Page "Tibetan Buddhism" Paragraph 49

Tibetan king Khri srong lde btsan ( 742 – 797 ) invited the Chan master Mo Ho Yen ( 和尚摩訶衍 ) ( whose name consists of the same Chinese characters used to transliterate “ Mahayana ”) ( Tibetan: Hwa shang Mahayana ) to transmit the Dharma at Samye Monastery.

Mo-ho-yen had been disseminating Dharma in the Tun-huang locale, but, according to Tibetan sources, lost an important philosophical debate on the nature of emptiness with the Indian master Kamalaśīla, and the king declared Kamalaśīla's philosophy should form the basis for Tibetan Buddhism.

Kamalaśīla wrote the three Bhāvanākrama texts ( 修習次第三篇 ) after that.

However, a Chinese source found in Dunhuang written by Mo-ho-yen says their side won, and some scholars conclude that the entire episode is fictitious.

Pioneering Buddhologist Giuseppe Tucci speculated that Hwashang's ideas were preserved by the Nyingmapas in the form of dzogchen teachings.

According to A. W. Barber of the University of Calgary, Chan Buddhism was introduced to the Nyingmapa in three principal streams: the teachings of Korean Master Kim, Kim Ho-shang, ( Chin ho shang ) 金和尚 transmitted by Sang Shi in ca.

750 AD ; the lineage of Master Wu Chu ( 無住禪師 ) of the Pao T ' ang School was transmitted within Tibet by Ye-shes Wangpo ; and the teaching from Mo-ho-yen, that were a synthesis of the Northern School of Chan and the Pao T ' ang School.

John Myrdhin Reynolds and Sam van Schaik hold a very different point of view.

Reynolds states " Except for a brief flirtation with Ch ' an in the early days of Buddhism in Tibet in the eighth century, the Tibetans exhibited almost no interest at all in Chinese Buddhism, except for translating a few Sutras from Chinese for which they did not possess Indian originals.

" Schaik emphasises that Chan and Dzogchen are based on two different classes of scripture, Chan being based on sutras, while Dzogchen being based on tantras.

Schaik further states " apparent similarities can be misleading.