Yuánjué jīng yàojiě 圓覺經要解
Essential Explication of the Sūtra of Perfect Enlightenment by 寂正 (Jìzhèng, 要解)
About the work
A 2-fascicle compact commentary on the Yuánjué jīng (KR6i0551) by the late-Míng monk 寂正 Jìzhèng 寂正 of the Lùtōng Lǜsì 陸通律寺 in Wǔlín 武林 (Hángzhōu). The work is a yàojiě 要解 — “essential explication” — that distils the developed Zōngmì-tradition exegesis into a brief, classroom-friendly format, comparable in scope and intent to the contemporary 通潤 Tōngrùn Yuánjué jīng jìnshì (KR6i0570) but with a more pronounced vinaya-school inflection consonant with the author’s institutional affiliation. Each chapter of the sūtra is given a short summary outline followed by line-by-line explanatory glosses; the work is consciously economic, omitting most of the elaborate doctrinal-classification apparatus that the Sòng commentaries had inherited from Zōngmì.
Abstract
The autograph preface, preserved at the head of the work (X10 no. 260), is dated 大明萬曆丁巳佛成道日 = the Buddha’s enlightenment day (12/8) of Míng Wànlì 45 = early 1618 CE; signed Wǔlín shì Jìzhèng 武林釋寂正. The signature line at the head of the main text further identifies him as Lùtōnglǜsì qínxī 陸通律寺勤息 — i.e., a vinaya-school monk (lǜsì = “vinaya-monastery”) in Hangzhou’s Lùtōngsì, with the self-deprecatory qínxī 勤息 (“diligent rest”) as monastic title. The dating places the work in the late-Wàn-lì period, contemporary with 德清 Hānshān Déqīng’s KR6i0569 Zhíjiě (composed 1606–1623) and 通潤 Tōngrùn’s KR6i0570 Jìnshì (composed before 1624). Together these three constitute the WǎnMíng efflorescence of Yuánjué exegesis.
The work is otherwise undocumented; Jìzhèng’s lifedates and detailed biographical information are not preserved in standard reference works. He was clearly part of the late-Wàn-lì Hángzhōu vinaya-revival circle but his place within that movement cannot be reconstructed from the available evidence.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located.
Other points of interest
The Lùtōng Lǜsì in late-Wàn-lì Hángzhōu was one of the centres of the late-Míng vinaya-revival movement; the production of a Yuánjué jīng commentary from this institutional context is a useful datum for the broader pattern by which late-Míng scholar-monks combined doctrinal and disciplinary scholarship.