Lecture No. 0312
Global Lamrim II
Lecture No. 0312
Lamrim Volume 1: P41-LL8 ~ LL
Date: 27 Mar 2022
Topic: Samye Debate – A debate on whether enlightenment is attained gradually through activity, or sudden awakening is attained without any activity – between Kamalasila and Chinese abbot
In the Introduction, [Rinpoche] mentioned “Padmasambhava”, it means Master Lotus-born [or Guru Rinpoche], a very prominent master renowned both in China and Tibet, he was the founding master of the Nyingma sect/school, [established] around the 8th century. [Based on various accounts], some people said he was born spontaneously from a lotus flower, while others said he was born into the royal family, Oddiyana, there are also various accounts from different sects in his biography. From a very young age, Padmasambhava was proficient in [five] major fields and [five] minor fields of knowledge [like poetics, composition, the study of synonyms, drama, and astrology], and mastered astrology. He relied on eight great teachers including Rombuguhya Devachandra* on Dharma learning, etc. and attained Eight Sadhana Teachings. Later he went to a monastery named Dharma Seedling – such a pleasantly nice name for the monastery – and he was ordained in front of the teaching throne holder, Prabhahasti Acharya. [In this monastery] He received four very profound Tantric yoga teachings, and then [Padmasambhava] went to the northern area of Bengal/Bangalore city to specifically practice Tantric training in the Rugged Forest – very likely this forest could be very famous due to his Tantric meditation practice there – and he had special attainment of Vidyadhara with power over life. [01:03]
Thereafter, [Padmasambhava] began travelling all over India and Nepal, subduing non-Buddhists with various supernatural powers, as well as taming vicious demons with mantras, and greatly promulgated Buddha Dharma. The reputation of his eminent good qualities of scriptural and experiential knowledge spread to Tibet, and the Tibetan emperor, Trisong Detsen, invited him, hence he travelled to Tibet. After [he] arrived in Tibet, Padmasambhava tamed/quelled demons, then established monasteries, the most typical representation was the construction of the Samye Gompa (monastery). His kindness of propagating Buddha Dharma spread and pervaded widely in Tibet until this day, which benefited immeasurable [sentient/living] beings. [01:36]
In addition [to Padmasambhava], was another great Pandita, who reorganized Buddhism in the early Dharma dissemination period in Tibet, named “Kamalasila”, also known as Peme Ngang Tsul [in Tibetan], from 740~795 AD. He studied under the guidance of Master Santaraksita and became a great Pandita with the Yogachara-Svatantrika-Madhyamaka sect/school. [He] was also invited by Tibetan King, Trisong Detsen, and came to Tibet. Unlike [Padmasambhava] who subdued the demons, Kamalasila refuted the [erroneous] views spread by the Chinese abbot. Besides, as to the philosophical views, meditation practice, and efficacious stages, the three categories of questions put forth by Trisong Detsen, [he] composed the first, mid, and last chapters entitled the Stages of Meditation, renowned as the prominent Three Stages of Meditation! Later on, [he] also wrote the Illumination of the Middle Way [V3, P. 113], etc. We will study many of his compositions. [02:25]
