Jayasena’s proof of the authenticity of Mahāyāna, and the discussions in East Asia

Shigeki Moro (Hanazono University, Kyoto)

Introduction
A major debate among the Mahāyāna Buddhists was regarding whether Mahāyāna was the
teaching of Buddha. We can find some efforts to prove the authenticity of Mahāyāna in the
Yogācāra treatises 1 , such as Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra 2 and Vasubandhu’s Vyākhyāyukti 3 .
Chengweishilun 成唯識論 quoted Mahāyāna sutras to prove the existence of ālaya-vijñāna, and
cited some Yogācāra treatises to prove the authenticity of these Mahāyāna sutras4.
According to Yinmin-ruzhengli-lun-shu 因明入正理論疏 (Commentary on Nyāya-praveśa), Ji
基 (632-682), one of the famous disciples of Xuanzang 玄 奘 , introduced Asvabhāva’s
inference to prove that Mahāyāna was expounded by Buddha. Furthermore he introduced the
criticism of Asvabhāva’s proof by Jayasena, who was a Yogācāra master in India:
[Asvabhāva’s commentary of] Mahāyānasaṃgraha states:
[Thesis:] All Mahāyāna sutras are the words of Buddha (*buddhavacana).
[Reason:] Because all [of them] do not contradict the theory of selflessness of person
(*pudgala-nairātmaya).
[Example:] As with Ekottarāgama.5
This contains a fallacy of either [untrue] (*anayatara-asiddha), [when it is claimed] against
other schools, since they do not accept that Mahāyāna do not contradict the theory of
selflessness of person, because of the theory of permanence and self [and bliss and purity] of
Mahāyāna. Although [other schools] accepted that [all Mahāyāna sutras] do not contradict
[the theory of selflessness of person], there would be a fallacy of uncertainty, because the six
treatises of the Sarvāstivāda school (六足) also do not contradict [the theory of selflessness
of person].
However, there was a Buddhist layman of great distinction. […] Master Jayasena. [He took]
more than forty years to establish the following proof:
All Mahāyāna sutras are the words of the Buddha. -- [This is] the thesis.
Because they are not included in what are accepted as not being Buddha’s words by both
[proponents and opponents]. -- [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 唯識決択釈.
[The reason why Jayasena revised Asvabhāva’s formula into] “not included in what are
accepted as not being Buddha’s words by both” is that “not included in what are accepted as
not being Buddha’s words by both proponents and opponents” means “not included in the
treatises of non-Buddhists and the six treatises of the Sarvāstivāda or so.” This revision was
popular [among the scholars] for a while, and no one criticized it. (T44, 121b)

1
Nāgārjuna (Ratnavalī), Bhāviveka (Madhyamakahṛdaya and Bhavya’s commentary), Jianyi 堅 意
(Ru-dacheng-lun 入大乗論), Śāntideva (Bodhicaryāvatāra) and Haribhadra (Abhisamayālaṃkārālokā) also discussed on
this topic, according to Fujita 2011. Ōtake 2003 regards Jianyi as an Indian Yogācāra master. It should be noted that
Abhidharma Buddhists also tried to prove that Abhidharma was the Buddha’s words (Honjō 1989).
2
Nōnin 2009.
3
Horiuchi 2009.
4
Takeuchi 1992.
5
The orginal formula of Asvabhāva’s commentary is as follows:
[Thesis:] The Mahāyāna sutras are truly the words of Buddha.
[Reason:] Because all [of them] don’t contradict [the theory of] selflessness of person.
[Example:] As with the discourses of the momentariness and so forth. (T32, 396c)

