The philosophical issue at stake was how enlighten-
ment should be attained—immediately or after a pe-
riod of extensive training. Thus, according to the
famous history (Chos ’byung) composed by BU STON
(BU TÖN) rin chen grub (1290–1364), Moheyan opened
the debate by explaining that just as clouds, be they
white or black, obscure the sky, so do all activities, be
they virtuous or nonvirtuous, perpetuate REBIRTHin
SAMSARA. Therefore, he concluded, the cessation of all
mental activity leads immediately to the highest liber-
ation. Kamalas ́la responded to this philosophical qui-
etism by explaining the stages of analytic meditation.
He stressed that even nonconceptual wisdom results
from a specific process of gradual analysis. Moheyan
was soundly defeated, and some of his disciples were
so humiliated that they committed suicide.
Bu ston’s account, which is largely representative of
the normative Tibetan historical tradition, is clearly a
biased one. He frames his narrative with a prophecy
made by S ́antaraksita, the Indian master who helped
to establish Bsam yas and ordained the first nine Bud-
dhist monks in Tibet. Here, shortly before his death,
S ́antaraksita predicts a controversy between two Bud-
dhist groups and instructs that his disciple, Kamalas ́la
of Nalanda, should be summoned to resolve the dis-
pute. Bu ston’s account then closes with a story vilify-
ing Moheyan, in which the Chinese master sends some
“Chinese butchers” to murder Kamalas ́la by squeez-
ing his kidneys.
This Tibetan version of events has been complicated
by the discovery of a Chinese work titled the Dunwu
dasheng zhengli jue(Verification of the Greater Vehicle
of Sudden Awakening). The text was unearthed from
the caves at DUNHUANG, a region once frequented by
Moheyan. A translation was first published by Paul
Demiéville in his 1952 article, Le concile de Lhasa.The
Chinese work purports to be a word-for-word record
of the debate written by Wangxi, a direct disciple of
Moheyan. Its version of events differs radically from
those of the various Tibetan sources; in this version,
Moheyan wins the debate. This discovery has led some
scholars to doubt the very existence of the debate, sug-
gesting that instead it should be viewed as indicative
of an ongoing controversy through a series of only in-
direct encounters between Chinese and Indian factions
at the Tibetan royal court. That said, it remains that
all available sources agree that a debate of some kind
did take place.
It is unclear whether Kamalas ́la knew about the
Chinese text when, apparently at the Tibetan king’s re-
quest, he composed his three famous treatises sum-
marizing the debate’s central themes, each called a
Bhavanakrama(Stages of Meditation). The Indian and
Chinese works address many of the same topics, but
part ways on a number of important points. The Chi-
nese work, for example, gives considerable attention
to the doctrine of TATHAGATAGARBHA (buddha-
nature), while Kamalas ́la does not even mention
it. Similarly, the Chinese work remains silent on a
number of issues that are crucial to Kamalas ́la’s
argument—the need to develop compassion and the
stages of meditation are two examples. Both texts, it
seems, reflect their authors’ concerns with develop-
ments in their own countries more than with each
other. It is unclear whether all three of Kamalas ́la’s
works were composed in Tibet.Indeed, the teachings of Moheyan should be un-
derstood within the context of eighth-century Chinese
Chan, itself a milieu of highly charged polemics. Ac-
cording to other Dunhuang documents, Moheyan be-
longed to the lineage of the Northern school of Chan.
This school had already come under attack earlier in
the eighth century by Shenhui (684–758) of the so-
called Southern school, and its lineage continued to be
contested from many sides throughout Moheyan’s life-
time. Such a polarizing environment certainly would
have influenced Moheyan, and the fragments of his
teachings found at Dunhuang support the common
view of him as extreme in his advocacy of immediate
enlightenment.In addition to its doctrinal ramifications, the Bsam
yas Debate certainly had a strong political compo-
nent. The nature of these more political concerns can
be detected in yet another work that discusses the de-
bate. The Sba bzhed(Testimony of Ba) is an early Ti-
betan account of the relevant period, purportedly
written by a minister to Khri srong lde btsan. Several
editions of the work exist, and all agree that the In-
dian side won. A close reading of the various Sba
bzhededitions suggests that a central issue driving the
debate may have been the Tibetan court’s adoption
of the Indian Buddhist cosmological framework. This
framework, with its “lawlike operation of karma,”
may have offered eighth-century Tibetans an attrac-
tive foundation for political governance. According
to this reading, it was the antinomian aspect of the
popular Chinese teachings that threatened the new
political order.All such interpretations of the Bsam yas Debate re-
main, however, just that—interpretations. All we canBSAM YASDEBATE