Editing Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra (section)

== Analysis and commentaries ==
According to Takasaki Jikido, because of this mosaic like character of the text, the best way to analyze the scripture has been "to divide the whole text into small parts or sections according to their subjects."<ref name=":1" /> The first commentator to attempt this was the Japanese author [[Kokan Shiren]], who in the 14th century divided the text into 86 sections with titles.<ref name=":1" /> Most of these sections (but not all) include a prose part followed by a verse section that recapitulates the prose teaching.<ref name=":1" />  

[[Chandrakirti]] argued that the text needed to be interpreted, and that it was "not to be understood as a negation of form."<ref>Edelglass, William; Garfield, Jay (2009), Buddhist Philosophy: Essential Readings, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-532817-2</ref>

=== Indian commentaries ===
There are two traditional Indian commentaries preserved in Tibetan translations:<ref name=":2">Florin Deleanu, ''[https://www.academia.edu/42041820/The_La%E1%B9%85k%C4%81vat%C4%81ras%C5%ABtra_A_Bibliographical_Survey The Laṅkāvatārasūtra: A Bibliographical Survey],'' 2019, Bulletin of International Institute for Buddhist Studies.</ref>  

* Jñānaśrībhadra (11th century), ʼPhags pa lang kar gshegs paʼi ʼgrel pa (*Āryalaṅkāvatāravṛtti) P #5519; D #4018
* Jñānavajra (12th century), ʼPhags pa lang kar gshegs pa zhes bya ba theg pa chen poʼi mdoʼi ʼgrel pa de bzhin gshegs paʼi snying poʼi rgyan zhes bya ba (*Āryalaṅkāvatāranāmamahāyānasūtravṛtti Tathāgatahṛdayālaṃkāra nāma)
These commentaries mainly comment on the sutra by relying on the [[Buddhist logico-epistemology|epistemological]] tradition of [[Dharmakirti|Dharmakīrti]].<ref name=":14"> Kim, Su-ah (2016) ''[http://www.buddhism.org/jnanasribhadra-and-jnanavajra-their-biographical-approaches/ Jñānaśrībhadra and Jñānavajra: Their Biographical Approaches.]''

</ref> Jñānavajra's commentary presents a unique Yogācāra-Svātantrika-Madhyamaka perspective which was termed ‘cognitive centrism’ (''vijñaptimadhyama, rnam rig dbu ma'') and he also heavily relies on the works of [[Kamalaśīla]], particularly the ''Madhyamakāloka''.<ref name=":14" /> In this commentary, he also critiques the [[Yogachara#Alikākāravāda and Satyākāravāda|alīkākāravada]] view of Yogacara philosophy''.<ref name=":14" />'' According to H. Hadano, Jñānavajra's commentary "takes the standpoint that the myriad pure and defiled dharmas are all manifestations of mind (citta), that they are not different to mind, and that they are mind-itself, in other words, the standpoint of the Rnam par rig pa tsam gyi dbu ma (vijñapti-mātrika-mādhyamika) which considers saṃvṛtti and paramārtha as two sides of the same coin, and discards duality."<ref name=":14" /> 

=== East Asian commentaries ===
There are also numerous East Asian Buddhist commentaries on the Lanka, like the commentaries by [[Huayan]] Patriarchs [[Zhiyan]] and [[Fazang]].<ref name=":3" /><ref name=":16">Jorgensen, John. [https://www.zenbunka.or.jp/pub_etc/pub/docs/kiyou/032_%E9%80%86%E4%B8%8102John.pdf The Zen Commentary on the Lankāvatāra Sūtra by Kokan Shiren (1278-1346) and its chief antecedent, the commentary by the Khotanese monk Zhiyan], 禅文化研究所紀要 第32号（平成25年11月), Australian National University</ref> According to John Jorgensen, Fazang's commentary explains ten key themes he finds in the sutra: "1. the emptiness and existence in causation; 2.the fundamental and derived in the vijñānas; 3. the true and false in the substance of the vijñānas; 4. the seeds of the fundamental vijñāna; 5. the universality of the Buddha-nature; 6. the turning around of the minds of the two vehicle (followers); 7. the opening and closing of the stages of practice; 8. the non-obstruction of barrier and cure; 9. the freedom of pro and contrary; and 10. the eternal persistence of the Buddha-result."<ref name=":16" /> Fazang considered the Lankāvatāra to be one of the definitive sutras which taught the theme (zong) of "the attribute of reality" which teaches that consciousness is produced by buddha-nature.<ref name=":16" />  

