The Debate Between Indian and Chan Buddhism

The Tibetans were well aware of the late seventh-century CE split in Chan between Northern and Southern schools. The controversy within Chan concerned which conditions lead to instant enlightenment. Northern Chan said it came through practice, such as abandoning the defilement of conceptual thought and thus seeing the original purity of the mind. Southern Chan replied that if enlightenment were conditioned by any practice, it could not be sudden. It taught not to have any thought at all, rather than trying to detach oneself from the thinking process. This was based on the belief in natural knowledge as the basic pure state of the mind.

When Northern Chan masters criticized Southern Chan, they were particularly concerned about the Mazu school, which taught that the ordinary mind is the Buddha. The Northern masters took this statement literally. They then pointed out the danger in following the ordinary mind, because it could lead to blind activity devoid of original knowledge. Several centuries later, the Tibetan Karma Kagyu school began to use the term “ordinary mind” in its mahamudra (“great seal”) teachings. It refers to the pure nature of the mind itself as mere clarity and awareness.

It is uncertain whether the Karma Kagyu school adopted the term “ordinary mind” from Chan, whether Southern Chan understood it in the Karma Kagyu manner, and whether there might have been some Karma Kagyu followers who took the term literally as the Mazu school is purported to have done. Although the Mazu school was unknown in Tibet, its terminology was not limited to this sect. For instance, it advocated being “vivid and alive” and “utterly free” in one’s ordinary life. This type of language and mode of conduct was adopted by the Chinese Linji school and transmitted to Japan with Rinzai Zen.

With terms such as “ordinary mind,” there is always the danger that people will take them literally even when there is a deeper meaning. And even if people do not take such terms at face value, critics will be quick to point out the possible mistake. Such a style of criticism seems to be the Indian position in the Samye debate.

Tibet had knowledge of Chan Buddhism from several sources besides the Chinese presence at Samye. One was through Dunhuang and the other through Sichuan. Ba Sangshi, who had inspired young King Tri Songdetsen to return to Buddhism, had met the Korean Chan master Jin Heshang (684–762) in Sichuan in 755 on his way back to Tibet from China. He also knew of the radical Baotang school of the Korean’s successor, Wuzhu (714–774).

Jin Heshang represented a Southern Chan school. He taught the three higher trainings: higher ethical self-discipline entails no deliberate mindfulness, higher concentration entails no thought, and higher discriminating awareness or wisdom entails no forgetting. His presentation was based on the notion of natural knowledge. One need not be deliberately mindful of this wisdom; it is always there. One need only have no artificial thought, and by not forgetting that one has this innate knowledge, it will shine forth.

Jin Heshang’s follower, though not an actual disciple, Baotang Wuzhu, reduced the three higher trainings to simply no thought. He interpreted this literally as meaning to make no discriminations. Wuzhu founded the radical Baotang school, which became a mass movement in Sichuan. He conducted wide-scale public conversions, simply shaving people’s heads and giving them robes. He then let them do whatever they liked, with no vows, no meditational practices, no rituals, no texts and no images.

Northern Chan masters criticized Wuzhu for advocating extinguishing all knowledge and feeling. They said Wuzhu taught that all thoughts, both good and bad, are delusions. As a consequence, his followers do not discriminate between right and wrong conduct and thus go to excesses. Even the Chinese Emperor Dezong received reports of the misdeeds of the followers of this sect and called for its purge. Although Dezong sent more conventional Chan teachers to Tibet, the main impression of Chan that the Tibetans seemed to have had was of this Baotang school of Wuzhu.

All of these developments within Chinese Chan that were known to the Tibetans were prior to the arising of the Linji and Caodong schools that were transmitted later to Japan as Rinzai and Soto Zen. Northern Chan, the Baotang school of Southern Chan and the lineage of Jin Heshang did not survive the 845 CE suppression of Buddhism in China.

Many Indian and Chinese masters were present at Samye. In fact, there appears to have been more Chinese than Indians there at that time. Between 792 and 794 CE, these masters conducted a long series of debates that decided that Tibet would adopt the Indian form of Buddhism. Similar debates were held concerning medicine. The Indian Buddhist medical tradition likewise triumphed over the Chinese. In both the fields of Buddhism and medicine, however, certain influences from the Chinese traditions remained after the victors of the debate were decided. This was more pronounced in the medical area than in the religious.

