The only credible information about how Tao-sheng came to take an interest in the Lotus is his own statement found in the preface to the commentary itself. He writes that earlier, “when young,” he happened to attend a series of lectures on the Lotus, which were “rich in literary content and meaning” and “deep in reflection in the explanatory medium (shih) and underlying principle (li).” The notes he jotted down then, he goes on to say, became the basis of the present commentary compiled toward the end of his life in 432. The lecturer is not specified. Possibly, it could have been either Chu Fa-t’ai (320-387) or Kumārajīva (344-413). The expression “when I was young” makes Chu sound like the more plausible author, because Tao-sheng was presumably with Chu between ages eleven (ca. 371) and twenty-seven (ca. 387), whereas he studied under Kumārajīva in his late forties, between 405 and 408.

However, no other evidence supports the theory of the earlier master. Furthermore, the commentary is based on the text of Kumārajīva, not on any other translation, though it is not categorically impossible that he initially attended the lecture based on another version and later used the new translation. The oldest of the three extant translations is the one by Dharmarakshita (translated in 286). Tao-sheng may have studied it at some point in the thirty years following his conversion to Buddhism. Yet, the study of the Prajñāpāramitā Sūtras (especially in the circle of Chu Fa-t’ai as in the circle of the latter’s colleague Tao-an) dominated and overshadowed the study of other scriptures.

As a matter of fact, Tao-sheng was in Ch’ang-an when Kumārajīva translated the Lotus. The translation was not limited to rendering the Sanskrit text into the Chinese language but involved the master’s interpretation of the text, eliciting lively discussions among students concerning the most appropriate translations of the original Sanskrit terms. It may be pointed out here that in his colophon to the Lotus, Seng-chao recognized Tao-sheng’s presence in the translation, also stating that “the letters and meanings (as suggested by Kumārajīva) were both penetrative,” resembling Tao-sheng’s description cited earlier. In any event, a long gap of at least twenty-seven years lies between Tao-sheng’s introduction to the Lotus and the compilation of his commentary. During this period Tao-sheng was occupied with many subjects and sūtras, covering practically all of his theories and writings. The commentary thus marks the culmination of his scholarship.

The commentary was completed in 432 while Tao-sheng was at Lu-shan after being excommunicated in 430 because of the icchantika issue. Tao-sheng apparently took up the Lotus as a medium to voice his thoughts and feelings about the Buddhist study and practice of his time. This is expressed in the first passage of the commentary, as he laments: “those who seriously tackle and grasp [the subtle words] are few while those who superficially touch and sneer at them are many.” In fact the doctrine of universal Buddhahood is manifestly embodied in the text.