As suggested in the title, this thesis aimed to critically examine Hakamaya Noriaki’s Pūrvācārya kō(考)(Indogaku Bukkyōaku kenkyū 34-2), but was really written as a part of the criticism of the discussion developed by Harada Wasō that was adopting it as one of the primary grounds for his own hypothesis about the origin of Sautrāntika(“in fact it is a fictitious sect as Yogācāra"). Hakamaya said that his thesis was but a working hypothesis for confirming the assumption that “pūrvācārya on Abhidharmakośabhāṣya belongs to Yogācāra.” Furthermore, he was only interested in the traces on Yogācāra literature, and did not consider its ideal origin or relevance. In the opinion of the writer, his thesis raised a question significantly, but did not present any grounds for settling that all pūrvācāryas in 11 places were the masters of Yogācāra, or Asaṅga. Pūrvācāyas can be the master who has succeeded to teaching or can be a general name. The same is also applied to ācārya. However, it is difficult to conclude that a master's doctrine belongs to Yogācāra even though it is traced in the Yogācārabhūmi . It is because Sthavira Śrīlāta also asserted a similar doctrine to it. It is, therefore, a mere conjecture or delusion(?) to literally trace the pūrvācāryas and specify that they belong to Yogācāra. Also, it is nothing but taking the dogmatic attitude to say based on the thesis that “the fact that pūrvācārya belongs to Yogācāra has become a generally accepted idea in the academic circles”.
目次
I. 들어가는 말 243 II. 原田和宗의 가설과 先代軌範師 245 III. 袴谷憲昭의 「pūrvācārya考」 251 1. 궤범사 先代 궤범사 251 2. 「Pūrvācārya考」 254 3. 「Pūrvācārya考」의 비판적 검토 261 IV. 결어 279