The Indian side of the Buddhist debate was represented by Kamalashila, who was invited from India as per Shantarakshita’s advice. The main Chinese proponent was Hoshang Mahayana, who came from Dunhuang, now controlled by Tibet. “Hoshang” is the Chinese term for monk. Kamalashila was a master debater from Nalanda Monastic University. A Manuel for Engaging in Logic (Nyayapravesha) had been translated from Sanskrit into Chinese by Xuanzang in the seventh century CE. Although it was studied in the Faxiang school of  Chinese Yogachara, Chinese Chan did not have a developed tradition of debate and logic. At most, it used enigmatic statements to induce insights, in the manner of the pure conversations of Mystery Studies tradition that existed in China. Thus, Hoshang Mahayana was not trained in debate. Furthermore, although Hoshang Mahayana was from the Northern Chan school, he was obliged to argue the Southern Chan position of sudden enlightenment, with which he was not thoroughly familiar. The Indian naturally won the debate.

Another complication in the exchange must have been the language. Not having a common tongue, the Indian and Chinese participants could very easily have misunderstood each other. Chinese terms such as “no thought, no mind” were taken literally by the Indians, whereas similar Sanskrit terms were understood by the Indians to mean “not taking to mind in a wrong manner.”

Both sides accepted Buddha-nature and the need for attaining a non-conceptual absorbed concentration. Kamalashila argued, however, that although one might accurately see conventional reality by becoming totally non-conceptual, this is not equivalent to seeing the deepest fact of reality. All things are devoid of true, unimputed existence and exist as this or that dependent on the mind. This view of voidness is far deeper than what can be seen by merely being non-conceptual. When the Prajnaparamita Sutras speak of meditating non-conceptually, without being aimed, Kamalashila explained this means not to be aimed at anything as existing unimputedly, in a fantasized manner.

Kamalashila also deplored non-action and not differentiating between constructive and destructive deeds. This laissez-faire attitude undermines the workings of cause and effect. One must build up stores of positive force (merit) and deep awareness in order to achieve enlightenment as the result.

Having lost the debate and been humiliated, Hoshang Mahayana was forced to retreat to Dunhuang. The Chinese were not gracious losers. They claimed they had won and sent four Chinese thugs who murdered Kamalashila. According to popular Tibetan accounts, Hoshang Mahayana was compelled to leave Tibet so quickly, he left behind one of his shoes. This was a sign that some of his ideas would later infect the Tibetans.

Several factors, then, seem to have played a role in Tibet’s choosing Indian over Chinese Buddhism. One was the superior Indian logic. Another was undoubtedly Sino-Tibetan political hostility. A third factor was the excesses of the Baotang school in Sichuan. If Tibet were to adopt Chan, socially disruptive sects like Baotang might arise in Tibet, threatening the political stability of the growing empire. King Tri Songdetsen’s father had been assassinated for his pro-Chinese Buddhist leanings by nationalistic ministers sympathetic to Bon. With this clear example, the Tibetan king would certainly have wanted to avoid a possible repeat of this extreme reaction.

With India far less of a military threat than China, it made more sense for the king to favor the adoption of Indian culture to further unify his domain. Khotan had been conquered and was ruled by the Tibetans. It would not have been very glorified to adopt its form of Buddhism. Besides, Khotanese Buddhism was very closely modeled after its source in India. The only problem with Indian Buddhism was the possible misinterpretation of tantra. But the Religious Council sanctioned by the king was already restricting the types of tantric texts that could be translated.

Some Japanese scholars say that Hoshang Mahayana represented a Tibetan Chan school that was superficially like Chinese Northern Chan, but borrowed much from Southern Chan, particularly the Baotang sect. Some Western scholars assert that Hoshang Mahayana was not even Kamalashila’s opponent in the debate. Rather, Kamalashila was arguing against the position taken by another Indian participant, Vimalamitra.

It is very difficult to unravel the complexities of the debate. The Indian and subsequently Tibetan style of debate is to argue against absurd logical conclusions that could follow from certain assertions. This is done as a warning not to fall into possible extremes. The opponents do not necessarily advocate the extreme position that is being attacked.