The Lanka is also quoted and commented on in the ''Bodhidharma Anthology'' (i.e. the ''Putidamo sixing lun''), an important text of early [[Chan Buddhism]] that contains material attributed to [[Bodhidharma]] and his students.<ref name=":16" /> Jorgensen also states that "there is evidence that commentaries on the Lankāvatāra Sūtra attributed to Bodhidharma reached Japan, some at least by 736."<ref name=":16" /> This "Bodhidharma commentary...has to date from between 445 and 740" and "shares much in common with the theories of [[Jingying Huiyuan]] (523-592) of the Southern Dilun Faction, who quoted the Lankāvatāra Sūtra as one of his authorities."<ref name=":16" />  

Various commentaries were written during the [[Song dynasty]]. Baochen, writing in the [[Northern Song (960–1127)|Northern Song]] dynasty era, also wrote a long commentary to the Lanka which was influenced by the ''[[Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana|Awakening of Faith]]'' and Huayan.<ref name=":16" /> Another commentary is that of the Chan monk Zhengshou (1146-1208) of the Xuedou lineage which provides a Chan perspective on the Lanka.<ref name=":16" /> The [[Tiantai]] monk Shanyue (1149-1241), also wrote a commentary to the Lanka.<ref name=":16" />    

One of the most important Japanese commentaries is [[Kokan Shiren]]’s (1278-1346) ''Treatise on the Essence of the Buddha’s Words'' (''Butsugoshinron'' 佛語心論), in 18 scrolls 巻, which was written in 1324.<ref name=":2" /> He ignores most Song dynasty commentaries, and only cites Zhiyan's early commentary.<ref name=":16" /> Kokan's commentary includes extensive polemics against [[Tendai]] Buddhism and [[Zhanran|Zhanran's]] views on the ''Lankavatara''. Kokan attempts to show that Zen is a superior and separate transmission of the Buddha’s realization which stands entirely apart from all other Buddhist teaching, doctrine and scriptures and abandons all relative discourse, all "words and letters."<ref name=":15">Stephan Kigensan Licha. ''Separate Teaching and Separate Transmission: Kokan Shiren’s Zen Polemics.'' Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 45/1: 87–124 © 2018 Nanzan Institute for Religion and Culture dx.doi.org/10.18874/jjrs.45.1.2018.87-124</ref> Kokan draws on the teachings of the ''Lankavatara'' on the perfect nature taught by the [[Dharmakāya|Dharmakaya]] to claim that Zen is a unique transmission of the realization of this perfect nature and that this is what [[Bodhidharma|Bodhidharma's]] transmission of “seeing the nature and completing Buddhahood” means.<ref name=":15" /> Another Japanese commentary was published in 1687 by Tokugan Yoson.<ref>Suzuki (1930), p. 64.</ref> 

During the [[Ming dynasty]], various commentaries were written, such as those by the Chan-Pure Land master [[Ouyi Zhixu]] (including 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經義疏, ''Commentary on the Meanings of the Laṅkāvatāra Jewel Sūtra''), the Huayan master Tongrun's ''Lengqie jing hezhe'' (楞伽經合轍) and Jiaohong's (焦竑 1540–1620) ''Lengqie jing jing jie ping lin'' (楞伽經精解評林, ''Forest of Comments of Detailed Interpretations on Lankavatara Sutra'').<ref>Kai Wang, ''[https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/11/1099 A Study of Chinese Commentaries on the Sutra of Perfect Enlightenment.]'' School of Marxism, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266100, China.
</ref>