The Great Council of Lhasa
(By Tsem Rinpoche)
The Council of Lhasa, also known as the Great Debate at Samye, was a famous debate, between the Chinese Buddhist monk Moheyan and the Indian Buddhist master Kamalashila, held in Tibet around 792 CE. Initiated by King Trisong Detsen (742-797 CE), considered to be an emanation of Manjushri, the debate is said to have spanned a two year period. In essence the debate was between the Chinese and Indian Buddhist traditions as they were transmitted to Tibet. The master who won the debate would be endorsed by the Emperor, and the tradition the master belonged to would be able to take firm root in Tibet.
King Songtsen Gampo (centre) and his wives Princess Brikuti (left) and Princess Wencheng (right)
Three Dharma King
King Songtsen Gampo
King Songtsen Gampo was the first of the three Dharma Kings of Tibet. He introduced Buddhism to Tibet in the 7th century. He unified several smaller Tibetan kingdoms, and sent his minister Thonmi Sambhota to India in order to learn Sanskrit and create a written form of the Tibetan language in order to translated various Buddhist texts.
King Trisong Detsen
King Trisong Detsen, who hosted the Council of Lhasa debate.
King Trisong Detsen ruled Tibet from 755 CE until 797 CE. He was the second of the Three Dharma Kings of Tibet and played a crucial role for the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet, by commissioning further Buddhist texts to be translated from Sanskrit into Tibetan.
He invited many great Indian masters to Tibet such as the tantric adept Padmasambhava, also known as Guru Rinpoche; the master and abbot of Nalanda monastic university in India, Santarakshita, who would establish the monastic order in Tibet; and the eminent scholar Kamalasila. It was through the efforts of the Kings and these masters that the oldest school of Tibetan Buddhism, the Nyingma, came into existence.
King Trisong Detsen hosted the Council of Lhasa in order to conclude which tradition of Buddhism be allowed to take root in Tibet. He is also associated with the construction of the Boudhanath stupa in the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal.
Tri Ralpachen
The third great Dharma King was Tri Ralpachen, who reigned between 815 CE and 838 CE. Under Ralpachen’s reign the Tibetan Empire reached its zenith, spreading to parts of China, India, Nepal and almost the entire of East Turkestan, also known as Xinjiang. He promoted Buddhism throughout Tibet and also commission even further translation of Buddhist texts into the Tibetan language.
Samye Monastery in Tibet. This was the first Buddhist monastic institution in Tibet, established by the great Santarakshita.
Samye Monastery
Samye monastery was the first monastery built in Tibet and still exists today. It was constructed between 775-779 CE under the patronage of King Trisong Detsen. It located around 3½ hours bus-ride away from Lhasa, in Dranang, Lhoka Prefecture. The monastery layout mirrors a large mandala, and the main monastic building was inspired by the temple of Odantapuri, an ancient Buddhist university of India, located in Bihar.
The great Indian tantric master Padmasambhava, who was instrumental in the establishment of Buddhism in Tibet through the use of his psychic powers developed through intense Buddhist practice.
After being invited by King Trisong Detsen, the abbot of Nalanda monastic university, Santarakshita, found the site auspicious and began to build. At a certain stage however, the building would collapse again and again. The cause for this was said to be the native local spirits. When Padmasambhava, a contemporary of Santarakshita arrived from north India, he subdued the local Gyalpo spirits, which allowed the construction of the monastery to continue. Padmasambhava accomplished this through the practice of the Vajrakilaya dance and the rite of namkha to clear away obscurations and hindrances. The namkha rite, also known as ‘sky-weaving’ involves the creation of a thread-cross composed of wool or silken threads in colours related to the five elements. The subjugation of the Gyalpo was commemorated by the construction of various Vajrakilaya stupas, located at cardinal points throughout the monastery.
Gyalpo Pehar
Gyalpo Pehar, a powerful deity that was bound to protect Samye monastery by the tantric adept Padmasambhava.
