Unveiling the mask of Moheyan : a historical and doctrinal analysis of the Ton mun pa in the bSam yas debate

Abstract

Abstract of thesis entitled

“Unveiling the Mask of Moheyan: A Historical and Doctrinal Analysis of the Ton mun pa in the bSam yas Debate”

Submitted by Luk Man Bun, Ben for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Hong Kong in January, 2020 In the late 8th century, there happened the famous bSam yas debate which saw the conflict between the Ton men pa and Tsen men pa, represented by Moheyan and Kamalaśīla respectively. However, this historical event has been challenged for its existence and the teachings of Moheyan also face the query for its real face. Based upon the authoritative texts of Dunwu dacheng z h e n gli j u e and the d B a’ b z h e d , together with the evidences from the Dunhuang related manuscripts and the research of some noted scholars, we are able to reconstruct the historical actuality of the Debate and unveil the mask of Moheyan’s face. From the Z hengli jue , it is almost confirmed that the doctrinal lineage of Moheyan belonged to the Northern School of Shenxiu, which is criticised by Zongmi as totally taking gradual steps to enlightenment and no sudden awakening. Meanwhile, upon the analysis of some Dunhuang manuscripts, especially Pt 116, Pt 117 and S468, we have arrived at the conclusion that Moheyan did belong to the Northern school, but was mixed up with some ideas of the Southern which is the intellectual trend of the Ch’an teaching in the 8th century. Therefore, it would be one-sided to say that Moheyan belonged to the Northern or the Southern school. On one hand, ontologically, Moheyan maintained the tradition of the Northern school, such as the “Entry by principle”, “One Path Samādhi” etc., but, on the other hand, soteriologically, Moheyan tended to prioritize the sudden approach even though he would never say that the gradual one was unnecessary. That is the exact and full picture of Moheyan’s system. The decision made by the Tsenpo in the Debate was based upon politicoreligious consideration. Actually, both the Ton mun pa and the Tsen men pa aimed at the same destination, the non-conceptualization. What makes them different is the path. However, the ranking of the Ton mun pa and Tsen men pa in the later text bSam gtan mig sgron is entirely different. That the teaching of Ton mun pa was placed in a higher rung than that of the Tsen men pa is based upon the doxographical consideration.