On Quadruple Division Of Yogasastra

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/1

Page #1

A. WEZLER
ON THE QUADRUPLE DIVISION OF THE YOGASASTRA, THE CATURVYOHATVA OF THE CIKITSASASTRA AND THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS OF THE BUDDHA
"
(Studies in the Patañjalayogasastravivarana II)
1. The publication of the Patañjalayogasastravivarana - wrongly entitled Pätañjalayogasütrabhasyavivarana by the editors has, as the late Paul Hacker aptly remarked, raised a new problem in the study of the history of [Indian] philosophy. Hacker's attention was drawn to this text, though it is a commentary on the Yogasūtra (=YS) and Yogabhasya (=YBh/YBhasya), because it was regarded by the editors to be a work of Sankara, the Advaitin. For, Hacker has, as is well known, given much thought to the problem of how to distinguish. between the authentic works of Sankara, the Advaitin, and the many spuria ascribed to him, and he has evolved various criteria to prove authenticity. Therefore, it is by no means unexpected that he accepted the challenge posed by the publication of yet another text ascribed to the Advaitin. In his most stimulating article published in 1968 he does not, however, really want to prove the identity of the author of the
1. Ed. by Polakam Sri Rama Sastri and S. A. Krishnamurthi Sastri (= MGOS, no. XCIV), Madras, 1952. Most valuable observations on this text and on the authorship problem have been made by W. HALBFASS; cf. the appendix, Notes on the Yogasütrabhasyavivarana, in his recent monograph, Studies in Kumarila and Sankara, Reinbek, 1983, to which I should like to refer the reader also as regards the secondary literature sofar published on the Vivarana.
2. Cf. my article, Philological Observations on the so-called Pätañjalayogasūtrabhasyavivarana (Studies in the Pătañjalayogaśāstravivarana I), in IIJ, vol. 25 (1983). pp. 17-39.
3. Viz. on pp. 124-218 of his article, Sankara der Yogin und Sankara der Advaitin. Einige Beobachtungen, in Beiträge zur Geistesgeschichte Indiens. Festschrift für Erich Frauwallner, aus Anlass seines 70. Geburtstags herausgegeben von G. Oberhammer, Wien, 1968 (= WZKSO, 12-13, 1968-69), pp. 119-48 Kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben von L. Schmithausen (Glasenapp-Stiftung Bd. 15), Wiesbaden, 1978, pp. 213-42. In the following this article is referred to by (Hacker) 1968.
4. The German original runs as follows: ... der der Erforschung der Philosophiegeschichte ein neues Problem stellt...
5. Cf. In. 3.

Page #2

* 290
A. Wexler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
291
Vivarana and Sankara, the Advaitin; instead, what he does is to argue that if we assume this identity we are able to explain peculiarly Yoga features in the authentic works of Sankara, the Advaltin, to some of which Hacker had already drawn attention in an earlier article of his; he further argues that if the Vivarana was in fact composed by Sankara, the Advaitin, it cannot but have been the earliest of his works, and that if Sankara was at first an adherent of (Patanjala-) Yoga and became a Vedantin only later, the relative chronology of at least some of his later works can be established by examining the extent to which they display Yoga influence in terms of philosophical contents and terminology.
2. It is in this connection that Hacker deals with the quadruple division of the Yogadastra as it is stated, and most emphatically at that, at the very beginning of the Vivarana. He says?: At YBh 2.15, the division of the Yogasastra is compared to that of a system of therapeutics. S(ankara) resumes this idea in the introduction to his YV (=Patanjalayogasastravivarana) when explaining the purpose of the Yogy sastra. This shows that he looked upon Yoga as a therapeutic system. The same idea, except for the division itself (which is proper only to Yoga), is repeated by $ when he in the Introduction to his MaBh (=Mandokya Bhasya) points out the purpose of the text to be explained [1.e. the Māndokya Up.); but what he now brings in is the monistic teaching by which man as one sick due to Suffering has to be led to health of the Self. In introductions to other works of his, S recurs to the concept of therapeutics (cikitsita) (viz. USP (=Upadeśasāhasri-Padyaprabandha) 19, 1), and once again to the idea of illness and health, only that the concept of therapeutical treatment is dropped (viz. USG (Upadesasthasrl-Gadyaprabandha) 47). Here it is natural to assume that the
three works in which the idea of therapeutical treatment is stressed belong together in point of time and are connected with Yoga. For Yoga is a practice that can easily be compared to therapeutics. S's Vedānta,
teach a method by following which one is gradually led to the goal of liberation; that is why he (later) rejects Yoga, cf. below. Accordingly, in the USG (perhaps a late work) it is only the disciple who expects from his teacher a kind of therapeutical treatment: the teacher, however, does not promise any such thing: all he aims at is to lead to liberating insight
2.1. The passage of the Vivarana referred to by Hacker is found almost at the very beginning of the text. It is preceded, or rather introduced, by a statement to the effect that the Yogaśāstra will be studied and the method it teaches practised by people only if its sambandha and prayojana are shown. It is to the prayojana, i.e. the purpose of the Yogasastra, that the Vivaranakāra addresses himself first, for he continues :
tatra prayojanam tdvat - cikitsasastre' fac caturvyüharvapradarsanadvarena vyakhydram / tadyatha - cikitsasastram caturvyūham: rogah, rogahetuh, drogyam, bhaisajyam ini / vidhipratişedhaniyama. dvdrena (ca tat) caturvydhavişayavyakhyanaparam / evam ihapi Page #3

292
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
293
The contents of Yoga are here divided into four chapters (vyaha)" by analogy with the system of therapeutics (cikitsa-sastra) and in depen dence on YS 2.15 ff.: 1) "Samsāra, full of Suffering, is to be avoided ". (In therapeutics this correspondends to the teaching of Illness, roga). 2) "The cause of samsāra is the connection of the subject with the object based on nescience" (this is the "Cause of Illness", roga-hetul). 3) "The means by which [samsāra) is avoided is the unswerving lucidity of discriminating knowledge" (the "Remedy", bhaişajya). 4) "When this has been attained then nescience is eliminated, and the connection of subject and object ceases entirely; that is avoidance, absolute inde. pendence "(in therapeutics: "Health", Arogya). It may be noted in passing that this division shows a certain similarity also to the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha. Yet the second and third truth - Suffering and its Annihilation - are gathered into one, and in accordance with the more positive outlook of Brahmanism a chapter is added on the final goal absolute independence. corresponding to Health.
To divide the teaching of Yoga in this manner is, to be sure, by no means improper. But it has to be noted that, firstly, the system of Patañjala-Yoga contains various elements that do not strictly fit into the [fourfold) scheme, c.g. the teaching of the magical perfections (siddhi), and that, Secondly, this system [i.e. that of Yoga), as it is found in the sūtras themselves, is not divided in this manner. The division is an interpretation introduced by $; it wholly corresponds to the decidedly practical, didactic, nay, therapeutical interest that is to be noted again and again in the Advaita works of S's also 16.
Therefore, it is noteworthy that the Advaitin S, at the one place where he expounds the essential content of his teaching without any reference to texts to be explained and in a purely argumentative manner, takes up the very scheme of division he had already established when still a Yogin. The idea of therapeutics had now to recede into the back ground (cf. above $2), but the disposition of the 2. prose prakarana of the US corresponds exactly to the four vyüha division. USG 45-47 deals with samsāra as Suffering. In 48 we have the beginning of the instruction about the Cause of Suffering: nescience. Without sharp cleavage approxi. mately from 58 onwards it gradually yields to initiation into discrimi. nating knowledge. USG 109 describes the attainment of the goal
These remarks call for a critical examination in more than one respect. It appears as if Hacker has lost sight of what he had himself correctly stated earlier, viz. that the quadruple division of Yogasastra as taught at the beginning of the Vivarana is already met with in the YBhasya on YS 2.15 and, moreover, in the YS itself. Indeed, what the Bhāşyakara says on YS 2.15 (pariņāmata pasamskaraduh khair gunaviti. nirodhăc ca dukham eva sarvam vivekinah. quoted also by the Viva. rana, cf. above under 2.1.), after first explaining its wording and purport in detail, is this
... tad asya mahato duhkhasamuddyasya prabhavabijam avidva / tasya ca samyagdarsanam abhavahetuh / yatha cikitsa sastram caturvyaham - rogo rogahefur arogyam bhaisajyam iti, evam idam api sastram caturvyāham eva / tadyatha" - samsarah samsårahetur mokso moksopaya 19 iti / tatra duh khabahulah samsaro heyah / pradhanapuruşayoh samyogo heyahetun / samyogaswaryantiki niveitir hānam / hanopdyah samvagdarśanam / ...
This is not only by itself an unequivocal statement, but comparison also clearly shows that it was simply reformulated by the author of
4. "Ist dicse crreicht, so ist das Nichtwissen beseitigt, und damit hört die Ver bindung von Subjekt und Objekt absolut auf: das ist das Vermeiden, die Abso lutheit" (in der Therapeutik: die "Gesundheit", drogya). Nebenbel bemerkt hat diese Einteilung eine gewisse Xhnlichkeit auch mit den Vier Edlen Wahrheiten des Buddha. Doch sind die zweite und die dritte Wahrheit - das Leiden und seine Aufhebung in eine zusammengezogen, und entsprechend der positiveren Sicht des Brahmanismus ist ein Kapitel über das Ziel - die Absolutheit, entsprechend der Gesundheit - hinzugefügt.
Die Yogalehre so einzuteilen, ist gewiss nicht abwegig. Doch ist zu bemerken, dass erstens Im System des Patanjala-Yoga manches enthalten ist, was nicht streng zu diesem Schema passt, z.B. die Lehre von den magischen Vollkommenheiten (siddhi), und dass zweitens dieses System, so wie es in den Satren vorliegt, nicht so eingeteilt ist. Diese Einteilung ist eine Interpretation Ss. Sie entspricht ganz dem auch in den Advaitaschriften Ss Immer wieder zu beobachtenden stark praktischen, didaktischen, ja therapeutischen Interesse
Es ist daher bemerkenswert, dass s, als er als Advaitin den wesentlichen Inhalt seiner Lehre einmal ganz ohne Bezugnahme auf zu erklärende Texte und rein ar gumentativ darlegte, auf das gleiche Einteilungsschema zurückkam, das er schon als Yogin aufgestellt hatte. Der Gedanke der Therapie musste jetzt zwar zurücktreten (vgl. oben 2), aber die Disposition des 2. Prosa-Prakarapa der US entspricht genau der Vier Vyüha-Einteilung. USG 45-47 ist vom Leiden des Samsara gehandelt. 48 beginnt die Belehrung über die Ursache des Leidens: das Nicht wissen. Ohne scharfen Einschnitt geht sie etwa ab 58 allmählich über in die Anleitung zur unterscheidenden Erkenntnis. USG 109 schildert die Erreichung des Zicles.
15. In rendering the term vyuha by chapter, Hacker has, I think, made the wrong choice, though he is in accordance with the PW (vol. VI, column 1485). II its meaning is not simply part, division here, one should rather think of its being used (c.g. in the Arthasstra) as a military term to denote a battle array, i.e. in a more general sense a purposeful, systematic arrangement. Cf. also R. Garbe's explanation of this term as used in Vijanabhiksu's Samkhyapravacanabhäsya (sce below in. 31), Samkhyapravacana-bhashya ... aus dem Sanskrit übersetzt..., Leipzig, 1889, p. 11, n. 2: ... bei dem vydha llegt ein kramend 'ngopdrigandit vinydsah vor.....
Note that the author of the Vivarapa offers (p. 169, 1. 3 ff.) two alternative explanations of the compound caturvydha, viz. calvdro vyähd asya and esv arthesu (= samsára, sarisarahetu etc.) caturdhd vyuho 'sya.
ne
BCLUB Run Esseple musava de cara sehonne sidende
gant Jelche der Pro Paen des Sichtw.jur unte darlet battere Dispos e des ber in zielesker has colu
heapshema
dle us
la resc 100
used (ees not simply part, accordance with the Wac
16. Note that this sentence stands in contradiction with what H. had said at the end of the passage quoted above ( 2).
17. I quote the text portion as given on p. 168, 1. 1.7 of the edition of the Viva. rapa. Cf. in addition p. 171, L 1: tad elac chåstrar carurvydhamity adhdhiyale.
18. The author of the Vivarana attests yathd only, cf. p. 168, 1. 24. 19. moksahetuh according to the Vivaranakära.
20. The author of the Vivarapa obviously reads pradhdnapurusasaryogo; cf. pp. 168, 1. 25 and 169, 1. 7.
etc.) caturana, viz. carudro wake.) two alternative

Page #4

294
A. Wezler
the Vivarana; the one substantial difference to be dealt with first is the point at which this quadruple division is taught in either work; appa-rently, by the time of the Vivaraṇakara it had become usual for (sub)commentators or authors of scientific works to deal already at the beginning with the purpose (prayojana), etc., of their main subject in order to convince the reader or hearer that it was worthwhile to take the trouble of studying it carefully. That is why the Vivaraṇakāra decided to point out the quadruple division of the Yogasăstra already at the very outset of his commentary; and, to be sure, he need not state explicitly that this example (drstanta ), i.e. the comparison of the Yogasastra with the science of medicine, was not his own invention; instead, what was of importance to him was to emphasize that the division is in accordance with explicit statements of Patañjali himself. And this claim of the Vivaraṇakära cannot be a limine treated with contempt as yet another example of the common practice of commentators to have what is but their own idea or, at least, an idea of later origin sanctioned, as it were, by the accepted authority of the mala text. His assertion that the caturvyahatva of the Yogasästra is pointed out (pradarsita) in the YS itself, beginning with sūtra 2.15, obviously does not belong to the category of such wishful, forced interpretations. Yet, it calls, nevertheless, for closer examination.
The Vivaranakara's reference to YS 2.15 may have been provoked in the first place by the fact that it is that sütra in explaining which the Bhasyakara deals with the subject of the caturvyahatva, i.e. makes the statement (quoted above) about the quadruple division of the YogaSastra; nonetheless it cannot be denied that the sûtra itself:
pariņāmatāpasamskaraduḥkhair gunavirodhac ca duḥkham eva sar.
vam vivekinaḥ
stands out in that in it the term duḥkha is not simply used as in others also, but is central to it; for it declares that to a vivekin, i.e. the Yogin who possesses discriminating insight into reality as analysed by Yoga, everything is Suffering in view of the various forms of Suffering consisting in change, mental or physical pain and subliminal impressions 22 and because of the fact that the functions of the constituents [of primordial matter] are opposed to each other». Undoubtedly, this is a central element of Yoga as expounded in the Sütra. Ascribing to life, as
21. This term is used by the Vivaraṇakära himself, viz. p. 168, 1. 21.
22. The author of the Vivarana explains (p. 159, 1. 12) that strictly speaking all three of them are but causes of Suffering (duḥkhanimittäni). For further eluci dation, I should like to refer the reader to the Bhasya and the Vivarapa on this sûtra. That this sûtra clearly exhibits Buddhist influence was shown by L. DE LA VALLEE POUSSIN, Mélanges Chinois et Bouddhique, V, 1936-37, p. 234 f. The term samskära has, of course, quite another meaning in Buddhist texts. Though one cannot, of course, be absolutely sure, it was probably reinterpreted already by the author of YS 2.15.
295
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogadastra
it does, the character of being nothing but Suffering. YS 2.15 must indeed be regarded as the pivotal statement about the nature of reality in the YS. And in the immediately following sutra (2.16: heyam duḥkham andgatam) it is taught that it is Suffering yet to come that has to be avoided, whereas in YS 2.17 the cause of that which has to be avoided (heyahetu) is defined as drastṛdrsyayoḥ samyogah, i.e. the connection of the subject with the object. As the three latter terms call for further elucidation, actually given in sütras 2.18-23, it is only in YS 2.24 (tasya hetur avidya) that nescience is expressly stated to be the cause of this connection. The term hana, which the reader now expects, is in fact met with in the next sütra (2.25) which reads thus: tadabhāvāt samyogabhavo hanam, tad dṛśeḥ kaivalyam: « Avoidance is the nonexistence of the connection on account of its (i.e. the nescience's) nonexistence; this is the seer's (i.e. the spirit's or soul's) being-absolutelyby-himself. The obvious question as to the means of avoidance, i.e. of attaining the state of liberation, is answered by the immediately following sūtra (2.26): vivekakhyatir aviplava hänopayaḥ the means to avoidance is the steady or firm lucidity-of-discriminating-knowledge », i.e. the complete or perfect realization of the absolute difference between purusa and prakṛti.
Thus it is already on the historical level of the YS itself that, in a series of sūtras obviously forming a unitary whole, four clearly demarcated concepts are attested, viz.
23. The last word of this sütra (andgatam) which is left out in the Bhâşva- and Vivaranakira's independent expositions of the caturvyahatva, most probably for practical reasons only, is accounted for by the author of the YBh in the following manner: duhkham atitam (Viv.: vartamandi janmano 'tikrantajanmalaksanam duh kham) upabhogendtivähitam na heyapakse vartate (Viv.: svayam eva hinarvar) / var. tamanam ca (Viv.: janmalaksanam duḥkham) svaksane bhogarüdham (Viv.: svam vartamanan bhogavisistam ksanam adhvānam upabhujyamänätmakatvendrüdham) iti na tat kṣaṇantare heyatam dpadyate (Viv.: svayam eva bhogena hinam na handya ksandntaram apeksate) tasmad yad evandgatam (Viv.: prayanantarabhavijanmaduhkhalaksanam) duḥkham tad eväksipätrakalpam (cf. YBh on YS 2.15) yoginam klisnati (= udvejayari, cf. Viv. p. 164, 1. 7 ff.) (not at tested in the Vivarana and indeed to be suspected as being a later addition; cf. also Bh 164, 1. 3) / tad eva heyatdm dpadyate (the Viv. reads tad eva heyam here: the other reading might in fact have originated only secondarily, viz. due to heyatam apadyate in the second sentence; the Viv. adds by way of explanation: samyagdarsanena hänlyam ucyate/ bhavisyajjanmabhäväyaiva yatitavyam na vartamánaduḥ khanirodhaya / vartamänajanmayiyatisäyäm hi samyagdarsanam asakyaviniyogatvad anarthakam sydt / muktabänavat pravrttaphalatvad vartamánaduḥkhasya bhavisyati punar apravṛttatvdd bijanirodha upakalpata iti samyagdarsanarthavattvam svavisayo hi samyagdarsanasya sa [i.e. bhavisyajjanma] iti ). That is to say ac cording to the Vivarapakāra at least, Suffering yet to come means Suffering consisting in and experienced in the next birth(s). In any case, the sutra is right. as it is in fact only andgatam dulkham that can, if at all, be avoided; but at the same time the addition of andgatam may be taken to indicate that the author was more interested in actual Yoga practice and its exact description than in, making general abstract statements.

