This research is about to figure out the vijñapti-mātratā thoughts in Kuiji’s commentary of Vimalakīrti – nirdeśa Sutra. There were three ancient Chinese translations of this Sutra: Zhi Qian(245AD.), Kumārajīva(455AD.) and Xuanzang(625AD.). Only Kuiji’s commentary was based on Xuan-Zhang’s translation and presented vijñapti-mātratā thoughts. This research tried to clarify Kuiji’s unique point of view by the Sanskrit-Chinese comparative analysis of Sanskrit manuscript and three ancient Chinese translations. Alought the research discover that they weren’t translated from the same original version, it doesn’t differ the core idea of Vimalakīrti – nirdeśa Stra. Those vijñapti-mātratā words in Xuan-Zhang’s translation didn’t related to vijñapti-mātratā thought,too. For this reason, three ancient Chinese translations of Vimalakīrti – nirdeśa Sutra are still in mādhyamaka thought. However, Kuiji commented Xuan-Zhang’s translation, such as “vijñāna”, ”vijñapti”,”bīja”, “gotra”, and “ālaya”, by vijñapti-mātratā thoughts. This commentay displays that Kuiji didn’t obey Xuan-Zhang’s translation completetly. In the three periods and characteristics of Buddha's teaching, Kuiji defined Vimalakīrti – nirdeśa Sutra as the second to the third, which meant the middle of mādhyamaka and Vijñapti-mātratā. Kuiji cited Dharmapāla’s Vijñapti-mātratā points to disprove Bhāviveka’s Śūnyatā points. Then he pronounced that Dharmapāla’s viewpoints were the superior truth. Due to Gadamer’s Philosophical hermeneutics, Kuiji’s prejudice (German:Vorurteil) was obviously partial to vijñapti-mātratā. But His commentary not only keep Xuan-Zhang’s translation, also improve the meaning of vijñapti-mātratā school in Tang Dynasty. If readers take commentaries as the same thing of Sutra, they might misunderstand the power of those schools in Chinese Buddhism. Thus Kuiji’s commentary could be known as a new way to explain Vimalakīrti – nirdeśa Sutra.