《維摩詰經》的宗派詮釋差異：以羅什譯本為核心的隋唐佛教宗派詮釋的開展

The Development of Buddhist Schools in the Sui and Tang Dynasties: Hermeneutic Difference of Kumārajīva's Vimalakīrti nirdeśa

Huiyuan, Zhiyi, and Jizang, three Buddhist masters in the Sui dynasty, studied and made their own interpretations of Kumārajīva's translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. This article compares their works to evaluate the relationship between their interpretations of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśaand the developments in Buddhist schools in the Sui and Tang dynasties. I will focus on the dates of completion for their works, the differences in their context, and their interpretations of the full title of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa(inconceivable liberation), and other topics to identify the core ideas behind theirinterpretations and the relational development of Chinese Buddhist scholastic thought.
Huiyuan uses “ontological true mind” as the core idea for his commentary, interpreting the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśaas a text representing “true mind only.” Zhiyi focuses on the concept of inconceivability but integrates ideas from the Lotus sūtraand the Mahāyāna mahāparinirvāṇa sūtrato interpret it from a Tiantai perspective. Jizang emphasizes the concept of non-duality (advaya) and identifies it with emptiness (śūnya), signlessness (alakṣaṇā), and non-acquisition (anupalabdha), finally identifying the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśaas a prajñāpāramitā sutra.
Although “ontological true mind” is Huiyuan's fundamental perspective, he includes ideas from the Daśabhūmika śāstra, Mahāyāna mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra, and the Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyānato interpret the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa.However, he does not attempt to establish his own school yet. Zhiyi's Tiantai school was growing at the same time of his interpretation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, and he used the idea of perfect teachings and the Lotussūtraand Mahāyānamahāparinirvāṇa sūtrato integrate ideas from various sūtras. Jizang inherited the tradition of the Sanlun school, taking emptiness (śūnyata) as the ultimate truth and interpreting other texts from this perspective.
There are multifaceted hermeneutic points of view toward the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. Thesethree masters have their own explanations, although none of them is the only correct interpretation. It is just as the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśasays: “The Buddha explains the Dharma with one sound and sentient beings each attain understanding according totheir capacity.” The phenomenon of hermeneutic difference has shown this completely.