本文从布顿大师早在十四世纪既已提出的“藏地流传的《比丘尼律分别》并非根本说一切有部的文本”这一观点出发，对现存藏译《比丘尼戒经》（dGe slong ma’i so sor thar ba’i mdo）、藏译《比丘尼律分别》（dGe slong ma’i ’dul ba rnam par ’byed pa）、义净译汉译本《根本说一切有部苾芻尼戒经》（T. 24, No. 1455）、汉译本《根本说一切有部苾芻尼毘奈耶》（T. 23, No. 1443）这四个文本之间的复杂关系进行了详细研究，对布顿大师所注意到的流传于藏地的《比丘尼戒经》和《比丘尼律分别》在内部结构、戒条数量、戒条顺序、戒条内容等方面的不匹配现象进行更加深入和全面的考察与探讨。并在此基础上，对在藏地与汉地流传的根本说一切有部比丘尼戒律文本传统进行了细致梳理和比较，希望能在文献整理的基础工作之外，尝试推进学界对根本说一切有部律典的文本传统多元化的认知。 本文以藏译本《比丘尼戒经》、藏译本《比丘尼律分别》、义净译汉译本《根本说一切有部苾芻尼戒经》、汉译本《根本说一切有部苾芻尼毘奈耶》四个文本为核心研究对象，通过汉藏对勘和语文学的研究方法，详细梳理了这四个核心文本的结构和内容，比较分析了这四个文本之间在整体结构、戒条表述和戒条注释等方面的异同之处，并对差异性质、差异类型以及产生差异的可能原因进行了分析。在文献整理工作的基础上，本文考察了藏译本《比丘尼律分别》、藏译本《比丘尼戒经》和义净译出的汉译比丘尼戒律文本所分别代表的戒律传统之间的亲疏关系，揭示了藏译《比丘尼律分别》区别于藏译《比丘尼戒经》和义净汉译比丘尼戒律文本（包括汉译《比丘尼戒经》和《比丘尼律分别》）的一些独特特征。基于对勘证据，本文论证了藏译《比丘尼律分别》所代表的戒律文本传统具有特殊性，在整体结构和戒条内容方面，与藏译《比丘尼戒经》和义净汉译《比丘尼律分别》存在诸多重要差异；与此同时，《比丘尼律分别》汉藏译本所代表的戒律文本传统显示出较高相似性。此外，本文通过分析《比丘尼律分别》汉藏译本之间在戒律注释内容上的差异，对《比丘尼律分别》汉藏译本的表述特征进行了分析，发现汉译本的表述风格总体而言较之藏译本更为简洁。

Starting from the hypothesis proposed by Master Bu sTon rin chen grub (1290–1364) in the 14th century that the Bhik?uṇī-vibha?ga circulated in Tibet does not belong to the Mūlasarvāstivāda sect, this thesis investigates the relationship between four key texts (namely the extant Tibetan translations of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhik?uṇī-prātimok?asūtra and Bhik?uṇī-vibha?ga and Yijing’s Chinese translations of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhik?uṇī-prātimok?asūtra and Bhik?uṇī-vibha?ga), particularly focusing on the similarities and differences of the textual traditions represented by these four Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya texts. Through comparing the Chinese and Tibetan translations of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhik?uṇī-prātimok?asūtra and Bhik?uṇī-vibha?ga), the present thesis attempts to further our understanding of the existence of multiple Mūlasarvāstivādin monastic textual traditions, especially concerning nuns. This thesis focuses on four core texts, namely, the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhik?uṇī-prātimok?asūtra (dGe slong ma’i so sor thar ba’i mdo), the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhik?uṇī-vibha?ga (dGe slong ma’i ’dul ba rnam par ’byed pa), the Chinese translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhik?uṇī-prātimok?asūtra (T. 24, No. 1455), and the Chinese translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhik?uṇī-vibha?ga (T. 23, No. 1443). The thesis analyzes the similarities and differences in structure, wording and explanation of the rules by comparing the formation and contents of these four core texts, thus concluding that these texts belong to different textual traditions of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Sect. It demonstrates the unique nature of the textual tradition of Vinaya texts represented by the Tibetan translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Bhik?uṇī-vibha?ga, which differs significantly from both the Tibetan translation of Bhik?uṇī-prātimok?asūtra and the Chinese translation of Bhik?uṇī-vibha?ga, with the Chinese and Tibetan translations of Bhik?uṇī Vibha?ga having a greater similarity. The thesis also discusses the stylistic features of the Chinese and Tibetan translations, with the Chinese translation being more concise than the Tibetan translation.