We may need to have some understanding about the topic of “Chinese abbot”. This Chinese abbot is cited many times in the Lamrim text, in some Chinese documentaries he is also known as Moheyan. In regard to the famous debate between Chinese abbot and Kamalasila, it was known as Samye Debate in Tibet [or Council of Lhasa – a debate on whether enlightenment is attained gradually through activity, or sudden awakening is attained without any activity.] This part of history was recorded in both ancient Chinese and Tibetan scriptures. The Chinese abbot advocated sudden awakening, and emphasized that after attaining the realization of wisdom of emptiness there was no need to apply the expedient means of the six perfections, namely generosity, ethical discipline, etc.; [rather,] what one needed instead was no engagement of any thought or mental activity - that is, the meditation on nothingness would enable [practitioners] to attain Buddhahood. However, Kamalasila considered that this was not what the Buddha taught, [on the contrary], in order to attain Buddhahood, [practitioners] couldn't forsake either wisdom or compassion, what is more, the absence of mentation or having any thought shouldn’t be regarded as equal to meditation of emptiness. As to the differences between the two conceptions, when we study the Vipassana/Insight [section in Lamrim, we] will get to learn more about the discussion in this regard, [also as] to how Je Tsong-kha-pa provided precise logic and careful discernment in determining which [contradicting] views is the correct one, [we] shall study well. [03:27]
Then, with regard to the “Samye Debate”, one account of it from Tibetan source is different from the only account documented in our Chinese documentaries – who won the “Samye Debate” after all? There were two accounts. All relevant records from the Tibetan sources documented that Kamalasila had the final victory of the debate, and the Chinese abbot was defeated, and lost in the debate. Thus Tibetan king ordered him to leave Tibet and his views were prohibited to be spread in Tibet, [the king] further issued the decree that the entire Tibet should abide by the philosophy of Bodhisattva Nagarjuna as the prescriptive principal, anyone who still followed the view of the Chinese abbot would be considered a violation of the order and sentenced to punishment – this sounds pretty serious! However, from the Dun-huang manuscripts excavated in 1900 – “the Reasoning Determining the Mahayana Sudden Enlightenment” - what was documented in the Chinese version of the Samye Debate was just the opposite, it mentioned the Chinese Abbot [Ha-shang] silenced the [Tibetan] opponent who held the gradual realization view in the debate. The issue here is, if back then Chinese abbot actually won the debate, then why was he ordered to leave Tibet and his views were forbidden to spread in Tibet? Hence, between these two accounts, the former is more prevalent. [04:32]
