaśīla’s response back to Heshang, he will indicate and argue that this state of ‘absence’ is equivalent to an individual who is drunk or is cast into a state of non-consciousness. He will argue that there is a specific requirement, and that being the ability to have correct analysis or discriminative understanding. Without having the proper mind to distinguish reality, and without the understanding of emptiness, it is impossible for one to remove afflictions. Furthermore, other disciples or followers of Kamalaśīla will suggest that without the proper undertaking of the perfections (pāramitās) how can one generate the merit and mental training to truly realize highest awakening?

The book by Peter Gregory goes through this in great detail. But I'm guessing this could be a contentious issue. However, Gregory, seems to conclude that Heshang definitely did lose. I'm also 90% sure that Gregory did mention the suicide of Heshang afterwards as well. I've read it from numerous sources, so I'm not sure what your take on that is...

[Astus]

Remm,

The thing with scholarship is similar to science, you should look at the latest developments and not at those that are 20 or 30 years old (that study you refer to, written by Jeffrey Broughton, was published in 1983 - but that in itself doesn't invalidate his study of course). For instance, about the schools to which Hashang belonged to we now know a lot more. Also, if you look into the history of different Buddhist schools, abolishing a lineage or teaching from an area is a political and not a religious decision and this is exactly what Sam van Schaik refers to with the involvement of different Tibetan clans. So I would say that the debate and Hashang losing to Kamalasila is pretty much a cover story to ridicule those Tibetans who then found Chan interesting.
Nevertheless, even if the debate have happened it doesn't explain why Tibetans had no interest in EA Buddhism when there was communication between the two nations, like under the Mongol and Manchu rulers.

[remm]

Remm,

The thing with scholarship is similar to science, you should look at the latest developments and not at those that are 20 or 30 years old (that study you refer to, written by Jeffrey Broughton, was published in 1983 - but that in itself doesn't invalidate his study of course). For instance, about the schools to which Hashang belonged to we now know a lot more. Also, if you look into the history of different Buddhist schools, abolishing a lineage or teaching from an area is a political and not a religious decision and this is exactly what Sam van Schaik refers to with the involvement of different Tibetan clans. So I would say that the debate and Hashang losing to Kamalasila is pretty much a cover story to ridicule those Tibetans who then found Chan interesting.
Nevertheless, even if the debate have happened it doesn't explain why Tibetans had no interest in EA Buddhism when there was communication between the two nations, like under the Mongol and Manchu rulers.

I understand. Thank you for your advice and clarification.

[Malcolm]

Hi Namdrol,

Apparently he did commit suicide from the sources that I've read.

You have not read enough sources. Hashang went on to Dunhuang where he had a successful teaching career and wrote an alternate account of the debate. Also Nubchen Sangye Yeshe and the Padma Khatang report the opposite, namely that Hashang won and was expelled because of politics.

[kirtu]

Hashang went on to Dunhuang where he had a successful teaching career and wrote an alternate account of the debate. Also Nubchen Sangye Yeshe and the Padma Khatang report the opposite, namely that Hashang won and was expelled because of politics.

Namkhai Nyingpo was supposed to have also been a Chan pratitioner. So how was it that Chan died out in Tibet shortly after the Samye debate? Or did it? How long did it take for whatever version of Chan in Tibet to actually die out?

Kirt

[Malcolm]

Hashang went on to Dunhuang where he had a successful teaching career and wrote an alternate account of the debate. Also Nubchen Sangye Yeshe and the Padma Khatang report the opposite, namely that Hashang won and was expelled because of politics.

Namkhai Nyingpo was supposed to have also been a Chan pratitioner. So how was it that Chan died out in Tibet shortly after the Samye debate? Or did it? How long did it take for whatever version of Chan in Tibet to actually die out?

Kirt

It probably continued for another 40 years among Tibetans after the so called debate. Then Langdarma defunded all the monasteries primarily, in my estimation, due to the economic crisis due to political instability in China.

N

[Indrajala]

It probably continued for another 40 years among Tibetans after the so called debate. Then Langdarma defunded all the monasteries primarily, in my estimation, due to the economic crisis due to political instability in China.

N

That's an interesting idea.

Interestingly, Langdarma oppressed Buddhist institutions and died around 841 while a few years later in China in 845 Emperor Wuzong attempted to purge Buddhism from the country defrocking monastics, converting temples for other functions and seizing their assets.

I don't know if there is any correlation between the two, but the timing of the two anti-Buddhist purges is interesting.

[remm]

Hi Namdrol,

Apparently he did commit suicide from the sources that I've read.

