Jayasena’s proof of the authenticity of Mahāyāna, and the discussions in East Asia
by Sigeki Moro
It was one of the big problems among the Mahāyāna Buddhists whether or not Mahāyāna was the teaching of Buddha. We can find some endeavors to prove the authenticity of Mahāyāna in the Yogācāra treatises, such as Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra, Vasubandhu's Vyākhyāyukti, and so on. Chengweishilun 成唯識論 quoted Mahāyāna sutras in order to prove the existence of ālaya-vijñāna, and some Yogācāra treatises to prove the authenticity of these Mahāyān sutras. According
to Chengweishilun-shuji 成唯識論述記 (Commentary of Chengweishilun), Ji 基, the most famous disciple of Xuanzang 玄奘, introduced Mahāyānasaṃgraha’s inference to prove that Mahāyāna was expounded by Buddha and the criticism by Jayasena. On the other hand, [Asvabhāva’s commentary of] Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: [[[Wikipedia:Thesis|Thesis]]:] All Mahāyāna sutras are the words of Buddha (*buddhavacana). [[[Reason]]:] Because all [of them] don’t contradict [the theory of] selflessness of person (*pudgala-nairātmaya). [Example:] As with Ekottarāgama. This has the fallacy of either uncertainty (*anayatara-asiddha), [when it is
claimed] against Hīnayānist. Even if [[[Hīnayānist]]] accepts that [all Mahāyāna sutras] don’t contradict [the theory of] selflessness of person, *Abhidharma-jñāna-prasthāna-śāstra (AJPS) and its like, which are accepted by both [proponent and opponent], are regarded uncertain, [because] it also doesn’t contradict [the theory of] selflessness of person. Most masters couldn’t understand this perfectly. However, there was a Buddhist layman of great distinction. […] Namely, [he] is Master Jayasena. [He took] more than forty years to establish an inference as follows: All Mahāyāna sutras are the words of the Buddha. ---[This is] the thesis. Because they are not included in what are not Buddha’s words, which are accepted by both [proponent and opponent]. ---[This is] the reason. As with the āgamas such as Ekottarāgama. ---[This is] the example. The commentary [of this formula] is included in [Jayasena’s] Weishi jueze shi 唯識決擇釋, and it was popular for a while. (T43, 352a) According to the Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang Dynasty 大唐大慈恩寺三藏法師傳, Jayasena was an Indian lay Buddhist scholar, who had learned hetu-vidyā from Bhadraruci, ‘śabda-vidyā and
treatises of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna’ from Sthiramati, and Yogācārabhūmi from Sīlabhadra, as well as other non-Buddhist studies. Xuanzang studied Weishi-jueze-lun 唯識決擇論, Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra and so forth under Jayasena for two years (T50, 244a). There are many references to Jayasena in Ji’s commentaries of Chengweishilun and Yogācārabhūmi. Following the quotation above, Ji introduced Xuanzang’s criticism on Jayasena’s inference: My master [[[Xuanzang]]] reached him and criticized [his proof]: “This is not correct. AJPS also is not included in what are not Buddha’s words, which is accepted by both [proponent and opponent]. The school [of AJPS, namely Sarvāstivāda] accepts by itself (自許) that [AJPS is included in] the true Buddha’s words. While
compiled by Sages, the origin [of AJPS] was Buddha’s words. Moreover, both non-Buddhists and you, Mahāyānist, accept that [AJPS is] not included in what are not Buddha’s words, which is accepted by both [proponent and opponent], and [they also accept] that [AJPS is] not like Ekottarāgama or so. When AJPS were [the subject of] the thesis, the reason would have the fallacy of both being uncertain (*ubhayāsiddha) and the thesis would have the fallacy of contradicting [[[Mahāyānists]]’] own tenets (*svaśāstra-viruddha). Therefore [AJPS] should not be [the subject of] the thesis and the
reason has the fallacy of being uncertain for the proponent; As AJPS is not included in what are not Buddha’s words, which is accepted by both [proponent and opponent], do your Mahāyāna teachings like AJPS which is accepted by yourself as what are not Buddha’s words? Also, as the āgamas such as Ekottarāgama are not included in what are not Buddha’s words, which is accepted by both [proponent and opponent], are Mahāyāna [[[sutras]]] the words of the Buddha? […]” (T34, 352a-b) Based on this tradition, there have been many discussions on Jayasena’s inference and Xuanzang’s criticism in East Asia. Jayasena’s inference has been called Shengjun biliang/Shōgun hiryō 勝軍比量 and some treatises were written by scholar monks of Hossō 法相 school (Japanese transmission of
Yogācāra school). In this paper, I would like to focus attention on the criticisms against Xuanzang. For example, Gomyō 護命 (750-834) noted in his Daijō-hossō-kenjin-shō 大乘法相研神章 that a monk summoned to Zenju’s 善珠 (724-797) lecture pointed out the defect in Xuanzang’s revision of Jayasena’s proof. There was a great master in the sacred court of Japan. His true name was Zenju. […] At the time of the Enryaku 延暦 era [782-806], he delivered lectures on
hetu-vidyā at Nakatomi-dera 中臣寺 temple. A monk present at the lecture made a demonstration of contradiction (*viruddha-avyabhicārin) against the inference [corrected by Xuanzang]. Thesis: All Mahāyāna sutras are not the teachings of Buddha. Reason: Because they are not included in Buddha’s words accepted by both [proponent and opponent], which I [[[Hīnayānist]]] accept. Example: As the treatises on six categories (六句論) [of Vaiśeṣika]. The Hīnayānist [says that] “the Mahāyāna sutras are not the teachings of the Buddha”, while the Mahāyānist [says that] “the Mahāyāna sutras are the teachings of the Buddha.” The proponent and opponent claim each other that [the scriptures of] the other party are not necessarily the teachings of the Buddha. Since [the scriptures of the other party are] not necessarily the teachings of the Buddha, [they are] not included in Buddha’s words accepted by both [proponent and opponent] or in what are not Buddha’s words, which are accepted by both [proponent and opponent]. […] The great master [Zenju] dared not reject the defect.
(T71, 36a-b) This formula is similar to Wonhyo’s 元暁 criticism of Pan biryang non 判比量論. Although Zenju seemed to accept the criticism against Xuanzang in the quotation above, he pointed out the fallacy of Wonhyo’s formula in Immyōron sho myōtōshō 因明論疏明燈鈔 (T68, 346b). Unlike India, there were few so-called ‘Hīnayānists’ in East Asia. Necessarily the purpose of the interpretation of Jayasena’s proof for East Asian Yogācāra Buddhists might be quite different from that in Indian context.
