I think the study of quantum physics shows that the observer (in this case ‘the historian”) can never be taken out of the equation as an “effect on what is observed”. The very act of observation changes what is observed. Phenomenology once attempted to “bracket out” any bias of what was undertaken for study. I think we now understand that cannot be done. Or do we? Perhaps I have misunderstood what QM posits.

Is a historian to be defined as one who sets out to know ‘what really happened’ — to (mis)quote von Ranke? And is any other motivation, among which ‘relevance to the present’ is always going to be the strongest, likely to lead one away from that knowledge? I would tend to agree with these statements, but I’ve a sneaking feeling this is too simplistic, and idealistic…

At least, a historian must begin by choosing what he or she wants to know more about, and how can these choices be entirely free of his or her predispositions? So I may not be trying to make the investigation of the ‘real’ Moheyan serve the needs of the present, but didn’t those needs inform my choosing this subject to begin with? And what of all the subjects I neglect because I am not predisposed to find out more about them?

“any attempt to understand the past may very well be useful in the present”

I think that is precisely the problem with doing history, and I think many historians would agree. It’s not that we find it useful. It’s that we do find ways to make it useful for present concerns. Which gets in the way of making it actually useful. And which also gets in the way of making our efforts to find out about the past bear truthful fruits. The Ch’an vs. Indian authorities debate in imperial Tibet an excellent case for all that.

Yours,
Dab

Well, the text that has always been considered the great source for the Samye debate is the Testament of Ba (Sba / Rba / Dba’ bzhed). In this account, Moheyan does represent himself, and is opposed by the Indian master Kamalaśīla and one or more members of the Ba clan.

Considering that the Testament of Ba gives, as the title suggests, the point of view of the Ba clan, it is hardly likely to be a disinterested source. Here we have the idea that Moheyan’s meditation technique was to remain without thoughts at all ‘like an egg’.

As for the Bon question, I don’t see any resemblence between the Bon of the 8th/9th century and Chan. As far as we know from the Dunhuang sources, early Bon was very about funeral rites, divination and the cult of the kings. Meditation didn’t feature much, if at all.

Similarities to Dzogchen are there, but before we go jumping to conclusions we should look carefully at what Nub Sangye Yeshe had to say about the similarities and differences between Chan and Dzogchen (briefly touched on by Namkhai Norbu in the book mentioned in the comments to the previous posts). Is the Samye debate the first manifestation of a distinctly Tibetan determination to keep individual teaching lineages separate from each other?

So now I am wondering about the Samye debate and must say I know nothing. Did Moheyan represent himself or was his teaching debated by a student of his? I am wondering if the mischaracterization of his teachings was politically motivated or just misunderstood. Given what exists in the manuscripts it seems quite similiar to what is taught in dzogchen.

Again – my ignorance is abundant – but is it possible that Moheyan’s teaching was too close in content to the Bon teachings as they were understood at the time – and discredited by association? (ie the tibetans did not want to be associated with Bon and therefore the Ch’an teachings – seemingly close in content – were also discredited). It has always seemed natural to me that given the realities of migration and the habits of monks of the time to wander that all of these traditions would intersect at some point – as they have obviously done here. Quite interesting.

Any links elsewhere in your blog are apprecited as well as links elsewhere. This does seem like a pivotal time in buddhist teaching history.