Page #5

A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogašastra
297
heyam defined as 24 duhkham heyahetuh ) ) drastrdryayoh samyogah hanam
samyogabhavah, i.e. kaivalyam and finally, hanopayah
vivekakhyarir aviplava. Evidently this quadruple division is substantially identical with that expounded by the Bhäşyakára in his commentary on 2.15; and what the Vivaranakāra does is to resume this division. On the other hand, one cannot fail to observe that in the YS itself the division is neither ex. pressly stated to be a divisionary scheme; nor to be a quadruple one; nor to apply to the Yogasastra; nor, finally, is it compared to a similar division of the Cikitsasastra. Nevertheless, the conclusion apparently arrived at by the Bhasyakära, viz. that what the author of these sutras actually had in mind was really a quadruple division of the system of Yoga, cannot but be accepted, by any unbiased reader who is aware of the peculiarities of a Satra text, as being perfectly legitimate and cogent. The only material difference worth noticing here lies in the absence of even an allusion to the science of medicine in the YS: to all appearance, this is a new element that was probably introduced for the first time by the YBhasya.
Drawing now the final conclusion from what has been stated in the foregoing on the evidence found in the Bhäşya and in the Sutra for the quadruple division of the Yogaśāstra, I cannot help stating in so many words the impression, created not only by this part of Hacker's article, that he does not in this case endeavour to get the better of his prejudices, but overrides, rather arbitrarily, all facts that might stand in his way and are apt to undermine the basic assumption from which he starts. Thus his assertion that the system of Yoga eas found in the sátras themselves, is not divided in this manner is not merely bold, but demonstrably wrong", and it is by no means legitimate to give the author of the Vivarana credit for having established this division as Hacker says, or to state that the division is an interpretation introduced by S.,
2.3. As regards this division, any comparative study of the Vivarana, on the one hand, and of the presumably early or late works of S., the Advaitin, on the other, must hence start from the following obser. vations:
2. It is expounded likewise by the author of the YBhāşya, unequi
vocally and in detail, and it is he who apparently has to be given the credit for comparing the quadruply divided Yogasastra to the science of medicine; in any case, this comparison seems to have
been added later. 3. The division is but repeated by the Vivaranakära, viz. for the
obvious reasons stated already at the very outset of his work. In order not to go astray in interpreting the relevant passages, it is further advisable, if not even imperative, not to follow Hacker's argu. mentary approach. As has also been shown elsewhere it is by far better for considerations of method not to let oneself be impressed too much by the fact that the Vivarana is in its colophons ascribed to a Sankarabhagavant; what we should do instead is to take the authorship of the Vivarana to be a problem which is still unsolved. References to the quadruple division as a whole, or in part, found in a work of S., the Advaitin, should not therefore be studied on the basis of the assumption made by Hacker. Instead of arguing the way he does, viz. that if we assume the identity of the Vivaranakära and S., the Advaitin, we are able to explain peculiarly Yoga features in the authentic works of S.. the Advaitin, in the manner outlined by Hacker, we should face up to the real problem in all its seriousness and intricacy. viz. put ourselves, without bias, the pivotal question whether the quadruple division, if met with in a work of S.'s, or even suggestions of such a division there, can in fact best be explained by assuming the Vivarana to be another and then, to be sure, the earliest work of the famous Advaita philosopher.
This assumption could be regarded as necessary if, and only if the comparative study of the relevant passages in authentic works of s. listed by Hacker himself, on the one hand, and the exposition of the caturvyahatva of the Yogaśāstra in the Vivarana, on the other, were to reveal so specific a correspondence that the hypothesis that the author is one and the same in both cases would suggest itself as the only solution or, at least, the one most plausible.
In view of the close similarity between the Vivaranakāra's exposition and that of the Bhāşyakāra, specific correspondence could in our case firstly mean literal agreement ». No such agreement has, however, been pointed out by Hacker, and, to be sure, there is none. But, secondly, what about the condition of a peculiar property being common both to the Vivarana and an authentic work of $., the Advaitin?
Is not the sequence of the last two members of the fourfold division in the case of the USG reversed, and does not this change, on the one hand, stand clearly in contrast to the order of enumeration as found in the YS and -Bhasya, and strikingly agree, on the other, with the Viva
1. The division is clearly attested already in the YS though it is not
explicitly taught as quadruple and applying to the Yogasastra.
24. I am, of course, aware of the fact that not all the sátras quoted are definitions in the strict sense of the word.
25. At least as regards the caturvyahatva as a divisionary scheme. Obviously Hacker had lost sight of the important difference between a systematic division or divisionary scheme as such and Its having actually been made the basis of a corre sponding disposition of the material.
26. Viz. in the article mentioned in fn. 2.

Page #6

298
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogašastra
299
ranakära's exposition? One cannot but answer this question in the posi. tive, and it is surprising that Hacker is silent on this. Nevertheless, one will hesitate to rest satisfied with simply noting this admittedly inte. resting point of agreement, at least, if one wants to escape the reproach of superficiality or of drawing premature conclusions. For, the correspondence might equally be coincidental.
Now, as for the USG, the reason for S.'s giving first what Hacker calls the initiation into discriminating knowledge and describing only thereafter the final goal or its attainment, is, I think, clear enough and need not provoke controversy. Since this portion of the USG is conceived by S. as a dialogue between a disciple and a teacher approached for instruction, there can hardly be any doubt that the instruction is given with a view to its application; what S. has in mind is the actual succes. sion of stages the disciple has to pass through; and that in reality the final goal is, if at all, attained last need hardly be mentioned.
The crucial point, however, is: are we to assume that the Vivarana. kära in changing the sequence was led by the same or a similar motive? In his case, the fact that he does not keep to the order of succession as found in the YS and Bhaşya is even more striking, since the four vyâhas of the Cikitsasastra are enumerated by him exactly in the same sequence as by the Bhāşyakara; the result being that the two series lack complete parallelism, and that the author is compelled to make clear in his last sentence that kaivalya in the quadruple division of Yoga corresponds to arogya in that of the Cikitsasastra (cf. drogyasthantyain the passage quoted above).
It is, however, this last sentence, together with the context in which the issue of the caturvy hatva as a whole stands in the Vivarana (cf. above p. 291), that provides us with the key for discovering the reason for the transposition in this text. The problem from which the author starts is, as has been noted already above, the exigency of dealing at the outset of his work explicitly with the prayojana of the Yogaśastra. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that particular stress is laid on that vynha to which the practice of Yoga is ultimately said to lead, and that this emphasis is achieved also by letting the whole discussion culminate in the exposition of what is taken to be the purpose, 1.c. of kaivalya.
To adduce further circumstantial evidence, if additional arguments are at all necessary: the transition from YS 2.24 to the subsequent one is gained in the Bhāşya by the following remark: heyam duhkham heya. karanamt ca samyogakhyam sanimittam uktam / atah paramt hanam vaktavyam/. All the Vivaranakära says in commenting on the latter sentence is (p. 203.13-14): a tah param hanam arogyasthaniyam mokşasastraprayojanam vaktavy a m / vaksyamanasamkirtanam ca srotrbuddhisamadhanartham /. It is true that he does not state explicity why « avoidance is to be taught next », but at the same time the absence of any remark on his part to the effect that in reality, i.c. in the practice
of Yoga, what is called hanopaya comes, of course, first is, I think, quite conspicuous.
These observations will, I trust, suffice to corroborate the assump. tion made above, viz. that the conspicuous transposition of the last two vynhas in the introduction of the Vivarana is caused by nothing else than the wish to bring out into proper relief the Sastrarambhaprayo. jana » (cf. p. 161.11)
Therefore, it can safely be stated that the agreement between the USG and the Vivarana as regards the interchange of the last two vyūhas is but coincidental, i.e. caused in each case by quite different deliberations It is hence quite possible, that S., if at all under the influence of Yoga texts in this respect, was inspired either by the YBhasya or perhaps even the YS itself. On the basis of the methodological considerations outlined above (p. 297) and in view of the observations made with regard to the exposition of the theory of the caturvyahatva in the three Yoga texts (cf. above p. 296), one cannot, therefore, help drawing the final conclusion that the comparative study of the USG and the Vivarana does not by any means yield sufficient evidence for the identity of the authors of the two texts as taken for granted by Hacker.
Although Hacker's basic assumption is thus - once more - shown to be highly problematic, nay practically unjustified, the question arising next should not be left unasked, viz. whether an element in authentic works of S., the Advaitin, reminding us of the Yoga theory of catur. vyahatva warrants the assumption of an external influence in general or of an influence exercised on s. by the YBhāşya or the YS in parti. cular. What is called for in this connection is a critical reexamination of the passages referred to by Hacker; such a reexamination yields the following results.
27. I do not, of course, want to keep silent about the fact that there is, on the other hand, a passage in the Vivarana where in striking and awkward contrast to its beginning it is the hanopaya, viz. samyagdarsana, that is spoken of as prayojana, viz. p. 169, 1. 14-15: arabhyamanasya sastrasya samyagdarsanam ova prayojanam (cf. also the quite frequent expression samyagdarśanasastra). If this latter remark is not merely meant to account for the somewhat puzzling fact that the Bhasyakára already in commenting on YS 2.15 (and not only on 2.20) touches on the topic of the hatr (cf. p. 169, 1. 10 f.), other explanations one could think of are [1] that this apparent inconsistency is due to an upacara: the term which primarily denotes the means is used metonymically to denote its result; or (2] that santyagdarsana insofar as it is the pratipaksa (cf. 168.16) of Nescience, the true cause of Suffering, is here regarded as the main thing to be achieved, ensuing almost automatically as it does hana; or (3] that samyagdarsana is given preference because hana is an avastu, ie. not something positive, but only the not-existing any longer of the connection bet. ween subject and object (bandhanoparama) (cf. p. 204, 1. 13-16). On the other hand. however, the text might be corrupt here: sastrasya could have replaced an original sutrasya (cf. also 1. 14 ... Sastram atahparam drabhyate) and samyagdarsanam could resume this term as used in a narrower sense in the YBh itself, viz. p. 170, 1. 2.
28. In any case, the Vivaranakära's motive for the transposition cannot have been s's alsol On the order of enumeration of the four vyähas in Yoga texts and that of the Four Noble Truths cf. below p. 306.

Page #7

A. Wexler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
301
On the one hand it has to be admitted that the disciple in USG 47 compares himself to a sick person (rogin) and that S., led by delibe. rations like those outlined above, might have deliberately changed the sequence of the last two vydhas against that attested in the YBhasya and YS. On the other hand, it cannot be disputed that the quadruple division itself is nowhere in the USG stated explicitly. This fact was, admittedly, noticed by Hacker; but is the explanation he offers, viz. that the division is proper only to Yoga », not too simple a solution, or rather an attempt to avoid addressing himself to the methodological problem involved? In any case, Hacker's remarks are thought-provoking: for he is clearly of the opinion that the dispositional structure underlying the USG materially corresponds to the four vydhas as enumerated by the Vivaranakära; this might be true, though there still remains a doubt, viz. that when he discovered this internal structure of the USG Hacker was fully convinced of the identity of the two authors. It is, of course, not possible to adduce against Hacker the argument that it would then hardly be understandable that S. should, nevertheless, have refrained from explicitly introducing the quadruple division itself precisely because it is proper only to Yoga For S. may have applied the quadruple division to the teaching of Vedanta inspite of its impropriety, i.e. deliberately, yet also so inconspicuously that it passes almost unnoticed.
Therefore, what can be said is at best that the possibility of an influence exercised by the YBhäşya or perhaps the YS itself cannot be entirely ruled out. And If the internal structure of the USG really reflects the quadruple division, such an influence may even be regarded as comparatively probable in view of the fact that S.'s works show this influence in other respects, too. But, the other possibility cannot be excluded with absolute certainty, viz. that S. was, on the contrary, under the influence of some other tradition, or under no specific influence at all. As to this latter alternative, one cannot but ask the following questions: would not anyone who takes life to be nothing but Suffering, or Illusion, and who accordingly looks upon man as in need of liberation incline most naturally to the view that man as he is can be compared to a person suffering from a physical ailment? Is not anyone who takes such a view of life quite easily led to put himself the question as to
the reasons of this metaphysical ailment, the means of overcoming it and the state of final liberation? Thus it is, perhaps, even equally possible that S. was here influenced by a general religious tradition or a more specific one to which he himself belonged.
The probative force of the other two passages to which Hacker has drawn attention, viz. USP 19.1. and the introduction of the Mandakvabhāşya, turns out to be weaker still if examined on the basis of the methodological considerations which have been outlined above.
The metaphor contained in the expression jñanavirágabhesajam and the characterization of this medicine as trsndjvaranasakaranam cikitsi tam in the USP do not by themselves warrant the conclusion that what S. is actually doing here is to resume concepts developed by him when still an adherent of Yoga. This holds equally good for the passage in the Mändokyabhāşya Hacker must have had in mind; there the question as to the prayojana of the teaching expounded in this Upanişad 15 answered by the following statement:
rogartasyeva roganivettau svasthata / tatha duhkhatmakasydtmano, dvaita prapancopašame svasthata / advaitabhavah prayojanam dvaita prapancasydvidydkytatvad vidyaya tadupasamah sydd iti brak.
mavidyaprakasandya asydrambhah kriyale. Since the problem from which S. starts here is the same as that di scussed by the Vivaranakära, one could, of course, take here, too, the view that s. is but resuming older ideas of his, but again it is by no means self-evident that other possibilities of accounting for this compa: rison, possibilities which suggest themselves most easily, can be excluded with any degree of certainty. On the contrary, one cannot but wonder if, before the publication of the Vivarana expressly attributing it to Sankara, Hacker himself or anybody working in the same field would have thought of suspecting these passages of showing an (external) influence.
2.4. What remains to be followed up now is Hacker's suggestion of a certain similarity between the quadruple division of the Yoga Sāstra and the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha. Unfortunately, it is not quite clear whether what he had in mind was only a structural similarity or an historical connection: the manner in which he formu. lates his view, though probably with the aim of revealing yet another instance of Hinduism being indebted to Buddhism, does not by itself preclude the first interpretation. Be that as it may, in order to examine critically his standpoint it is advisable to summarize the results of our foregoing study of Yoga texts, and this is best done by a synoptical chart:
29. Apart from the self-contradictory character of Hacker's respective remarks Icf. En. 16), I should like to stress the following: even if S did not regard the qua druple division as proper only to Yoga >, the fact that it is not stated by him expressly to be the USG's divisionary scheme might be due to some other reason also; after all this is also not done in the YS. In any case, this possibility does not affect my argument.
30. The term praparicopasama is met with also in Nagarjuna's Mülamadhyami. kakärikā, viz. 25.4.

Page #8

302
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
303
duḥkhapracurah heyam =
samsāraḥ
tasya hetuh =
avidyānimitto drastrdssyasamyogah
vivekakhyātau satyam drastrdryasamyogoparamah tannivșttav atyantiko avidyānivșttih hānam =
vivekakhyātir aviplavā hanopayah
3. Vivarana
caturvyahatva of the Yogasastra according to the
2. Yogabhăşya
heyahetuh/samsārahetuh =
pradhanapuruşayoh samyogah
duhkhabahulah heyam =
samsāraḥ
hānam/mokṣaḥ = samyogasyatyantiki nivsttih
Hacker's remarks imply that the first vyúha, i.e. the first line of our chart, is taken by him to correspond to the first Noble Truth of the Buddha, i.e. that of dukha (P. dukkha); and this correspondence can in fact be hardly disputed. Yet, of the second and third truth he says that they are gathered into one; this cannot but mean that there is but one element in the quadruple division of the Cikitsa- and Yogasastras corresponding to the truths of duḥkhasamudaya (P. dukkhasamudaya) and dunkhanirodha (P. dukkhanirodha) taken together. Hacker does not specify to which of the remaining vahas these two are to correspond, and it is indeed quite difficult to reconstruct his argument. In any case, his assertion is far from being convincing. Therefore, it seems advisable to examine the question at issue once more, without reference to Hacker's view.
What is meant by the concept rogahetu of the Cikitsasastra and by heyaletu, corresponding to it in Yoga, is clearly nothing bu constitutes the cause of the disease or the cause of that which has to be avoided. If dunkhasamudaya, on the other hand, is taken to denote a process, i.e. the rise of Suffering, one would have to take note of a striking conceptional difference, viz. that between cause and process as denoted by these terms respectively. But, can it simply be taken for granted that it is this and nothing else that is meant by the term dukha. samudaya ? Such an assumption is scarcely satisfactory, and not so much because the formation of the primary noun samudaya. would, at least according to Pån. 3.3.56 in connection with 3.3.18 and 19, allow among others of a meaning that from which or by which something arises, but because there are passages in canonical Buddhist texts which seem to show clearly that the term was in fact used to denote that by which the rising of duḥkha is caused; e.g. at Vbh 107 it is expressly stated: tanha ca avasesd ca kilesd ayam vuccati dukkhasamu. dayo; or, to give another example, at S III.158 the question katamo ca bhikkhave dukkhasamudayo is answered thus: ydyam tanha ponabbha. vika nandi ragasahagata tatra tatrabhinandini, seyyathidam kamatanha bhavataṇhd vibhavatanha ayam vuccati bhikkhave dukkhasamudayo.
One cannot, of course, be absolutely sure that these explanations are meant to be proper definitions of the term dukkhasamudaya; nor that they meet the original intention of the term; nor that the term was not elsewhere understood to denote a process. But it has, on the other hand,
hanopāyaḥ/moksopāyah =
samyagdarśanam
31. Later occurrences of the theory of the caturvyahatva are found c.g. in Madhava's Sarvadarsanasamgraha at the end of its exposition of the Patanjaladarsana. (ed. by T. G. Mainkar, Government Os, Class A, no. 1, Poona, 1978. p. 388), Vijana bhiksu's Samkhyapravacanabhasya at the end of the introduction as well as at the end of the first Adhyâya (ed. by R. Garbe, HOS, II, Cambridge, Mass. 1943, p. 5 and p. 74) and (except for the comparison with the science of medicine) in Nardyapatirtha's commentary, called Candrika, on the Samkhyakärikā (ed. by Dhundhiraja Sastri, Haridas SS, 132, Benarcs, 1941, P. 1, ed. by Bechanarama Tripathi, BSS, S, Benares, 1883, p. 2; cf. also TH. AUFRUCHT, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodlianae, pars 7, codices sanscriticos complectens, Oxford, 1864, p. 237b (no. 5691).
1. Yogasutra
heyam =
duhkham
heyahetuh =
drastrdryayoh samyogah
samyogabhāvah.
viz. kaivalyam hānam =
hānopāyaḥ =
vivekakhyātir aviplavā
caturvyuharva of the Cikitsasastra according to the YBhäşya and the Vivarana
2. rogahetuh
1. rogah
31a. For a detailed and careful discussion of the grammatical and syntactical problems posed by the different versions in which the Four Noble Truths are stated in Buddhist texts cf. the recent article of K. R. NORMAN, The Four Noble Truths: A Problem of Pali Syntar, in Indological and Buddhist Studies, Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. by L.A. Hercus et al., Canberra, 1982, pp. 377-91. Norman does not, however, address himself to the se mantic problems involved. As for dukkhasamudaya, cf. L. SCHMITHAUSEN, On Some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of Liberating Insight and Enlightenment in Early Buddhism, in Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus, Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf, Wiesbaden, 1981, p. 203, fn. 14a.
3. arogyam
4. bhaisajyam

