It is said that there were two types of theories in the Yogacara-school, that is, Nirakaravada and Sakalravada. According to Bodhibhadra's Jnanasarasamuccayanibandhana, the difference between the two theories was in their understancling of akara (objective images) in the vijnana (cognition). Asanga asserted the former theory and understood the akara as parikalpita-svabhava (nothing other than not true existence). Dignaga and his followers, on the otherhand, held the latter view and took it as paratantra-svabhava (a somewhat real phenomenon). This interpretation of the two theories is widely accepted among presentday-buddhist scholars. In his "Die Philosophie des Buddhismus," Frauwallner states a similar opinion that Maitreya and Vasbandhu are Nirakaravadin, while Asanga is Sakaravadin. Then a question arises whether or not the old philosophers of the Yogacara school such as Maitreya really said that akara in vijnana is parikalpita-svabhava? In this paper, I try to clear up this problem by investigating the Tri-svabhava doctrine especially in Maitreya's Mahayanasutralarpkara and Madhyantavibhaga. My conclusion is that the assertion that tha akara is parikalpita-svabhava is not found in these Maitreya's works at the start of the Yogacara-school.