Source: Brewster 2025

Brewster, Ernest. “The Essence of the Two Truths is the Middle Way: Jizang’s (549–623) Arguments against the Tiantai Doctrine of Three Truths.” In The Dynamic Non-Duality of Dharmadhātu: Elucidations of Buddhist Truth Expressions, Jun Fujii, ed., 205-240. Hamburg: Hamburg Buddhist Studies, 2025.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Although the five-fascicle Dasheng xuanlun T1853 draws heavily from various doctrinal treatises and commentaries more reliably attributable to Jizang himself, premodern East Asian bibliographical studies have long suspected that the work as a whole is not a genuine composition of Jizang, datable to the later part of his career (see the Daijō gen mondō 大乘玄問答 by Chinkai 珍海 [1092–1152 CE], T2303:70.572c28–a3). In more recent years, studies including Cho (2014); Itō (1971, 1972, and 2018); and Okuno (2012) have cast doubt on the traditional attribution by identifying salient discrepancies between the doctrinal claims presented in the Dasheng xuanlun and the contents of the works more solidly ascribed to Jizang’s own hand, such as the Erdi yi 二諦義 T1854 (On the Doctrine of the Two Truths) and the Sanlun xuanyi 三論玄義 T1852 (On the Profound Doctrines of the Three Treatises). In his study isolating various distortions of Jizang’s original teachings as they are represented in the section entitled “On the Doctrine of the One Vehicle” (yisheng yi 一乘義), Okuno (2012: 54–55) points to the existence of overlapping accounts within the Silun xuanyi 四論玄義 (On the Profound Doctrines of the Four Treatises) by Jizang’s contemporary and fellow disciple under the teacher Falang 法朗, Huijun/Hyegyun 慧均 (d.u.). While the mere presence of duplicate accounts within works contemporaneous with Jizang may not be sufficient evidence in and of itself to override the received attribution, it provides one additional data point in a large body of evidence indicating the likelihood that the Dasheng xuanlun comprises a posthumous compilation.

Works cited:

Cho Yun-kyŏng 조윤경. “Taesŭng hyŏllon Kilchang ch’ansul sŏl-e taehan chaegoch’al: ‘Ije ŭi’ rŭlchungsim ŭro’”『大乘玄論』길장 찬술설에 대한 재고찰—「二諦義」를 중심으로. Sŏn munhwa yŏn’gu禪文化研究16 (2014): 321–360.

Itō Takatoshi 伊藤隆壽. Sanron-shū no kiso deki kenkyū 三論の基礎的研究. Tokyo: Daizō shuppan, 2018.

________. “Daijō genron happu gi no shingi mondai (2)”『大乗玄論』八不義の真偽問題（二）. Komazawa Daigaku bukkyō gakubu ronshū 駒澤大学佛教学部論集 3 (1972): 98–118.

________. “Daijō genron happu gi no shingi mondai”『大乗玄論』八不義の真偽問題. Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 19.2 (1971): 637–38.

Okuno Mitsuyoshi 奥野光賢. “Daijō genron ni kansuru sho mondai: ‘Ichijō gi’ o chūshin toshite”『大乗玄論』に関する諸問題:「一乗義」を中心として. Komazawa Daigaku bukkyō gakubu kenkyū kiyō 駒澤大學佛教學部研究紀要 70 (2012): 53–71.

Edit

225, n. 41

 Although the five-fascicle Dasheng xuanlun T1853 draws heavily from various doctrinal treatises and commentaries more reliably attributable to Jizang himself, premodern East Asian bibliographical studies have long suspected that the work as a whole is not a genuine composition of Jizang, datable to the later part of his career (see the Daijo gen mondo 大乘玄問答 by Chinkai 珍海 [1092–1152 CE], T2303:70.572c28–a3). In more recent years, studies including Cho (2014); Ito (1971, 1972, and 2018); and Okuno (2012) have cast doubt on the traditional attribution by identifying salient discrepancies between the doctrinal claims presented in the Dasheng xuanlun and the contents of the works more solidly ascribed to Jizang’s own hand, such as the Erdi yi 二諦義 T1854 (On the Doctrine of the Two Truths) and the Sanlun xuanyi 三論玄義 T1852 (On the Profound Doctrines of the Three Treatises). In his study isolating various distortions of Jizang’s original teachings as they are represented in the section entitled “On the Doctrine of the One Vehicle” (yisheng yi 一乘義), Okuno (2012: 54–55) points to the existence of overlapping accounts within the Silun xuanyi 四論玄義 (On the Profound Doctrines of the Four Treatises) by Jizang’s contemporary and fellow disciple under the teacher Falang 法朗, Huijun/Hyegyun 慧均 (d.u.). While the mere presence of duplicate accounts within works contemporaneous with Jizang may not be sufficient evidence in and of itself to override the received attribution, it provides one additional data point in a large body of evidence indicating the likelihood that the Dasheng xuanlun comprises a posthumous compilation. Works cited: Cho Yun-kyong 조윤경. “Taesung hyollon Kilchang ch’ansul sol-e taehan chaegoch’al: ‘Ije ui’ rulchungsim uro’”『大乘玄論』길장 찬술설에 대한 재고찰—「二諦義」를 중심으로. Son munhwa yon’gu禪文化研究16 (2014): 321–360. Ito Takatoshi 伊藤隆壽. Sanron-shu no kiso deki kenkyu 三論の基礎的研究. Tokyo: Daizo shuppan, 2018. ________. “Daijo genron happu gi no shingi mondai (2)”『大乗玄論』八不義の真偽問題(二). Komazawa Daigaku bukkyo gakubu ronshu 駒澤大学佛教学部論集 3 (1972): 98–118. ________. “Daijo genron happu gi no shingi mondai”『大乗玄論』八不義の真偽問題. Indogaku Bukkyogaku kenkyu 印度學佛教學研究 19.2 (1971): 637–38. Okuno Mitsuyoshi 奥野光賢. “Daijo genron ni kansuru sho mondai: ‘Ichijo gi’ o chushin toshite”『大乗玄論』に関する諸問題:「一乗義」を中心として. Komazawa Daigaku bukkyo gakubu kenkyu kiyo 駒澤大學佛教學部研究紀要 70 (2012): 53–71. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1853; 大乘玄論