Dàshèng bǎifǎ míngmén lùn zhù 大乘百法明門論註
Annotation on the Mahāyāna Treatise on the Bright Door of the Hundred Dharmas (Qianlong canon recension) trans. and revised by 玄奘 (Xuánzàng, 譯增修), expounded by 慈恩法師 (Cí’ēn fǎshī = Kuījī, 解)
About the work
A single-fascicle commentary on KR6n0096 Dàshèng bǎifǎ míngmén lùn 大乘百法明門論 (T31n1614), preserved in the Qianlong Edition of the Canon 乾隆藏 (Qing imperial canon, 1733–1738) at vol. 149, no. 1629. The catalog formula gives “玄奘 譯增修 / 慈恩法師 解” — an unusual phrasing combining Xuánzàng’s translation work on the root text with Cí’ēn fǎshī’s (Kuījī’s) explanatory commentary. The work is not in the Taishō; this is a Qing-canon-only recension.
Structural Division
CANWWW does not preserve a structural division for this Qianlong canon entry. The single fascicle opens with a topical outline (kē 科) showing the standard division: title (tímù 題目), subdivided into the title of the work commented and the name of the author (Tiānqīn = Vasubandhu); body (běnwén), subdivided into the section that picks up the holy teaching (chéng shèng yán yǐ biāo zōng) and the question-and-answer section (shè wèn dá yǐ míng zōng).
Abstract
This Qianlong-canon recension is one of three Tang-period commentaries on the Bǎifǎ míngmén lùn preserved in the canon — alongside KR6n0098 (T44n1837) by 大乘光 and KR6n0099 (U205n1368) by 義忠. The catalog attribution to “Cí’ēn fǎshī” (Kuījī) is plausible: Kuījī was known to have composed full commentaries on most of the basic Yogācāra texts, and it is conceivable that this represents a fragmentary survival of his work (or a late-imperial reconstruction from his quotations in Hossō school sources, similar to the KR6n0097 case).
The dating window (660–682) reflects Kuījī’s productive teaching career, on the assumption that the underlying material is indeed authentic. The catalog’s formulation that Xuánzàng “translated and revised” (譯增修) the root text and that Kuījī then “explained” (解) it preserves the Cí’ēn-school tradition that the Bǎifǎ míngmén lùn was substantially shaped by Xuánzàng’s translation choices and that Kuījī provided the standard exposition.
The text was lost in the standard Sino-Japanese textual tradition and survives only because it was included in the Qianlong canon. It is rarely cited and has received minimal modern scholarly attention.
Translations and research
No substantial secondary literature located.