敦煌寫本《圓明論》與〈阿摩羅識〉為已佚佛教文獻，原僅中藏「北服006」、英藏「S.6184」、法藏「P.3664+P.3559」與日藏「石井本」等四件遺書。關於《圓明論》與〈阿摩羅識〉的研究不多，且均以法藏本為主，而歸類為北宗文獻。近年新公布了俄藏「Дx00696」與傅圖藏「188106號」兩件寫本，其中的傅圖藏本雖首缺尾殘，但提供了新的研究線索，據之與法藏本、石井本比對，可以發現《圓明論》與〈阿摩羅識〉非北宗獨傳之文書。但因傅圖本為購自民間的散藏，據以研究前宜先甄別藏本之真偽。故本文將先以傅圖本為研究對象，從《圓明論》寫本的發現及刊布史切入，篩檢是否有偽製的可能；繼之比對文書內容，整理出傅圖本可補法藏本不足之處。於甄別傅圖藏本之真偽後，再據此分析《圓明論》與〈阿摩羅識〉之思想內容與修行方法，以重新審視其於佛教思想史之意義與地位。

The ”Yuanming-lun” (圓明論) and ”Amala-vijñāna” (阿摩羅識) are Buddhist texts found only among the Dunhuang manuscripts. In the past, there were four known manuscripts: Bei Fu (北服) 006, S.6184, ”P.3664 and P.3559”, and Ishii's text (石井本). Most studies are based on ”P.3664 and P.3559”, and regard these medieval manuscripts to be texts of the Northern School. In recent years, two manuscripts, Дx00696 and no. 188106, have been made public by ”the Dunhuang Manuscripts Collected in the St. Petersburg Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of Russia” and the Fu Ssu-nien Library respectively. The text from the Fu Ssu-nien collection (no. 188106) in particular offers new insights for research of the ”Yuanming-lun” and ”Amala-vijñāna”. Comparing those manuscripts, we suspect that the ”Yuanming-lun” and ”Amala-vijñāna” were possibly not written by the monks of the Northern School. The provenance of no. 188106 is unclear; however, real manuscripts must be distinguished from imitations. Two methods employed to make such determinations are discussed in this paper. First, I try to determine whether the Fu Ssu-nien collection text (no. 188106) is a modern forgery. I cross-reference and compare the contents of other manuscripts, which are undoubtedly from Cave 17 at Dunhuang, and then compare them with no. 188106 in detail to prove that no. 188106 is real. Second, I use the six manuscripts to analyze the ”Yuanming-lun” and ”Amala-vijñāna”, and rethink these texts' places in the history of Chinese Buddhist thought.