You have not read enough sources. Hashang went on to Dunhuang where he had a successful teaching career and wrote an alternate account of the debate. Also Nubchen Sangye Yeshe and the Padma Khatang report the opposite, namely that Hashang won and was expelled because of politics.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Do you know any good books or recent articles that talk about this?

[Anders]

[i]"The attitudes of the Tibetan Lamas from the eleventh century until today toward Chan have been, by and large, exceedingly negative, except for certain Nyingmapas like Longchenpa and Urgyan Lingpa. The Tibetan Lamas are content with their Indian-derived traditions as representing the authentic corpus of the Buddha's teachings.

What were these two's assesment of Chan then?

[Astus]

From "Approaching the Great Perfection":

p212

You have made the assertion that the view of Hashang was like this, based on refutations like the similarity of nonmentation to an egg. Yet scriptures such as the Buddhavatamsaka were known to Hashang. During the debate, Kamalasila asked what was the cause of samsara by the symbolic action of whirling his staff around his head. [Hashang] answered that it was the apprehender and apprehended by the symbolic action of shaking his robe out twice. It is undeniable that such a teacher was of the sharpest faculties. If the nonrecollection and nonmentation entail the offense of rejecting the wisdom of differentiating analysis, then the Prajnaparamita sutras of the Conqueror also entail this fault. Therefore what the view of Hashang actually is can be known by a perfect buddha, and no one else.

p339n220

Jigme Lingpa's insistence on this distinction between the two methods makes the note he attaches to this passage, in which he suggests that the common understanding of Hashang's erroneous method is a misinterpretation, quite surprising. There is a precedent for this statement in the works of Longchenpa however. In his Desum Nyingpo (pp. 155-56), Longchenpa writes on the subject of the transcendence of the consequences of positive and negative actions. There is a famous statement attributed to Hashang Mahayana on this same subject, that virtue and sin are like black and white clouds, in that both cover up the sun. Rather than distancing himself from this, Longchenpa uses the same metaphor and then goes on to say:

The great master Hashang said this, and although those of lesser intellects could not comprehend it, he was in accordance with the [ultimate] truth.

Longchenpa himself was also following a precedent set by the twelfth-century Nyingmapa Nyangral Nyima Özer (1124-92), who state that there is no difference in [ultimate] truth (don) between the two paths, but that for those of the best faculties, there is the simultaneous method of Hashang, and for those of medium and below there is the graduated path (Chos 'byung me tog snying po p. 435b). I discuss Jingme Lingpa's use of this distinction between the faculties of trainees with regard to the simultaneous aspect of the Great Perfection in chapter 7. Perhaps Jigme Lingpa's really original contribution in this note is to point out that there is a scriptural basis for the simultaneist method as much as for the gradualist method in the Prajnaparamita sutras, an insight that appears to be based on comparative readings of texts rather than the standardized rubrics of Tibetan scholarship.

[Mr. G]

The distinction between intellectually-oriented 'insight' practitioners and faith-oriented 'samadhi' practitioners goes back to the earliest sutras.

Hi Anders,

Do you know where I can read more about this? Sutras, books and article recommendations are welcome.

[Jnana]

Nevertheless, I've never actually met ... a self-identifying Tibetan Buddhist who took an interest in anything outside of Tibetan Buddhism except for Indian texts which have relevance to Tibetan Buddhism in some way.

Now you have.

All the best,

Geoff

[Huifeng]

The distinction between intellectually-oriented 'insight' practitioners and faith-oriented 'samadhi' practitioners goes back to the earliest sutras.

Hi Anders,

Do you know where I can read more about this? Sutras, books and article recommendations are welcome.

You can look, for example, in A. III. 85-86. Sekha.
In the analysis of aryas in the Abhidharma Kosa.
It's used throughout the Abhidharma, from the earliest sastras.
The Abhidharmasamuccaya sastra.
Or, in the analysis of yoga chapter in the Samdhinirmocana, etc.

~~ Huifeng

[Mr. G]

The distinction between intellectually-oriented 'insight' practitioners and faith-oriented 'samadhi' practitioners goes back to the earliest sutras.

Hi Anders,

Do you know where I can read more about this? Sutras, books and article recommendations are welcome.

You can look, for example, in A. III. 85-86. Sekha.
In the analysis of aryas in the Abhidharma Kosa.
It's used throughout the Abhidharma, from the earliest sastras.
The Abhidharmasamuccaya sastra.
Or, in the analysis of yoga chapter in the Samdhinirmocana, etc.

~~ Huifeng

Thanks for that info Huifeng