A commentarial project commissioned by emperor Ming Taizu （r.1368-1398） in 1377, which was dedicated to the Prajnaparamita-hrdaya-sutra, theVajracchedika-prajfiaparamita-sutra, and the Lankavatara-sutra, defined coh...A commentarial project commissioned by emperor Ming Taizu （r.1368-1398） in 1377, which was dedicated to the Prajnaparamita-hrdaya-sutra, theVajracchedika-prajfiaparamita-sutra, and the Lankavatara-sutra, defined coherent standards of Buddhist learning by reference to early Chinese translations and Indian commentarial literature. In order to provide a clear-cut basis for the education of the clergy, its selective and reductive approach aimed at a standardization of doctrine and homogenization of terminology. Production and purport of the commentarial project are documented in a series of paratexts, prefaces, colophons, production notes and memoranda. They indicate a strong consciousness for the institutional, ideological and political aspects of the production procedure and its benefits for controlling the formation of Buddhist authority. Such decidedly functional under- standing of the institutional aspects of the production of exegesis leads to the conclusion that besides the normativity of doctrinal knowledge the main objective was to establish a basis for institutional integration of those who are in the privileged position to select whom they allow to assume authority, and to define the selection standards as well.展开更多
文摘A commentarial project commissioned by emperor Ming Taizu （r.1368-1398） in 1377, which was dedicated to the Prajnaparamita-hrdaya-sutra, theVajracchedika-prajfiaparamita-sutra, and the Lankavatara-sutra, defined coherent standards of Buddhist learning by reference to early Chinese translations and Indian commentarial literature. In order to provide a clear-cut basis for the education of the clergy, its selective and reductive approach aimed at a standardization of doctrine and homogenization of terminology. Production and purport of the commentarial project are documented in a series of paratexts, prefaces, colophons, production notes and memoranda. They indicate a strong consciousness for the institutional, ideological and political aspects of the production procedure and its benefits for controlling the formation of Buddhist authority. Such decidedly functional under- standing of the institutional aspects of the production of exegesis leads to the conclusion that besides the normativity of doctrinal knowledge the main objective was to establish a basis for institutional integration of those who are in the privileged position to select whom they allow to assume authority, and to define the selection standards as well.
