[6] Lamotte's translation is based on the Tibetan version of Bkah-gyur,[7] located in the Otani Kanjur Catalogue, Kyoto, No.
843. and the book also catalogs variations and additions in the Chinese version of Xuanzang's (Hsüan-tsang) text as found in the Taishō Tripiṭaka.
[3] In regards to the consultations of the Chinese commentaries on the VKN Robinson wrote that Lamotte "exploited them for tales rather than doctrinal explanations.
"[8] Robinson wrote that Lamotte "repeatedly blurs important philosophical distinctions, attempts to reduce the dialectic to the dogmatic, and slips away from the dual standpoint (relative and absolute) which underlies the systematic double-entendre of the text.
"[8] Robinson argues that this caused him to not satisfactorily explain the central point of the sutra because the practice distorts the commentary on the ethics and the metaphysics of the VKN.
[8] Robinson wrote that this version was "philologically the most adequate treatment of a major Mahāyāna sūtra to appear in a modern language.
"[3] Robinson argued that Lamotte "has succeeded very well in his aim of revealing the Indic original underlying the Tibetan translation" and that his work "has resolved hundreds of points that were obscure in the Chinese versions, and has thus laid a solid foundation for further Vimalakīrti studies, as well as facilitating similar treatment of other Mahayāna sūtras not extant in Sanskrit.
[2] Paul Williams, author of a book review for the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, stated that the omission of Vimilakīrti en Chine from the English version was "naturally to be regretted".
"[2] Robinson wrote that the French version was "excellent" and that despite the flaws "there is still no book in a European language that advances our philosophical and religious understanding of this text beyond that of the Sino-Japanese commentators.