Page #9

A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
305
to be admitted as another possibility that Buddhist monks themselves have taken it to mean the cause of Suffering, i.e. that which causes duḥkha to arise. And it is this possibility that alone matters in the present context; for, if understood thus, the second Noble Truth would indeed fully correspond to the second vydha.
As for duhkhanirodha, similar observations can be made. In view of its formation, the term could denote the process of suppressing or destroying, viz. that which causes Suffering; or else it could mean the
is process is ultimately to lead to, viz. the final suppression or rather cessation of Suffering. Again, there are passages indicating that Buddhist authors themselves may well have taken the term to denote the result; c.g. at S III.158 it is defined as tanhaya asesaviraganirodho cago pafinissaggo multi andlayo, and explained at Nd 1.94 by nibbanam. There are two possibilities of interpreting the first of these two statements: either it is a definition proper; in this case, the implicit equation of dukkhanirodha with tanhanirodha (which is expressly given at A III.416) precludes the possibility of taking nirodha, to denote the result; or it is a quasi-definition, i.e. an inexact explanation where the substitution of the result by that which causes it, i.e. of dukkha by tanha, is quite understandable, and not only in terms of metonymy; in this latter case, it would have to be regarded as evidence warranting the assumption that the term dukkhanirodha has in fact been used to denote the result. Interpreted in this manner, and, to be sure, this interpretation is more probable, the third Noble Truth could be said to be quite similar to the third vyaha, i.e. drogya/hana . This assumption is further corroborated by the fact that the nirvana is compared also in the Abhidhar makosabhäsya to the state of drogya .
However, the fact should not be lost sight of that the latter term virtually means the state of being again free of disease, ie. that the basic idea is in this case palpably different in that, in accordance with biological facts, a previous state of health is presupposed which is but regained. The Buddhist analysis of existence does not, of cours, know of an analogous previous state of freedom from Suffering: on the contrary, Suffering is recognized as the fundamental constituent element of existence. However, this conceptional difference does not really detract from the conclusion arrived at above, viz. that the third Noble Truth in fact corresponds to the third element in the quadruple division of the Cikitsasastra; for, what has been said with regard to the
relation in which the term duḥkhanirodha stands to the term arogya, holds good likewise for the comparison between the science of medicine and Yogasastra: for, also according to Yoga there is no such thing like a previous state free from duhkha, i.e. preceding samsára. There fore, one cannot but observe that already the correspondence between the four vyähas of the Cikitsasastra, on the one hand, and the four divisions of the Yogaśāstra, on the other, is conceptionally and terminologically not an absolutely complete one. Yet, at the same time one will recall the mediaeval proverb omne simile claudicat " and, accordingly, refrain from overrating this element of discrepancy in either case, i.e. as regards the correspondence between the Cikitsasastra and the Yogasastra as well as that between this caturvyâhatva and the Four Noble Truths. In any case, one cannot subscribe to Hacker's including that last voiced by him, viz. that in accordance with the more positive outlook of Brahmanism a chapter is added on the final goal; for, though the concepts of hana, etc., on the one hand, and of duhkhanirodha, etc., on the other, are admittedly different in terms of philosophical content, one cannot fail to notice that the descriptions given in Yoga texts of the final goal, i.e. absolute independence (kaivalya), too, do not stand out by being particularly detailed. On the contrary, one is rather struck by the obvious reserve of Yoga authors in this regard
Thus one cannot but arrive at the conclusion that, since the third line of our chart might well correspond to the third Noble Truth, there is hardly any basis for Hacker's assumption that this vyäha forms a peculiar addition on the part of the Brahmanical Sastras, not to speak of the more positive outlook of Brahmanism it allegedly demonstrates. The Buddha, too, did not confine himself to analysing existence and to unveiling its basic character of being nothing but Suffering, but has at the same time claimed to have discovered a practical path to liberation.
The final question to be discussed in this connection is whether the last Noble Truth, i.e. that of the dunkhanirodhagamini pratipad (P. duk. khanirodhagamini pațipada), can also be compared to one of the four vyuhas. Though Hacker is silent on this question, it is, I think, by no means illegitimate to assume a correspondence between this dryasatya and the remaining Vyaha, i.e. bhaisajya or hanopdya.
Systematically, they are in fact not different: common to all three of them is the status and function of a remedy. But there are also
32. Note that hdna is explained by Yoga authors to consist in the non-existence (abhava) or in the coming-toan-end (nivsiti, uparama) of that which causes Suffering or in liberation (moksa).
31. P. 202.8: I thank Dr. Ch. Lindtner for having drawn my attention to this passage. According to the Hobógirin p. 229. le Nirvana est deja compare a l'absence de maladie ... dans une stance gnomique du Madhyamagama... [MN 1.510.9-10). CF. also Pancaskandhaprakarapa, ed. by Ch. Lindtner, in AO, 40 (1979), p. 122, fn. 28, as well as the relcrences s.v. drogya in the CPD.
34. At least not for the individual living beings.
35. Cf. H. WALTHER, Lateinische Sprichwörter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters. Göttingen, 1963-69, Bd. II, 3. p. 590 (nr. 19877b).
36. This reserve may be caused either by the Yoga conception of kaivalya itself (cf. the Vivaranakära's characterization of hdna as an avastu: see fn. 27) or to the well-known reluctance of mystics to give a detailed positive description of their experience(s), or to the lack of such experience(s) on the part of the authors con cerned, or, finally, to a combination of some of these reasons.

Page #10

306
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasasira
307
differences which cannot be ignored. Terminologically and conceptionally the fourth Noble Truth is distinguished by the fact that it explicitly states that the remedy is not something lying at hand, but that in order to reach the final goal of duḥkhanirodha, one has to take a specific route leading to it. Though the distance to be covered is, quite under standably, not specified, the image of a path forms a peculiar and central element of the Buddhist concept". Of course, there cannot be the least doubt that it is precisely in this regard that the Yogic concept of e means of avoidance , is virtually identical with the fourth Noble Truth; for, the central purport of Yoga is to teach a practice by applying which one is gradually led to vivekakhyati that ultimately brings about the irreversible cessation of the connection between subject and object, i.e. kaivalya But it remains noteworthy that the character of being a process is not indicated by the corresponding term employed in Yoga texts or by the explanations given for it by the commentators ". Inspite of this difference, however, the correspondence between the fourth Noble Truth and the vyäha listed in the last line of our chart cannot but be styled as quite close.
The final result achieved by our comparison of the Four Noble Truths as a whole with the quadruple division of the two Brahmanical Sastras is, therefore, that the correspondence between them can be regarded as even strikingly close, if we make the assumptions noted above with regard to the explanation of Buddhist terms. It must not, however, be forgotten that it is but a systematic correspondence which has thus been discovered. The historical problems evidently involved have still to be taken up for consideration.
Regarding their order of succession the Four Noble Truths per fectly agree with the four vydhas of the Cikitsasastra and those of the Yogasastra as enumerated in the YS and YBhasya In view of the above (p. 297 f.) discussion on the transposition of the last two members common to both, the Vivarana and the USG of Sankara, the Advaitin,
and on the basis of the tentative explanations proposed for the transpo sition in either text, the conclusion that suggests itself is that the traditional order of succession of the Four Noble Truths, strictly observed, as far as I know, whenever all of them are enumerated in Buddhist texts, is like that of the four vyāhas of the Cikitsasastra a systematical one, i.e. reflecting logical stages of analysis, but not stages passed through successively in actual practice.
3.1. A further problem, and to be sure, an important one, not discussed in the foregoing is posed by the comparison drawn in Yoga texts between the science of Yoga and the science of medicine. What I am referring to is the assertion met with first in the YBhäsva that systematically the Cikitsasastra is divided into four parts. This is stated in such a manner that one cannot but gather the impression that the division is a genuine one: it is hardly conceivable that the carurvyahatva of the Cikitsasastra as expounded in the YBhāşya and the Vivarana is simply a fabrication made for the sole purpose of establishing a parallel to the fourfold division of the Yogaśāstra as implied already by the Sätra itself. The whole tenor of the relevant passages has, on the contrary, to be taken to clearly indicate that the caturvyahatva of the science of medicine was regarded by the authors as an indisputable, if not even a well-known, fact they could draw upon, in accordance with the basic function of a drsanta, for the sake of illustration.
But, I think, one can go even a step further and make the assumption that this correspondence is not stated merely for the sake of illu. stration, but that much more is intended by it, viz. to bring the method of Yoga into close systematic proximity to the Cikitsasastra and to inti. mate thereby that it is not merely of equal importance, but that it surpasses the science of medicine in that it does not cure simply an accidental physical disease, but forms the allegedly) only remedy against the ailment every living being naturally suffers from, an ailment medicine is unable to cope with.
That this interpretation does not go too far is clearly corroborated by a well-known Sämkhya text, viz. Isvarakrsna's Samkhyakärikä where already at the very outset, i.e. in Kärikā 1, it is expressly stated that the perceptible means of removal of the threefold suffering have neither an absolutely sure nor a necessarily final effect (drste sapartha cen naikan. tatyantato'bhavar). And there can hardly be any doubt that the commen. taries, above all the Yuktidīpika ", do meet the intention of Isvarakrsna when referring here to the Ayurveda.
3.2. Therefore, it is legitimate to check this assertion of Yoga authors and to ask the elementary question whether this quadruple division is attested in any of the extant medical texts. But before actually looking into any of these works it is necessary to realize a basic problem
37. Note that the expression dukkhanirodhagaminl paripada is replaced by maggo in what Norman (cf. fn. 31a) calls the emnemonic > sets. That this image is met with in the YBh also, viz. on YS 2.26 (p. 205, L. 3 of the edition of the Vivarapa). is most probably due to Buddhist influence (on which in general cf. L. DE LA VALLDE POUSSIN, loc. cit., fr. 22).
38. In this connection cf., apart from passages already quoted, Vivarana e.g. p. 2.23 II. and p. 121, 1. 4 f.: ... kaivalyasya sadhanam samyagdarsanam / yogasddhadni ca yogadvarena samyagdarsanasadhandny eva / ...
39. Cf. fn. 37.
40. In the Samkhyapravacanabhasya (cf. fn. 31) the order of succession has been changed, viz. to roga (= heya), drogya (= hana), roganidana (heyahetu) and bhaisaiya (= hanopdya). This is, no doubt, equally a systematical order, only that the rationale is slightly different, viz.: first the contrary states are named and only thereafter, but with reference to them, the cause and the means, which again form a pair of corresponding entities. The term middna is also noteworthy in that it is used frequently in Buddhist texts, too, though first of all, to denote the cause of mctaphysical ailment.
41. Cf. p. 12, 1. 9
. in R. C. Pandeya's edition, Delhi, 1967.

Page #11

308
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
309
drogya, it is highly probable that what Buston has in mind is the same quadruple division as drawn upon in our Yoga texts.
After consulting well-known works of secondary literature on Indian medicine where, however, the quadruple division is apparently not men tioned at all, I decided to turn for help to some of the specialists in this field of learning instead of setting out myself on possibly a wildgoose chase in the impenetrable jungle of the extant Ayurvedic texts (begging pardon for the all too mixed metaphor). It was my colleague R. E. Emmerick who drew my attention to Carakasamhita, sūtrasthāna 9.19, i.e. to the following verse:
involved. Is the assumption at all justified that the division when attested in such texts forms at the same time the scheme on which the actual exposition of the argument of the texts concerned is based? In other words: Can we expect to find the quadruple division attested in an Ayurvedic text in such a manner that this text itself is explicitly or implicitly divided into exactly four systematic parts or chapters corre sponding to the four vyâhas? As to this, it seems expedient to proceed with caution; for, a first
inst such an assumption is the observation, simple though it is, that, in any case in Yoga texts, the caturvyahatva is at best stated to be a divisionary scheme, but that it is nowhere actually made the basis of a corresponding disposition of the material: there is no Yoga text in which this systematic division is taken seriously in such a manner that the exposition actually follows this scheme. A second warning is given by another division of the science of medicine referred to in medical texts themselves, viz. the octopartite division of therapy. Yet, it is not these eight parts of Ayurveda as listed e.g. in the Sušruta. samhita I, 1, 7, or in the Astăngahşdaya I, 1, 5cd-6ab, that matter in the present context, but a fact stressed by J. Filliozat in the introduction to his recent edition of the Yogaśataka, a medical text attributed to Nägărjuna for, referring to an article of C. Vogel's he points out that dans le titre des Asiangasamhita et Asidigahrdayasamhita de Vägbhaga, astanga désigne la science médicale en général et parties de l'ouvrage
What both these observations come to is that it would indeed be well to distinguish between a division of the science of medicine taught somewhere, on the one hand, and the actual internal organisation of medical texts, on the other. Therefore, one has to reckon with the possibility that all one finds in medical texts is simply a reference to the scheme, perhaps even in an offhand manner. The degree of probability that at least this kind of evidence can actually be found is, however, quite high, for the quadruple division is, according to C. Vogel, referred to by yet another witness, and, to be sure, an independant one, viz. Buston (1290-1364) who in his comprehensive History of Buddhism coming to speak of medical works, says : « As for the works on medicine, they teach four (topics): disease, cause of disease, medicament as antidote to disease, and method of curing thereby . Though the suc. cession of the last two members is, again, reversed and the Tibetan gso-ba'i spyod-lam does not fully correspond to the Sanskrit term
hetau linge prasamane roganām apunarbhave/ jnanam caturvidham yasya sa rajarho bhişaktamah //.
Cakrapanidatta does not explain this verse, but there can hardly be any doubt that the fourfold knowledge » spoken of here is practically identical with our quadruple division of the Cikitsasastra; for the expression apunarbhava can be equated with our arogya, the only difference being that by the former health as something regained is para phrased as the not-occurring-again (of a disease) ; further, the term prasamana closely corresponds to our bhaisaiya, at least if taken to denote that by which (a disease) is tranquillized, i.e. cured ; and, finally, as regards the expression linga, here it cannot but meansymptom , and thus it corresponds to our roga, only that it is not the disease itself that is denoted, but its characteristic sign(s), and this is clearly done with the aim of bringing out into proper relief an essential virtue of any physician, viz. to make a proper diagnosis by the symptoms. Particularly noteworthy, however, is that it is not every physician who is expected to have this fourfold knowledge, but only a bhisaktama, an excellent physician, and that he is in addition stated to be fit or worthy of treating) a king .; for, this cannot but imply that the common variety of a bhişaj ordinary people have to depend on need not necessarily be equally well versed in all four parts of the science of medicine. Nevertheless, what is attested in this verse of the Carakasamphitā is clearly a systematic division of the Cikitsaśāstra into four parts and, to be sure, a division which may, inspite of certain terminological and conceptional differences, well be taken to be virtually identical with that referred to by the author of the YBhäsya, etc.; on the other hand, however, it has to be stressed that even if the verse
42. Publications de l'Institut Français d'Indologie, no. 62, Pondichéry, 1979.
43. Viz., On Buuston's View of the Eight Parts of Indian Medicine, in IIJ, VI (1962), pp. 290-95.
44. Op. cit., p. IV. In Vogel's article (the reference should be «p. 291, n. 3, not. n. 2.), however, this is not expressly stated though perhaps implied.
45. The reference is to his article mentioned in fn. 43. 46. Quoted from Vogel, loc. cit., p. 290.
47. Viz, insofar as for obvious reasons the medical treatment itself is given prominence and not the aim it has to achieve.

