이 논문은 『구사론』의 ‘경량부설’ 인용 구절들에 대해, 크리처가 ‘가면 쓴 유식가’모델의 근거로 제시한 두 가지 핵심논지, 즉 1) ‘경량부’설이 ‘대부분’ 『유가사지론』에서 발견된다, 2) 그 ‘경량부설’의 일부만이 『비바사론』의 비유자설과 연속적이다,는 주장에 대한 재검토이다. 그런데 크리처 자신이 『구사론』경량부설과 『비바사론』의 비유자설, 『유가사지론』의 유식개념이 상응한다고 인정한 항목은 제1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19항으로 13개항목에 달한다. 또 비바사론 의 비유자설과 『유가사지론』모두에서 추적되지 않는 예외적 ‘경량부설’ 제6, 10항을 더하면, 크리처의 주장에 따르더라도, 『구사론』경량부설과 『유가사지론』만의 연속성을 보이는 항목은 제9, 제14항목에 국한된다. 반대로 제4항은 『유가사지론』에서 확인되지 않는 『비바사론』의 비유자설이다.
크리처가 제시한 『유가사지론』의 평행구와 『순정리론』의 경량부 상좌 슈리라타설을 검토한 결과, 다음과 같은 사실을 확인하였다. 첫째, 『구사론』의 ‘경량부설’은 주장한 만큼 ‘대부분’이 『유가사지론』에서 찾아지지 않는다. 둘째, 그러나 그것은 『순정리론』이 전하는 경량부 상좌 슈리라타의 학설에 ‘대부분’ 포함되어 있다. 제9, 14(1, 2)항의 『유가사지론』과의 연결성은 기각되며, 『구사론』 경량부설 = 『비바사론』의 비유자 = 『유가사지론』의 상응구도 크리처가 주장한 14항목이 아니라, 제5, 7, 14, 16, 18항을 제외한 9항목에 한정되는 것으로 분석된다. 반면, 『순정리론』의 경량부설에서는 제6, 10, 14(1, 2)를 제외한 16항목의 평행구를 추적할 수 있었다. 이로써 『구사론』의 ‘경량부설’은 『비바사론』의 비유자에서 비롯되었으며, 『순정리론』이 전하는 상좌 슈리라타의 경량부사상과 직접적으로 연관되어 있음을 재확인하였다.
Concerning the passages of Sautrāntika in the Abhidharmakośa, I re-examined the two core arguments presented by Kritzer who suggested that the appellation of Sautrānika was in fact ‘a disguise of Vasubandhu the Yogācāra’.
According to ’Sautrāntika in the Abhidharmakośa,’ thirteen passages out of nineteen, including the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 16th, 17th, and the 19th occurrence, are attributed to the Yogācāra positions that the Dārṣṭāntika/Sautrāntika’s parallel passages are found in the Yogācārabhūmi. The two exceptional Sautrāntika arguments of the 6th and 10th passages do not appear in the Mahāvibhāṣā and the Yogācārabhūmi, and the 4th passage, not found in the YBh, turns out to be only Sautrānika position without having any Yogācāra influence found. As a result, the 9th and 14th passages are only positions that, according to Kritzer, the Sautrāntika passages in the AKbh exclusively connected to the scholastic discussions in the YBh.
Having re-examined the parallel passages Kritzer suggested, and consulted the quotations, sophisticated and detailed discussions on the Sautrāntika philosophy propagated by Sthavira Śrīlāta in the Nyāyānusāra, I’ve reached the following conclusion that not ‘the majority’ of the Sautrāntic passages are found parallel to the verses in the YBh., and that ‘the majority’ of the Sautrāntic passages in AKbh are directly connected to the Sanghabhadra’s quotation of Śrīlāta, the Sautrāntika Sthavira. The Yogācāra parallels to the 9th and 14th passages are rejected due to their contextual differences, and the five positions (the 5th, 7th, 14th, 16th, 18th) are also proven that their links are weak or circumstantial. Furthermore, Kritzer himself acknowledges that the passages (7, 9, 14(1, 3), 16) do not contain explicit connection or they just imply the links between the Sautrāntic passages and the YBh. On the contrary, the Sautrāntic passages in the Nyāyānusāra contains 16 parallel passages to that of the AKbh, excluding only the 6th, 10th, and 14(1, 2), which should be considered as exceptional Sautrāntic notions different from the Sautrāntika in NA and YBh as well. Consequently, I re-confirmed in this paper that the ‘Sautrāntic passages’ in the AKbh must be derived from the Sautrāntikavibhāṣa by Sthavira Śrīlāta, which was in turn influenced by the philosophy of the Dārṣṭāntika in the Mahāvibhāṣā.