Korea Journal of Buddhist Studies ISSN:1598-0642(Print) 불교학연구

As suggested in the title, this thesis aimed to critically examine Hakamaya Noriaki’ns Pūvāāya kōy(考)(Indogaku Bukkyōaku kenkyū34-2), 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 Sautrātika(“tin fact it is a fictitious sect as Yogāāa”t). Hakamaya said that his thesis was but a working hypothesis for confirming the assumption that “pūvāāya on Abhidharmakośbhā ṣa belongs to Yogāāa.”a Furthermore, he was only interested in the traces on Yogāāa 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 pūvāāyas in 11 places were the masters of Yogāāa, or Asaṅa. Pūvāāya can be the master who has succeeded to teaching or can be a general name. The same is also applied to āāya. However, it is difficult to conclude that a master's doctrine belongs to Yogāāa even though it is traced in the Yogāāabhūi . It is because Sthavira Śīāa also asserted a similar doctrine to it. It is, therefore, a mere conjecture or delusion(?) to literally trace the pūvāāyas and specify that they belong to Yogāāa. Also, it is nothing but taking the dogmatic attitude to say based on the thesis that “the fact that pūvāāya belongs to Yogāāa has become a generally accepted idea in the academic circles”.