Page #12

310
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
forms an original part of the Carakasamhita " the quadruple division is, strangely enough, given but an extremely marginal importance.
To an eventual second instance of the quadruple division being attested in a medical text my attention was drawn by K.G. Zysk's review of Filliozat's edition and translation of the Yogasataka, referred to above. Zysk critically examines Filliozat's rendering of verse 2 which runs thus:
pariksya helimayalaksanani cikitsitajena cikitsakena /
nirdmadehasya hi bheșajani bhavanti yuktany amstopamdni 17: he not only proposes an, indeed, more appropriate translation for hetvamayalaksanani, viz.. the characteristics of the diseases and (their) causes (which should, however, perhaps be replaced by the cause[s] and the characteristics of diseases , but also points out that the Tibetan translator, apparently equally at a loss with the expression wirdmade hasya, renders the second line thus: The body becomes free from disease by the combination of medicines which resemble ambrosia Zysk rightly adds the remark that the Tibetan translation seems more acceptable, but in addition he refers approvingly to Filliozat's note «T, au 3e pada, a remplacé ama par nad, Amaya, et entend nirama "sans dénutrition" comme nirmaya " sans maladie". However, I am not sure that this assumption is justified; for according to Monier Williams Indian lexicographers list an amal, sickness, disease which is referred to also by Edgerton. On the other hand one wonders how the Tibetan translator thought that the line construes and whether his interpretation is at all possible.
Yet I do not want to enter on my part into a detailed discussion of the philological problems involved here; instead, I should like to confine myself to referring to the Tibetan translation; for, it is there that we find the four systematic parts of the science of medicine reflected, to wit, in a manner that reminds us of the verse quoted above from Caraka.
Both these references to the quadruple division - and, of course, first of all the more unequivocal one of the Carakasamhita - are no
more than bare references, and the result of our examination of Ayur. vedic texts is accordingly rather disappointing, for in them the qua. druple division is not given the fundamental importance peculiar to it in Yoga texts. One is, therefore, left with two alternatives, viz. either that it was these Yoga thinkers who realized division, or that what these Yoga thinkers refer to is but a later develop ment in Indian medicine. However, this much is clear beyond doubt: the fourfold scheme as such, even if not also applied in writing medical works, did actually exist.
This conclusion is additionally corroborated by a clearly inde pendent witness not called into evidence so far. What I am referring to is an hitherto unpublished passage in the frutamayt bhami of the Yoga carabhami which was pointed out and given to me by my friend L. Schmithausen . It runs thus: cikitsa katamd/ sd caturakara vedi. tavya / tadyatha abadhakausalyam abadhasamurthanakausalyam uifpan. nasydbadhar....sya prahanakausalyam prahinasydbadha[ ... ]sydyat yām anupadakausalyam / esam ca kausalyanām vibhango yarhasátram eva veditavyah // . Which of many things (or: Of what kinds) is medical trentment? It has to be regarded as having four forms, viz. skill (in diagnosing) the disease, skill (in determining) the origination (i.e. cause) of the disease, skill (in applying) the means of getting rid of the disease which has arisen (and finally) skill (in ensuring] that (the disease] which one has got rid of does not arise again in future. Moreover, as for the detailed explanation of these (medical] skills, it is not given here, but) has to be known precisely according to what has been taught) in the [respective] Sūtras ».
Though the terminology is palpably different, there can hardly be any doubt that the quadruple division taught is practically identical with that referred to in Caraka, and thus, ultimately, also with that drawn upon in our Yoga texts, the four kausalyas corresponding to roga, rogahetu, bhaisajya and arogya, respectivelyThe last sentence of the passage quoted is of particular importance; for it cannot but be taken as evidence for the fact that this division was expounded already
48. Apart from the fact that this verse is not commented upon by Cakrappi datta (a fact which by itself is, of course, by no means conclusive), what creates suspicion is that the verse does not really fit into the context so that it might well have been added later since in the immediately preceding verse a special designation, viz. pradbhisára, is taught for a bhisaj who possesses certain (other) qualifications.
549. The fourfold physicians. (caturvidha vaidydli) mentioned in Mbh (Poona ed) 12.69.57 are most probably to be taken in accordance with Nilakantha's expla. nation (visasalyaroga krydhard)) as reference to four different types of medical specialists. Cf. also R. P. DAS' review of G.N. THITE, Medicine. Is Magico-Religious Aspects according to the Vedic and Later Literature, in II, 27 (1981). p. 235 1.
50. In IIJ, 23 (1981), pp. 309-13. 51. A Sanskrit.English Dictionary, p. 146. 52. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary s.v. 2 dina.
53. In this latter case one would have to assume that it was not given due at: tention in later medical texts because the tradition of how a medical treatise should be dispositionally structured had become fixed to such an extent that alterations were not possible (any more).
54. On this occasion I should also like to acknowledge with sincere gratitude the vivid interest he showed in the present study in general and its part 4 in parti. cular, for much of the material referred to there I owe his pigeon-hole.
55. The passage is found in the Patna MS of the Sravakabhami at 2 B 6-2 ( = 96 a 2 of the Patna MS of the Yogăcarabhumi]. The former adds vi at the very beginning, which, however, seems to have been deleted, and the latter reads drastavyd in the place of veditavyd and 'anu[...]pdda'. By square brackets deleted aksaras are indicated.
56. Particularly close is obviously the similarity with the Carakasamhits (cf. the term apurarbhava in the latter): see below p. 323.

Page #13

312
A. Wezler
Oit the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
313
in a Sutra, to be sure a Buddhist Sūtra. In view of the probable date of the Yogācārabhūmi, this Satra, according to Schmithausen, can hardly belong to a period after the beginning of the 4th century, but is probably carlier.
In the light of this additional evidence the following observations and assumptions can be made:
a) that the science of medicine or medical treatment can be syste
matically divided into four parts was common knowledge of
educated people, or at least it was widespread; b) this knowledge is attested obviously independently in Brahma.
nical as well as Buddhist 57 sources the most ancient of which
date back to the first half of the 1st millennium; c) it seems natural to assume that the division was first conceived
by a medical author and only later referred to and utilized by others, i.e. applied to other Sastras also which, though signifi. cantly different, nevertheless exhibited a specific similarity with
the science of medicine. 4. In what follows, Buddhism again may serve as a cue for focus. sing attention on still another problem raised by the theory of the quadruple division of the Cikitsasastra, a problem which is perhaps even more important than all those discussed so far in the course of the present study. What I have in view is the assertion found in not a few works on or expositions of (early) Buddhism, viz. that this fourfold division of medicine it was that inspired the Buddha to his
Four Noble Truths. Thus c.g. E. Frauwallner simply states as though it were a fact established beyond any doubt, and without giving any reference, that the fourfold division of the truth discovered [by the Buddha)... is borrowed from the medical method, Equally apodictic is H. Zimmer who in his « Philosophies of India » "remarks: Following the procedure of the physician of his day inspecting a patient, the Buddha makes four statements concerning the case of man. These are the so. called "Four Noble Truths" which constitute the heart and kernel of his doctrine.
That this opinion has become a commonplace with many a Buddho logist can also be seen in A. Bareau's monograph where it is said: «The Four Noble Truths are, as regards their classification, obviously taken from the dialectics of an old Indian medical school. Starting from the disease one is led to its origin, from this to its suppression, i.e. the restoration of health, and finally to the medicine which brings it about or, to give just one more example: D. Schlingloff, too, is thoroughly convinced that just as in the Old Indian medicine the theory of disease, of the origin of disease, of the suppression of disease and of the way's leading to the suppression of disease was developed, here (i.c. in the Four Noble Truths). Suffering, its origin, its suppression and the way leading to its suppression are spoken of.
Other scholars, however, are a bit more cautious in that they confine themselves to merely pointing out the close similarity between the Four Noble Truths and the corresponding division in medicine.
Thus E. Conze states in his . Buddhism. Its Essence and Develop ment : The holy doctrine is primarily a medicine. The Buddha is like a physician. Just as a doctor must know the diagnosis of the dif. ferent kinds of illness, must know their causes, the antidotes and remedies, and must be able to apply them, so also the Buddha has taught the Four Holy Truths, which indicate the range of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way which leads to its cessation. A si statement is found in K. Mizuno's book, viz.: The Four Noble Truths were taught on the basis of a principle of healing spiritual suffering and misery that is similar to the principles that doctors follow in curing illness of the body ».
Yet it is with the first kind of statements that I am concerned here. It is, I think, not necessary to try to collect more such examples from secondary sources on Buddhism; and it would be rather futile to rack one's brains about the question who copied whom in this case. Instead, it should be stated in summing up that it is evidently a widespread conviction of scholars of Buddhism that it was this systematic division of the science of medicine that served as a model for the conception of
57. Of the two other Buddhist authors referred to in the foregoing, viz. Bu-ston and Nagarjuna, at Icast the former might have derived his knowledge from the lost Sūtra and not directly from a medical text. In any case, there is no clear evidence in favour of the assumption that the Buddhist sources depend on the Brahmanical or vice versa as regards the quadruple division of medicine.
58. Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, Bd. I. Salzburg, 1953, p. 184 = History of Indian Philosophy, tr. by V. M. BEDEKAR, vol. I, Delhi, 1973, p. 146.
59. New York, 1951, p. 467; the German translation, Zürich, 1961 (= Frankfurt, 1973, Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 26), p. 417 f. Cf. also H. ZIMMER, Indische Sphären, Zürich-Stuttgart, 1963, pp. 219 and 221.
60. Der indische Buddhismus, in: Die Religionen Indiens III (Die Religionen der Menschheit Bd. 13), Stuttgart, 1964, p. 33.
61. If the unknown French original of the German . augenscheinlich (which I render by obviously) is used to indicate that there obtains here, to some degree at least, an incertitude (the German expression does indicate this), Bareau's position would have to be classified with the more guarded ones quoted below.
62. Die Religion des Buddhismus I. Der Heilsweg des Mönchstums (Sammlung Göschen Bd. 174), Berlin, 1962, p. 70. H.J. GRESCHAT, Die Religion der Buddhistent (Uni-Taschenbücher 1049), München, Basel, 1980, p. 66. expresses himself in such a vague manner that it is not possible to decide if he is to be classed with the fore. going group of scholars or with the subsequent one.
63. Oxford, 1951, p. 17. In the German translation (Urban-Bücher 5), Stuttgart, 1956, the corresponding passage is found on p. 14.
64. The Beginnings of Buddhism..., transl. by RICHARD L. GAGE, Tokyo, 1980, p. 43.

Page #14

314
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
315
.
the Four Noble Truths. One may find it surprising or even significant that none of the specialists quoted until now thought it, if not necessary then at least, desirable to adduce the reasons, too, that could convince their readers that what they have to do with is not an arbitrary and fanciful assumption, but a well-founded hypothesis. Yet, it is by no means a peculiar feature of Indology that an allegedly true and certain piece of knowledge is handed down from generation to generation, not because of a general lack of the critical faculty, but simply because nobody happened to take a second look at it, and in the present case it is but fair to admit that the assumption is in fact suggestive to such an extent that one is easily lulled into a sense of absolute security. Nevertheless, it bears renewed discussion.
4.1. The first question to be asked, then, is this: Who was the first scholar to make this assumption and what gave him this idea? By a note of Oldenberg's one is referred to the original source, viz. H. Kern's
Geschicdenis van het Buddhisme in India, that was translated into German by H. Jacobi in 1882. It is there that for the first time in a foot-note it is apodictically stated that the Four Truths are borrowed from the art of healing ". In the text itself of Kern's book a statement to the same effect is found at p. 367 (=469 in the German translation), and surprisingly enough followed by a reference to the YBhäşya on YS 2.15 from which the relevant passage is quoted in translation. Though it is not expressly stated one cannot but draw the conclusion that it was precisely this passage that gave Kern the idea of the Four Noble Truths having been borrowed from the art of healing. This conclusion is in fact corroborated by Kern's Manual of Indian Buddhism where it is sald: It is not difficult to see that these four Satyas are nothing else but the four cardinal articles of Indian medical science, applied to the spiritual healing of mankind, exactly as in the Yoga doctrine in a footnote a portion of the text of the YBh on YS 2.15 is given), and two passages from the Lalitavistara are quoted to vindicate the assertion that this connection of the Aryasatyas with medical science was apparently not unknown to the Buddhists themselves . The Lalitavistara,
however, is of so late a date that it could not by any means be regarded as evidence for the fact that the quadruple division of the science of medicine antedates the historical Buddha or was even developed in his youth. Yet in reality the division as such is not mentioned at all, nay not even alluded to in this text; what is said in the two passages pointed out by Kern is merely that the Buddha is a vaidyaraja in that he is a pranocakaḥ sarvaduḥkhebhyah or a sarvavyddhipramocakah: that is to say, he is but compared to a physician.
4.2. But before continuing the critical discussion of Kern's remarks, and the arguments brought forward by others, it is advisable to reflect on the implications the assumption examined here cannot but have. This might seem superfluous, but is nevertheless necessary since nowhere in the relevant secondary literature do I find them explicitly stated so that one cannot help suspecting that they were not clearly realized by Kern and those depending on him directly or indirectly. These implica tions are, of course, that the science of medicine was either already before the Buddha or at least in his times divided in this manner and that the Buddha knew this systematic division.
Our knowledge of the historical person called the Buddha does not permit us to answer the question whether at all or to what extent he was familiar with the contemporary science of medicine. Therefore it is not possible to check whether the second condition can be regarded as fulfilled. As for the first and basic implication, one would have to look for pre-Buddhist medical literature. As even the most ancient of the so-called Ayurvedic texts are of later origin, it could only be one of the Vedic texts where one could strike on a relevant statement. Nobody, however, has so far come up with any such reference. This holds good for the other possibility also, viz. that the quadruple division be attested in a non-medical text of pre-Buddhist origin. Therefore, it has to be stressed that all we actually have are at best references in
65. Viz. in his: Buddha, Sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde, 1923, p. 236. It should be noted that J. Filliozat in the article mentioned in fn. 99 below arrives at the same conclusion.
66. Haarlem, 1882 (Eerste deel), 1884 (Tweede deel).
67. Der Buddhismus und seine Geschichte in Indien. Eine Darstellung der Lehren und Geschichte der buddhistischen Kirche, 2 Bde., Leipzig, 1882-84.
68. Viz. fn. 4 on p. 207 of the first part (corresponding to p. 265 in the German translation).
69. (Grundriss d. Indo-Arischen Philologle u. Altertumskunde III.8) Strassburg, 1896; the quotation is from p. 46 f.
70. The expression applied to. and the reference to the YBhasya preclude, I think, the possibility of taking Kern's remarks as meant to point out a systematic similarity only.
71. Viz, Lal. V. p. 448: utpanno vaidyarajah pramocakali sarvadukkhebhyah, pra risthapako nirvanasukhe, risannas Tathagaragarbhe Tathagatamahadharmardasane, and p. 458: cirdure jivaloke klesavyddhiprapidite / vaidyardt tvam samutpannah sarvavyddhi pramocakah //.
72. Laudable exceptions to the rule, however, are H. Oldenberg and J. Filliozat. Oldenberg (in the foot-note referred to above in fn. 65) clearly dissociates himself from Kern's opinion with the remark that it will not be possible to ascertain whether, as regards the fourfold division, Buddhism is the borrowing side a re. mark which does not simply show scepticism, but is most probably due to O.'s being well aware of the fact that there is no pre-Buddhist medical text to attest the division; Filliozat in his article (cf. below fn. 99) says more clearly: . Il eut fallu prouver que cette médecine les [= les quatre vérités] possédait avant le Boud. dhisme; Kern ne l'a point fait
73. From the description of Indian medical literature as given e... by J. Jolly in Medicin, Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie u. Altertumskunde III.10, Strass. burg. 1901) it follows that we have no medical texts of the intervening period [between the Vedic literature and the texts of Caraka and Susruta) as stated by A. L. Basham (The Wonder that was India, London, 1954, p. 499).

Page #15

316
A. Wezler
post-Buddhist Indian literature. To say that the references discussed in the preceding part of this article, including the YBhasya, so important to Kern, do furnish the evidence needed, would be nothing but an arbitrary assertion, merely meant to warrant an assumption that cannot be supported otherwise.
4.3. But what about the evidence found in Buddhist texts themselves? As regards the Lalitavistara passages, all that can be learned from them is that the Buddha was compared to a physician by his adherents. And this can hardly be regarded as a new and important piece of information. For, firstly, the idea that God" or a particular god or the propounder of a doctrine of salvation helps men by healing physical and/or spiritual ailments is so widely spread that there is nothing strange in that such a comparison may have been drawn by Buddhist authors, too, without their possessing any tradition that the Buddha himself had actually learnt from medicine, and shrewdly applied its division to his own teaching; and, secondly, it is already in much earlier Buddhist texts that the Buddha is characterized or sometimes even made to say of himself that he is an anuttaro bhisakko sallakatto, an unsurpassed physician, (the best) surgeon". This comparison (echoed as it were in statements like those of Conze and Mizuno quoted above) is not only met with rather frequently already in early canonical texts, but has obviously also proved a quite fruitful idea, variously developed in later times, as was shown recently by R. Birnbaum" who aptly remarks" that the Buddha frequently made analogies to disease and healing to explain various facets of his teaching». Nevertheless, one cannot but observe that in the passages inspected or referred to until now the Four Noble Truths are not mentioned at all, not to speak of explicitly paralleling them with corresponding systematic parts of the science of medicine. And, to be sure, passages like Mil 247.11 where a
«
74. Cf. also the recent study of G. BUDDRUSS, Khowar-Texte in arabischer Schrift (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz), Wiesbaden, 1982, p. 12. For an interesting comparison between God the Lord and a physician in the context of a theodicy-like discussion see BIASARVAJRA's Nydyabhusana, p. 458.16 ff. As noted. by W. Halbfass (Studies in Kumarila and Sankara, Reinbek, 1983, p. 15, cf. also fn. 81), the samsåramocaka [too] presents himself as a benevolent physician in the wider context of samsåra, and reference is made to the expertise of the good doctor who knows that sometimes he has to apply harsh means to bring about a change for the better. God is called a medicament (ausadha) by Madhva in his Bhasya on Taitt. Up. 2.2.
75. It 101.15-16; cf. (without bhisakko) Sn 560 and (sallakatto only) Sn 562. The first of these passages is referred to Mil. 215.11; as for the well-known parable of the man wounded by an arrow cf. M 1.429 as well as M II.216, Mil 169.9 ff., 247.10 ff.; for a kusalo bhisakko in a simile ef. A III.238.5 f., Mil 229.5 ff.; bhisakko is called an adhivacana of the Buddha A IV.340.5 ff.; the Buddha is compared to a kusalo vejjo Pj 1.21.19 f.
76. The Healing Buddha, Boulder (Co.), 1979.
77. Viz. on p. 15; cf. also the subsequent sections.
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasästra
«
physician (bhisakka) is characterized as roguppattikusala, well-acquainted with competent in discovering the origin of disease, is by no means conclusive."
But what about the passage in Buddhaghosa's Vism 512.7-9 referred to by Birnbaum" which runs thus: rogo viya ca dukkhasaccam, roganidanam iva samudayasaccam, rogavüpasamo viya nirodhasaccam, bhesajjam iva maggasaccam? It is true, the Four Noble Truths are here clearly compared to corresponding parts of medical science; but, on the other hand, one must not forget that the famous commentator is sepa rated approximately by a millenium from the Buddha himself and one cannot overlook that this is but one in a series of different analogies given by Buddhaghosa without (explicit) reference to canonical texts and that it does not at all imply that the Truths were borrowed from the medical method.
317
There is, however, a further reference by Oldenberg which has still to be followed up, viz. that to an article of L. de la Vallée Poussin " who after having quoted the relevant lines from Kern's Manual of Indian Buddhism draws on his part attention to some more material, viz. two passages in the Bodhicaryavatāra and an explanation found in Yasomitra's Abhidharmakośavyäkhyä. Among these quotations the two former ones are but reformulations of ideas attested already in canonical Päli texts in the context of the comparisons mentioned above (p. 316). What the author is concerned with is to lay stress (1) on the extreme foolishness of him who though suffering from a disease refuses the help of a person capable of healing it and (2) the (correct) observation that there is no physician but cures disease with some pain in the treatment". The latter reference, however, is indeed of such a kind
78. Viz. in fn. 37 on p. 22.
79. JRAS, 1903, pp. 578-80. The two passages quoted from the Bodhicaryavatara
are II.55 ff.:
itvaravyddhibhito 'pi vaidyaväkyam na langhayet /
tatra sarvajñavaidyasya sarvasalydpaharinah / väkyam ullanghayamiti dhig mam atyantamohitam //. and VIII.22 ff.:
sarve 'pi vaidydḥ kurvanti kriydduḥkhair arogatām / tasmad bahuni duḥkhäni hantum sodhavyam alpakam // kriyam imam apy ucitām varavaidyo na dattavan / madhurenopacarena cikitsati mahaturan //
adau säkädidäne 'pi niyojayati nayakaḥ /
tat karoti kramåt pascad yat svamämsäny api tyajet //
80. Practically all of them are quoted also above, p. 315 and fn. 71.
80a. The same idea is also met with e.g. in Samadhirajasūtra 9.43-46.
81. This is de la Vallée Poussin's rendering of the first line of his second quo tation from the Bodhicaryavatara (cf. above fn. 79), the gist of which, however, is that the Buddha differs from a physician precisely in this respect. The idea expressed in the first line was appealed to also by the so-called Samsaramocakas; cf. fn. 74 above.