What is clear is that although Tibetan Chan might have disappeared in Central Tibet, it continued to flourish in the Tibetan-controlled territory of Dunhuang after the Samye debate. The Chinese monk Facheng (755–849), known to the Tibetans as Chodrub, taught the Tibetans living there. He translated many Chan and other Buddhist texts from Chinese into Tibetan. He also translated six texts from Tibetan into Chinese, including the Prophecy of Khotan and a work by an Indian master on the bodhisattva vows. These were never included in the Chinese Buddhist canon.

Several Chinese translations of texts that were no longer extant in Sanskrit, however, were later included in the Tibetan canon. The most famous example is the Avatamsaka Sutra, the fundamental text of the Chinese Huayan school.

Dunhuang was not affected by the persecution and repression of Buddhism that occurred in Tibet between 836 and 842 and in China in 845. After the Tibetans withdrew their control between 848 and 851, Dunhuang continued to be a haven for Buddhist activity for at least fifty years. Several Chan works were composed by Tibetans at this time, and Chan texts were translated from Chinese into Uighur and Tangut as well.

The actual form Tibetan Chan took is not very clear. Unlike the Chinese and, later, the Japanese schools, it did not stress the physical posture used in meditation. It argued the danger of becoming attached to one’s body as a result of too much emphasis on the posture.

The dzogchen (“great completeness”) teachings were introduced into Tibet by Padmasambhava during the late eighth century. They were also present in Bon, but it is difficult to know which tradition was earlier, the Buddhist or Bon, and who influenced whom. For the moment, let us restrict the discussion to Buddhist dzogchen.

Due to hostility from the Tibetan ministers, Padmasambhava was unable to transmit the full dzogchen teachings. He hid some texts in anticipation of future, more conducive times and returned to India before the completion of construction at Samye. He also hid texts relating to other tantric teachings.

King Tri Songdetsen subsequently sent Vairochana to India to seek further scriptural material. Vairochana was one of the seven original Tibetan monks ordained by Shantarakshita. Vairochana continued the transmission of dzogchen and recommended that Vimalamitra, another great Indian dzogchen master, be invited to Tibet. Vimalamitra subsequently made the long journey and also participated in the Samye debate.

Although there are certain similarities between dzogchen and Chan teachings, there are major differences. This is apparent from the post-repression texts of the mid-ninth-century Tibetan dzogchen master Nubchen Sangye Yeshe. He speaks of four graded stages of practice:

• The gradual approach of Kamalashila
• The instant approach of Chan
• The mahayoga class of tantra practice
• Dzogchen.

His use of the transliterated Chinese words for the gradual and instant approaches clearly demonstrates the Chinese origin of the distinction between the first two stages. Mahayoga is that aspect of the highest class of tantra that emphasizes visualization practice. It was introduced to Tibet by Padmasambhava and Vimalamitra.

Both Chan’s instant approach and dzogchen advocate meditation in a non-conceptual state. Both emphasize Buddha-nature and that all qualities, such as compassion and wisdom, are complete within. But dzogchen is a highest tantra practice, whereas Chan is exclusively on the sutra level. Dzogchen presumes previous mahayoga practice with the visualization of oneself as a Buddha-figure in order to bring about one’s attainment of the Form Bodies of a Buddha. Chan has no such basis.

Dzogchen aims to realize one’s “pure awareness,” or rigpa in Tibetan, which is the subtlest level of consciousness, devoid of all obscurations. This subtlest level is the exclusive domain of the highest classes of tantra. Chan does not discuss it. Dzogchen refers to this level with names of Buddha-figures, such as Samantabhadra, a feature totally absent in Chan. Furthermore, not only are compassion and wisdom complete within this pure awareness, equivalent in later dzogchen to Buddha-nature, but also complete are the physical features of the appearance bodies of a Buddha. They are present as the “play” or reflex of this level of mind. Chan does not speak about the attainment of the physical bodies of a Buddha in this manner. Later dzogchen speaks of the presence of a tiny sphere of clear, brilliant light within each person as the basis for this physical aspect of Buddha-nature. Non-conceptual meditations are performed in total darkness to identify this five-colored clear light. Chan has no equivalent concept or practice.