One of the main local deities subdued by Padmasambhava is known as Gyalpo Pehar. Gyalpo means ‘king’ in Tibetan. The other local deities and spirits were also subdued and put under the control of Gyalpo Pehar, who was oath-bound by Padmasambhava to become a Dharma protector. Gyalpo Pehar was then charged with being the main guardian deity of Samye monastery. Later, Gyalpo Pehar’s main minister, Dorje Drakden began to communicate with the Tibetan government and its subjects through the medium of the Nechung Oracle, who became the State Oracle of Tibet, in order to give advice regarding the country’s governance.
Cham Dance
The Cham Dance originally developed to recount the story of Padmasambhava subduing Gyalpo Pehar and other native spirit beings.
A tradition arose in Tibet to commemorate and retell the story of the Council of Lhasa and the subjugation of the Gyalpo Pehar. It is performed yearly to this date at the Kumbum monastery in Qinghai. It is considered a sort of meditation and also an offering to the gods. These Cham dances are also performed during the Monlam Prayer Festival in Tibet as well as in India, Sikkim, Dharamsala and Ladakh.
The Great Debate
The great Indian scholar and Vajrayana master Kamalashila.
King Trisong Detsen aimed to revitalize Tibetan Buddhism, and as such held a debate between Moheyan and Kamalashila. He had suspected that Moheyan, also known as Hoshang, a Mahayana monk from the Chinese Chan tradition was not teaching the genuine Dharma. Therefore, he arranged a debate with Kamalashila, a scholar-pandit from India. Kamalashila travelled to Tibet from India in order to debate according to the Vajrayana teachings.
The debate centered around the attainment enlightenment, also called ‘Bodhi’. It was either attained through activity, as proposed by Kamalashila or if it was attained spontaneously without activity, as proposed by Moheyan. Moheyan represented the Easy Mountain Teachings, also known as the ‘Northern School’ Chan tradition of China. At the time of the teaching is Tibet Moheyan was already actively teaching and had many disciples. His teachings propounded a nihilistic view that did not follow the teachings as set out in the sutras.
Quotes from: ‘Chapter 18 – “Gradual” and “Sudden” in the Lhasa Debate’, Wisdom in China and the West by Simon Man Ho Wong.
Moheyan declared:
(1) One cannot become a Buddha by practicing good acts and speeches; and (2) “the only way is to become a Buddha is by no-thought and no-examination.”
On the other hand, Kamalashila promoted teachings based on the sutras upon Nagarjuna’s teachings as well as the ten rules of behavior of Buddhist ethics, the Mahayana Sutras, and the six Paramitas.
“The reason of Kamalashila’s disagreement is that if one engages oneself in a state of “no-thought” at all, he or she will not practice right discrimination (or correct examination), which is the prerequisite for obtaining the “supramundane insight” into the reality of all existences. For him, right discrimination is necessary for all Buddhist practitioners.”
“As for the point of not engaging in virtuous practices, he also has a strong opinion: “When one says, “One should not engage in such virtuous practices as giving, “ he rejects the giving, etc, which constitute the means (upaya), the major portion of the perfections (paramita).
“To be attached to a state of “no-thought” would never enable one to attain insight, whereas refuting virtuous practices would imply the rejection of the means, which is a necessary outcome of the compassion of Bodhisattvas. Because “insight” and “means” are the essential elements of Mahayana Buddhism, the absence of them will produce disastrous effect on the way towards becoming Buddha. This is why Kamalshila describes the teaching ascribed to Mo-ho-yen as poison and rebuts it, and it is seldom evaluated favorably by subsequent Tibetan scholars.”
“Mohoyen argues that not only false thoughts and conceptualizations but all thoughts are illusive. The problem of having illusive thoughts is that one is bound to the cycle of transmigration. This is stated more clearly in the following:
Question: What is so wrong with conceptual thought? Reply: The problem with it is that is carries omniscience away from all living beings, and obscures it. It is also a problem in many other ways, such as being the cause for rebirth in the three evil destines, and for prolonged transmigration. The Vajraccedika also says: “Abandon conceptual thought.”
“Thus no-thought and no-examination are really the central teachings of Mo-ho-yen. He explicitly declares that, as a Chan Buddhist, his belief is that discerning reality is to abandon all forms of speech and conceptualizations of the mind.
