依照目前文獻資料所顯示的，《維摩詰經》支謙譯本應該是這部大乘經典現存最古老的版本。當羅什譯本尚未登場於華夏之際，這個西元三世紀問世的支謙譯本也曾風光一時，雖然西元五世紀之後，它便黯然從漢地的歷史舞台隱退。本世紀之初，隨著梵文原典在拉薩的發現與刊行，這部曾經風靡東亞文化圈的大乘經典又重新吸引諸多學者的目光。當然，從文本效應史的觀點來看，毫無疑問的，羅什譯本乃為壓卷之作。但是，話說從頭，若非支謙譯本先行啟動中土僧俗二眾對這部異域文本的推服之情，或許便沒有日後羅什乃至玄奘等人的再三重譯。因此，從中國思想史的立場來看，探明支謙譯本何以能夠攫獲當時中土廣大知識分子的心靈，並研究該一文本對那個時期漢地思想的影響，顯屬必要。其次，在梵文原典刊佈之後，從跨語種乃至跨文化翻譯的角度來看，支謙譯本又是如何面對梵漢兩種語言之間的巨大落差，乃至超克中印之間的文化藩籬？質言之，究竟是這個異域文本強行征服了中土士人，還是翻譯者成功馴服了這個異域文本？若就中印文化交流的研究專題而論，梵文原典與支謙譯本的對勘工作，也勢不可免。此外，就佛教文獻學的 觀點來看，《維摩詰經》一件四世紀末的漢譯寫本殘卷與一件據信是寫於十一至十三世紀之間的梵文抄本，若是想要清理出這兩者之間的異同所可能顯示的意義，也必須回歸到支謙譯本。然而，一旦我們嘗試重新面對這個頗為古老的漢譯文本之際，卻發現彼此所要面對的，不僅僅是橫梗在該一文本之中的那些極度晦澀而又難以句讀的文句，更要面對疑雲重重的譯者歸屬問題。本文嘗試藉由一件書造於四世紀末的寫卷而入校傳世刻本，並借助漢語語法的分析以及梵漢文本對勘的語文學方法，而著手釋讀支謙譯本中一段生澀不堪而令人費解不已的經文。另一方面，則隨順其經文解讀所顯示的實際情況而嘗試釐清有關此一譯本的譯者歸屬問題。

Based on current available textual sources, Zhi Qian’s translation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa should be the oldest version of this Mahāyāna text. Before Kumārajīva’s translation appeared in China, Zhi Qian’s translation once had its glory days when it first emerged in the third century CE. It was after the fifth century that it gradually depart from the Chinese historical stage. In the beginning of this century, with the Lhasa discovery and the publication of the Sanskrit original, this Mahāyāna text that was once prominent among East Asian countries, is now attracting much attention among many scholars again. From the viewpoint of influence and effect in history, Kumārajīva’s version is no doubt, still the most outstanding work. However, if not for Zhi Qian’s translation which had initiated an interest and admiration to this foreign text amongst Chinese monastic and lay communities, there may not have been the subsequent re-translations of the scriptures by Kumārajīva and Xuan Zang. Hence, from the perspective of Chinese history of thoughts, by examining Zhi Qian’s translation, one could gain insight into the minds of the vast number of Chinese intellectuals of the time. Furthermore, the study of this text is also essential for the understanding of the influence upon which the scripture had on the development of Chinese thoughts during that period. Next, with the publication of the Sanskrit original text, issues concerning cross-linguistic and cross-culture translation include: How has Zhi Qian dealt with the tremendous divergence between Sanskrit and Chinese language and how has he overcome cultural differences between China and India in his translation? In other words, has it been the Chinese who were conquered by this foreign text or was it the translator who has successfully “tamed” this text from the foreign land? Also, studies on textual comparison between the Sanskrit original and Zhi Qian’s translation are inevitable in the research of Indian-Chinese cultural exchange. From a Philological viewpoint, Zhi Qian’s version played an important role in determining the significance of the commonalities and differences between a fragments of Chinese manuscript from the end of the fourth century and a Sanskrit manuscript, believes to have been from the eleventh to thirteenth century. Once we have decide to revisit this ancient Chinese work, not only are we faced with the obscurity and incomprehensible phrasings found within the text, we are also encountering problematic of the true identity of the translator. The present paper intent to study the text based on a block-printed edition from a manuscript that was made at the end of fourth century. Incorporating techniques of grammar analysis of the Classical Chinese language and philological approach of textual analysis on the Sanskrit and Chinese texts to interpret an obscure and incomprehensible section found in Zhi Qian’s translation. In addition, the present study aims to resolve the controversy concerning the identity of the translator by examining the evidence from the analysis and interpretation of the text.