1
 Jayasena’s formula is similar to the third proof of Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra, which argues that
the Mahāyāna sutras are the words of Buddha as non-Buddhists’ (tīrthika) treatises (śāstra)
have no teachings like Mahāyāna6.
In this quotation, Ji introduced Xuanzang’s criticism of Jayasena’s proof:
My master [Xuanzang] reached him and criticized this [revision]: Sarvāstivāda accepts
*Abhidharma-jñāna-prasthāna-śāstra ( 発 智 論 ; AJPS) by itself as the Buddha’s words.
Furthermore, AJPS is not included in what are accepted as not being Buddha’s words by both
other Hīnayānists and Mahāyānists. How can you, the Mahāyānists, accept AJPS as the
Buddha’s words? Who can accept that the Mahāyāna sutras are not included in what are
accepted as not being Buddha’s words by both? They are included in what are accepted as
not being Buddha’s words by all Hīnayānists and non-Buddhists. Only Mahāyānists accept
that [the Mahāyāna sutras are] not included in it. This [revised] reason contains a fallacy of
either [untrue] (*anayatara-asiddha).
When AJPS is [the subject of] the thesis, the thesis would have the fallacy of contradicting
[Mahāyānists’] own tenets (*svaśāstra-viruddha) and the reason would have the fallacy of
both being untrue (*ubhayāsiddha). […]
Therefore, my master [Xuanzang] corrected his reason: “Because they are not included in
what are accepted as not being Buddha’s words by [the proponent = Mahāyānist] himself (自
許).” [This reason can] exclude AJPS and so forth [from consideration], as they are not
accepted by [the proponent = Mahāyānist] himself, and [the revised formula] has no fallacies.
(T44, 121b-c)
Based on this tradition, there have been much discussions of Jayasena’s proof and
Xuanzang’s criticism in East Asia. Jayasena’s proof has been called Shengjun biliang/Shōgun
hiryō 勝軍比量 and has been studied along with Xuanzang’s criticism, which has been valued
as a Xunazang’s contribution to Buddhist logic7. These discussions have been conducted
mainly by East Asian Yogācāra scholars. Some specialized works were written by scholar
monks of the Hossō 法相 school (the Japanese transmission of the Yogācāra school), such as
Ganken 願建 (-848-) Shōgun-hiryō jikki 勝軍比量集記, Zōshun 蔵俊 (1104-1180) Shōgun-hiryō
shō 勝軍比量抄, Ryōsan 良算 (1170-1218?) Shōgun-hiryō kai’in 勝軍比量改因, or so.
Unlike India, there were few so-called “Hīnayānists” in East Asia. Thus, the purpose of the
interpretation of Jayasena’s proof for East Asian Yogācāra Buddhists might necessarily be
quite different from that in the Indian context. Here, I would like to focus on the debates on
Jayasena’s proof and examine the meanings of the proof of Mahāyāna authenticity in each
context.

Jayasena
Records of Jayasena are only found in the East Asian sources. According to the Great Tang
Dynasty Record of the Western Regions 大唐西域記, Xuanzang reported the fame and activities of
Jayasena in India:
In the Stick Wood (*Yaṣṭi), recently, there was an upāsaka named Jayasena (Shengjun in
Chinese), who was a man of the kṣatriya of West India. His inclination was plain, and he
preferred to live in the mountains and forests. Although he stayed in the world of illusion,
his mind traveled the state of reality. He learned in the subtle meanings of Buddhist and
non-Buddhist texts. His arguments were noble and lofty, and his manner was peaceful and
elegant. Many śramaṇas, Brahmans, non-Buddhist scholars, kings, ministers, and wealthy
and powerful persons approached him to ask for his instruction. His disciples were found in
six rooms out of ten.

6
See Nōnin 2009, 50-51. Sthiramati and Asvabhāva wrote the commentaries of Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra.
Sthiramati was one of Jayasena’s teachers as stated below, and Asvabhāva’s name can be found in the quotation
above. Jayasena might succeed the discussion of Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra.
7
See Han Tingjie 1999.