As for the rejection of virtuous practices, Mo-ho-yen argues:
The Buddha said: If a Bodhisattva does not practice any conditioned dharma, nor (does he or she) practice any unconditioned dharma, nor any unvirtuous dharma, nor any mundane dharma, nor any supra-mundane dharma, nor any dharma that carries sin, nor any dharma that does not carry sin, nor any impure dharma, nor any pure dharma, nor any causative dharma, nor any non-causative dharma, nor the dharma of nirvana, nor the dharma of seeing, nor the dharma of hearing, nor the dharma of awareness, nor the dharma of knowing, nor the dharma of giving, nor the dharma of indifference, nor the dharma of discipline… (He or she does) not practice patience, nor goodness, nor dharma, nor willpower, nor meditation, nor Samadhi, nor wisdom, nor practice, nor knowing, nor attainment. If a Bodhisattva practices in this way, the Buddhas will predict (the future of him or her becoming a Buddha.).”
“Kamalashila said, “Now, here not applying the mind does not mean mere absence of mental application (or activity). Because the mere absence of something, lacking as it does any reality is not fit to be the real cause of anything.” In other words, absence of mental application cannot in itself be the cause for such an absence. Otherwise the process would be circular, therefore logically and practically impossible.
When we speak of the thought process moving spontaneously upon its object, free from any strenuous or purposeful bending of the mind towards its object, we refer only to the highest stage of signlessness. This condition, in the first place, is attained by the development of very specific mental states, which may be described as *non-application of mind” only in the sense that they are antidotes or counteragents to the unwholesome and misdirected fixing of the mind upon mental representations or imprints of the own-being of the aggregates of grasping.”
The Result of Debate
Almost all Tibetan sources state that the King Trisong Detsen decided that Kamalashila was the winner of the debate, however many Chinese sources actually name Moheyan as the victor. In any case, Moheyan was asked to leave Tibet and his teachings were gathered and respectfully disposed of as it was decided only the teachings stemming directly from India would be taught and practiced in Tibet. The Council of Lhasa is an important event in Tibetan history and shaped the practice of Buddhism in Tibet up until today. From this point on Tibetan Buddhism took on the flavour of Indian Buddhism. As a result of this, Tibetan Buddhist practices, texts and commentaries draw their sources from and are entirely shaped by Indian Buddhism. It is due to the great Council of Lhasa that Buddhism in Tibet was established to follow the traditions and practices from the land of its source, India.
For more information:
- The Seventeen Pandits of Nalanda Monastery
- All About Manjushri
- Lam Rim Lineage Surprise!
- Main Assistants of the Dharma King
- Padmasambhava Meets Tsongkhapa
- Puja at Naropa’s Cave, Kathmandu, Nepal
- Fantastic Oracle Film
- 700 Meet a Buddha
- Gaden Sumtseling Monastery
- Vajrayana Meditation Techniques Can Enhance Brain Performance
- Paramita/Parami (Perfections)
Please support us so that we can continue to bring you more Dharma:
If you are in the United States, please note that your offerings and contributions are tax deductible. ~ the tsemrinpoche.com blog team
King Trisong Detsen (740-798) was the second of the Three Dharma Kings of Tibet He played a pivotal role in the introduction of Buddhism to Tibet and the establishment of the Nyingma. He believed to be an emanation of the bodhisattva Manjushri, that built Samye Monastery the first monastery . King Trisong Detsen aimed to revitalize Tibetan Buddhism so much so arranged a debate known as the Council of Lhasa. The Council of Lhasa, at Samye, was a famous debate, between the Chinese Buddhist monk Moheyan and the Indian Buddhist master Kamalashila. It is also known as the Great Debate, this debate lasted for 2 years. An interesting story behind this long and rancorous debate. The Council of Lhasa is an important event in Tibetan history and shaped the practice of Buddhism in Tibet up until today.
Thank You Rinpoche and Pastor Antoinette Kass for this sharing.
Interesting debate points between Kamalashila and Mohoyen. When the Chinese Buddhist monk Moheyan and the Indian Buddhist master Kamalashila debated for a span of two years before King Trisong Detsen decided on which tradition of Buddhism to follow and take root in Tibet, it shows that Buddhism practice is not merely following of what is being written in the Buddhist text or scriptures but most importantly are the accurate understanding of every teaching in Buddhism so that every Buddhism practitioner can practice the Buddhadharma precisely without any wrong views or misconception. Thank you Rinpoche and Pastor Antoinette Kass for compiling and sharing the valuable details about the Great Council of Lhasa in this article.????
