J. W. de Jong 於1955 年所發表有關PT610、PT611 兩份敦煌藏文寫本殘卷的考察曾被 Étienne Lamotte 引用，據以判定《維摩詰經》曾被譯成藏文不只一次。然而de Jong 論文中大部分的篇幅是PT610、PT611 兩份寫卷和甘珠爾傳本的藏文對音對照，並未針對PT610、PT611 和甘珠爾傳本之間的差異進行詳細的分析和討論。本文首先比對13 個甘珠爾傳本中之對應經文，嘗試經由各本之間的差異推演《維摩詰經》甘珠爾傳本之傳承關係與體系，然後分析PT610、PT611 和各甘珠爾傳本之間的文句異同和關係。研究結果顯示，根據書寫型式推斷，PT610 的年代較PT611 早；同時，無論從語詞、語法或句構等方面觀察，PT610 與甘珠爾傳本之間的歧異甚大，顯然非屬同一譯本體系。此外，由比對結果可推測PT611 是滕邦瑪族群之遠古始祖，但沒有任何跡象可證明PT611 和蔡巴族群之間存在關聯。本研究之結果確立兩份敦煌寫本殘卷的價值：PT610 的存在證明《維摩詰經》有不只一個藏文譯本；PT611 的內容透露《維摩詰經》藏文本經文曾經經過大幅調整。 本文所觀察之經文段落並非《維摩詰經》全文，有關《維摩詰經》甘珠爾傳本關係方面的討論也只是初步的考察。儘管如此，期待本文的初步探討能增進國內學界對甘珠爾傳本研究的認識與興趣，未來有更多年輕學者願意投入目前仍在迅速發展的相關研究領域之中。
The study of the two Tibetan Dunhuang manuscripts PT610 and PT611 by J. W. de Jong in 1955 was taken by Étienne Lamotte as an important reference to posit that the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa had been translated into Tibetan more than one time. Instead of analyzing and discussing the differences between PT610, PT611 and the Kanjur versions, de Jong’s paper was devoted in large part to the collation of the transliteration of PT610, PT611 and the Kanjur versions. Until now no contribution has been made to investigate the relationship between different Kanjur versions of the Tibetan Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, let alone the condition of their transmission. Taking PT610 and PT611 as the main subject of investigation, this study fi rst compares the corresponding sūtra text in 13 Kanjur versions of the Tibetan Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and aims to deduce the transmission relationship between the Kanjur versions according to variant readings. The differences in wording and syntax between PT610, PT611 and the Kanjur versions as well as their correlations are then examined. The research results show that according to the writing patterns, PT610 predates PT611. Moreover, PT610 deviates significantly from the Kanjur versions in wording, grammar, and syntax, suggesting that PT610 and the Kanjur versions are not descendants from the same translation. Besides, PT611 should be the ancestor of the Them spang ma group, whereas no relationship can be found between PT611 and the Tshal pa group. This study confirms the value of the two Dunhuang manuscripts; while the existence of PT610 indicates that Vimalakīrtinirdeśa was translated into Tibetan more than one time, the content of PT611 reveals the fact that the Tibetan version of Vimalakīrtinirdeśa was previously revised in large scale. This study only examines a small section of the whole sūtra text. Thus the discussion on the relationship between different Kanjur versions in this paper can only be accounted as a preliminary examination. However, this paper contributes to the enhancement of understanding and interest in the research of Tibetan Kanjurs in Taiwan, and is offered in the hope that young scholars will be induced to delve into the related research area, which is still undergoing rapid development.