When one has recognized and activated pure awareness through the dzogchen methods of non-conceptual meditation, one sees that all appearances, both pure and impure, are the spontaneous reflex of this mind. Indirectly, one realizes that all appearances arise dependent on the mind, and thus one sees the deepest fact of reality. In this way, dzogchen answers the challenge that non-conceptuality merely allows one to see conventional appearances accurately. Chan, on the other hand, does not speak of pure awareness or any other aspect of the mind as being the foundation of all appearances.

Although Nubchen Sangye Yeshe treats the instant approach of Chan as quite distinct from dzogchen, nevertheless later dzogchen and Kagyu mahamudra masters use the skillful means of adopting some of the Chan terminology for describing their own path. The difference between dzogchen and mahamudra will be discussed in a later chapter. Both these Tibetan teachings, however, speak about two types of practitioners, those for whom everything happens at once and those who follow a gradual path. The terms for these practitioners are the Tibetan translations of the words for the gradual and instant approach. On the advanced stages of highest tantra practice, there are those who need only engage in non-conceptual meditation, and the subtlest level of consciousness will be attained all at once. This will only happen, however, if the meditator has built up the causes for this by previous intensive practice of the gradual path.

Shantarakshita and Kamalashila were adherents of the Yogachara-Svatantrika school of Indian Madhyamaka. Unlike Chittamatra (also called Yogachara and Vijnanavada), Madhyamaka asserts that all phenomena lack true, unimputed existence. Everything exists in relation to what terms and concepts refer to. A clay vessel with a fat belly exists as a jug only in relation to the concept of “jug.” Chittamatra says that only the objects referred to by conceptual thought exist in this manner. Objects of sense perception have true, unimputed existence, although the sight of a vase and the seeing of a vase arise from the same immediate source: the karmic propensity (Tib. bag-chags, Skt. vāsanā) that gives rise to the perception.

Madhyamaka has two divisions: Svatantrika and Prasangika. Svatantrika asserts that although all phenomena lack true, unimputed existence, still there must be some defining characteristic on the side of the object that allows for a correct mental labeling of it. A clay vessel exists as a jug dependent on both the concept of “jug” and the inherent, findable defining characteristic on the side of the clay vessel of its having a fat belly. Prasangika calls such existence with a findable defining characteristic on the side of the object as inherent, findable existence. It asserts that this is a totally fantasized way of existence. Things exist as this or that dependent on mental labeling alone. Upon analysis, one can never find an inherently existing defining characteristic on the side of the object that is the basis for the labeling.

Svatantrika Madhyamaka has two divisions: Sautrantika-Svatantrika and Yogachara-Svatantrika. The Sautrantika division, like Prasangika, asserts that the obtaining causes for the appearance of sense objects are external to the mind. Yogachara-Svatantrika, like Chittamatra, says the obtaining cause for the appearance of a vase is the same karmic propensity as that which causes the sense perception of that appearance. Nobody asserts that the physical world exists only in one’s mind, although its appearance exists only in relation to a mind.

Yogachara-Svatantrika and Chittamatra both assert foundation consciousness (Skt. ālayavijñāna) as the locus for karmic propensities. Sautrantika-Svatantrika and Prasangika deny even the conventional existence of such a mind.

Prasangika did not enter Tibet until the middle of the eleventh century with the translation of Chandrakirti’s Engaging in Madhyamaka (Skt. Madhyamakāvatāra). Some Tibetan scholars would say that it came slightly earlier with the translation of the works of Buddhapalita. Although later dzogchen adopts the Prasangika view with the teachings of pure awareness being “pure from the top” (Tib. ka-dag), early dzogchen was most probably understood within the context of Yogachara-Svatantrika. Some Tibetan scholars would argue, however, that Padmasambhava held the Prasangika view. This is difficult to decide.

Chinese Chan, on the other hand, bases itself scripturally on the Indian Chittamatra texts. Its views on reality, then, are quite at variance with those of Kamalashila and early dzogchen. Chittamatra identifies the locus of Buddha-nature with foundation consciousness. It has true, unimputed existence. Although Buddha-nature was not discussed at the Samye debate, Kamalashila would never accept the true, unimputed existence of Buddha-nature.