Samye Debate, also called Council of Lhasa, in Tibetan Buddhism. Wow ……Its a two-year debate (c. 792–794 CE) between Indian and Chinese Buddhist teachers held at Samye. Samye Monastery was the first Buddhist monastery to be founded in Tibet, built in the 8th century. Its well known for the historic debate that took place between the Indian scholar Kamalashila and the Chinese Master known as Hvashang Mahayana. The debate is certainly presented in religious terms, as a battle between two interpretations of the Buddhist scriptures. The debate was held in order to decide which form of Buddhism would be adopted by the Tibetan royal court under King, Trisong Detsen. The Indian scholar Kamalashila won in the debate and has strongly shaped Tibetans’ understanding of their own religious heritage. Interesting read.
Thank You Rinpoche and Pastor Antoinette Kass for this sharing.
Thank you Rinpoche and Pastor Antoinette Kass for compiling and sharing the valuable details about the Great Council of Lhasa in this article. When the Chinese Buddhist monk Moheyan and the Indian Buddhist master Kamalashila debated for a span of two years before King Trisong Detsen decided on which tradition of Buddhism to follow and take root in Tibet, it shows that Buddhism practice is not merely following of what is being written in the Buddhist text or scriptures but most importantly are the accurate understanding of every teaching in Buddhism so that every Buddhism practitioner can practice the Buddhadharma precisely without any wrong views or misconception. We have the opportunities to learn and practice according to Tibetan Buddhism is mainly because of altruism and great compassion of the Three Dharma Kings, King Songtsen Gampo, King Trisong Detsen and Tri Ralpachen. The Three Dharma Kings have done so much to bring the Buddhism from India to Tibet and continue to strengthen and spread the Buddhism practice so that Buddhism practice will not deteriorate and disappear in our fortunate generation. May Buddhism practice continue to take its root in every corner of the world regardless of different backgrounds or different languages without barrier.
Thank you with folded hands,
kin hoe
Thank you Pastor Antoinette for the extracts from Simon Man’s book. They are a good description of what took place at the great council of Lhasa.
Reading it reminds me of Maitreya Bodhisattva’s Ornament for Clear Realizations, which is one of five treatises revealed to Arya Asanga in the Tushita pure realm by the future Buddha Maitreya.
Maitreya taught or revealed the implicit or hidden meaning of the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, and describes the different meditative stages and awareness required to become a fully awakened Buddha. From what I read and from the point of Pramana or logic, Maitreya taught the Ornament of Clear Realizations from the point of view of Prasangika
Madhyamaka.
Maitreya summarizes the eight clear realizations in two verses:
The Perfection of Wisdom (Sutras)
Are well explained through the eight clear realizations,
The exalted knower of all aspects, the knower of paths,
Then the knower of all (bases),
Completely clear realization of all aspects,
Reaching the peak, gradualism,
Actual complete enlightenment in a single moment,
And the Dharmakaya are the eight aspects.
So according to Maitreya, the instant enlightenment or enlightenment in a single moment is within the path of gradual enlightenment. I suppose that is where Mohoyen got it “wrong” but is actually not totally wrong.
Buddhism was preserved in its entirety within the borders of Tibet, I recall the Dalai Lama said so and the Council of Lhasa was a pivotal moment in the history of buddhism in Tibet. The preservation of Buddhist thoughts and ideals was made possible through was went down at the Council of lhasa.
The Tibetan king at that time was a Buddhist King, who applied buddhist teachings, and invited for a debate to settle and determine which was the best way to follow, for the future of Buddhism in Tibet.
