Jīngāng xīnyǎn shū jīngjiē héshì 金剛新眼疏經偈合釋
Diamond New-Eye Commentary: Joint Explanation of Sūtra and Verses by 通理 Tōnglǐ (述)
About the work
A two-juan high-Qīng (Qiánlóng-era) integrative commentary by Dátiān Tōnglǐ 達天通理 (1701–1782), the most authoritative Huáyán-school commentator of the eighteenth century. The unique title-formula xīnyǎn 新眼 (“new eye”) + shū jīngjiē héshì (“joint explanation of sūtra and verses”) identifies the commentary’s organizing principle: it 合釋-combines the 鳩摩羅什 Kumārajīva Vajracchedikā root-text (KR6c0023) with the Asaṅga / Vasubandhu eighty-verse vyākhyā (here re-examined via 義淨 Yìjìng’s translation tradition), reading them as a single coordinated unit rather than treating the verses as auxiliary apparatus. The xīnyǎn (“new eye”) signals Tōnglǐ’s conscious break from the standard kāndìngjì 刊定記 (子璿 Chángshuǐ Zǐxuán) and zhuāngyánjì 莊嚴記 (Sòng) commentary frames toward a fresh integrated reading. notBefore set to 1760 (Tōnglǐ’s mature commentary period); notAfter = 1765 (preface date 乾隆三十年乙酉 = 1765-12). Preserved as X25 no. 487. Catalog dynasty 清.
Abstract
The opening Jīngāng bānruò jīng jiē huìběn xù 金剛般若經偈會本敘 frames the verse-tradition’s pedigree: the eighty gāthā of Maitreya transmitted to Asaṅga in Tuṣita heaven (慈氏頌之，無著受之), then to Vasubandhu (世親承之), with Yìjìng’s testimony (義淨法師云) confirming Maitreya as the original speaker. Tōnglǐ corrects an earlier attribution-error: Yìjìng’s translation lists the verses as Asaṅga’s composition, but Tōnglǐ argues this is mìngzì zhī wù ěr 命字之誤耳 (“merely a slip in name-attribution”) — the verses should properly be ascribed to Maitreya. Comparison with the 菩提流支 Bodhiruci translation of the verses suggests the Yìjìng version yóu lún yī chóu 猶輪一籌 (“still trails by one tally”), motivating Tōnglǐ’s new héběn (joint-edition). The commentary then proceeds verse by verse, with the sūtra-text and the Maitreya verses interleaved under a unified Huáyán-Tiāntái doctrinal apparatus.
Translations and research
- For Tōnglǐ’s broader Huáyán scholarship see modern surveys of Qīng Buddhism, esp. Daniel Stevenson and the Sino-Japanese scholarly literature on the Qiánlóng-era Buddhist establishment. The Xīnxù gāosēng zhuàn 新續高僧傳 j. 10 supplies the standard biographical notice.
Other points of interest
Tōnglǐ is one of the rare eighteenth-century Chinese commentators to engage seriously with the Sanskrit-derived Maitreya-Vasubandhu metrical tradition rather than to subordinate it to Chán dialectic or to Pure-Land devotional reading. The result is an unusually scholastic Vajracchedikā commentary for its date, anticipating in tone the Tantric / Yogācāra renaissance of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.