In East Asia, many Mah?y?na Abhidharma literatures, such as Huiyuan’s Dacheng yizhang, Ji’s Dacheng fayuan yilinzhang and so forth, were written mainly based on Yog?c?ra Buddhism. Silla Buddhists also wrote same kind of literatures, and some of them, including Uijok’s Daeseung uirim jang, have a close relationship with Dacheng fayuan yilinzhang. Since there are many citations of Daeseung uirim jang although the original does not exist now, it seems to be highly regarded in East Asia. In previous studies, Daeseung uirim jang has been regarded as a commentary of Dacheng fayuan yilinzhang. Considering Zenju’s way of quotation, however, it cannot be reasonably assumed to simply regard Dacheng fayuan yilinzhang as the central platform of Silla texts. It may be presumed that there was a flexible interaction of Mah?y?na Abhidharma literatures, including Dacheng fayuan yilinzhang and Daeseung uirim jang, in the mid 7th century. In this paper, I would like to examine Uijok’s interpretation of the four kinds of ?r?vakas found in the fragments of Daeseung uirim jang in order to clarify the characteristic of his Yog?c?ra thought. The theory of four kinds of ?r?vakas is based on Miaofa lianhua jing youbotishe(Fahua lun; Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Lotus Sutra) and Yog?c?rabh?mi, and there remains a part of Uijok’s commentary on Fahua lun. While recent investigations have proposed the Uijok and Wonhyo shared similar thought, Uijok’s understanding of the four kinds of ?r?vakas is inherited from Sinbang (and perhaps Xuanzang) but different from Wonhyo’s. We might go on to even more detailed examination of the East Asian Yog?c?ra literatures without prejudice to Silla tradition.