Page #16

318
A. Wezler
that it fully warrants Oldenberg's remark that it compares quite expressly the four truths to the quadruple medical teaching of disease, its origin, its healing [and] the prevention of its resurgence». For what Yasomitra says is:
vyādhim dṛṣṭveti. vyadhir duḥkha-satyasyopamānam, tannidänam samudaya-satyasya. tat-kşayo nirodha-satyasya. tadbhesajam margasatyasyopamanam H. sütre 'py eşa satyanam drstämta iti. Vyadhyadi. sütre, katham. caturbhir amgaiḥ samanvägato bhişak salyapahartă rajarhaś ca bhavati raja-yogyaś ca rajangatve ca samkhyam gac chati", katamais caturbhiḥ, abadha-kušalo bhavati, abadha-samutthana-kusalaḥ. abadha-prahana-kušalaḥ. prahinasya cabädhasyaya. tyam anutpada-kušalaḥ, evam eva caturbhir amgaiḥ samanvägatas Tathagato 'rhan samyak-sambuddho 'nuttaro bhisak" salyapahariety ucyate. katamais caturbhiḥ. iha bhikṣavas Tathagato 'rhan samyaksambuddha idam duḥkham arya-satyam iti yathabhatam prajānāti. ayam duḥkha-samudayah. ayam duḥkha-nirodhaḥ, iyam duḥkhanirodha-gamini pratipad arya-satyam iti yathabhutam prajānātīti.
As stated by de la Vallée Poussin" the Sütra referred to by Vasu bandhu and quoted by Yasomitra is d'après la version de Hiuan-Tsang,
82. Loc. cit., cf. fn. 65.
83. I quote from Sphutärtha Abhidharmakosavyäkhyä by Yasomitra, ed. by U. Wogihara, Tokyo, 1971, p. 514 f.; see, however, fn. 85. Mr. Yoshifumi Honjo whom I met at the XXXI CISHAAN in Japan kindly drew my attention to the fact that a more complete quotation from that very Satra is found in Samathadeva's Abhidharmakosapayika, viz. Peking Tanjur, Thu 32 b 6 ff.
84. From sütre 'py esa onwards this passage is also quoted by DE LA VALLÉE POUSSIN, in note 4 on p. 121, of his translation, L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu traduit et annoté..., cinquième et sixième chapitres, Paris, 1925, the final part, however, being abbreviated, viz. iha bhiksavas tathdgato... idam duḥkham dryasatyam iti yathabhatan prajānāti...
85. In his article (cf. fn. 79) de la Vallée Poussin reads vyddhisütre; the reading as given by Wogihara is, however, also found in the footnote in de la Vallée Poussin's translation of the Abhidharmakosa, and has to be accepted as correct; interpret: in the Sütra (dealing with) disease [cause of disease], etc. ».
86. The MS has here (and infra) kalpäpah'; the emendation, proposed also by de la Vallée Poussin in his article and accounted for by the remark I suppose that the old Nepalese ligature has been misunderstood by a modern copyist, is most convincing, not only because of the Tibetan equivalent, viz. zug-rňu 'byin-pa, but also and above all in view of the Päli parallels (see above p. 316 and fn. 75). 87. The following sentences up till dbddha-prahana-kusalah are in Wogihara's edition printed in italics and thus characterized as a quotation. This cannot but be a mistake, for evidently the quotation from the Vyadhyadisütra», the beginning of which is found already in the Kosa itself, extends as far as yathabhutam prajänätiti, the iti indicating its completion, because the reference in the Koda is introduced by the remark sütre 'py esa eva satyanam drstanto darsitals this very analogy of the [Four Noble] Truths is shown also in a Sûtra».
88. In his article de la Vallée Poussin reads anuttarabhisak.
89. Viz. in the foot-note to his translation of the Abhidharmakosa referred to in fn. 84.
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
le Sütra du bon médecin; d'après Paramartha, le Sütra de la comparaison du médecin (Samyukta 15.19; 17.14). Unfortunately, de la Vallée Poussin does not give any further explanation on the identity of the « Sûtra du bon médecin ». His second reference, however, can be traced, namely with the help of the Hôbôgirin" where the relevant passage from the Samyuktagama as preserved in Chinese translation is rendered into French. It clearly shows a close similarity to the quotation by Yasomitra, but does not, on the other hand, seem to agree fully with it". On closer examination, however, it becomes evident that what Demié ville or one of his collaborators actually did was to give but a free paraphrase of the Chinese translation, intermingling later portions of the detailed explanation (vibhanga) with earlier parts of the Sütra. When the Chinese translation itself (T 99, no. 389) is compared with the Sanskrit text quoted by Yasomitra, one cannot but arrive at the conclusion that it is precisely this Sanskrit text that was translated by Guna. bhadra, i.e. that what Yasomitra quotes is in fact nothing else but this Sūtra of the Samyuktagama. The Chinese translator, however, seems to have read rajabhogyaś instead of rajayogyas and the Chinese text obviously contains a corruption, not recognized by Demiéville: the character standing between that denoting King and that equivalent
319
90. I do not know which edition is referred to by de la Vallée Poussin; by the former reference, however, T 99, no. 344, might be meant and by the latter T 99, no. 389. In the latter passage three ailments are referred to, viz. kama, bhava. and avidya (roga, or a similar expression) (evidently under the influence of the three dsravas); however, it is not a comparison that is drawn here between the Four Noble Truths and medicine, but the concept of ailment is only used metaphorically in a context modelled after the Truths.
91. Viz. s.v. byd, p. 224 ff.
92. For according to Demiéville (loc. cit., p. 228) it runs thus: On appelle un grand roi des médecins celui qui réalise les quatre Essences suivantes: (1) Bien connaître la maladie, i.e. les différentes sortes de maladies...; (2) bien connaître l'origine de la maladie: due au Vent, ou au Flegme..., ou aux sécrétions salivaires.... aux différentes espèces de froid, à un fait actuel, à la saison...; (3) bien connaitre le Contrecarrant de la maladie: onguents, expectorants ou vomitifs..., évacuations infé rieures (purgatifs), instillations nasales..., fumigations.... sudorifiques...; (4) bien savoir traiter la maladie de telle façon qu'ayant été traitée il n'y ait aucun danger de récidive... de même. le Tg--Arhat-S s buddha, ce grand roi de médecins, réalise quatre vertus grâce auxquelles il soigne les maladies des Etres; en effet, il connalt les quatre Saintes Vérités: (1) de la Douleur...; (2) de la Formation de la Douleur....: (3) du Barrage de la Douleur...; (4) du Chemin de ce Barrage... Le médecin Mondain ne connait pas vraiment, tels qu'ils sont..., les Contrecarrant radicaux (fondamen taux), à savoir le Contrecarrant radical de la Naissance..., et celui de la Vieillesse, de la Maladie. de la Mort, du chagrin, des plaintes, des douleurs, des Tribulations...... The differences, marked here by italicizing the corresponding elements in the translations, are, on the other hand, of such a kind that (except perhaps for the final portion which may simply have been left out of his quotation by Yasomitra) they can easily be accounted for by the assumption that they represent but later additions of an explanatory character to a text which may well have been identical with that attested in the Abhidharmakośavyäkhya. See, however, also below p. 320. 92a. Viz. 436-443 A.D. according to E. LAMOTTE, Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien, Louvain, 1958, p. 169.

Page #17

320
A. Wexler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
321
to "arha, viz. , seems rather to be an error for z; if the latter is accepted, there is full agreement between the Sanskrit original and the Chinese translation also as regards the expression rajarha! The compa. rison further shows that the vibhanga portion of the original Sotra, which preceded the sentence beginning with evam eva caturbhir antgaih, was simply left out by Yašomitra, and it was left out in the Yogacara. bhūmi (s. above p. 311) as well, where the reader is, however, referred to the original source precisely as regards this detailed explanation !
But there is a very similar passage in a second, probably older, yet rather inaccurate translation of the Samyuktāgama, viz. T 100, no. 254, where also the vibhanga is missing. Therefore, one cannot be sure which of the two « versions of the SA are actually referred to by the Yogacarabhūmi and Vasubandhu or quoted by Yasomitra, respectively. In any case, the passage as a whole is missing in the Pali SN, and there is hence a high degree of probality that it forms but a later addition; for it is quite impossible to discover a motive for a transmitter dropping it. Yet, whatever the exact historical relation may be in which the different sources stand to each other, this much has to be accepted as established: Hinayānistic Buddhist texts knew of a quadruple division of the science of medicine and compared the teaching of the Four Noble Truths to it.
The most important source is, of course, the Vyädhisätra passage as quoted in the Abhidharmakosavyakhya: it is preserved in Sanskrit and it is here that the Four Noble Truths are expressly compared to the corresponding systematic parts of the science of medicine. The parallel drawn is, however, not completely convincing, as already noted by de la Vallée Poussin who adds the remark: You will observe that, according to this sätra, the third satya is the way (märga, upaya) to the destruction of the disease, and the fourth the way to its not. appearing again (a.punarbhava). The scholastic point of view, so far as I know, is different ».
One might feel some reluctance to follow de la Vallée Poussin as regards his interpretation of the expression prahinasydbadhasyayatyam anul padakusalal; for it is highly improbable that it refers to a way! However, the impression one cannot but gather is that there is no full correspondence between the last two medical skills and the last two of the Four Noble Truths. And this becomes particularly evident in the case of the fourth Noble Truth > which is clearly different from what is meant by prahinasydbddhasydyaryam anupadakusalah. One further wonders whether de la Vallée Poussin's adding the term apunarbhava by way of explanation is merely due to a free association or else evoked by a particular passage in an Indian medical text. For, it is exactly the term which is used in the verse from the Carakasamhita drawn upon
above ($ 3.2.). In any case, the fourth systematic part of the science of medicine as taught in the Vyadhisätra, conceptionally agrees what is called roganam apunarbhavah in Caraka, and hence with drogya. In passing it may be noted that the slight unevenness the comparison in the Vyadhisätra thus shows was apparently felt among others (cf. Hobôgirin p. 2304) by Aśvaghoșa also; for verse 41 of Canto XVI of his Saundarananda reads as though it were a deliberate improvement on it, viz.
tad vyddhisamjham kuru dunkhasatye doseșy api vyddhinidanasamnam / drogyasamjnam ca nirodhasatye bhaisajyasamjham api margasatye //*.
But there are more peculiarities to be observed in the passage quoted by Yasomitra. It should be emphasized that Yasomitra, or rather, to be sure, already Vasubandhu, speaks of a drsanta only. That is to
n between a physician and the Tathagata as pointed out in the Sätra to be but a comparison meant to exemplify the particular and extraordinary qualities of the Buddha as one healing not a physical illness, but the ailment of existence itself. Evidently they did not know of any tradition - nor did it occur to them independently - that it was this quadruple division of medicine that inspired the Buddhal In fact, this it is what all relevant passages in Buddhist texts amount to the Buddha is merely compared to a physician or the doctrine to a medicine, etc.nowhere can be found any traces of an awareness that the Buddha in conceiving the Four Noble Truths could have drawn on a similar systematic division of the Cikitsasastra! Of course, one might object here that it is hardly to be expected that a Buddhist monk even if he were fully aware of it, should have overtly admitted that the kernel of the Buddha's teaching is but an adaptation of principles of medical science. Nevertheless, it is worth taking note of that for the Buddhist tradition itself this similarity was obviously never anything more than a comparison. On the other hand I cannot but add the following remark here: the fact that the equation of the Four Noble Truths with the four parts of medical science is in fact attested in Buddhist literature, though with varying degrees of agreement in conception and terminology, fully corroborates what has been said above (p. 303) in my critical discussion of Hacker's view on the relation between the caturvyahatva and the Four Noble Truths: Hacker's view does not only not stand an independent critical test, but
93a. Full parallelism can be observed also in Ratnagotravibhāga, 4.52: this kd. rika is translated by J. TAKASAKI, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhaga (Uttaratantra). Being a Treatise on the Tathagatagarbha Theory of Mahayana Buddhism (SOR. vol. XXXIII), Rome, 1966, p. 367, as follows: Illness is to be cognized, its cause removed, Health should be attained, and a remedy used; Like that, Suffering, its Cause, Extinction and the Path, are to be cognized, removed, touched and observet.
93. De la Vallée Poussin's short article (cf. fn. 79) has actually the form of a letter addressed to Professor Rhys Davids.

Page #18

322
A. Wezler
it also stands clearly in contradiction to unequivocal passages in Buddhist texts themselves!
There is, however, still another striking feature in the Vyadhisūtra passage one should not silently pass over as done by de la Vallée Poussin. What I am referring to is the fact which cannot but be styled as strange that the physician conversant with the four angas is characterized as worthy of [treating] a king (räjärha), befitting a king (rajayogya), and is, finally, said to class with the king's property (rajangatve ca samkhyam gacchati). It would seem hardly necessary to state that these predicates can by no means have to do with the frequent designation of the Buddha as vaidyaraja.
Yet one might feel induced to refer to the well-known fact that Buddhist monks off and on succumbed to the temptation of acting as medical practitioners, and that for many reasons they might have even tried to qualify as royal physicians. But though it has to be admitted that historical social reality is reflected in (Buddhist) texts in this regard, too, in the passage under discussion there is no indication whatsoever that we have to do with such a case.
I think I should not any longer avoid coming to the point which, of course, is the following: the characterization of the physician as rajarha, etc., in the Vyädhisûtra cannot consistently and convincingly be accounted for but by assuming that it was retained when the exposition of the quadruple division of the science of medicine was taken over from another source. Another particular feature that was simply retained was the order of enumeration of the four skills of a physician which, significantly enough, does not perfectly correspond to the traditional order of succession of the Four Noble Truths. And this source
94. In view of the parallels in the Abhidharmakosa, viz. pp. 136.15.3, 114.23, 115.9, and in Pali texts (e.g. AN I.244.8-10 where the stock phrase rajdraha rajabhogga (sic!) ranño angan l'eva sankham gacchati, said of a thoroughbred horse, is met with, or AN 1.284.11-12, etc.) one would expect here rather rajdigam iti ca... Yet, the text as it is transmitted can, I think, be accepted if -tva is taken to denote a collective idea and is construed in accordance with J. S. SPEIJER, Sanskrit Syntax, repr. Kyoto, 1968, 238. It should, however, be noted that "tve ca in Sanskrit might go back to Pali tveva which latter, quite often met with, is according to an information kindly given me by my friend O. von Hinüber a wrongly sanskritized form for teva (Page #19

