近世中國佛教史上，相對於清末民初因《成唯識論述記》等唯識典籍從 日本回歸所造成的唯識學研究的熱潮，晚明亦有一群僧人、居士，企圖在清 涼澄觀《華嚴經疏鈔》、永明延壽《宗鏡錄》，及通濟雲峰《唯識開蒙問答》 等書的基礎上，追探《成唯識論》、《因明入正理論》、《觀所緣緣論》等唐譯 唯識經典的思想義蘊，而此研習風尚一直傳衍至清代初期。如聖嚴法師、張 志強等當代學者對於此一方面的研究多仰賴於通行的藏經材料，實則仍有不 少作品散藏在中國等地圖書館，罕為人所關注。這些資料的整理與運用，有 助於我們在更為周全的文獻基礎上，對於明末清初唯識學展開進一步的研 究，從而確定其思想特徵、定位與成就。由於該時期的唯識學傳習，是以《成 唯識論》為主要研究對象，因此本文特考述筆者於各地圖書館所發現的七種 《成唯識論》稀見注疏本，並且討論這些注釋書在明末清初唯識教學史上的可 能價值與意義，以期引起學界更多關注。

In the late Qing-early Republican period, the reintroduction from Japan of Yogācāra classics such as the Cheng weishi lun shuji (Annotated Treatise on Consciousness-Only) sparked an intense interest in studying the Yogācāra. The history of early modern Buddhism records a similar phenomenon in the late Ming: a group of Buddhist laity and monastics attempted to understand the doctrinal implications of Yogācāra classics such as the Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論, Yinming ruzheng lilun 因明入正理論, and Guan suoyuan yuan lun 觀所緣緣論 on the basis of later works such as the Huayenjing shuchao 華嚴經 疏鈔by Chingliang Chengguan 清涼澄觀, Zongjing lu 宗鏡錄 by Yongming Yanshou 永明延壽, and Weishi kaimeng wenda 唯識開蒙問答 by Tongji Yunfeng 通濟雲峰. This vigorous scholarly interest lasted until the early Qing dynasty. Contemporary scholars in this field, such as Sheng Yen 聖嚴and Chang Chi-chiang 張志強, rely heavily on Buddhist scriptures in general circulation; there is still, however, a great deal of related literature lying scattered and relatively neglected in libraries across China and elsewhere. Systematic collation and analysis of these materials provide us with a more solid documentary foundation for a comprehensive study of Yogācāra’s development during the late Ming and early Qing period, helping us identify its ideological features, orientation and contribution. The Cheng weishi lun was the primary object of Yogācāra scholarship throughout that period. Accordingly, this article not only presents textual research specifically on the seven lesser known annotations of the Cheng weishi lun that the author has found in various libraries, but also elaborates on the potential value and significance of these annotations for the pedagogic history of Yogācāra in that period. It is hoped that further scholarly attention will be given to this subject in future.