此文說明為何中國佛教徒相信龍樹是《大智度論》的作者。本文反對過去從印度佛教的立場對此論作者所做的解釋，並提出一個新的觀點。即是《大智度論》文本經過僧叡的編修，反映的是第五世紀初中國佛教的思想處境。作者問題其實是個歷史問題而不是作者身份問題。本文分別從對鳩摩羅什、僧叡、翻譯的過程進行調查，並比較若干佛教專有術語與文本差異在《放光》、《光讚》與《大品經》中的不同，以及它們在《大智度論》中的解釋。

This paper accounts for why Chinese Buddhists believe that Nāgārjuna is the author of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the commentary on the Pañcavimśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra. It refutes past theories on the authorship of the text which proceed from the perspective of Indian Buddhism, and proposes a new theory which ascribes the authorship to Sengrui's editorship that reflects the intellectual situation of Chinese Buddhism of the early fifth century. The authorship issue is actually of a historical event rather than a personal identity. For this new theory, the paper investigates the intellectual activities of Kumārajīva and Sengrui, the translation process, and compares terminological differences and textual variations between the old and new translations of the Sūtra and accompanied doctrinal explanations in the commentary.

大智度論；大品般若經；鳩摩羅什；僧叡；龍樹；佛經翻譯

Mahāprajñāparamitodeśa；Pañcavimśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra；Kumārajīva；Sengrui；Nāgārjuna；translation of Buddhist scritpures