pūrvācārya(先代 軌範師) 再考

pūrvācārya Revisited

&nbsp;&nbsp;As suggested in the title, this thesis aimed to critically examine Hakamaya Noriaki"s P？rv？c？rye k？(考)(Indogaku Bukky？gaku kenky？ 34-2), but was really written as a part of the criticism of the discussion developed by Harada Was？ that was adopting it as one of the primary grounds for his own hypothesis about the origin of Sautr？ntika("in fact it is a fictitious sect as Yog？c？ra").<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Hakamaya said that his thesis was but a working hypothesis for confirming the assumption that "p？rv？c？rya on Abhidharmako？abh？？ya belongs to Yog？c？ra."<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;Furthermore, he was only interested in the traces on Yog？c？ra 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 p？rv？c？ryas in 11 places were the masters of Yog？c？ra, or Asa？ga, P？rv？c？rya can be the master who has succeeded to teaching or can be a general name. The same is also applied to ？c？rya.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;However, it is difficult to conclude that a master"s doctrine belongs to Yog？c？ra even though it is traced in the Yog？c？-rabh？mi. It is because Sthavira ？r？l？ta also asserted a similar doctrine to it.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;It is, therefore, a mere conjecture or delusion(?) to literally trace the p？rv？c？ryas and specify that they belong to Yog？c？ra. Also, it is nothing but taking the dogmatic attitude to say based on the thesis that "the fact that p？rv？c？rya belongs to Yog？c？ra has become a generally accepted idea in the academic circles".