324
Noble Truths. This was virtually already shown by J. Filliozat as early as in 1934, but his article does not seem to have been given the attention it, undoubtedly, deserved. The conclusion arrived at in the present more comprehensive study does not, of course, prove that such an influence of the contemporary medicine on the Buddha is by no means impossible; all I want to say, yet this emphatically, is that this assumption is without any basis whatsoever, i.e. that as to its philological foundation it stands in a vacuum as it were. For, the similarity between the Four Noble Truths and the four parts of medicine, highly suggestive though it is, cannot by itself be regarded as warranting any such assumption: this similarity can consistently be accounted for by assu ming a material coincidence arising quite naturally out of the essential element both, physical illness and existence viewed as suffering, do have in common; for to recapitulate what has been stated already above (p. 300 f.), yet this time in the words of Vasubandhu 100 that to which one is attached and by which one is given pain and from which one seeks to free oneself, it is that is examined first in the phase of consideration, i.e. the Truth of Suffering; thereafter [one puts oneself the question] "What is its cause (ie. the cause of Suffering)?" [and thus examines] the Truth of that which causes [Suffering] to arise 10; [then one puts oneself the question] "What does its suppression (i.e. the suppression of suffering) consist in?" [and thus examines] the Truth of Suppression; [and finally one puts oneself the question] "Which is the way [leading to] it (i.e. to its suppression)?" [and thus examines] the Truth of the Way
-
A. Wezler
5. The idea of a quadruple division of the doctrine of salvation is, however, not confined to the traditions of Pätañjala-Yoga and of Buddhism alone. It is equally attested in yet another school of thought, viz. that of Nyaya. The historical problems the philologist is faced with are hence even more complicated than was assumed until now in the course of the present study.
99. JA (1934), pp. 301-7, referred to in HOBOGIRIN, loc. cit.
100. Viz. Abhidharmakosa, ed. by P. Pradhan, p. 328.6-8: yatra hi sakto yena ca badhyate yatas ca moksam prärthayate tad evddau vyavacdrandvasthayam duḥkhasatyam pariksyate / paseat ko 'sya hetur iti samudayasatyam ko 'sya nirodha iti nirodhasatyan ko 'sya mdrga iti märgasatyam /.
101. Incidentally, this passage in the Kosa corroborates my interpretation of the term samudaya as given above p. 303.
102. Cf. also the verse of the Saundarananda quoted above (p. 321) as well as fn. 93a. For the gradual apprehension (anuparvabhisamaya) of the Four Noble Truths cf. also a fragmentary Sanskrit MS from the Turfan discoveries described. and edited by E. WALDSCHMIDT, Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden, Teil I (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, hrsg. von W. Voigt, Bd. X.1), Wiesbaden, 1965. p. 294; this passage is of particular interest in another respect also in that it shows close similarity to the passage from the Samyuktagama (cf. fn. 92) by equally pointing out different causes of disease and different methods
of treatment.
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogaşăstra
5.1. Commenting on NS 1.1.1 Pakṣilasvamin Vätsyāyana states almost right at the beginning: dtmädeḥ khalu prameyasya tattvajñānān nihśreyasadhigamaḥ / tac caitad uttarasütreṇänüdyata iti / heyam, tasya nirvartakam, hanam atyantikam, tasyopayo 'dhigantavya ity etäni catvary arthapadani samyag buddhva niḥśreyasam adhigacchati/,« Out of proper knowledge of what such objects of valid cognition like soul, etc., in reality are, the Highest Good is attained; and this is repeated in the following sutra (i.e. NS 1.1.2), thus [has NS 1.1.1 to be interpreted], One has to understand that which is to be avoided, that which brings it forth, [its] absolute avoidance [and] the means [leading to] it; having properly understood these four right statements, one attains the Highest Good.
325
In justification of my interpretation which is at variance with the explanation given by Uddyotakara, some brief remarks should be made.. According to Uddyotakara the four arthapadas are heya, hana, upaya and adhigantavya equated by him to moksa. That is to say, he started from the assumption that adhi-gam must necessarily be used here in the same sense it has in the syntagma niḥśreyasam adhigacchati, i.e. the predicate of the sentence as a whole. This conclusion is, however, by no means cogent, and the parallel in the introductory portion of the Bhasya on the 2. Ahnika of the 4. Adhyaya to which one could refer 14, viz. apavargo 'dhigantavyaḥ, does not help much because it is continued by tasyadhigamopayas tattvajñānam, i.e. by an unequivocal statement according to which the means for attaining liberation consists in tattvajñana 10. On the contrary, in explaining hanam by tattvajñānam, and upayaḥ by sastram, Uddyotakara stands clearly in contradiction to this statement of the Bhasyakara's. Besides, the construction of the Bhasya passage obviously assumed by Uddyotakara would be rather odd, there
103. One of the problems the commentators of NS 1.1.1 are faced with lies in that pramdna is mentioned along with prameya among the entities true knowledge of which leads to the Highest Good. Following Pakşilasvamin all of them, therefore, opt for an interpretation according to which it is the tattvajñāna of the different prameyas only which has this function.
104. In G. Jha's edition (POS 58), Poona, 1939, this parallel is found on p. 2893 f. 105. The fourfold division spoken of in this passage of the NBhasya (evam calastbhir vidhäbhil prameyam vibhaktam asevamanasya... tattvajñānam utpadyate) docs at first sight appear to be not identical with the four arthapadáni mentioned in the commentary on NS 1.1.1; for the four elements seem to be things, viz. rebirth, result (of acts) and pain, to be known (jñeya), things, viz. karman and defects, to be avoided (praheya), liberation as that which has to be attained. (apavargo'dhigantavyah) and, finally, true knowledge as the means for attaining liberation (tasyddhigamopdyas tattvajñdnam). In the light of relevant passages in the preceding part of the Bhasya, viz. yas tu duḥkham duḥkhayatanam duḥkhanusaktam sukham ca sarvam idam duḥkham iti pasyati sa duḥkham parijanti / parijñdtam ca duḥkham prahinam bhavaty anupädänāt savişännavat / evam dosan karma ca duḥkhahetur iti pasyati /, however, it becomes clear that in fact the same quadruple division is ultimately intended. But I find it difficult to decide whether catasṛbhir vidhäbhih has to be construed with vibhaktam or else with dsevamanasya.

Page #20

326
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
327,
(who is anyway an extremely remarkable author). In justifying the question kimilaksanam of the mala, referring to prameyam , he explains that what is meant is a particular object of valid cognition (prameyavišeşa) defined by him thus : yad visayam tatt vaja namanya j Adnanu payogilvenaivanih sreyasangam bhe. vari, mithyajñanam ca samsaram pratanoti, tar prameyam 1:
Object of valid cognition is that the tattvajnana of which forms a means for [attaining) liberation without being of any use for the acquisition of) other knowledge 10, and the mithyajidna (i.e. false know. ledge) (of which) extends Samsāra Bhasarvajña adds the further ex. planations :
being no reason why Paksilasvamin should in a series of nouns have decided in favour of a verbal and imprecise expressione as regards the final member. There is hence good reason for taking adhigantavyah as predicate to be construed with all four subjects. In addition it should be noted that it is on the basis of this assumption that a proper under standing of the term arthapada can be achieved: evidently it is to be regarded as a tatpurusa-compound the prior member of which corre sponds to a dative (arthaya padanı), and thus fully agrees with Pali atthapada for which the CPD gives the meaning a right or profitable word (often referring to the holy texts), i.e. a word that is to the advantage of another person. The equation of hana with tattvajnana is furthermore highly unconvincing because its characterization as atyantika in the Bhişya itself, which clearly echoes NS. 1.1.22 (tadatyantavimokso 'pavargah), cannot but be taken to indicate that what is meant by the expression hana here is not means of avoidance, but avoidance » itself as that which is to be attained. Taking into account this
sary correction of Uddyotakara's interpretation, one can unhesita tingly subscribe to his concluding remark 1 etani catvary arthapadani sarvasv adhyatmavidyasu sarvacaryair varnyanta iri /; it is noteworthy, nay extremely interesting that Uddyotakara did not regard the teaching of these four systematic parts to be a specific feature of Nyaya only, but expressly states them to be a common possession of all adhyatmavidyas without exception 1. Evidently it did not bother him where this doctrine developed first: historical problems were not of concern to him in contradistinction to the Western philologist. He will not rest satisfied with observing that the distinction drawn by Paksilasvămin between heyart, tasya nirvartakam, hanam atyantikam and tasyopayah is in striking agreement with that drawn by Yoga texts between heyam, heyahetuh, hanam and hanopayah, but face up to the historical problem(s) involved.
5.2. Yet, before doing so it is advisable to inspect some more rele vant material from Nyāya literature, though a comprehensive study of it cannot be undertaken here, as it would inevitably mean writing a history of the doctrine of liberation in this school of thought. There is, however, one Naiyayika whose testimony seems to be of such outstanding importance that it should not be omitted, viz. that of Bhasarvajna
tad eva tativato india vyam sarvada bha vita vyam (read: bhavayitavyar) ca natuklasa mkhyad y api pra. meyam teşa minanasya nih sreya sanu payogitvar / 12 taccaturvidham: heyam, tasya nirvartakam, hanam atyantikam, tasyopaya itil. This is that has to be known according to its true nature and what has always to be kept present. The number of beetles, and similar things, however, does not equally represent an object of valid cognition", because knowing them is of no use for [attaining) liberation. This (object of valid cognition) is of four kinds, viz. (ii) that which is to be avoided, that which brings it i.e. the former) about, absolute avoi. dance (and) the means for [attaining) it (l.e. absolute avoidance),
108. Nyaya) Bhus(ana), ed. by. Sväml Yogindrananda, Benares, 1968. p. 436.1 f.
109. NBhQs 436.11-12; passages which literally agree with formulations of the Nyayasira are printed in spaced type.
110. Similarly Nyayamafjarl (ed. by K. S. Varadacharya, ORI Series no. 46. My. sore, 1969). 22.5-6: drmdpavargaparyanta- (read: dmddya pavargaparyanta) dvddašavi. dhapramevajnánar fávat anyajidndnau payikam eva sdksdd a pavargasddharam iti vaksydmah (viz. at the beginning of the prameyabhdga): for anya Adnanaupayika Cakradhara (Nyayamañjarigranthibhanga, ed. by Nagin J. Shah, LD. Series 35. Ahme dabad, 1972) gives the following explanation (5.12-14): anyajAdnam anaupayikam advdram anupdyo yasya / updya evou payikam iti svd the vineyddipdthar thak hrasvas ca (cf. Pån. 5.4.34 and Ganapatha 2113) / artyajidnasya vārupdyah sad a pavargasadhanam na punah pramdnadij Adnam iva prameyaj Adnopdyatayely arthah // It is, of course, the second of these explanations which has to be accepted the expression used in the NBhûs, viz. anyajiandnu payogitvenaiva, is unequivocal in this respect what is meant in both cases is to point out that the prameya Adna differs from the knowledge acquired with the help of means of valid cognition, etc., in that the former is of direct importance for liberation.
111. NBhûs 436.14-16.
112. The formulations in the Nyayasära are slightly different, viz. na ca kirasarkhyddi tajjnanasydnu payogitvdr.
113. The editor of the NBhos refers here to Pramanavarttika 2.33: tasmadamu. stheyagaram jidnam atra vicdryaram / klfasamkhydparijfidan tasya mah kvopo yujyate Il.
105a. The gender, too, would be most disturbing, for Paksilasvamin would indeed demand a great deal from his readers were they compelled to realize on their own that it is masculine because a pavargah has to be supplemented
106. Nydyadariana of Gautama with the Bhasya of Vatsylyana, the Varttika of Uddyotakara, the Tätparyatika of Vacaspati and the Parifuddhi of Udayana, vol. I, chapter 1. ed. by A. Thakur (Mithila Institute Series, Ancient Text no. 20), Dar bhanga, 1967, p. 14, 1. 4.
107. Already Paksilasvamin is, however, at pains to show that the Nyaya system is by no means an adhyatmavidyd only like the Upanişads, but represents, on the contrary, an independent fourth vidyd; cf. NBhasya 3.3-8.

Page #21

328
1. Werler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
329
My interpretation of the NBhasya passage quoted above is thus fully corroborated by Bhasarvajña 18. In addition it has to be noted that Bhäsarvajña is more explicit than Paksilasvamin in that he unequivocally states that what falls into these four parts is in fact the and, if so, precisely in which manner. According to Bhasar vajna , too, the category object of valid cognition is in itself ambivalent: if it becomes the object (vişaya) of proper knowledge, i.e. if its true nature is cognized, its knowledge leads to liberation; however, it its true nature is not understood, this false knowledge has the opposite effect, i.e. causes the process of rebirth to continue. It must, however, be borne in mind that this category includes only certain entities that are to be truly cognized, viz. those which are of direct importance for the attainment of the final goal.
Bhasarvajna's assertion that it is divided into four parts only, viz. heyam etc., is quite understandably objected to by an opponent who rightly draws attention to the fact that according to NS 1.1.9 where the different pranevas are enumerated and according to NS 1.1.10 ff. in which the individual objects of valid cognition are defined, there is a total of twelve of them, but not four. This objection "17 is met by Bhasarvajna by the following arguments : satyam, dvddašavidham uktam, kim tu tad dvddašavidham api heyadirapena caturdha bhavya. manam niņsreyasanimittam bhavanity atas caturvidham uktam / satra. karas tu nyayapraptam caturvidhyam iti manyamanah saksan noktavān 1 na hi heyddirapaniscaye sariradisy ahamkaranivritivairagyot padana. dvdrena tadaryantavimokso 'pavargah sambhavarl caturvargantarbhata. tvdc ca dvddašavidhasydpl/. It is true, (the "object of valid cognition"] is taught (in the Satra) as twelvefold; but it functions as the cause of attaining) liberation (only) when it, though twelvefold, is presented to the mind as fourfold, [i.c.) as having the forms of that which has to be
avoided, etc.; it is for this reason that it is stated (by me) to be of four kinds. The author of the Stra, however, did not state this expressly as he was of the opinion that the fact that it falls into four parts follows logically so that it need not be made explicit]: for, liberation as an absolute freeing oneself from Suffering by means of stopping egotism and by creating (in oneself) the state of indifference with respect to ["objects of valid cognition ") like the body and so forth is not possible if [these objects) are not ascertained as having the form of that which has to be avoided, etc.; and (the fourfoldness of the "object of valid cognition" was not expressly stated by the Satrakāra also) because (the "object of valid cognition ") even if twelvefold is subsumed in the four groups (of that which has to be avoided, etc.).
That is to say, according to Bhasarvajna the two divisions are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, the twelvefold division is contained in the fourfold; the latter one, however, is the decisive one in so far as it, and it only, leads to liberation: evidently the tattvajnana of the twelve different prameyas is regarded as not sufficient for attaining the Highest Good, each and every object of valid cognition is to be looked into as regards whether it represents something that has to be avoided or something that causes that which has to be avoided, etc.; and only then is it that knowing their true nature functions as a means to liberation.
This is clearly a doctrine which goes beyond the wording and inten. tion of the NS: the impact of soteriological ideas which had led to refashioning the old Nyaya tradition so as to make it, too, look like a moksasastra, continued to be felt by Naiyāyikas who met the challenge by elaborating ideas found in the Bhaşya and, of course, by trying their very best to vindicate their conviction that what are but later ideas were at least thought of and realized by the Sätrakāra himself.
Nevertheless, Bhāsarvajna's view, though historically untenable, is, of course, worthy of notice, and not only as regards the manner in which he handles the received mula text, viz. the NS". For, the explanation he gives for the Satrakāra's not having expressly stated the cäturvidhya of the object of valid cognition is not accepted by his opponent who raises the objection that Gautama should have taught it w precisely in view of its central importance. Bhāsarvajña does not let this objection pass, his answer being 18: na, paramatanişedharthardt / tatra samkhydndm matam: heyam duhkham rajovsttydimakam, drastrdryayoh sam. yogo heyahetuh> (YS 2.17), tasya hefur avidya » (YS 2.24) tadabhavdt samyogabhavo hanam tad drseh kaivalyam (YS 2.25), « viveka. khyatir aviplava hdnopdyah (YS 2.26) iti / sakyanan ca: dukkhasamu
114. Because he follows the tradition of those Nalyayikas who wrote commentaries on the NBhasya, i.e. the so-called Vydkhydtdraf (cf. A. Wezler, in WZKSO, XIX, 1975, 135-146)?
115. The term arthapada itself does not help in answering this question, and the other passage in the NBhasya quoted above (p. 325) can be interpreted in two dif ferent ways (cf. fn. 105).
116. Who is, however, in agreement with Paksilasvamin (cf. Bhasya on NS 1.1.9. 2378: asty antyad api dravyagunakarmasdn dryavisesasamavdydb prameyam (viz. that taught by the Vaisesikas) tadbhedena cd parisarikhyeyam: asya tu (.e. that taught in NS 1.1.9) tartvajlandd a pavargo mithyddndt samsdraity ata elad upadista vise seneti //) and Uddyotakara (cf. his Värttika on the beginning of the 4 Adhyâya; ed. by V. P. Dvivedin and L. S. Dravid, KSS 33, Benares, 1916-17, 500.8-10: yes talTvajAdnavisayalvena vyavatisthamdnah samsdravyavacchedahetur bhavall yas como havisayardt sairisdrar pratanoti sa tativato freya iti .
117. Extending from NBhds 437.1 to 441.23. 118. NBhus 441.25 and 442.3.
119. It is in this regard that the NBhus in general is of particular interest and hence calls for a careful and comprehensive study.
120. NBhas 442.5: yady evan cdturvidhyam eva satraksid kasman noktam? 121. NBhus 42.5-11 and 19-20.

Page #22

330
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
dayanirodhamargakhyacaturdryasatyajndnam muktyartham istam /... 12 ... tad evam paramate 'pi heyddicatustayajAdnan mukrinimittam istam / tanmatanişedhartham atmadibhedopanyasah kytahl.
To put it in a nutshell: according to Bhasarvajña - who, on the one hand, almost grotesquely comes short of historical truth, but, on the other, i.e. if his presuppositions are taken for granted, argues in a quite understandable and remarkable manner - Gautama did not expressly state the prameya to be fourfold, but instead confined himself to teach and define the twelve different objects of valid cognition, because he wanted to refute the opinion of others, viz. the Samkhya-Yogins and the Buddhists, who equally considered the knowledge of the four elements of heya etc. to be a means for liberation. His final remark may be taken as a hint at the importance Bhäsarvajña attributes in this connection to the concept of arman and the Nyaya view of it. This is corroborated by what he says in introducing the next paragraph, viz. 1 tatrdimajnane sari paralokukamksa bhavati nanyatheti vaksymall, the desire for the other world (i.c. the wish to attain liberation) arises (only) when among these [different kinds of knowledge) there is knowledge of the atman, not otherwise this I shall teach (later)
But before examining the further development of his argument it is necessary to dwell on the passage just quoted. Bhasarva na was evidently not the first to realize that the idea of the doctrine of salvation being divided into the four systematic parts does not constitute a peculiarity of Nyaya; but Uddyotakara's relevant remark 1 looks rather colourless in that he still confines himself to claiming for the Nyayasastra the status of being, among other things, an adhyatmavidya, too, and does not deem it necessary to determine more precisely the relation in which his school stands in this respect to other doctrines of salvation. Viewed against this background Bhasarvajña's corresponding remarks are not only much more informative, but are also evidence of a considerable progress in analysis. For he not only points out the basic doctrinal cor. respondence between the school of Nyaya and particular other systems which he does not hesitate to name, but he also enters into a discussion of the specific doctrinal differences. It is, of course, by no means sur prising that what he right from the beginning aims at is to prove the claim that, inspite of the quadruple division being common to other doctrines also, it is the Nyaya doctrine of salvation alone that stands a critical test and should hence be universally accepted. This claim is not, however, connected with the fourfold division as such, but with the definitions of the four systematic parts as given by the Samkhya-Yogins
and Buddhists, respectively: it is but the conceptional and doctrinal content that his criticism is directed against. Yet his remarks, systema. tically comprehensive as they are, arrest the philologist's attention in other respects, too: They furnish a welcome corroboration of the conclusion arrived at earlier in the present study as regards the problems of the quadruple division being attested already in the YS itself and the correspondence between it and the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha. Noteworthy, however, is that Bhasarvajña does not refer in this connec tion to the caturvyliharva of the Cikitsasastra; he must have known the relevant passage in the YBhāşya; apparently he was not interested in pointing out this similarity; a further reason may have been the conspi. cuous absence of this comparison in the older Nyaya tradition.
In continuing his exposition Bhāsarvajna draws attention to the fact that there is still another reason for the prameya having been taught in the NS as being twelvefold. The argument is as follows: when the body (Sarlra) is recognized as being different from the atman, it is not any longer mistaken for the Arman and henceforth one does not commit acts of violence, etc., for the sake of one's body. When it is realized that the body is the seat of pain and suffering (duhkha), attachment to it ends. The next step consists in coming to know the nature of the senses (indriya), i.e. that defects (dosa) do not arise when the senses do not function even though there may be causes that could give rise to defects; thereupon one strives to withdraw the senses (pratyahara), and in doing so one does not any longer look upon their objects (artha) (which have been recognized as causing suffering) as something one should grasp. and then one frees oneself of all desires (vairágya). Having realized that false (mithyabuddhi) and true knowledge (rattvabuddhi) are the causes of liberation and samsdra, respectively, one eliminates the former and develops the latter by making consistent efforts for it. Then greatest efforts are made to conquer the mind (manas) which is the root of all functions of the senses. When the activities (pravrtti) are recognized to be the root of suffering in so far as they bring about merit (dharma), demerit (adharma), etc., they are avoided. As soon as the true nature of the defects (dosa) is understood, viz. in the light of NS 4.1.60 1, one undertakes the greatest exertions to remove them. Then it has to be realized that the beginningless process of rebirth (pretyabhava) and, hence, the extreme suffering in the form of birth and death cannot be brought to an end but by liberation (a pavarga); and similarly it is to be realized that the result (phala) [of activities and defects) a consisting
122. Read thus against the edition! In the passage left out here. viz. NBhos 442.11.19, Bhisarvajna gives a brief explanation of the Four Noble Truths.
123. NBhas 442.22. 124. Viz. NBhas 461.15 ff. 125. Cl. above p. 326.
126. CF. NBhus 442.22-26 and 443.6-15. 127. Cf. NBhu$ 440.10-13 to which Bhasarvajña refers back.
128. According to the numbering in: Die Nyayasútra's. Text, Ubersetzung, Erlau terung und Glossar von W. Ruben (AKM XVIII.2), Leipzig, 1928.
128a. Cf. Paksilasvamin's definition (NBhasya 31.7): pretyabhdvomid punar. janma.
129. CE. NS 1.1.20.