Thank you Pastor for the wonderful and informative article! Anyway, the name of the Chinese monk was never known. Ho Shang, is actually the Chinese term for ‘venerable’ or ‘monk’. Mohoyen is actually the Chinese transliteration for ‘Mahayana’. So Ho Sheng Mohoyen essentially means a Mahayana monk. The principles espoused by Mohoyen is not representative of Tang Buddhism. He is probably an outcast. Masters of Tang China and before already understood Nagarjuna’s Middle View and the Eight Negations of Sunyata. It is interesting to note that while Vajrayana flourished for at least 3-5 generations there, before it was spread to Japan, it is eventually rejected as an orthodox Buddhist practice. Theravada practices such as Vipassana and Anapanasathi on the other hand are much widely cultivated by Chinese Buddhists. Therefore Ho Shang does come from a strange context. Some historians believed that this is an oversimplified incident to justify the defeat of a pro-Tang faction in the Tibetan court. The validity of which, we will never know. But nevertheless, a good example to illustrate how Buddhism can be misunderstood by some minds. 🙂
Sorry, correction, Vajrayana was not rejected. It was more like benignly ignored. Highest Tantra is definitely not found on the Chinese teachings. The others are, but largely only the common mantras are recited. Views towards Vajrayana have been mixed. It is from the late Qing Dynasty onwards that there are strong interests from the people towards Vajrayana, which has been erstwhile kept as a practice for royalty since Ming Dynasty. 🙂 Chinese Buddhists continue to have the highest respect for Master Padmasambhava.
Thank you Lester for your comments and insight. There are no absolutes, just relativity in samsara.
I have the same thought as yours when I first read about this article. Mohoyen and Ho Shang when literally translates mean Mahayana monk.
This Council of Lhasa have indeed held a very significant Dharma debate, a crucial point to either accept those sources from Indian or from Chinese. It has then benefitted and still benefiting generations to come with genuine, pure and unbroken lineage of Dharma sources that stems from the time Buddha Shakyamuni.
This is a very meaningful event in the history of Buddhism. Because of the Great Debate at Samye or more known as The Great Council of Lhasa, the people of Tibet no longer be fooled by the distorted teaching of Moheyan, while the pure and Nagajurna teaching through Kamalashila prevailed. The significance of this event propelled Nagajurna’s middle way to take firm root in Tibet, through Kamalashila, who is considered as the emanation of Buddha Manjushri, instead of Moheyan’s teaching which is nihilistic in nature.
The event also demonstrated how wise the King(s) of Tibet were at that time, not easily fooled by distorted views. They are also very liberal because it was King Trisong Detsen who hold the Great Debate at Samye where the selection of the winner was done in an open, transparent and logical manner. I wish that a debate can be arranged for to address the Dorje Shugden issue in today’s Tibetan society.
Thank You Rinpoche and Pastor Antoinette Kass for this informative article. It is so rich in historical details, hence, for sure I will archive it to be savored in my free(er) time.
Humbly, bowing down,
Stella Cheang
Kamalashila wrote the text entitled “Bhavanakrama” (Stages of
Meditation) in three parts: the initial Stages of Meditation, the intermediate Stages of Meditation, and the last Stages of Meditation. Those who are interested in the study of Buddhist meditation can refer to Professor Giuseppe Tucci’s critical edition of the three Bhavanakramas of Kamalashila. Another important source is H.H. the Dalai Lama who received the teaching transmission on the Stages of Meditation from the Sakya abbot Sangye Tenzin in Bodhgaya. His Holiness said that the great Tsongkhapa quoted from the text at length in the Lamrim Chenmo. In 1989, His Holiness gave a commentary on the intermediate Bhavanakrama in Manali, India. This commentary has been published with the translation of the root text in the book entitled “Stages of Meditation” in 2001. In the Introduction, His Holiness mentioned that “the Chinese Hvashang’s interpretation of the Buddhist view was definitely mistaken” and that “Acharya Kamalashila wrote this text to preempt the advancement of those wrong views”. He also said that “this precious text has a special karmic link with Tibet, the Land of Snows.”
