Pre-Buddhist Tibet was known at the period of the old kings, and from 7th to 9th century CE Tibet was a mighty empire, whose power spread well beyond Tibet. It was a very warlike culture, where even the society was structured on militaristic principles. On one occasion they even captured Sian, which was then the capital of China.
At that time, they were surrounded by Buddhist countries, but they held out and retained their old Bon ('invokers') and gShen ('sacrificers'). [The use of odd spelling for Tibetan language is due to the practice of very subtle sounds in the old pronunciations - the spelling is often still retained although the subtle sounds have largely been discarded over time - compare the English 'knight'.]
Buddhism first arrived in Tibet in the reign of Song-tsen-gam-po who died in CE 650. It was enhanced by his Chinese wife who brought sacred images and had temples set up. So early Buddhism in Tibet was greatly influenced from China, which had it's own variations. Notably Chan.
In 792-3 the king Trisong Detsen set up what became known as the Great Debate, as he was sceptical that the Chinese version of Buddhism was legitimate. The debate, also known as the Council of Lhasa, was waged on the Chinese side by the Chan monk Moheyan. On the Indian side, representing later Mahayana Indian Buddhism, by Kamalasila, the student of Santarakshita (the 'Bodhisattva Abbot') who had been invited to Tibet to bring Indian Buddhism, and who was instrumental in setting up the first great monastery, Samye (bSam-yas) where the debate took place.
You will know of Santarakshita as the Buddhist monk who found the Tibetans unready for his subtle form of teachings, and thus recommended the inviting of Guru Rin-po-che, Padmasambhava - a yogin-sage skilled in mysticism and magic from Swat valley, who really transformed Tibet into a Buddhist country by defeating the Bon's at their own game.
It is acknowledged that the Indian won the debate, although the Chinese side said otherwise. No doubt political motivations were also involved, but the consequence was that Tibet swung towards Indian Mahayana Buddhism, and destroyed most of the Chinese Chan texts. Nonetheless the Chinese Chan 'sudden-enlightenment' school influence persisted in Tibet, even up to the current day.
The nature of this debate I find most revealing, as it is a perennial issue, even in our modern times. The Chan school that Moheyan came from is called East Mountain Dharma Gate, or "Gazing-at-mind" or "no-thought no-examining". It is a Short Path approach, designed to achieve enlightenment in this life through practices that cause instant realisation.
They eschew any left-hemisphere brain activity. Concentrating on the absolute nature of buddhahood - absolute emptiness and inner silence. The important aspect is not just the absence of all morality and intellectuality, but it’s rejection as harmful. Anything which distracts the mind from it’s pure purpose of enlightenment-in-the-moment is rejected. You can see why they might not have the predisposition to debate successfully, although debate was just as much a part of Chinese as Indian Buddhism.
The Indian Mahayana technique looked to what the Buddha did - he taught. They emphasised the Long Path approach, where enlightenment came after many lifetimes of acquiring spiritual ‘merit’.
What I find critical between these two, is that the Chan method seeks immediate realisation, and as such takes no interest in any social environment what-so-ever. It is a purely personal endeavour, and echoes the old Hinayana Ahrats approach. I should state that the Great Debate was not between Hinayana and Mahayana, although to my mind there are resemblances to this in it.
The Indian Mahayana technique, by its emphasis on developing the person over a long period in a full sense, and by its emphasis on service (Bodhisattva), naturally lends itself to a very socially constructive role. The only problem with it is that it relies on reincarnation to achieve its goal - if that fails to hold true, then the whole technique fails.
The thing which unites both these techniques, is the final goal of samadhi - ultimate personal realisation. They just take different routes to it. But in today’s world, the concept of personal ultimate realisation has been quietly dropped from the lexicon of acceptable goals. The ‘spiritual’ person of today is primarily focused on serving the well-being of other humans. It is the ‘love of humanity’ goal.
The Mahayana Buddhist is in most sympathy with the love-of-humanity theme - the Christ and the Bodhisattva share a lot in common. The Short Path practitioner is looked upon as selfish and deluded. It is symbolic that they lost the Great Debate, and frankly if I had been the king, I would have had to side with the Indian Mahayanas, because they were the only ones who would benefit the people of my country.
This places the Short Path practitioners in a very difficult position - devoid of any ground of acceptance or acknowledgement in the community in which live. They lost the debate long ago - the world has moved on and they are left with their lonely quest. Can’t even talk about it. There exists no socially agreed prerequisites for comprehension of such a purpose.
Furthermore, the aspect of the left-hemisphere of the brain is acknowledged in the Short Path, but only as a tool directly related to the primary goal which is predominately right-hemisphere. The difference is that such a person engages in social service because it assists in their personal goal. The intelligent Social Developer by contrast, sees meditation as useful because it assists in effective social service. The difference is not in actual quantity or quality of service, but in a final attitude - one ultimately cares for her fellowhuman, while the other doesn’t. It just appears that way from the outside.
The distinction has to be seen from the central core. The Short Path practitioner ultimately sits in absolute silence. Not just for a temporary suspension of community, all the better to return with infused vigour. But as a final goal in itself. Absolute emptiness means just that - all constructs of ‘self’ and ‘other’, of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, of meditating or not meditating, of meaning in any shape or form, is absent. The final goal thus for such people, is the total collapse of the world.
There is no direct social benefit from a realisation of the non-existence of society. There is indirect social benefit, from the support and inclusion of one who seeks absolute truth. But that is an argument hard to prosecute these days.
The only question left to ask then, is what is the meaning of the word ‘love’, for a person who has penetrated beyond form?
