本文目的在於探討依《維摩經》鳩摩羅什譯本所形成的中國《維摩經》詮釋傳統之形成理由，及此一詮釋傳統中所函括的詮釋學問題。本文將透過兩個角度以進行觀察，一者藉由羅什譯《維摩經》的文本解析，另一則是通過傳統宗派哲學家的《維摩經》解經方法之考察，藉此雙向的對照，以呈現同一《維摩經》文本，宗派彼此之詮釋既相互影響，但也基於不同詮釋方法或者關注之重點的差異形成，造成《維摩經》解讀與理解之差異，此一同異交參現象乃形成漢傳《維摩經》的詮釋傳統。將此詮釋傳統納入當代詮釋學的脈絡來進一步反省，可與當代《維摩經》詮釋再作對照，形成更多元的《維摩經》詮釋視域。論文進行的方式：先行疏理《維摩經》文本，特就羅什本為主進行閱讀分析，將其中的主要議題整理出來，同時也觀察羅什本用語之特色及其所引發之義理解釋之開展；然後再就中國古代的幾個傳統注疏的解經方法加以分析，並與第一階段的文本分析與議題整理，進行交互比對，以呈現不同注釋者所著重的問題，之後再就各家解經題之方式加以比較，指出各家注釋的相同與差異；然後再進行當代《維摩經》幾個主要的研究進路之回顧，以與傳統《維摩經》詮釋傳作對比；最後則將古今不同的理解與詮釋進路，置於當代詮釋學的脈絡之中，以呈現《維摩經》之一本多義的多元詮釋現象。《維摩經》之一本多義，除從羅什譯《維摩經》，由羅什特定的譯文表述所形成特定的理解效果可資觀察之外，本文將分為文本語意詮釋、文化詮釋、生命實踐詮釋等三個角度，以觀察、析論不同詮釋活動過程中的具體方法，及其中所預設的前見；此項檢討不只及於中國古代的幾個注釋，也及於當代《維摩經》之研究。當代研究偏重文本詮釋，且視為一種單純的知識研究活動，其與古代除文本詮釋之外亦重視生命詮釋的態度有所不同，但二者其背後也都含蘊了所處時代的文化態度，因此也都帶有自覺或不自覺的文化詮釋於內。如能理解這些不同的詮釋進路，當可解釋一經多義的現象，也可掌握不同詮釋的貢獻及限制。

The aim of this paper is to examine the reasons for the formation of the Chinese tradition of hermeneutics of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa which is based on Kumārajīva’s translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, as well as the hermeneutical problems which are contained within this tradition of hermeneutics. This paper will proceed in its examination from two angles, the first being an analysis of the text of Kumārajīva’s tradition of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and the second being a review of the interpretative methods of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa by the philosophers of the traditional schools. By a comparison between these two approaches we shall show the mutual interaction of the hermeneutics between the schools with respect to the same text of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. Yet, due to development of differences in different hermeneutical methods or points of emphasis, there is the creation of differences in the interpretation and understanding of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. This phenomena of the interaction between the commonalities and differences brought about the Chinese hermeneutic traditions with respect to the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. We shall reflect on these traditions of hermeneutics as we bring them into the modern theories of hermeneutics, and by making another comparison with modern hermeneutics on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa we can form multifaceted hermeneutic points of view toward the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa. The methods employed in this paper include: First, an overview of the text of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, in particular an analysis of Kumārajīva’s tradition of the text, for which we shall clarify some of the important topics, as well as simultaneously looking at the specific features of Kumārajīva’s terminology and the development of the interpretations that this brought about. Second, we shall carry out an analysis of the several interpretative methods of understanding of the classic Chinese traditions, and then make a comparison with the textual and topical analysis carried out in the first part, to reveal the problems emphasized by the different interpreters. Third, we shall make a comparison between the different methods of interpreting the text, to show the commonalities and differences between the various interpreters. Finally, a review of the methodological avenues of the important modern studies of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, placing them within the lines of modern hermeneutics, in order to reveal the phenomena of multifaceted hermeneutic approaches of a single yet multivalent Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. Concerning a multivalent yet single text of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, apart from Kumārajīva’s translation of Vimalakīrti-nirdeśaand the observable situation wherein the specific translation terminology of Kumārajīva’s text lead to specific kinds of interpretation, this paper will also look into three points of view, namely semantic hermeneutics, cultural hermeneutics, and life actualization hermeneutics, by examining and analyzing concrete methods within the hermeneutic process, as well as prejudices within that. This reflection not only concerns the classic Chinese interpretations, but also modern research on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa. Modern research leans heavily toward textual hermeneutics, which it sees as a kind of pure and simple intellectual research movement. This differs from classical textual interpretations which also emphasize the attitude of life actualization hermeneutics. Even though both of these contain the cultural attitudes of their respective background place and time, they may or may not be aware to include such cultural hermeneutics. If we are able to understand these different avenues of interpretation, we can interpret the phenomena of multivalency in a single text, and secure the contributions and limits of different types of hermeneutics.