COMMENTARIAL LITERATURE
Buddhist commentarial writing spans a period of more
than two thousand years. Its rich production, of which
only a fragment has survived the vicissitudes of his-
tory, closely mirrors all facets of the doctrinal and
many aspects of the cultural and social development
of the religion.
One may, in the widest possible sense, conceive of
all Buddhist scriptures as commentarial: The sutra dis-
courses comment on the Buddha’s insights and the
PATH, the ABHIDHARMAliterature comments on the
teachings given in the discourses, and the MAHAYANA
literature comments on the meaning of S ́UNYATA
(EMPTINESS) underlying the teachings. Commentaries
elaborate on meaning (artha), meaning that demands
special attention. The writing of commentaries be-
longs, alongside other modes of practice, among the
ways of preserving and spreading the dharma. In terms
of cultural history, the significance of commentarial
literature consists in its capacity to reflect general cul-
tural and religious trends and to serve as a venue for
developing interpretative skills and working out fun-
damental intellectual issues.
ZANNING(919–1001), a representative of the Chi-
nese tradition, explains the significance of Buddhist
commentaries in his Song gaoseng zhuan(Song Biogra-
phies of Eminent Monks): “perfecting the way—this is
dharma; carrying the dharma—this is sutra; explain-
ing sutra—this is commentary” (T.2061:50.735b).
Commentaries by definition are situated downstream
of the flow of tradition and thus are never able to su-
persede scripture. Yet given the priority of meaning
(artha) before wording (vacana), commentaries are ex-
pected to reiterate and bring to light the meaning that
is hidden within scripture.
Indian commentaries
The teachings of the dharma, from the very beginning,
called for commentary. Thus one not only learns that
the Buddha was frequently called upon to elaborate on
teachings he had given, but equally that the Buddha
considered some of his disciples, such as S ́ARIPUTRA, to
be equally capable of stating the teachings clearly. But
this stage is still one of oral exegesis. Only with the es-
tablishment of the Buddhist CANON(tripitaka) did
monks begin to write commentaries. In the course of
interpreting the teachings, schools of interpretation
arose. The two major extant strains of South Asian
commentarial writing are the THERAVADAcommen-
taries, written in Pali, and the SARVASTIVADA ANDMU-
LASARVASTIVADAcommentaries in Sanskrit. The latter
have been translated into Chinese. In addition, a few
commentaries from other schools are extant.
At the beginning of the fifth century, BUD-
DHAGHOSA—on the basis of earlier Sinhala commen-
taries—composed a series of commentarial works on
the Pali canon. Among them were two commentaries
on the VINAYA: Samantapasadika (The All-Pleasing)
and Kan ̇khavitaranl(Overcoming Doubt). The Saman-
tapasadika was translated into Chinese by San ̇gha-
bhadra in 489 as the Shanjianlü pibosha(T.1462). The
Kan ̇khavitaranlis a commentary on the Patimokkha
(Sanskrit, PRATIMOKSA). As was the case with the
vinaya, once the Suttapitakahad been established, a
number of commentaries on its texts came to be writ-
ten. Of particular importance are Buddhaghosa’s
commentaries on the nikayas (Suman ̇galavilasinl,
Papañcasudanl,Saratthappakasinl, Manorathapuranl,
Paramatthajotika), and on the abhidhamma(Attha-
salinl,Sammohavinodanl, Pañcappakaranatthakatha).
In the case of the Sarvastivada, its writings are for
the most part preserved only in Chinese. Its single most
important treatise is Katyayanputra’s Jñanaprasthana
(Foundations of Knowledge, composed around 50
B.C.E.), to which are related the six treatises (padas ́as-
tra): Dharmaskandha, Samgltiparyaya, Dhatukaya,
Prakarana, Vijñanakaya,and Prajñapti.The major ex-
egetical collection, the Mahavibhasa(Great Exegesis),
compiled at a council held by Kaniska, is also related
to the Jñanaprasthana.Six of the seven treatises of this
abhidharma pitakawere translated by XUANZANG(ca.
600–664).Chinese commentaries
Though it is difficult to define beginnings, scholars
know that Zhi Qian (fl. 223–253) and Kang Senghui
(?–280) were already composing commentaries during
the third century C.E. But commentaries probably
gained importance only around the time of DAO’AN
(312–385). From the biographical literature, one can
glean indications of a thriving early commentarial lit-
erature, but it is almost completely lost. Examples of
this earliest phase are Chen Hui’s (ca. 200 C.E.) Yin chi
ru jing; Dao’an’s Ren ben yu sheng jing zhu; SENGZHAO’s
(374–414) Zhu Weimo jing; and FAXIAN’s (ca. 337–418)
Fanwang jing pusa jie shu.
Around the beginning of the fifth century, a new
type of commentary emerged. Dao’an and DAOSHENG
(ca. 360–434) played major roles in this transition.
Fayao’s (ca. 420–477) NIRVANASUTRAand Zhu Fa-COMMENTARIALLITERATURE