chong’s (ca. 268) LOTUSSUTRAcommentaries (both
lost), and Zhu Daosheng’s extant Lotuscommentary
are the earliest examples of this new type of commen-
tary. Two extensive commentaries from the first half
of the sixth century are also extant: one (in seventy-
one fascicles) on the Nirvana Sutra(Da ban niepan jing
ji jie,509) collected by Baoliang, the other (in eight fas-
cicles) on the Lotus(Fahua jing yiji,529) collected by
Fayun (467–529). Both of these commentaries played
important roles in the formation of the Sinitic Bud-
dhist schools, and both reveal an important feature of
this type of literature, namely, their explicit or implicit
referencing of earlier exegesis.
The third phase of Chinese Buddhist commentarial
writing began with the masters of the Sui dynasty
(589–618) and was followed by a long series of ex-
tremely prolific masters of the Tang dynasty (618–907),
who developed their doctrinal positions in the context
of systematic exegetic efforts, eventually setting the
stage for the emergence of schools of exegesis such as
Tiantai, Huayan, and Faxiang. Noteworthy representa-
tives of that phase are the Dilun master Jingying
Huiyuan (523–596); the Sanlun master Jizang (549–
623); the Tiantai masters ZHIYI(538–597), Guanding
(561–632), and ZHANRAN(711–782); the Faxiang mas-
ters WO ̆NCH’U ̆K(613–696, from Korea), KUIJI(632–
682), Huizhao (?–714), and Zhizhou (679–723); the
Huayan masters Zhiyan (628–668), WO ̆NHYO(617–
686, from Korea), FAZANG(643–712), CHENGGUAN
(738–840), and the lay Li Tongxuan (?–730); and the
esoteric master Yixing (683–727).
The major exegetes commonly wrote commentaries
on a broad set of scriptures. Thus one and the same
scripture is marked by a long series of commentarial
treatments. The Lotus Sutra,the DIAMONDSUTRA, and
the HEARTSUTRA, respectively, are the scriptures most
often commentated on in China. There are about
eighty extant Chinese commentaries on each of these
sutras. Besides these, the HUAYAN JING, Vimalaklrti,
Wuliangshou, Amituo, Yuanjue, Nirvana, Lan ̇kavatara,
and Fanwang jingalso drew much exegetic attention.
Among the treatises, the AWAKENING OF FAITH
(DASHENG QIXIN LUN) was most often commentated
on. The extant commentaries serve as the most im-
portant sources for information on the formation and
development of Chinese Buddhist thought.
Exegesis, the plurality of transmissions, and
the commentarial context
The development of Chinese Buddhist commentarial
literature was influenced by the fact that the transmis-
sion of scriptures was far from systematic. At almost
any period a broad set of scriptures of diverse prove-
nance was available that reflected various stages of the
development of Buddhist doctrine. This plurality was
born from translations in the third and fourth cen-
turies of dhyana, prajñaparamita,and tathagatagarbha
scriptures, in the early fifth century by a series of Mad-
hyamaka and Sarvastivada abhidharma works, and in
the sixth and seventh centuries by the systematic Yo-
gacara and abhidharma transmission of Xuanzang. This
situation necessitated the creation of a method that al-
lowed the systematic integration of all available teach-
ings under a common roof (panjiao). The premises of
this method were that all scriptures could be assigned
to different stages in the Buddha’s teaching career,
that they all address different audiences according to
their respective maturity, and that they make the ul-
timate meaning explicit to varying degrees. In terms
of commentarial practice this translated into a set of
rules of interpretation. Foremost among these rules
was the fourfold prop (catuhpratisarana) of Buddhist
HERMENEUTICS, which emphasized meaning (artha)
before wording (vacana), complete meaning (nlta) be-
fore incomplete meaning (neya), and true insight
(prajña) before cognition and reasoning (vijñana).
Some Chinese commentators indicate that their
commentaries were based on lectures, and written com-
mentaries were often composed by disciples on the ba-
sis of lecture notes, so that one can assume that the two
major contexts of commentary writing are lecturing
and translating. There is evidence from DUNHUANG
showing the homiletic context of scriptural interpreta-
tion, and this background does not seem to have ever
been completely lost. In the context of translating from
Indian or Central Asian languages into Chinese, trans-
lation and interpretation could not be separated be-
cause translators usually offered explanations of the
scripture being translated, and the explanations often
crept into the text itself. Thus, for example, the writ-
ings of Sengzhao on PRAJN
APARAMITALITERATUREwere
based on his cooperation with KUMARAJIVA (344–
409/413), or the commentaries of Kuiji were created in
the context of the translation academy of Xuanzang.Types of commentaries
The oldest type of Chinese commentary, the zhu(only
three of which are extant), may derive from an oral con-
text. The zhuis a straightforward line-by-line exegesis
that weaves glosses into the main text. These commen-
taries are prefaced by introductions that interpret the
title and explain the setting of the discourse and theCOMMENTARIALLITERATURE