2
 When he was already seventy years old, he became absorbed in reading tirelessly. He gave
up all other subjects of learning and engaged himself solely in the study of Buddhist
scriptures with mental and physical exertion, both during the daytime as well as at night.
In India it is a custom to make miniature stupas five or six inches high with scented clay.
Hand-copied sutras are put inside these stupas, which are known as *dharma śarīra. When a
large number of such stupas is accumulated, a great stupa is constructed to contain them all
for perpetual veneration. This was Jayasena’s duty. While his mouth preached the wonderful
dharma to teach his disciples, his hands made stupas to accumulate supreme bliss. At night,
he practiced meditative walking, chanting sutras, seated meditation, and thinking. Having
no time to sleep or eat, he never relaxed either in the daytime or at night. Even when he was
one hundred years old, he did not slacken his aim and effort. In a period of thirty years he
made seven koṭi (one hundred million in Chinese) *dharma śarīra stupas. Each time he
completed one koṭi of stupas, he constructed a great stupa to contain all of them and make a
prosperous Buddhist service inviting many monks to celebrate it. On each occasion, a divine
light shone brightly and a miracle appeared explicitly. After that, a light issued from time to
time. (T51, 920a-b) 8
According to the Biography of the Tripiṭaka Master of the Great Ci’en Monastery of the Great Tang
Dynasty 大唐大慈恩寺三蔵法師伝 , 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 stayed with Jayasena for two years, studied Weishi-jueze-lun 唯 識 決 択 論 ,
Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra and so forth under him and asked him questions about Yogācārabhūmi
and hetu-vidyā (Buddhist logic) (T50, 244a)9.
East Asian Yogācāra texts contain references to Jayasena’s theories. According to
Chengweishilun, there are two doctrines on the origin of seeds (bīja) in the ālayavijñāna: the
inherent seeds 本 有 種 子 and the newly perfumed seeds 新 熏 種 子 (T31, 8a-b). Ji’s
commentary on Chengweishilun states that the second theory was posited by Nanda 難陀, who
was a teacher of Jayasena (T43, 305a). Jayasena is also quoted in the context of the theory of
seeds10. In his commentary of Renwang-jing 仁王経 (Sutra for Humane Kings), Woncheuk 円測
(613-696) introduces Jayasena’s theory of arising (*jāti) and abiding (*sthiti) dharma; Jayasena
claims that arising occurs before abiding, while Dharmapāla says that these two occurs at the
same time (T33, 382b).
In both cases, Jayasena’s theories were often contrasted with those of Dharmapāla, whose
position has been considered as the standard by the Faxiang/Hossō school. As previously
mentioned, however, Jayasena studied under Sīlabhadra, a successor of Dharmapāla. In other
words, he was a senior fellow pupil of Xuanzang. It is not enough to simply regard Jayasena as
an opponent of Dharmapāla and his followers, such as Xuanzang and Ji. It is reasonable to
suppose that Xuanzang criticized Jayasena in the similar manner as Jayasena criticized
Asvabhāva in order to obtain a more satisfying proof of the authenticity of Mahāyāna.

W onhyo’s Criticism
Inmyō-daisho-shō 因明大疏抄 of Zōshun quotes a fragment from Pan-biryang-non 判比量論
(Critical Discussion of Inference) written by Wonhyo 元暁 (618-686), which criticizes Xuanzang’s
correction of Jayasena’s proof mentioned above:
Pan-biryang-non writes: Dharma master Jayasena demonstrated the proof [as follows]:
[Thesis:] All Mahāyāna sutras are the words of the Buddha.
[Reason:] Because they are not included in what are accepted as not being Buddha’s words

8
I used Li Rongxi 1996 for translation.
9
Xuanzang’s biographies should be used with caution as they were changing between before and after his
death. See Moro 2015.
10
See Ji’s commentary on Yogācārabhūmi, Yuqieshidilun lüezuan 瑜伽師地論略纂 (T43, 129a-130a, 177c-178a).

3
 by both [proponents and opponents].
[Example:] As with the āgamas.
Hīnayānists would make [an inference to show] the fallacy of being uncertain (*anaikāntika),
because AJPS (発智経) is not included in what are accepted as not being Buddha’s words by
both [proponents and opponents], and you do not accept [AJPS] as Buddha’s words.
Katyāyāna’s sutra (迦延経) is accepted as Buddha’s words by Sarvāstivāda, while Sautrāntika
and Mahāyāna claim [that it is] not Buddha’s words. Following from this, [Jayasena’s proof]
cannot avoid being a fallacy.
To escape this fallacy, Tripiṭaka master Xuanzang revised the reason to “because they are
not included in what are accepted as not being Buddha’s words by [the proponent] himself
(自許).” In this way, [Jayasena’s proof] could avoid the fallacy of being uncertain.
Now, I state that this [revised] reason causes [the fallacy of] confirmation of a contradiction
(*viruddha-avyabhicārin):
[Thesis:] No Mahāyāna sutras are authoritative valid cognition [ the words of the
Buddha].
[Reason:] Because they are not included in what are accepted as Buddha’s words by [the
proponent] himself.
[Example:] As with the [teachings of] Vaiśeṣika.
Moreover, this new reason has [the fallacy of] being uncertain:
As with Ekottarāgama, because they are not included in what are accepted as not being
Buddha’s words by [the proponent] himself, are all Mahāyāna sutras included in
authoritative valid cognition?
Or, as with shape and color (*rūpa), odor (*gandha) or so, because they are not included in
what are accepted as not being Buddha’s words by [the proponent] himself, are all
Mahāyāna sutras not authoritative valid cognition?
Accordingly, I now correct (箋) Jayasena’s proof as follows:
[Thesis:] All Mahāyāna sutras are consistent with the true theory.
[Reason:] Because they are the teachings which are not included in what are accepted as
not being Buddha’s words by both [proponents and opponents].
[Example:] As with Ekottarāgama.
In this way, [the proof] can escape from [the fallacy of] confirmation of a contradiction
(*viruddha-avyabhicārin) and the first and second [examples] of [the fallacy of] being
uncertain. (T68, 549c-550a)
It should be noted that Wonhyo made an important change of the thesis from “the words
of the Buddha” to “the true theory.” The words of the Buddha must be the true theory, but
not all the true theory might be preached by Buddha(s). The original purpose of these proofs
seemed to be enfeebled by this change.
It is likely that Wonhyo’s criticism was based not only on an awareness of the logical
problems of Xuanzang’s revision, but also on a critical attitude toward the new Yogācāra
theories introduced by Xuanzang. Although we now have only some fragments of
Pan-biryang-non, more than half of them include the topics listed below11:
1. Criticism of the proof of the four-part model of cognition (the eighth topic of
Pan-biryang-non12).
2. Criticism of the existence of ālaya-vijñāna in Asvabhāva’s commentary of

