Traditionally, the Awakening of Faith in the Great Vehicle (AFGV) was regarded as a translation by Paramārtha (499-569). However, recent studies conducted by scholars such as Takemura Makio 竹村牧男 have found that the AFGV has a close relationship with such texts of the early Dilun 地論 school as Jingangxian lun 金剛仙論, a record of lectures of Bodhiruci (?-508-537-?), which preceded the split of the Dilun school into northern and southern branches, and also antedated Paramārtha’s arrival to China. However, Aramaki Noritoshi 荒牧典俊 recently argued that the AFGV was composed by Tanyan 曇延 (516-588) from the southern branch of the Dilun school, after Paramārtha’s arrival to China, under the influence of Paramārtha’s Chinese translation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya (MSBh). In this article I will prove that Aramaki’s view cannot stand by pointing out the following facts: 1. Aramaki assumed that Stein 4303, a Dunhuang manuscript belonging to the southern branch of the Dilun school, used the same triad as the AFGV, namely, ti 體 (“substance”), xiang 相 (“character”) and yong 用 (“function”), and supposed that Stein 4303 preceded the AFGV. However, while Stein 4303 allots the body of dharma , the body of enjoyment and the body of transformation to ti , xiang and yong respectively, the AFGV allots the body of dharma to ti , and allots the body of enjoyment and the body of transformation to yong (i.e. the AFGV does not allot any concepts to xiang ). The way of allotment in the AFGV is in accordance with the Jingangxian lun's . Therefore, in fact, the AFGV must have preceded Stein 4303. 2. Aramaki assumed that the theory of “permeation of truth” in the AFGV was influenced by the theory of permeation in the MSBh. However, in fact, the permeation of truth had already been argued in the Jingangxian lun . Therefore, the influence of the MSBh on the AFGV should not be counted. 3. Depending on the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra and the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra , both of which are Mahāyāna texts expressing the idea of consciousness-only, the AFGV asserted two theories: (1) the simultaneous emergence of the five sense objects (i.e. sights, sounds, scents, flavors and tactile sensations) in the storehouse-consciousness; (2) the simultaneous origination of the six consciousnesses (i.e. eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness and mind-consciousness) relying on the five sense objects. However, in his commentary on the AFGV, Tanyan, probably depending on Śrāvakayāna texts, questioned the both theories. This means that Tanyan is not the author of the AFGV. 4. Tanyan was interested in the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra (MPS), one of the sūtra s expressing the Tathāgata-garbha (“matrix of Tathāgata”) thought, and wrote a commentary on the MPS. However, we can hardly find any influences of the MPS on the AFGV. For example, the word buddha-dhātu (“Buddha-nature”), representing the MPS, never appears in the AFGV. According to the Further Biographies of Eminent Monks , Tanyan, when decided to write a commentary on the MPS, met with Aśvaghoṣa in his dream and accepted a teaching from Aśvaghoṣa. As is well known, Aśvaghoṣa has been said to be the author of the AFGV. Depending on this episode, Aramaki supposed that Tanyan was the author of the AFGV. However, this episode may simply mean that before the composition of Tanyan’s commentary, Aśvaghoṣa had been known as an authority of Tathāgata-garbha thought: Aśvaghoṣa was already regarded as the author of the AFGV by that time. Judging from the fact that Huiyuan’s 慧遠 (523-592) commentary on the MPS, which precedes Tanyan’s commentary, quotes the AFGV as Aśvaghoṣa’s work, we should say that the AFGV had already circulated as Aśvaghoṣa’s work before the composition of Tanyan’s commentary. Therefore Tanyan is not the author of the AFGV.