When mentioning of the refutation on the views Moheyan held in many of the Tibetan scriptures, he was addressed as a Chinese abbot. Some people might assume that as long as the monastics are from China, all seem to hold such views, which in fact, these [Tibetan scriptures] explained that this kind of presumption and such way of thinking are actually wrong. As indicated in The Crystal Mirror: An Excellent Exposition That Shows the Sources and Assertions of All Tenet Systems [by Thuken Lobzang Chokyi Nyima]: “The monastics Moheyan, or Mahayana, was the name of his school of which he followed but what [Chinese abbot Ha-shang] held were not exactly the same with the philosophical view of the school. The philosophy of this Mahayana school thinks that although virtuous and non-virtuous karma bring about happiness and suffering respectively, without renunciation and Bodhichitta as the foundation, the wholesome karma can’t be the cause for liberation or omniscience; Ha-shang Moheyan did not discriminate this aspect and considered any discrimination, be it good or bad, was all bondage. Even though the mnemonic chanting of the training of the school also has the citation such as no-engagement, no-contemplation, but these are specifically referring to the state whereby wisdom of emptiness is attained instantaneously. However, Ha-shang Moheyan considered that the practitioners who just started their practice could attain liberation as long as they adhere to the idea of negating any thoughts brought to mind. Thus, [just] because a certain monastic held the mistaken view, [we] should not consider all monastics from the same school were having erroneous views as well.” [05:35]
The school mentioned in this paragraph refers to Zen Buddhism. Although the Chinese abbot Ha-shang was from the Zen lineage, his personal viewpoint could not represent the orthodox view of the Zen Buddhism. However, some people would have mistaken it as the view of the Zen Buddhism, hence in the Anthology on the Common End of Myriad Good Deeds - composed by Zen Master Yongming Yanshou, he also refuted this way of thinking in a question-and-answer format. The orthodox Zen Buddhism view is well [exemplified] by the verse in the Platform Sutra, [composed by the Sixth Patriarch]: “Some monastic quoted from what Zen Master Wolun said: ‘Wo-lun is skillful and can stop all thoughts, while facing arising conditions my awakening is enhanced day by day.’ His teacher heard it and said: ‘This verse reflects that clear realization has yet to be attained, if following it along the only enhancement will be the bondage.’ Because of this the teacher imparted this verse: ‘Hui-neng is not skillful in stopping any thoughts, my mind heaves along with the arising conditions, how could my enlightenment be multiplied.’” [06:45]