11
Other topics include: (1) a discussion on the Pure land (the seventh topic, which is missing the first half), (2)
two metalogical problems (the eleventh and twelfth topics) and (3) a discussion on Chengweishilun (the fourteenth
topic, which is missing the latter half).
12
The seventh to fourteenth topics are found in the manuscript of Pan-biryang-non previously owned by Kanda
Kiichirō (See Fukihara 1967) and now owned by Otani University, Kyoto.

4
 Mahāyānasaṃgraha (the ninth topic of Pan-biryang-non).
3. Criticism of the existence of the shared basis of the seventh consciousness and
ālayavijñāna (the tenth topic of Pan-biryang-non).
4. Criticism of the proof of the five gotra theory (the thirteenth topic of Pan-biryang-non).
5. Criticism of Xuanzang’s proof of vijñapti-mātratā13.
6. Criticism of Xuanzang’s revision of Jayasena’s proof (quoted above).
It is reasonable to think that Wonhyo intended a critique of Xuanzang and his followers by
examining these logical problems. The purpose of the proof that Mahāyāna was expounded by
Buddha became a doctrinal controversy among Mahāyānists in East Asia14.

Zenju’s Criticism
Wonhyo’s criticisms were accepted by Japanese Buddhist scholars. For example, Gomyō 護
命 (750-834) noted in his Daijō-hossō-kenjin-shō 大乗法相研神章 that a monk summoned to
Zenju’s 善珠 (724-797) lecture noted the defect in Xuanzang’s revision of Jayasena’s proof.
Zenju and Gomyō were Yogācāra scholars representing the Nara period and the early Heian
period.
There was a great master in the sacred court of Japan. His true name was Zenju. […] During
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 demonstrated a contradiction
(*viruddha-avyabhicārin) in the inference [corrected by Xuanzang].
Thesis: No Mahāyāna sutras are the teachings of Buddha.
Reason: Because they are not included in what are accepted as Buddha’s words by the
opponent [= Hīnayānist].
Example: As the treatises on six categories (六句論) [of Vaiśeṣika].
The Hīnayānists [say that] “the Mahāyāna sutras are not the teachings of the Buddha”, while
the Mahāyānists [say that] “the Mahāyāna sutras are the teachings of the Buddha.” The
proponent and opponent each claim that [the scriptures of] the other party are not
necessarily the teachings of the Buddha. As [the scriptures of the other party are] not
necessarily the teachings of the Buddha, [they are] not included in what are accepted as
Buddha’s words by both [proponents and opponents] or in what are accepted as not being
Buddha’s words by both [proponents and opponents]. […] The great master [Zenju] dared
not reject the defect. (T71, 36a-b)
In Ancient Japan, there was the official Hīnayāna post of Kusha-shū 倶舎宗, one of the six
Buddhist sects that specialized in studying Abhidharma-kośa. However, it is unclear whether
the unknown monk belonged to Kusha-shū. Kusha-shū was categorized as the subsidiary sect of
the Hossō school.
This formula is similar to Wonhyo’s 元暁 criticism of Pan-biryang-non. It may be presumed
that the unknown monk did not make his argument from the perspective of Hīnayāna, but as
a supporter of Wonhyo or Silla Buddhism, which were greatly influential at that time.
Although Zenju seemed to accept the criticism against Xuanzang cited above, he pointed
out a fallacy in Wonhyo’s formula in his Inmyōron-sho-myōtōshō 因明論疏明灯鈔.
Now I think it is not [true]. [Wonhyo’s] newly corrected (箋) inference has the fallacy of
reason, which contradicts the implication of the predicate (*dharma-viśeṣa-viruddha-hetu).
“Consistent with the true theory” [in Wonhyo’s revised formula] is the expressed-predicate.
It is the difference in implications [in the predicate] whether [what consist with the true
theory] are the words of the Buddha or not. Therefore, I can demonstrate the contradiction
(*viruddha-avyabhicārin) [in Wonhyo’s revised formula] as follows:
Thesis: All Mahāyāna sutras are not the words of the Buddha.