Page #23

332
A. Wexler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
333
in pain and also in alleged pleasure is ultimately the same in that both, pleasure and pain, are brought about by one's own karman 1. Next, pain and suffering (duḥkha) have to be properly understood so as to be able to keep them present to one's mind. When one has come to realize that each and everything, from God Brahma down to a grass-blade, is permeated by pain and suffering, one does not take interest in it any longer. And when, finally, liberation (apavarga) is recognized to be the unsurpassed, endless and altogether pure means for the ceasing of all pain and suffering, one strives for that goal only.
Bhasarvajña concludes this passage by stating tad evamt dvddasa. prahdreşv api tartvajanabhavand copayujyata ity ato 'pi dvadasadhd prameyam uktam / sarksepabhavanarthat ca tasya caturvidhyam ucyate : Hence, true knowledge is also realized in all these twelve ways; it is for this reason, too, that the "object of valid cognition" is taught (in the NS) as twelvefold; and that it is (on the other hand) of four kinds (only), this is taught for the sake of keeping (true knowledge] present to one's mind in a concise form.
That is to say, Bhasarvaja first demonstrates the true knowledge
as to develop with respect to the twelve prameyas, following their order of enumeration as given in NS 1.1.9, and states thereafter by way of summarizing his exposition, that they have been taught by the Satra. kāra not only in order to refute the theory of the quadruple division of the doctrines of salvation as expounded by other schools, but also to intimate that all twelve of them should be reflected upon in the manner outlined by Bhäsarvajnia himself. His very last remark is particularly interesting, and that in two respects: it determines more precisely the relation between the two alternative divisions of the prameya, the twelve fold and the quadruple; and the characterization of the latter as being introduced sanksepabhavanartha niakes one wonder whether this is another instance of the well-known tendency, so important in the history of Indian religions down to the present day, to replace complicated and time-consuming religious acts by « abridgements. But it is by no means clear that what Bhasarvajña has in mind is such a substitution; he might have equally thought of a real alternative only, or even regarded the choice of the sainksepa as a means to intensifying the bhavand of true knowledge which ultimately leads to liberation.
Yet, such theoretical deliberations are of little use here, at least as long as the apparent contradiction is not discussed in which these remarks of Bhasarvajnia's seem to stand to what had been said by him earlier on the relation between the two divisions. Had he not claimed that it is the quadruple division only that leads to liberation and does he not clearly contradict himself in asserting now that true knowledge is also realized in all these twelve ways ? I think that the two relevant passages appear contradictory only at first sight. For what Bhasarvajña
actually had said, and, to wit, also with respect to the particular proce dure of the Satrakāra, was that liberation as an absolute freeing oneself from Suffering by means of stopping egotism and by creating (in oneself) the state of indifference with respect to "objects of valid cognition ") like the body and so forth is not possible if (these objects] are not ascertained as having the form of that which has to be avoided, etc.; and what he shows in the second passage is precisely the cognitive and spiritual development of a Naiyāyika who reflects upon the twelve
objects of valid cognition on the basis of the more important division of heyam, etc. Therefore, not only his earlier statement that
the object of valid cognition) even if twelvefold is subsumedin the four groups (of that which is to be avoided, etc.), but also what he says here, viz. that the fourfold division is taught samksepa. bhavandriham, are fully intelligible in that, understood thus, the fourfold division in fact comprises in itself the twelve prameyas and for this very reason forms the quintessence of their bhavand. In the light of these deliberations it is hence more probable that what Bhasar. vajña wants to intimate by his final remark is but the superior impor. tance of the caturvidhya as emphasized by him already at the very outset.
Space being limited it is not possible to deal here with the same extensiveness as hitherto with what Bhasarvaja says in the subsequent paragraphs of his Bhusana. The gist of his exposition, however, may be briefly outlined, following mainly the Nyayasara: in order to define the concept of heyam he quotes YS 2.16 1 and adds that suffering is of twenty-one kinds, i.e. that it comprises the body, the six senses (manas is included), their six objects, the corresponding) six (types) of cognition, pleasure and pain in that all - except for the body which is the seat of pain and except for pleasure which is nothing but pain because it does not occur without pain and, of course, except for pain itself which is dulkha par excellence as it consists in badha, pida and san. 1dpa of them lead to suffering. That which brings about the heyam (tasya nirvartakam), i.e. its specific cause, is stated to be nescience (avidya) and thirst (trend), on the one hand, and merit and demerit (dharmadharmau), on the other; nescience is then defined as false know. ledge of that which has been shown by true adhydrmavids, and it is made clear that it includes the mental impression left by nescience
132. See above p. 295. 133. NBhus 444.5-19; cf. also 441.9-15 and 445.24 ff.
134. Of the two Slokas quoted by Bhasarvajna to give an example of what true knowers of the man and those blind with passion. say (NBhus 444.27-20), not identified by the editor, the first one is from Mbh. (Poona) 12.316.42 and 43; the second one seems to belong to the vast stock of floating stanzas one finds so often quoted in anthologies and Indian narrative literature; it is included in 0. BÖHTLINGK'S. Indische Sprüche, I, repr. Osnabrück, 1966, p. 98 (no. 3565); for further references sce L. STERNBACH, Supplement to O. Böhrlingk's Indische Sprüche (AKM XOXVII.1). Wiesbaden, 1965, p. 9.
135. C. NBhoş 444.23-30 and 445.4-7. Note that by duh khastre (which is mee with also NBhus 443.22, 445.20, 446.14 and 584.16) Bhasarvajha refers to NS 1.1.2 dealt with in detail NBhds 72.15 t.
130. CE. NBhd$ 441.2-7 and 9-15 to which Bhisarvaja refers back. 131. NBhos 443.14-15. Read 'bhavanopayujyale or 'bhdvanaivopa'!

Page #24

334
A. Wexler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
335
"thirstis explained to be the longing for rebirth . The reason for dharma and adharma being mentioned separately is that nescience is the main cause of suffering (pradhanam duhkhanimittam) 17, and merit and demerit are, properly speaking, specific causes of pleasure and pain, respectively, and that both of them are equally to be regarded as duḥkha. karana because it is a matter of experience that one is given pain by cold wind, etc., even when nescience and thirst do not persist any longer M. Hanam is then defined to be the cessation of suffering (duhkha. viccheda), and the addition of absolute (atyantika) is vindicated by referring to the fact that a temporal elimination of personal (adhydr. mika) pain and suffering can be achieved also by applying the means taught in the Dharma-, Artha-, Kama- and Vaidya-Sastras 13, that is to say, the attribute is meant to make clear that the liberated atman does not ever again and in no manner come in contact with duḥkha.
Finally, the fourth element, i.e. the means for attaining complete avoidance (tasyopdyah), is determined to consist in true knowledge of the atman. That out of the twelve e objects of valid cognition aiman alone is mentioned is justified by the wish to stress its outstanding im portance (pradhanya) which, according to Bhasarvajña, has also led to its being enumerated first in NS 1.1.9. The atman is said to be of two kinds, viz. para and apara, of which two the former is none else but the Mahesvara" and the latter is he who experiences the result of Samsara (samsaraphalopabhokis), i.e. the individual permanent and omnipresent soul 10
Regarding the role these two objects of valid cognition > play in attaining the final goal, it is stated that the true knowledge of the apa. ratman represents a means to it (niņfreyasanga) because it leads to activity aimed at the other world in that it helps to realize that the paraloka really exists and because it causes the elimination of demerit ; the true knowledge of the partman, on the other hand, is ascribed a similar function, only that it works by being a constitutive element of the upåsand of the Maheśvara.. That both these tattvajñanas are not of exactly the same rank is finally stated by emphatically proclaiming that liberation is attained only because of perceiving God Siva (tasmdc
chivadarsandd eva moksa iti) 14. Out of the many points in Bhasarvajna's extensive commentary on NS 1.1.9 which ought to be taken up for discussion the following should not be passed over silently here. On the one hand, Bhasarvajña quotes a series of relevant sūtras from the YS (above p. 329) and clearly in a pārvapaksa section on the other, he uses YS 2.16 in his own definition of heyam (cf. above p. 333) -as also YS 2.15 in his explanation of phala 14This contradiction is, of course, only seemingly one. The solution cannot but be that Bhasarvajna accepts such elements of Patanjala-Yoga as are doctrinally so to say neutral in that they refer to a practical method of self-control, etc. 14 In doing so he is not only clearly in keeping with the NS itself, and he himself quotes the relevant sätra viz. 4.2.457, but he also gives Yoga as such its due in so far as it essentially teaches a method that can be and was applied to different systems of thought, can and was practised by people of different persuasions. Bhasarvajia does, of course, not show « faith in the doctrines of that school, as V. S. Abhyankar and I. R. Devadhar would have it on the contrary, he severely and repeatedly criticizes them. All one can perhaps say is that he shows a strong predilection for Yoga, also in a later part of his work , yet this is a side-issue which I cannot follow up here 150
145. NBhus 590.6 and 7 ft. as well as 514.24; cf. also NBhds 540.13-14: drmarudvi. Sesetl (read: višese 'pi) kasmdndnyadarsand moksa iti cel, na, anyasya (i.e. para mamanah Sivdd anyasya) sarvdnimittarydt: na hy anyo 'pi dimd sarvor partimatda nimittam iti. On the distinction between the murdman and the paramešvara cf. also NBhas 449.4 ff.
146. Viz. NBhus 441.13 f.
146a. According to the editor's Nyayabhäsapatartippapoddhetavákyävalib (pp. 631 ) It is a total of 16 stras of the YS which are quoted by Bhasarvajta. On the occasion of quoting the concluding portion of NS 4.245 Bhasarvajna makes the following important remark (NBhas 584.11 ff.): ...iti vacandr/pdraljaládisastres apy upadisah wpdyah svasastravirodhena (read, of course, "dvirodhena) praliparra. vyah / taira yuktisamarthydc ca (/) . paramaram aprarisiddham anumaram ini tantrayukri /: that is to say, he himself clearly states the principle he proceeds upon in accepting the opinions of others. As for this tanirayukli. cf. NBhasya 16.3 I. (on NS 1.1.4).
147. Viz. NBhus 445.28 and cf. fn. 146a. The reading 'vidyupdyaih given there is however, a misprint for 'vidhyupdyait.
148. Nyayasära of Acharya Bhasarvajna with the Nyayasarapadapanchika of VS. sudeva of Kashmir, Poona, 1922, p. 84.
149. Viz. NBhas 584.9 1. where Bhisarvajna, with reference to his definition of tipdsandvidhi, not only refers to NS 4.2.45, but also to the means (updya) taught in the . Påtajal disastrani, stating that this wpdya has also to be accepted to the extent that it does not stand in contradiction to Nyaya tenets and is hence not expressly objected to (prarişiddha). Note also the remark NBhos 584.18 19: dvddašaprameya/Adnam api not pannamdaram asahdyam ragadinivstrau samartham / kim Tarhi? yogopdydnusthanasahitam, by which Bhasarvajna plainly states his particular position: true knowledge of the objects of valid cognition is not by itself as soon as it has been gained capable of bringing all desire to an end, it needs support, viz. practising the means of Yoga. Cf. in this connection also NBhQs 441.14 where YS 2.15 is quoted as the statement of an adhyamavid
150. As far as I know it is presently being studied by G. Oberhammer.
132. See above p. 295. 137. Cf. NBhoş 445.20-21. 138. Cl. NBhos 445.22 f.
139. The text as read in the edition of the NBhos, viz. 446.7 dharmadharmarthak&mavaid yasastrair... is corrupt and has to be emended to dharirartha'.
140. CF. NBhos 146.13-16. 141. Hence the subsequent long Isvaravida section NBhQs 447 ft. 142. Cf. NBhQs 487.19 . 143. CI. NBhos 548.1-2 and 19 ff. 144. Cf. NBhus 574.1 and 12.

