本文旨在以《大般若波羅蜜多經．第四會》（《小品般若經》）〈妙行品〉與《大般若波羅蜜多經．第二會》（《大品般若經》）〈善現品〉作為對比的基礎探析《般若經》的「假名」概念，試圖從對比中理出兩個《般若經》文本對於「假名」的界定是否有所相同或差異之處，依此探究《般若經》中「假名」概念的根本立場。主要論述以下幾個焦點： 一、 《小品》〈妙行品〉的「假名」概念僅作為諸法假依，並無《大品》〈善現品〉主張「三假」的立論。此番差異，是否蘊含了某種意義？ 二、 《大品》〈善現品〉所立之「三假」，在玄奘與鳩摩羅什的譯本有所差異，分別為：「名假」、「法假」與「方便假」與「名假施設」、「受假施設」、「法假施設」。其中「名假」與「法假」的譯名顯然可以對應起來，但是在羅什譯本的「受假施設」對應到玄奘本似乎缺譯。關於此問題，筆者在文中將論證，羅什譯本的「受假施設」之「受」，非「執受」義而應作「教授」義。 三、 雖然《大智度論》之作者論諍懸而未決，但至少可視為其為對《大品》的註疏。若從《大智度論》中「三假」的立論來看，論中似乎進一步開展了次第性的詮釋，筆者認為此乃突顯「假名」的實踐意義，筆者將從《小品》與《大品》的對比中疏理此般論述是否得以成立。

In this article I will discuss the concept of prajñapti, based on comparisons between the Sarvākārajñātā-caryā chapter of the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā and Subhūti chapter of the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā. I attempt to determine whether this concept is identical in these two sources. I will focus on the following three aspects: 1. The concept prajñapti merely serves as the provisional basis for dharmas in the Aṣṭa, but does not include the three aspects of prajñapti found in the Pañca. I will discuss possible implications of this difference. 2. The three aspects of prajñapti are translated differently by Xuanzang and Kumārajīva. The former uses mingjia 名假, fajia 法假, and fangbian jia 方便假; the latter uses mingjia shishe 名假施設, shoujia shishe 受假施設, and fajia shishe 法假施設. However, Kumārajīva’s term shoujia shishe does not have a corresponding term in Xuanzang’s version. Regarding this, I will argue that Kumārajīva’s term is a translation not of upādāna (zhishou 執受), but of avavāda (jiaoshou 教授). 3. The three aspects of prajñapti are explained more systematically in the commentary on the Pañca in the Da zhidu lun. The contrasting meanings of prajñapti in the Aṣṭa and Pañca can be used to determine whether the Da zhidu lun’s explanation can be established.