Dàshèng bǎifǎ míngmén lùn shū 大乘百法明門論疏
Commentary on the Mahāyāna Treatise on the Bright Door of the Hundred Dharmas (Hongwu canon recension) by 義忠 (Yìzhōng, 述), with preface by 窺基 (Kuījī)
About the work
A two-fascicle Tang Cí’ēn-school commentary on KR6n0096 Dàshèng bǎifǎ míngmén lùn 大乘百法明門論 (T31n1614), distinct from the parallel commentary KR6n0098 (T44n1837) by 大乘光. The work is preserved only in the Hongwu Canon of the South 洪武南藏 (1368) and does not appear in the Taishō. It opens with a preface signed by 窺基 himself (“大乘百法明門論䟽序 / 西京大慈恩寺沙門 窺基 序”); the body of the commentary is by 義忠 (Yìzhōng), an eighth-century Cí’ēn-school scholar.
Structural Division
CANWWW does not preserve a structural division for this Hongwu canon entry. The work is internally organised by Vasubandhu’s five-fold grouping of the hundred dharmas, with Yìzhōng’s commentary tracking each group in sequence.
Abstract
The Kuījī preface — substantial in length and well-developed — narrates the historical context of Vasubandhu’s Bǎifǎ composition: from the post-Buddha era of doctrinal divergence (“法乖一味。水乳兩和” — “the dharma broke from a single flavour, water and milk in two harmonies”), to the appearance of the great bodhisattva Tiānqīn (Vasubandhu) who composed this treatise to “open the two gates of being and emptiness” (啟有空之兩門) and “refute the two-fold extreme of attachment” (闢二邊之異執). The preface emphasises the Yogācāra synthesis of abhidharma analysis with the Mahāyāna doctrine of emptiness.
The commentary by 義忠 proper supplies the lemma-by-lemma exposition of the hundred-dharma catalog. Doctrinally it is in the standard Cí’ēn tradition.
The dating window adopted (700–780) reflects Yìzhōng’s mid-Tang floruit (the preface refers to Kuījī as already an authoritative figure, requiring composition after Kuījī’s death in 682; the work is cited in late-Tang Hossō school sources). The text is not extensively cited in the post-Tang Cí’ēn / Hossō school commentarial tradition, possibly because it was preserved only in Korea and recovered late.
The presence of Kuījī’s authentic preface is the principal historical interest of this version: it is one of the few surviving Kuījī compositions on the Bǎifǎ — Kuījī’s own full commentary, mentioned in the Hossō school sources, has not survived.
Translations and research
- Yoshimura Makoto 吉村誠. Chūgoku Yuishiki shisōshi kenkyū. Tokyo: Daizō shuppan, 2013.