Dharmadharmatavibhanga is one of Maitreya’s five perspectives and it is said that was written by Maitreya. It shows apparently differences in China and Tibet. The theory is so important that most Tibetan Buddhism religious sects take it as one of the obligatory theory. However, in China, it’s not been translated from Chinese to Tibetan by Fa Zun Maste until 1936. After Fa Zun Maste translated Dharmadharmatavibhanga, other interpreters such as Taixu Maste, Yin Shun Maste, and Tan Sion started to have their own interpretations on it. It shows apparently differences about the comprehension and propositon between China and Tibet in those Chinese interpretations on Dharmadharmatavibhanga. In China, Taixu Maste and Yin Shun Maste think the theory as Vijñānavāda. However, in Tibet, the scholars have different concepts such as Madhyamika, Vijñānavāda and Tathagata-garbha.Tan Sion, one of those scholars, who claims the theory as Tathagata-garbha view of the Rnying-ma-ba and Tathagata-garbha concept as Tathagata-garbha ideology according to the interpretaion of Rnying-ma-ba. It shows apparently differences in the two concepts of Vijñānavāda and Great Madhyamaka. The study focuses on the different claims in the theory between China and Tibet, and also do comparative study between Yin Shun's and Tan Sion's Interpretations on 「Dharmadharmatavibhanga」 In Chapter 1, to comprehend the academic circumstance, the study describes the conscious of problems, the origin of Dharmadharmatavibhanga, the discussions of the theory absent reasons in China, the review of the author’s contension, and arranges the existing Tibetan and Chinese translation and related literature. In Chapter 2, for the reason of the lackness of Tan Sion’s inpretation in Great Madhyamaka, the study arranges the Great Madhyamaka from Tan Sion’s other literature so that to do further interpretation and understanding. In the other hand, it also describes the resources and the inheritance of Rnying-ma-ba. In Chapter 3, the study describes the resources and the important primary thought of Vijñānavāda. It also investigates Yin Shun Maste’s Vijñānavāda thought standpoint and the process of the thought transition. Moreover, comparing with Yin Shun Maste’s intrepretation, the study establishes the foundation and standpoint from the Dharmadharmatavibhanga. In Chapter 4, to comprehend the differences of the viewpoints and inpretations from Yin Sun Mastre and Tan Sion, the study makes the analysis analyze and comparison on Yin Shun Maste’s and Tan Sion’s inpretations. In the last chapter, the study makes simple conclusions and suggestions.
