Lindtner《Nagarjuniana》（Motilal 印度版：版权页 First Published 1982，First Indian Edition Delhi 1987，Reprinted Delhi 1990，© Chr. Lindtner）。书内 10 页分龙树名下诸作为「1) correctly attributed, 2) wrongly attributed to him, and 3) those which may or may not be genuine」；书内 12 页「The third group, i.e. the dubious texts, may be divided into those that are perhaps authentic:」，其下所列延至书内 14 页，有「*Daśabhūmikavibhāṣā,26」；
核查全文
书内 14 页注 26：「Though, like Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa etc., this commentary is apparently unknown to Indo-Tibetan tradition there are in my opinion several reasons to render it likely that it is authentic: The very early Chinese evidence; quotations from Bodhisaṃbhāra; the Amitābha doctrine set forth here tallies with SL, 121 (cf. RĀ, III, 99); Daśabhūmikasūtra is known to have been used by Nāgārjuna elsewhere … All this certainly deserves a discussion more thorough than I am prepared to undertake at present」。SL 即 Suhṛllekha（同书第十二节题「Suhṛllekha (SL)」，）。脚注原句「Lindtner、印顺等仍主其可信」大体不误而失分寸：Lindtner 一面把此论列在存疑之作，一面在注中倾向其真，且自言尚待详论；「仍主其可信」读来像定论。「学界有疑（无梵本、藏地不传）」一层，其注 26「apparently unknown to Indo-Tibetan tradition」亦可担。注文改法：Lindtner 一侧改作三类之分（书内 10 页）、列在第三类「或许为真」一支（书内 12–14 页）、注 26 倾向其真并举阿弥陀与《劝诫王颂》121 颂相合一端、自言尚待详论；印顺一侧照前记改作「径列之为龙树论」，与下句合并，免印顺二字连出。至此注中各项俱已核到：经文一侧前已坐实，印顺一侧 2026-09-10 条已核，Lindtner 一侧本条。判由疑转确，处置仍已更新；清单补 Lindtner 著录一条。
第 10 页把龙树名下文献分为确属、误属与真伪未定三类；第 12 页再把第三类分作“或许为真”等支；第 14 页列 Daśabhūmikavibhāṣā 并以注二六说明虽不见印藏传统，早期汉译、所引文献与阿弥陀说等理由使其“likely”真实，同时明言仍待更充分讨论。三图支持脚注的存疑定位，不能改读为确属。
