BUDDHISM IN THE TIBETAN CULTURAL AREA 281However, because the two propagations ofDharma to Tibet had resulted in
two distinct camps of thought, partisan concerns occasionally eclipsed the his-
torians' concern for factual truth. As a result, they came to focus on a handful
of specific incidents that they polemicized to the point where it is virtually
impossible to determine what actually transpired during the events in ques-
tion. The histories written during this period, however, provide excellent
source material for studying the issues that were uppermost in the historians'
own minds.
One prime example of this partisan historiography was the controversy
that developed over the correct record of the Great Debate held at Sam-ye in
790-92 on the issue of sudden versus gradual Awakening (see Section 11.2.2).
The crux of the debate-if in fact the debate did occur-was not so much
over the sudden or gradual nature of Awakening as it was over how necessary
morality and analytical insight were in bringing Awakening about. This was a
primary point of disagreement between the two major camps: the old schools,
following their practice of Dzogchen, maintaining that simply stilling the
processes of thought is enough to realize Awakening; the newer schools, fol-
lowing their monastic Madhyamika teachings, maintaining that morality and
analytical insight were indispensable components of the Path. Thus the two
camps focused on what support they could find for their positions in King
Trhisong Detsen's handling of the case. It is interesting to note how, in the
course of the controversy, the battle lines were redrawn, with the Kagyii school
and its practice of Siitra Mahamudra finding itself aligned with the Nyingmas.
This realignment was to last up through modern times.
The controversy began with Kunga Gyalts'en (Kund-dga' rGyal-mtshan;
1182-1251), leader of the Sakyan school, who is one of the few figures inTi-
betan history to be remembered primarily by his Sanskrit name, Sakya PaJ:?.-
<:fita. Sakya PaJ:?.<:fita depicted the Chinese side of the Great Debate as being
identical with the Siitra Mahamudra and "Chinese" Dzogchen methods of
meditation that were being propagated during his time. According to him,
Trhisong Detsen clearly repudiated the Chinese position, forbidding that it
ever be taught in Tibet again. This, he said, was proof that Siitra Mahamudra
and Chinese Dzogchen were invalid as well.
To counter Sakya PaJ:?.<:fita's attack, the Nyingmas produced their own in-
terpretation of Trhisong Detsen's reign, in which the king's daughter, Yeshe
Tsogyel (Ye-shes mTsho-rgyal), became Padmasambhava's primary consort,
and the king himself became a trained Dzogchen adept. In addition, the
twelfth-century Nyingma historian Nyang Nyi-ma 'od-zer provided an alter-
native version of the outcome of the debate, in which Trhisong Detsen de-
creed that the gradual and sudden approaches to Awakening were essentially
the same, the gradual mode being generally preferable simply because it was
better suited for people of ordinary talents, whereas the sudden method was
better for those with extraordinary talents. Thus, according to this account,
both sides emerged victorious from the debate.
Buton (Bu-ston; 1290-1364), a monk belonging to an independent branch
of the Kadams, later reasserted Sakya PaJ:?.<:fita's position in his definitive history
of Buddhism (Strong EB, sec. 7.3), and this was to become the position