13
See Moro 2015.
14
Yuishikiron-dōgakushō 唯識論同学鈔 summarizes the discussions between Ji’s followers (T66, 230b-232c).

5
 [Reason:] Because they are the teachings that are not included in what are accepted as not
being Buddha’s words by both [proponents and opponents].
[Example:] As with AJPS.
Furthermore, another criticism is as follows:
[Thesis:] All Mahāyāna sutras are not consistent with the true theory.
[Reason:] Because they are not included in the teachings consistent with the true theory
which are accepted by both [proponent and opponent].
[Example:] As with non-Buddhists’ treatises.
[Wonhyo’s revised formula] already has these fallacies. How is this true? Correction (箋)
means truth (正). (T68, 346b)
Zenju criticized Wonhyo but did not provide alternatives to prove the authenticity of
Mahāyāna. Zenju seemed to think that the authenticity of Mahāyāna was obvious and focused
on examining the various theories surrounding him.

W orks cited.
Fujita Yoshimichi. “Daijō-bussetsu-ron no ichi danmen: Daijō-shōgon-kyōron no shiten kara 大
乗仏説論の一断面: 『大乗荘厳経論』の視点から [A cross section of the discussions of
whether or not the Mahāyāna was preached by the Buddha: From
Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra’s point of view].” Series Daijō Bukkyō 1: Daijō towa nanika シリーズ
大乗仏教 1: 大乗とは何か [What is Mahāyāna?]. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 2011.
Fukihara Shōshin. “Han-hiryō-ron no kenkyū 判比量論の研究 [A study of Pan biryang non].”
Han-hiryō-ron. Kanda Kiichirō, 1967.
Han Tingjie. “Xuanzang dui yinming-xue de fazhan 玄 奘 対 因 明 学 的 発 展 [Xuanzang’s
development of hetu-vidyā]. Journal of Religious Philosophy, 5(4), 1999.
Honjō Yoshifumi. “Abidatsuma-bussetsu-ron to daijō-bussetsu-ron 阿毘達磨仏説論と大乗仏
説論 [The Theory that Abhidharma was Expounded by the Buddha and the Theory
that Mahāyāna was Expounded by the Buddha].” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies,
38(1), 1989.
Horiuchi Toshio. Seshin no daijō-bussetsu-ron: Shakkiron dai 4 shō wo chūshin ni 世親の大乗仏説
論: 『釈軌論』第四章を中心に [Vasubandhu's Proof of the Authenticity of the Mahāyāna as
Found in the Fourth Chapter of his Vyākhyāyukti]. Tokyo: Sankibō busshorin, 2009.
Li Rongxi, trans. The Great Tang Dynasty Record of the Western Regions. Berkeley: Numata Center
for Buddhist Translation and Research, 1996.
Moro Shigeki. Ronri to rekishi: Higashi ajia bukkyo ronrigaku no keisei to tenkai 論理と歴史: 東ア
ジア仏教論理学の形成と展開 [Logic and History: Formation and Expansion of Buddhist
Logic in East Asia]. Kyoto: Nakanishiya shuppan, 2015.
Nōnin Masaaki, eds. Daijō-shōgon-kyōron dai 1 shō no wayaku to chū: Daijō no kakuritsu 『大乗荘厳
経論』第 I 章の和訳と注解 : 大乗の確立 [A Japanese translation and annotation of
Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra, Chapter 1: Establishment of Mahāyāna]. Kyoto: Jishōsha shuppan,
2009.
Ōtake Susumu. “Nyū-daijō-ron no in’yō agon 『入大乗論』の引用阿含 [Āgamas quoted in the
Ru-dasheng-lun].” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 52(1), 2003.
Takeuchi Shindo. “Jōyuishiki-ron ni okeru daijō-bussetsu-ron 『成唯識論』における大乗仏説
論 [The Theory in the Cheng weishi lun that the Mahāyāna was Expounded by the
Buddha].” Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 40(2), 1992.