The Rushi lun 如実論, which was translated into Chinese by Paramārtha (Chi. Zhendi 真諦), is regarded an important text for understanding the history of Buddhist logic before Dignāga. However, due to the lack of the text’s original Sanskrit or a Tibetan translation, research on this treatise has hitherto progressed only slowly, despite the fact that many excellent scholars, including Giuseppe Tucci, Ui Hakuju, and Erich Frauwallner, have discussed it in the past. More recently, the study of the Sanskrit manuscript of the Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā chapters 3–4 and 6 that has been undertaken by Katsura Shōryū and his colleagues, as well as Eli Franco’s research on the so-called Spitzer manuscript, have shed new light on the understanding of the early history of Buddhist logic. On the basis of the results of this more recent research, this paper aims to reconsider the historical position of the Rushi lun by clarifying some basic problems regarding this work: its original title, the issue of its incompleteness, and its authorship. This paper comes to three conclusions: (1) In contrast to the opinions of Tucci and Frauwaller, there is no evidence in Sanskrit literature upholding the hypothesis that the original Sanskrit title of the Rushi lun was Tarkaśāstra; (2) The assumption of Ui and Frauwallner that the Rushi lun is a translation of only part of the complete original Sanskrit text is uncertain; (3) It is not impossible to presume that the author of the text that has become the Rushi lun was Vasubandhu, who composed it in his early period, before writing the Vādavidhi.