reasons for the commentary. This simple type of com-
mentary was superseded by the shucommentary, which
flourished between the sixth and mid-ninth centuries.
The shuembodies the best of the monastic and scholas-
tic tradition, exhibiting all signs of a flourishing exegetic
culture and displaying a level of sophistication proba-
bly unsuited for the nonexpert laity.
Two major features characterize shucommentary,
namely, its method of segmenting the scripture (kepan)
and its topical introductions. The topical introductions
discuss the scope of the commentary and the issues at
stake for the Buddhist commentator. The introduc-
tions comprise two major groups of topics: dogmatic
(the aim of the teaching, the meaning of the title, the
work’s basic thought, the intended audience of the
teaching, its relationship to other teachings) and his-
torical (the transmissions of the work and the history
of its promulgation, including places and conventions,
history of its translation, and its miraculous power).
This type of commentarial introduction reflects not
only on Chinese exegesis, but on major issues of Bud-
dhist exegesis. Accordingly, VASUBANDHU(fourth cen-
tury C.E.), a major representative of Indian exegesis,
summarized in his Vyakhyayukti(Practice of Exegesis;
extant only in Tibetan) the commentarial task: state
the aim of the teaching (prayojana), state its overall
meaning (pinda) and its detailed meaning (padartha),
state its internal consequence (anusamdhika), refute
objections (codyaparihara) with regard to wording
(s ́abda) and meaning (artha), in order to show its per-
fection (yukti). Chinese commentators classify Vasu-
bandhu’s first two tasks as independent introductory
topics; the other three are incorporated into the main
body of exegesis.
Vasubandhu presumes that the word of the Buddha
is perfect, that all scriptures are the Buddha’s word,
that only perfect words need and deserve commentary,
and that a person cannot understand scripture unless
he or she understands the purpose of a certain teach-
ing. In particular, one must understand a scripture in
terms of the audience it is meant to address, especially
if the audience is not deemed to be mature enough to
comprehend the scripture’s deeper meanings. This lat-
ter assumption was a fundamental element in deter-
mining the liberty a commentator might take in
interpreting scripture.
Segmental analysis
Chinese scholastic commentary is also characterized by
segmental analysis (kepan), by which the author as-
signs to scripture a chain of exegetic terms. The most
obvious aspect of this approach, which gained impor-
tance after the fifth century, consists in the segment-
ing of scripture into (1) introduction (xu), which gives
the setting of the discourse (location, participants, oc-
casion); (2) main body (zhengzong), which consists in
the discourse proper, and (3) eulogy (liutong), which
describes the joy of the listeners and the promise of the
spread of the dharma. This triple partition of sutra may
have derived from the Fodi jing lun(T.1530.26:291c).
Although segmental analysis is related by tradition to
Dao’an, the oldest extant example of its application can
be found in Fayun’s Lotus Sutracommentary (Fahua
jing yiji,T.1715.33:574c).Beneath this first tripartite level, scholastic com-
mentaries have further layers of segmentation, which
consist of a sequence of exegetic terms (often several
hundred) assigned to designated passages of scripture.
One group of exegetic terms specifically marks off parts
of scripture as phases of dialogue between the speaker
and the interlocutor. Since most sutras are in the form
of dialogues between the Buddha and his disciples, it
is possible that the first step a commentator might have
taken was to segment the sequence of speech acts. In-
deed, in some of the older commentaries of the early
Tang period, the exegetic chain is built around a dia-
logic baseline. Knowing that an exegetic chain may in-
clude several hundred terms, the modern reader may
wonder how any reader could be expected to keep track
of the commentary’s expository structure. In order to
remedy this situation, graphic charts displaying the ex-
egetic structure were developed. Although it may seem
otherwise, most kepanand their accompanying charts
are probably rooted in the homiletic situation, and are
not a product of a culture dominated by writing. In
fact, the kepanstructures point back to the earliest stage
of Buddhist exegesis, where they may have served as
mnemonic aids for oral interpretation.After the Tang period, kepan-style exegesis yielded
to other methods, and scholastic introduction in gen-
eral was replaced by newer, simpler forms. The genre
of commentarial literature as a whole from the Song
dynasty (960–1279) onward shows a process of sim-
plification, a transformation that probably resulted, in
part, from the advent of new PRINTING TECHNOLOGIES.This simplification process was also part of a major
transformation of the social context of exegesis.
Whereas before the Song, commentators were mainly
monks, from the Song onward a substantial body of
commentaries were written by lay Buddhists. In addi-COMMENTARIALLITERATURE