Dzogchen uses several terms in common with Yogachara-Svatantrika and Chittamatra, though never with the Chittamatra view of reality. The most prominent term is “foundation of all” (Tib. kun-gzhi, Skt. ālaya). Dzogchen uses it in a tantric sense, not the sutra sense found in Yogachara-Svatantrika and Chittamatra. In dzogchen, the foundation of all refers to pure awareness, the subtlest level of consciousness devoid of all obscurations. It is perfectly clear by nature, perceives all phenomena accurately and is constructive, characterized by bliss. In the sutra systems, foundation consciousness is unclear, perceives objects only inattentively and is a neutral phenomenon unspecified by Buddha as either constructive or destructive.

One must always be careful, then, especially in the Tibetan traditions, to note the definitions of key technical terms. There are many instances where the same term appears in different traditions with totally different implications.

After the Samye debate was decided in 794 CE, the major protagonists soon dispersed. Hoshang Mahayana and the Chinese contingent were banished to Dunhuang. Kamalashila wrote a summary of his position in the three Stages of Meditation (Skt. Bhāvanākrama) texts at the request of King Tri Songdetsen. He was murdered by the Chinese shortly afterwards. The king retired into retreat until his death in 797, and Vairochana was sent into exile in eastern Tibet.

Vairochana had previously been sent by King Tri Songdetsen to India and Oddiyana to bring back more texts. He not only brought sutras and tantras, including the four Buddhist medical tantras, but also gathered more dzogchen teachings. He studied dzogchen with Sri Singha at Vajrasana (Bodh Gaya), who gave him several secret texts. Several other Indian masters had inauspicious dreams and were extremely upset that Sri Singha had divulged these secret teachings. They therefore spread rumors to Tibet that Vairochana had brought back not the authentic dzogchen teachings, but merely magic spells that would harm the Tibetans. As soon as King Tri Songdetsen went into retreat, his ministers banished Vairochana from Samye. Thus, doubt was cast on the dzogchen teachings from an early period.

After the death of King Tri Songdetsen, King Mune Tsenpo ruled from 797 to 800 CE, and then King Tri Desongtsen from 800 to 815 CE. During this period, the Abbasid Arabs were successful in their campaigns against the Tibetans in West Turkistan. The Tibetan ally, the Buddhist king of Kabul, was forced to convert to Islam sometime between 812 and 815 CE. The Buddha statue he sent to Mecca as a symbol of his submission was exhibited in a degrading manner as a heathen idol and melted down for bullion. A Tibetan general was captured and paraded in Baghdad.

It was quite natural that the Tibetans would have been on the defensive that Buddhism not be the cause for further humiliation. They had already rejected Chinese Chan, which would have been associated with the unbridled immoral license of the popular Baotang movement in Sichuan. They were clearly worried about the excesses that were appearing in Indian Buddhist tantra. Some people were mistakenly taking certain passages literally. They were engaging in ordinary sexual union and sacrificing animals as if this were the actual tantric Buddhist practice.

Already during the reign of Tri Songdetsen, the powerful Religious Council had attempted to restrict the tantric texts that were translated into Tibetan. In 814 CE, the Council passed an edict that all tantra translations were forbidden unless specifically authorized by them. There was too much danger of misinterpretation. The Council’s approval was also required for including tantric terminology in the lexicon project being carried out to standardize translation from Sanskrit into Tibetan.

The Mahāvyutpatti lexicon of Sanskrit and Tibetan terms was completed during the rule of King Ralpachen (815–836), who ascended to the throne at the age of ten. More Buddhist scholars and masters were invited from India to work together with Tibetan translators. Not only were terms standardized, but many of the older translations were revised. Because of the conservative, anti-tantra position of the Religious Council, very few tantric terms were included in the word list. Chan terminology was also dismissed. A catalogue was compiled of the Tibetan translations prepared to that date. Most of the tantric and all of the Chan material were excluded. The initial textual transmission from India, however, was completed. The Buddhism of this period and the school that developed from it were later given the name “Nyingma,” the “Old Tradition.”

In 821 CE, a treaty was signed with China and Tibet entered a short period of relative peace. The signing was accompanied with animal sacrifice, indicating there was still some Bon influence at the court. The next year, a peace treaty was signed with the Uyghurs, ending several decades of war.

On the occasion of these treaties, many new Buddhist temples and monasteries were built. King Ralpachen expanded the policy of Tri Songdetsen and assigned seven families to support each Buddhist monk. With the ever-growing influence of the Religious Council and the economic strain of the monasteries, resentment was growing, leading to the next development in the history of Buddhism in Tibet.