324 karénina kollmar-paulenz
their Chinese antagonists preached a sudden enlightenment, founded
in the teachings of the Chinese Chan school of Buddhism. According
to tradition the contest between the two rival parties took place in the
Byang-chub-sems-bskyed-gling temple, situated at the north side of the
monastic complex of bSam-yas. Tradition has it that the king himself
presided over the debate, an assumption not altogether credible. The
sources, however, differ as to the exact location of the dispute, and
also to its length. Paul Demiéville^37 drew the attention to a Chinese
document from Dunhuang which states that thirty Indian monks and
three Chinese monks were invited to Lhasa. Moreover the sources
from Dunhuang point to Mahyna being sent to various places. The
discussions about the controversial issues were apparently held during
many months, probably a whole year.
The Indian party at the great debate consisted of the Pa ita
Kamalala, who upon the death of ntarakita was invited to Tibet;
the successor of ntarakita as abbot of bSam-yas, Ye-shes-dbang-
po; and several monks from the Tibetan nobility, foremost of the
in uential sBa’ clan. The Chinese side was led by the famous Hva-
shang Mahyna, who was accompanied by a few Chinese monks
and Myang-ting-nge-’dzin. Moreover the Chinese side was supported
by many of the noble ladies at the royal court, notably by one of the
queens, Byang-chub of the ’Bro clan.
This wide-spread support of the Chinese teachings from some of
the most powerful clans at the royal court was probably one of the
strongest arguments for the event. In retrospect it is dif cult to judge
which of the various possible reasons leading to the famous debate
was decisive, but we should not deny the strong political undertones
of the debate.^38
Among Tibetologists there is an ongoing discussion whether the
debate of bSam-yas took place or whether it is an ideological con-
struction of a later time, invented to justify the strong in uence of the
Indian gradualist doctrine on Tibetan monastic Buddhism. Be that as
it may, the historicity of the debate of bSam-yas is not as important
for the construction of Tibetan history as Heilsgeschichte as is its intrinsic
mythical value. The debate of bSam-yas has long since turned into one
of the great founding myths of an essentially Buddhist Tibet.
(^37) Demiéville 1952, p. 25.
(^38) See Richardson 1998c, pp. 203–206.