Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies 불교학연구 ISSN:1598-0642(Print)

In the late eighth century, during the reign of Tibetan King Khri srong lde brtsan (742-c.800), there was a major debate in the bSam yas Monastery in Tibet. Kamalaśīla (740-c.795), a Mādhyamikan who advocated the “gradual cultivation theory” of Indian Buddhism and Hwashang Mahāyāna/Mahāyan (摩訶衍, fl. second half of 8th century), who advocated the “sudden enlightenment theory” of Chinese Chan Buddhism, engaged in a debate. Later Tibetans referred to this as the bSam yas debate (bSam yas rtsod pa). According to Tibetan historians and thinkers, the debate was won by Kamalaśīla, and Mahāyāna/Mahāyan and his followers admitted defeat and left Tibet. The king then declared the teachings of Indian Buddhism to be the orthodox Dharma, based on the teaching of Nāgārjuna (150-c.250). However, a Chinese manuscript unearthed from Dunhuang, titled Ratification of the True Principle of the Mahāyāna Teaching of Sudden Enlightenment (Dùnwù dàchéng zhènglǐ jué 頓悟大乘正理決) and compiled by Wang Xi (late 8th c.-early 9th c.), gives a detailed description on some aspects of the debate and says that Hwashang Mahāyāna/Mahāyan won the debate. If so, what is the historical truth of the bSam yas debate?
This paper aims to reconsider the discussion of the bSam yas debate, drawing upon the narratives of traditional Tibetan historical writings and prior research on this topic.
First, the debate between Indian Buddhists and Chinese Chan Buddhists in Tibet was mainly about gradual enlightenment and sudden enlightenment. Meanwhile, the discussion within the Abidharma school in India is recognized to be as important as the discussion of whether the clear understanding (abhisamaya) of the four noble truths is gradual or simultaneous in the path of seeing (darśanamārga).
Second, this study points out that the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet was closely linked not only to the influx of a new culture or new thought, but also to the reorganization of political forces.
Third, Kamalaśīla’s criticism of someone (gang zhig)’s opinion in his Gradual Stages of Meditation cannot be limited to Mahāyāna/Mahāyan’s teaching, but rather, Kamalaśīla’s criticism can be linked to the meditative practices and theories mentioned in India’s Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā, Daśabhūmikasūtra, Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, and so forth.
Fourth, Kamalaśīla’s criticism of the Gradual Stages of Meditation and Indian Buddhists’ criticism of the Ratification of the True Principle of the Mahāyāna Teaching of Sudden Enlightenment present some phrases that do not match each other. Based on this, I argue that there is room to reconsider the traditional position that Kamalaśīla is criticizing Mahāyāna/Mahāyan in the Gradual Stages of Meditation.