The Biography of the Changkya Khutukhtu Teacher of the State also has records that says, “Many monks and monastics from all over the places, undergoing many hardships, came to pay veneration to Teacher Changkya Khutukhtu [1717-1786, known to Chinese as Zhang-jia living Buddha or Zhang-jia Teacher of the State]. Then Zhang-jia living Buddha began to impart the Middle-way view and teachings to the monastics at their request, and among them many attained realization.” And the author of this Biography once asked Zhang-jia Teacher of the State: “So, how are the insight of these monastics?” And the Teacher replied: “In the past, several Panditas who followed Nagarjuna and his disciples travelled from India to China, and there were several Chinese monastics traveling to India as well, prostrating before the great Middleway masters and scholars with deep veneration, and studied under their guidance. It was them who began to slightly promulgate the teaching of the Middle-way in China after they returned to China, though few [successors] could receive the lineage [from their masters] and promulgate the teaching. Also, [Indian teacher] Bodhidharma Acharya came to China, and the philosophical views he based upon [and taught] were widely spread, some people said this master was the [Indian yogi] Dampa Sangye. In short, the views of [Bodhidharma] were in essence the same lineage as the Shiche [Pacification] sect in Tibet, and [even] the philosophical views prevalent now in Chinese Buddhist community are very similar to those of the Yogacara [a.k.a. consciousness-only] school. As for those believers and followers of Ha-shang Moheyan whom once appeared in Tibet, they were actually nowhere to be found nowadays in China [community]. However, some Tibetans who did not understand the truth [and entire matter] would then equate the views of Ha-shang Moheyan as some of the philosophical views of the whole Chinese monastics.” Actually, this is mistaken, and this must be clarified. [08:15]
[I] hope that all of you can contemplate after you have studied this section of teaching, [that is], it is truly not an easy undertaking to transmit and preserve the pure and authentic Buddhism views till today! [Why?] Because it involves great lineage masters [in the past] teaching [the disciples] the pure and authentic [Buddhism of lineage transmission], followed by passing down the pure lineage [by generations of disciples]. If there is [any] damage/breakage in between, then [we] still [rely on] great practitioners with aspiration [to exert their personal efforts to revive the system], starting from giving the [monastic] vows to a bhiksu/monastic, so that it can be continued until the current precious [and pure] lineage of the monastic vows [is still extant]. Hence, after reading this section of teaching discussing about the good qualities of Master [Atisha] which sounds like history, though, [I] hope everyone can truly cherish the flow of pure [Buddha Dharma] passing [to us] now. [08:54]
So, let’s recap [today’s teaching], “The 2nd subtopic: eliminate damage done to the Buddhist system and the three precious trainings”: in general, in the early dissemination stage of [Buddha] Dharma in the Tibetan Snow Land, the glorious Santaraksita Bodhisattva and Padmasambhava – Guru Lotus-born or Guru Rinpoche – collaboratively established the practices of the Buddhist system. However, because the Chinese Abbot did not thoroughly penetrate and understand the essence of the wisdom of emptiness, so the doctrine on the expedient means was denigrated, negating any analytical discernment, which in turn caused the waning of the [sublime] Buddha Dharma. Fortunately, Kamalasila – the Indian teacher Peme Ngang Tsul – refuted such erroneous views in thorough and great detail and ascertained Buddha’s original intent, such kindness and benevolence is indeed deep and profound! [09:34]