I came across a short write-up on the great debate between Kamalashila and Mo-ho-yen by the famous Italian scholar Giuseppe Tucci in the book, “Perspective of Buddhist Studies” (2002) edited by Pranabananda Jash. This is what he said:
“… a tussle of doctrinal controversy erupted in Tibet when the Chinese monks of the Ch’an (zen) school led by one Mo-ho-yen visited the Buddhist monastery at Samye in Tibet. Tradition avers that Shantarakshita professed of dangers from the Chinese position and left instructions in his will that his student Kamalasila be called from India to counter the Chinese view. The reason for conflict was over the question of the nature of enlightenment. The Indians held that enlightenment takes place as the culmination of a gradual process of purification, the result of combining virtuous action, meditative serenity, and philosophical insight. The Chinese, on the contrary, believed that enlightenment was the intrinsic nature of the mind rather than the goal of a protracted path, such that one need simply to recognize the presence of this innate nature of enlightenment by entering a state of awareness beyond distinctions; all other practices are superfluous. According to both Chinese and Tibetan records, a debate was held between Kamalasila and Mo-ho-yen at Samye in 797 A.D. with King Trisong Detsen himself serving as judge. The Tibetan accounts (contradicted by the Chinese accounts) mention that Kamalasila defeated Mo-ho-yen, and thus he with his party left Tibet. The King ordered that the Madhyamika School of Buddhist Philosophy (to which Santarakshita and Padmasambhava belonged) would be followed in Tibet.”
@Sarah: misrepresented not only in thought but in deed too, if the story of the assassination is true. It is therefore no surprise he lost, if his thinking was such that murder is an appropriate response to losing a debate.
Pastor Antoinette, thank you for the article. To look at Samye Monastery is to travel back in time, since it was inspired by Odantapuri. It’s incredible that the monastery continues to exist hundreds of years later, with an active monastic community. But what really stood out for me in this article was the massive effort, expense, time and energy that was dedicated by these great kings towards the establishment of Buddhism and Dharma practice in Tibet.
The obstacles that these pioneers faced were immense compared to what we face today. They were not just subduing opponents (both physical and supernatural) and debating and converting people, but they were basically establishing a lineage for the future. A lineage that WE TODAY continue to benefit from. Yes, they had to do all of the groundwork from creating a language to translating the texts, to importing the masters to teach, to arranging for the scribes to record everything, to construction, down to even hosting and sponsoring two years’ worth of debates. Then there is us, hundreds of years later, imagining we are doing Dharma work with the little bit that we do. Worse still, some people even act as though they are doing Dharma a favour by being engaged in Dharma work!
That’s what separates the ordinary practitioner from the greats, who can think on such a scale and level beyond their lifetime alone. Certainly these Dharma Kings and the people they sponsored were no ordinary beings.
A: Stop thinking! B: By thinking of stopping thinking, I’m still thinking! Better one step at a time reduce thinking! C: Thinking is okay for there are the two truths!
Kamalashila was a disciple of Shantarakshita. He became famous for winning the great debate against the Chinese monk Ho-shang Mo-ho-yen as well as for composing an important text for the Tibetan people entitled Bhavanakrama (Stages of Meditation). Apparently, this text was written as a response to the erroneous teachings of Ho-shang. It was Bu ston (Buton Rinchen Drub, predecessor of Tulku Drakpa Gyeltsen) who reported that Kamashila and Ho-shang met at the “Council of Lhasa” in which Kamalashila was declared the winner. Subsequently, Kamalashila was killed by some Chinese assassins sent by the defeated Mo-ho-yen. If this was true, then Mo-ho-yen was indeed a monk who misrepresented the Buddha’s teachings by practising a form of Chan that was of no real benefit to people.
Thank you Sarah for your information.
King Trisong Detsen was very wise to invite both the Indian monk Kamalashila and the Chinese Moheyan to debate and decide which school to follow.
If indeed the defeated did ask for Kamalashila’s assassination this shows also the nature of his teachings.
Indeed Kamalashila is known as one of the Seventeen Pandits (learned masters) of Nalanda Monastery whose works have benefited so many people till today.
Pastor Antoinette,
Fortunately, the great beings in those days had the foresight and the wisdom to prevent misinterpretation of the Buddha’s teachings. Kamalashila, in his Bhavanakrama, did mention that he wrote the text at the request of King Trisong Detsen. In my opinion, Mo-ho-yen was not an enlightened being and his views were mistaken. Yet, in the Chinese records, he was declared as the winner! It shows what kind of person he was. On the other hand, Kamalashila was definitely a great master who presented the Buddha’s doctrine in a clear and logical manner.