【全球广论 II 讲次: 0312】
讲次 | 0312 (2021-03-25 ~ 2021-03-28)
标题 | 莲花戒和支那堪布的渐顿之争
《广论》段落 | P6-LL3 ~ P7-L1 总之雪山聚中前弘圣教……为恩极重。
入门段落 | P138-LL5 ~ P141-LL1 第二、灭除损害梵行及三学者......相当有名的。
备注 | 四家合注《白话校注集》第1册 P143-L6注释④ ~ P146-L4 悲玛桑巴哇......以致于一见就憎恨起来。’”
(更新日期: 2022年3月27日)
在这里边有提到“悲玛桑巴哇”，就是莲花生大师，是在汉、藏都非常有名的祖师，他是宁玛派的开派祖师，约公元 8 世纪。有人说他是从莲花中自然出生的，有人说是邬仗那王种，他的传记上也有各派说法。莲花生大师小的时候就精通大小明处还有占相，他依止达布支等八位上师学法，获得了八种共通成就。后来他又去一个叫法苗寺——这个寺的名字很好听——法苗寺的佛智阿阇黎座前剃度受戒，听闻了四部瑜伽密法的甚深教授，然后前往邦伽罗的巴拿札巴城的北方、名叫邦系的这个森林中专修密行——看来这个森林因为他在里边修密法可能是很著名——获得了殊胜的成就，现证无死金刚身。 01:03
此后就云游印度、尼泊尔各地，以种种神通降伏外道，还有以密咒调伏恶鬼，大弘佛法。他显赫的教证功德的名声传到了西藏，藏王赤松德赞就迎请他，然后赴藏。进入了西藏之后，莲花生大师降魔，然后建寺院，最具代表性的就是兴建了桑耶寺。在藏地广弘佛教的恩泽流传至今，利益了无数的有情。 01:36
还有就是西藏前弘期重整藏地佛教的大班智达，叫“嘎玛拉希拉”，就是莲花戒论师，公元 740 年到 795 年。他是在静命论师的座下学习的，成为瑜伽行中观自续派的大班智达。也是应藏王赤松德赞之邀进入了西藏，他就不是降伏恶鬼呀什么，他是破斥支那堪布所宣传的见解，并且针对赤松德赞所提出的关于见地、修持、果位三大类的问题，著作了《修次第》初、中、后三篇，世称《修次三篇》，是很著名的！然后又有《中观光明论》等著作。我们会学到他的很多著作。02:25
我们可能要稍稍了解一下关于“支那堪布”的这个问题。支那堪布在《广论》上出现过很多次，在汉文的某些记载中也称为摩诃衍那。关于支那堪布和莲花戒论师的著名的辩论，西藏史上称为“顿渐之争”。这段历史，无论从汉地典籍还是藏地典籍中都有记载。支那堪布主张顿悟，强调证悟空性之后，不需要修习布施、持戒等方便分，只要全不作意——就是观修空性，依此就能成佛。可是莲花戒论师会认为这不是佛陀的主张，想要成佛，不可偏废智慧、方便任何一分，更不能认为全不作意就是观修空性。关于其中见解的差异，我们在学习毗钵舍那的时候，就会学到很多这方面的讨论，宗大师对于怎么样的见解是正确的有非常仔细地抉择，就可以好好学。03:27
然后这里边有一个西藏的记载，和我们汉地仅有的文献有不一样的地方——关于“顿渐之争”到底谁胜谁负呢？有两种说法。藏地的相关典籍都记载说莲花戒论师在辩论中最后获得了胜利，支那堪布就负败，失败了。所以藏王令他离开了藏地，并禁止他的见解在西藏传播，还通令全藏从此要以龙猛菩萨的见解为宗规，如果再依照那个支那堪布的见解，就依法治罪——看起来很严重！但是在 1900 年在敦煌藏经洞出土的汉文写卷《大乘顿悟正理决》中的记载刚好是反的，提到了支那和尚在辩论中将渐悟派辩得哑口无言。这里边有个问题就是，如果支那堪布当时真的大获全胜的话，那为什么会要他离开西藏，并禁止他的见解在西藏流传呢？所以这两种说法，前者比较普遍。04:32
还有许多藏地的论典在破斥摩诃衍那的见解的时候，都称他为支那堪布。有一些人可能会认为好像只要是支那的僧人就是这种见解，其实在这里边说这种说法和想法实际上是错误的。在《土观宗派源流》中说：“和尚摩诃衍那他是宗门，但他的主张与宗门的见解不尽相同。宗门认为不被出离心、菩提心所摄的善及不善业，虽然会分别感生快乐和苦果，但都不能成为解脱及一切智的因；和尚摩诃衍那他没有在这个地方作区别，认为好坏两种分别都是系缚。修习宗门见解的口诀中，虽然也有不作、不思的这些语录，但是这特指现证空性的境界；摩诃衍那却认为初业行者只要不作意就能解脱。所以不能因为一个和尚的说法有误，就认为所有和尚的见解都错了。” 05:35
这段文所说的宗门，就是指禅宗。支那和尚虽是禅宗的和尚，但他的见解并不能代表正统的禅宗的见解。不过，有一些人会误解为这是禅宗的见解，永明延寿禅师所著的《万善同归集》中，也以问答的方式破斥了这种说法。正统的禅宗的见解，像在《六祖坛经》中曾有这样的偈子，说：“有僧举卧轮禅师偈曰：‘卧轮有伎俩，能断百思想，对境心不起，菩提日日长。’师闻之，曰：‘此偈未明心地，若依而行之，是加系缚。’因示一偈曰：‘惠能没伎俩，不断百思想，对境心数起，菩提作么长。’”06:45
在《章嘉国师若比多杰传》中也有记载，说：“各地有不少学法的和尚、出家人历经艰辛来到了章嘉国师面前顶礼他，然后章嘉活佛按照法师们的希求，就开始传授中观的见地，其中有不少人得到了证悟。”然后这个笔者曾经问章嘉国师说：“那和尚们的见地如何呢？”然后他就回答说：“从前，跟随龙树师徒的几名班智达从印度来到了汉地，而汉地的几个和尚也去过印度，顶礼在中观派的学者大德的足下。正是他们使中观的见地在回到汉地之后在汉地开始略有弘传，但是继承和发扬的不多。还有达摩祖师阿阇黎来到了汉地，他讲说见地的安立广为流传，有些人说这位大师就是帕丹巴桑杰。总而言之，这种观点的本质同西藏希解派的观点是一脉相承的，现在汉地普遍盛行的见地和唯识派的观点也是极其相似的。曾经在西藏出现过的这个和尚摩诃衍那的信奉者，其实现在在汉地连一个都没有了。但是有一些西藏人不明真相，就会把支那和尚摩诃衍那的观点就等同为汉僧的一些观点。”其实这是错误的，这个一定要厘清楚。 08:15
希望大家学了这一段之后想一下，佛教把清净的见地流传至今是非常不容易的，因为它包括要祖师清净地讲说，后面要清净地传承；如果中间被破坏了的话，还要有大德发心，从给一个比丘授戒开始，一直延续到现在珍贵的比丘戒体的传承。所以，读了像是历史但是在讲述尊者的功德的这一段，希望大家能够好好珍惜流传到现在的这个清净的法流。 08:54
那么总集一下，这个“第二科、灭除对梵行以及戒定慧三学的损害”：总体而言，在雪域西藏的圣教前弘期，亲教师吉祥静命菩萨以及悲玛桑巴哇——莲花生大师共同建立了圣教的轨理，但是由于支那堪布对空性并没作透彻地理解，所以毁谤了方便分，反对任何作意思惟，以致圣教衰微。所幸的是嘎玛拉希拉——就是莲花戒大阿阇黎，详尽地驳斥了这种恶见，并且抉择佛陀的本怀，恩德至为深重！09:34