Page #25
A. Wezler On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra 337 analytical capacity and sensibility of the Buddha to which Indian medicine in its turn owes the recognition of its caturvyuhatva? tad etad anyair api kathinyarataih suksmadarsibhir yatnena vicaryatain ity alani ativistarena 152. 152. I likewise withstand the temptation to enter on my own into an independent comparative study of medicine and doctrincs of salvation the comparison of which could, of course, be carricd much farther than it was ever done by Indian authors. 5.3. Returning now to the central problem, one has to put oneself the following question: what are the historical conclusions to be drawn from the observation that the quadruple division of the doctrine of sal. vation is attested in a substantially identical form not only in the Indian science of medicine, certain Yoga texts and the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha, but also in thc Nyaya tradition? There is but a hypothesis I am able to offer, viz. the assumption that suggests itself quite naturally when the relative chronology of the respective earliest sources is taken into account and when a casual convergent development is a priori excluded: the quadruple division was discovered by the Buddha; it was thereafter taken over by the author of the relevant sutras of the YS (which shows strong Buddhist influences in other respects, too), who also chose other, i.e. neutral, terms for the four different elements. Paksilasvamin borrowed them probably from the YS 151 as the terminology used by him is practically identical with that of the YS. Similarly, it found, though probably earlier, its way into the Carakasamhita which directly or indirectly influenced the author of the Yogabhasya and that of the Buddhist Vyadhisutra so that they decided to refer to the science of medicine by way of comparison. This hypothesis, of course, implies that the assumption made above (p. 323 f.), viz. that the science of medicine may claim priority as regards the << discovery >> of the quadruple division, has to be abandoned. Yet, I think, it offers a more plausible explanation of the undisputable fact that this division was never of real importance in the tradition of the Cikitsasastra. There is another point I should like to make in this connection: is not the widespread belief that the quadruple division as taught in medicine it was that inspired the Buddha perhaps suggested also by the assumption that the Buddha could not have conceived his systematically divided four aryasatyani had he not had in mind a concrete and wordly example which he need only apply to his doctrine of salvation? And might not the idea, << natural >> though it seems, that this << discovery >> cannot but have been made first by people concerned with the somatic aspect of man's existence turn out to be a preconceived one, in the case of Indian culture at least; is it not perhaps even due to the fact that a rather modern and Western conception of medicine is unconsciously taken as basis? Could not just the reverse be true, viz. that in India it was a person deeply reflecting on man's existence as such that led to this << discovery >>, i.e. that it was the extraordinary 151. Similarly G. OBERHAMMER, Paksilasvamin's Introduction to his Nyayabhasyam, in << Asian Studies, vol. 2 (1964), pp. 311-15. Cf. also his Strukturen yogischer Meditation, Wien, 1977, p. 210.{"props":{"pageProps":{"bookData":{"author":"A Wezler","classification":"Article, , ,","download_count":0,"editor":"","file_size":"5 MB","filename":"on_quadruple_division_of_yogasastra_269542_hr6.pdf","id":18841,"language":"English","master_folder":"article","num_pages":25,"pub_year":"","publisher":"A Wezler","script":"English","srno":"269542","sub_folder":"250000_article_english","sutra_author":"","title":"On Quadruple Division Of Yogasastra","title_lang":"On Quadruple Division Of Yogasastra","translator":""},"fullText":"\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/1\"\u003ePage #1\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\nA. WEZLER\r\nON THE QUADRUPLE DIVISION OF THE YOGASASTRA, THE CATURVYOHATVA OF THE CIKITSASASTRA AND THE FOUR NOBLE TRUTHS OF THE BUDDHA\r\n\"\r\n(Studies in the Patañjalayogasastravivarana II)\r\n1. The publication of the Patañjalayogasastravivarana - wrongly entitled Pätañjalayogasütrabhasyavivarana by the editors has, as the late Paul Hacker aptly remarked, raised a new problem in the study of the history of [Indian] philosophy. Hacker's attention was drawn to this text, though it is a commentary on the Yogasūtra (=YS) and Yogabhasya (=YBh/YBhasya), because it was regarded by the editors to be a work of Sankara, the Advaitin. For, Hacker has, as is well known, given much thought to the problem of how to distinguish. between the authentic works of Sankara, the Advaitin, and the many spuria ascribed to him, and he has evolved various criteria to prove authenticity. Therefore, it is by no means unexpected that he accepted the challenge posed by the publication of yet another text ascribed to the Advaitin. In his most stimulating article published in 1968 he does not, however, really want to prove the identity of the author of the\r\n1. Ed. by Polakam Sri Rama Sastri and S. A. Krishnamurthi Sastri (= MGOS, no. XCIV), Madras, 1952. Most valuable observations on this text and on the authorship problem have been made by W. HALBFASS; cf. the appendix, Notes on the Yogasütrabhasyavivarana, in his recent monograph, Studies in Kumarila and Sankara, Reinbek, 1983, to which I should like to refer the reader also as regards the secondary literature sofar published on the Vivarana.\r\n2. Cf. my article, Philological Observations on the so-called Pätañjalayogasūtrabhasyavivarana (Studies in the Pătañjalayogaśāstravivarana I), in IIJ, vol. 25 (1983). pp. 17-39.\r\n3. Viz. on pp. 124-218 of his article, Sankara der Yogin und Sankara der Advaitin. Einige Beobachtungen, in Beiträge zur Geistesgeschichte Indiens. Festschrift für Erich Frauwallner, aus Anlass seines 70. Geburtstags herausgegeben von G. Oberhammer, Wien, 1968 (= WZKSO, 12-13, 1968-69), pp. 119-48 Kleine Schriften. Herausgegeben von L. Schmithausen (Glasenapp-Stiftung Bd. 15), Wiesbaden, 1978, pp. 213-42. In the following this article is referred to by (Hacker) 1968.\r\n4. The German original runs as follows: ... der der Erforschung der Philosophiegeschichte ein neues Problem stellt...\r\n5. Cf. In. 3.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/2\"\u003ePage #2\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n* 290\r\nA. Wexler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n291\r\nVivarana and Sankara, the Advaitin; instead, what he does is to argue that if we assume this identity we are able to explain peculiarly Yoga features in the authentic works of Sankara, the Advaltin, to some of which Hacker had already drawn attention in an earlier article of his; he further argues that if the Vivarana was in fact composed by Sankara, the Advaitin, it cannot but have been the earliest of his works, and that if Sankara was at first an adherent of (Patanjala-) Yoga and became a Vedantin only later, the relative chronology of at least some of his later works can be established by examining the extent to which they display Yoga influence in terms of philosophical contents and terminology.\r\n2. It is in this connection that Hacker deals with the quadruple division of the Yogadastra as it is stated, and most emphatically at that, at the very beginning of the Vivarana. He says?: At YBh 2.15, the division of the Yogasastra is compared to that of a system of therapeutics. S(ankara) resumes this idea in the introduction to his YV (=Patanjalayogasastravivarana) when explaining the purpose of the Yogy sastra. This shows that he looked upon Yoga as a therapeutic system. The same idea, except for the division itself (which is proper only to Yoga), is repeated by $ when he in the Introduction to his MaBh (=Mandokya Bhasya) points out the purpose of the text to be explained [1.e. the Māndokya Up.); but what he now brings in is the monistic teaching by which man as one sick due to Suffering has to be led to health of the Self. In introductions to other works of his, S recurs to the concept of therapeutics (cikitsita) (viz. USP (=Upadeśasāhasri-Padyaprabandha) 19, 1), and once again to the idea of illness and health, only that the concept of therapeutical treatment is dropped (viz. USG (Upadesasthasrl-Gadyaprabandha) 47). Here it is natural to assume that the\r\nthree works in which the idea of therapeutical treatment is stressed belong together in point of time and are connected with Yoga. For Yoga is a practice that can easily be compared to therapeutics. S's Vedānta,\r\nteach a method by following which one is gradually led to the goal of liberation; that is why he (later) rejects Yoga, cf. below. Accordingly, in the USG (perhaps a late work) it is only the disciple who expects from his teacher a kind of therapeutical treatment: the teacher, however, does not promise any such thing: all he aims at is to lead to liberating insight\r\n2.1. The passage of the Vivarana referred to by Hacker is found almost at the very beginning of the text. It is preceded, or rather introduced, by a statement to the effect that the Yogaśāstra will be studied and the method it teaches practised by people only if its sambandha and prayojana are shown. It is to the prayojana, i.e. the purpose of the Yogasastra, that the Vivaranakāra addresses himself first, for he continues :\r\ntatra prayojanam tdvat - cikitsasastre' fac caturvyüharvapradarsanadvarena vyakhydram / tadyatha - cikitsasastram caturvyūham: rogah, rogahetuh, drogyam, bhaisajyam ini / vidhipratişedhaniyama. dvdrena (ca tat) caturvydhavişayavyakhyanaparam / evam ihapi \u003cparināmata pasaņskaraduhkhair gunavstivirodhac ca duḥkham sarvam vivekinah (YS 2.15) ity arabhya caturvyahatvam pradar. sitam / tadyatha - duḥkhapracurah samsaro heyah / tasydvidyāni. mitto drastrdrŚyasamyogo hetuh / vivekakhyātir aviplavd hanopayah\" / vivekakhydrau ca satyam avidyānivsttih, tannivritav atyantiko drastrdryasanıyogoparamo hanam, tad eva kaivalyam / drogyasthaniyakaivalyaprayuktatvad asya tad eva kaivalyain prayoja. nam II.\r\n2.2. In a later part of his article » Hacker returns to this passage: what he says there is :\r\n6. Viz.. Eigentiimlichkeiten der Lehre und Terminologie Sarkaras. Avidyd, Namarupa, Mdyd, Išvara, in ZDMG, 100 (1965), pp. 246-86 - Kleine Schriften.... pp. 69-109.\r\n7. 1968, pp. 125/219. Explanations added by me are placed within square brackets. The German original runs thus: YBh 2.15 ist die Einteilung des Yogasastra mit der cines Systems der Therapeutik verglichen. S nimmt diesen Gedanken auf in der Einleitung zum YV (p. 2), wo er den Zweck des Lehrsystems erklären will. Damit ist der Yoga als eine Theraple aufgefasst. Den gleichen Gedanken, mit Weglassung der (nur für das Yogasystem passenden) Einteilung, wiederholt $, als er in der Einlel. tung zu M\u0026Bh den Zweck des zu erläuternden Textes angeben will, nun ist es die monistische Lehre, die den Leldkranken zur Gesundheit des Selbst führt. In Einlel. tungen zu anderen Werken $s kehrt die Idee der Theraple (clkitsita) noch einmal wieder (USP 19.1) und dann noch einmal der Gedanke der Krankheit und Gesundheit, unter Weglassung des Begriffs der Heilbehandlung (USG 47). Die Annahme liegt nahe, dass die drei Werke, wo der Gedanke der Heilbehandlung betont ist, zeitlich zusam. mengehören und dem Yoga nahestehen. Denn dieser ist methodische Ubung, die leicht mit einer Theraple verglichen werden kann. ss Vedanta dagegen will keine Methode lehren, die durch Übungen kontinuierlich zum Ziel der Erlösung führe: darum lehnt er (später) den Yoga ab, vgl. unten. Dementsprechend ist es im USG (einem vielleicht spliten Werk) bloss der Schüler, der von seinem Lehrer eine Art Heilbehandlung erwartet; der Lehrer verspricht ihm nichts dergleichen, er will bloss zur Erkenntnis führen.\r\n8. P. 2, 1. 1.9 of the edition; cf. also p. 168, 1. 15 ff. In addition, he treats of the sambandha, viz. p. 2, L. 18 ff.\r\n9. Here the Trivandrum MS (cf. the article mentioned in En. 2) has the reading cikitsasastravat tac, which most probably originated under the influence of the preceding idvat or by dittography.\r\n10. ca tar is an emendation of the editors; it is not corroborated by the Triv. Ms. 11. CF. YS 2.26; see below p. 295. 12. C. YS 2.25; see below p. 295. 13. 1968, p. 139 f./233 f.\r\n14. The German original runs thus: Da wird der Inhalt des Yoga in Analogie zum System der Therapeutik (cikitsd-Sastra) und in Anlehnung an YS 2.15 ff in vier Kapitel (vyliha) cingeteilt: 1. \"Der leidvolle Samsára ist zu vermeiden\" (in der The rapeutik entspricht das der Lehre von der Krankheit, roga). 2. \"Seine Ursache ist die Verbindung des Subjekts mit dem Objekt, die im Nichtwissen gründet\" (das ist die Ursache der Krankheit\", roga-hetult). 3. \"Mittel des Vermeldens ist die unbeirrte (sic) Klarheit der Unterscheidungserkenntnis\" (das \"Heilmittel\", bhaisaiya).\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/3\"\u003ePage #3\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n292\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n293\r\nThe contents of Yoga are here divided into four chapters (vyaha)\" by analogy with the system of therapeutics (cikitsa-sastra) and in depen dence on YS 2.15 ff.: 1) \"Samsāra, full of Suffering, is to be avoided \". (In therapeutics this correspondends to the teaching of Illness, roga). 2) \"The cause of samsāra is the connection of the subject with the object based on nescience\" (this is the \"Cause of Illness\", roga-hetul). 3) \"The means by which [samsāra) is avoided is the unswerving lucidity of discriminating knowledge\" (the \"Remedy\", bhaişajya). 4) \"When this has been attained then nescience is eliminated, and the connection of subject and object ceases entirely; that is avoidance, absolute inde. pendence \"(in therapeutics: \"Health\", Arogya). It may be noted in passing that this division shows a certain similarity also to the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha. Yet the second and third truth - Suffering and its Annihilation - are gathered into one, and in accordance with the more positive outlook of Brahmanism a chapter is added on the final goal absolute independence. corresponding to Health.\r\nTo divide the teaching of Yoga in this manner is, to be sure, by no means improper. But it has to be noted that, firstly, the system of Patañjala-Yoga contains various elements that do not strictly fit into the [fourfold) scheme, c.g. the teaching of the magical perfections (siddhi), and that, Secondly, this system [i.e. that of Yoga), as it is found in the sūtras themselves, is not divided in this manner. The division is an interpretation introduced by $; it wholly corresponds to the decidedly practical, didactic, nay, therapeutical interest that is to be noted again and again in the Advaita works of S's also 16.\r\nTherefore, it is noteworthy that the Advaitin S, at the one place where he expounds the essential content of his teaching without any reference to texts to be explained and in a purely argumentative manner, takes up the very scheme of division he had already established when still a Yogin. The idea of therapeutics had now to recede into the back ground (cf. above $2), but the disposition of the 2. prose prakarana of the US corresponds exactly to the four vyüha division. USG 45-47 deals with samsāra as Suffering. In 48 we have the beginning of the instruction about the Cause of Suffering: nescience. Without sharp cleavage approxi. mately from 58 onwards it gradually yields to initiation into discrimi. nating knowledge. USG 109 describes the attainment of the goal\r\nThese remarks call for a critical examination in more than one respect. It appears as if Hacker has lost sight of what he had himself correctly stated earlier, viz. that the quadruple division of Yogasastra as taught at the beginning of the Vivarana is already met with in the YBhasya on YS 2.15 and, moreover, in the YS itself. Indeed, what the Bhāşyakara says on YS 2.15 (pariņāmata pasamskaraduh khair gunaviti. nirodhăc ca dukham eva sarvam vivekinah. quoted also by the Viva. rana, cf. above under 2.1.), after first explaining its wording and purport in detail, is this\r\n... tad asya mahato duhkhasamuddyasya prabhavabijam avidva / tasya ca samyagdarsanam abhavahetuh / yatha cikitsa sastram caturvyaham - rogo rogahefur arogyam bhaisajyam iti, evam idam api sastram caturvyāham eva / tadyatha\" - samsarah samsårahetur mokso moksopaya 19 iti / tatra duh khabahulah samsaro heyah / pradhanapuruşayoh samyogo heyahetun / samyogaswaryantiki niveitir hānam / hanopdyah samvagdarśanam / ...\r\nThis is not only by itself an unequivocal statement, but comparison also clearly shows that it was simply reformulated by the author of\r\n4. \"Ist dicse crreicht, so ist das Nichtwissen beseitigt, und damit hört die Ver bindung von Subjekt und Objekt absolut auf: das ist das Vermeiden, die Abso lutheit\" (in der Therapeutik: die \"Gesundheit\", drogya). Nebenbel bemerkt hat diese Einteilung eine gewisse Xhnlichkeit auch mit den Vier Edlen Wahrheiten des Buddha. Doch sind die zweite und die dritte Wahrheit - das Leiden und seine Aufhebung in eine zusammengezogen, und entsprechend der positiveren Sicht des Brahmanismus ist ein Kapitel über das Ziel - die Absolutheit, entsprechend der Gesundheit - hinzugefügt.\r\nDie Yogalehre so einzuteilen, ist gewiss nicht abwegig. Doch ist zu bemerken, dass erstens Im System des Patanjala-Yoga manches enthalten ist, was nicht streng zu diesem Schema passt, z.B. die Lehre von den magischen Vollkommenheiten (siddhi), und dass zweitens dieses System, so wie es in den Satren vorliegt, nicht so eingeteilt ist. Diese Einteilung ist eine Interpretation Ss. Sie entspricht ganz dem auch in den Advaitaschriften Ss Immer wieder zu beobachtenden stark praktischen, didaktischen, ja therapeutischen Interesse\r\nEs ist daher bemerkenswert, dass s, als er als Advaitin den wesentlichen Inhalt seiner Lehre einmal ganz ohne Bezugnahme auf zu erklärende Texte und rein ar gumentativ darlegte, auf das gleiche Einteilungsschema zurückkam, das er schon als Yogin aufgestellt hatte. Der Gedanke der Therapie musste jetzt zwar zurücktreten (vgl. oben 2), aber die Disposition des 2. Prosa-Prakarapa der US entspricht genau der Vier Vyüha-Einteilung. USG 45-47 ist vom Leiden des Samsara gehandelt. 48 beginnt die Belehrung über die Ursache des Leidens: das Nicht wissen. Ohne scharfen Einschnitt geht sie etwa ab 58 allmählich über in die Anleitung zur unterscheidenden Erkenntnis. USG 109 schildert die Erreichung des Zicles.\r\n15. In rendering the term vyuha by chapter, Hacker has, I think, made the wrong choice, though he is in accordance with the PW (vol. VI, column 1485). II its meaning is not simply part, division here, one should rather think of its being used (c.g. in the Arthasstra) as a military term to denote a battle array, i.e. in a more general sense a purposeful, systematic arrangement. Cf. also R. Garbe's explanation of this term as used in Vijanabhiksu's Samkhyapravacanabhäsya (sce below in. 31), Samkhyapravacana-bhashya ... aus dem Sanskrit übersetzt..., Leipzig, 1889, p. 11, n. 2: ... bei dem vydha llegt ein kramend 'ngopdrigandit vinydsah vor.....\r\nNote that the author of the Vivarapa offers (p. 169, 1. 3 ff.) two alternative explanations of the compound caturvydha, viz. calvdro vyähd asya and esv arthesu (= samsára, sarisarahetu etc.) caturdhd vyuho 'sya.\r\nne\r\nBCLUB Run Esseple musava de cara sehonne sidende\r\ngant Jelche der Pro Paen des Sichtw.jur unte darlet battere Dispos e des ber in zielesker has colu\r\nheapshema\r\ndle us\r\nla resc 100\r\nused (ees not simply part, accordance with the Wac\r\n16. Note that this sentence stands in contradiction with what H. had said at the end of the passage quoted above ( 2).\r\n17. I quote the text portion as given on p. 168, 1. 1.7 of the edition of the Viva. rapa. Cf. in addition p. 171, L 1: tad elac chåstrar carurvydhamity adhdhiyale.\r\n18. The author of the Vivarana attests yathd only, cf. p. 168, 1. 24. 19. moksahetuh according to the Vivaranakära.\r\n20. The author of the Vivarapa obviously reads pradhdnapurusasaryogo; cf. pp. 168, 1. 25 and 169, 1. 7.\r\netc.) caturana, viz. carudro wake.) two alternative\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/4\"\u003ePage #4\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n294\r\nA. Wezler\r\nthe Vivarana; the one substantial difference to be dealt with first is the point at which this quadruple division is taught in either work; appa-rently, by the time of the Vivaraṇakara it had become usual for (sub)commentators or authors of scientific works to deal already at the beginning with the purpose (prayojana), etc., of their main subject in order to convince the reader or hearer that it was worthwhile to take the trouble of studying it carefully. That is why the Vivaraṇakāra decided to point out the quadruple division of the Yogasăstra already at the very outset of his commentary; and, to be sure, he need not state explicitly that this example (drstanta ), i.e. the comparison of the Yogasastra with the science of medicine, was not his own invention; instead, what was of importance to him was to emphasize that the division is in accordance with explicit statements of Patañjali himself. And this claim of the Vivaraṇakära cannot be a limine treated with contempt as yet another example of the common practice of commentators to have what is but their own idea or, at least, an idea of later origin sanctioned, as it were, by the accepted authority of the mala text. His assertion that the caturvyahatva of the Yogasästra is pointed out (pradarsita) in the YS itself, beginning with sūtra 2.15, obviously does not belong to the category of such wishful, forced interpretations. Yet, it calls, nevertheless, for closer examination.\r\nThe Vivaranakara's reference to YS 2.15 may have been provoked in the first place by the fact that it is that sütra in explaining which the Bhasyakara deals with the subject of the caturvyahatva, i.e. makes the statement (quoted above) about the quadruple division of the YogaSastra; nonetheless it cannot be denied that the sûtra itself:\r\npariņāmatāpasamskaraduḥkhair gunavirodhac ca duḥkham eva sar.\r\nvam vivekinaḥ\r\nstands out in that in it the term duḥkha is not simply used as in others also, but is central to it; for it declares that to a vivekin, i.e. the Yogin who possesses discriminating insight into reality as analysed by Yoga, everything is Suffering in view of the various forms of Suffering consisting in change, mental or physical pain and subliminal impressions 22 and because of the fact that the functions of the constituents [of primordial matter] are opposed to each other». Undoubtedly, this is a central element of Yoga as expounded in the Sütra. Ascribing to life, as\r\n21. This term is used by the Vivaraṇakära himself, viz. p. 168, 1. 21.\r\n22. The author of the Vivarana explains (p. 159, 1. 12) that strictly speaking all three of them are but causes of Suffering (duḥkhanimittäni). For further eluci dation, I should like to refer the reader to the Bhasya and the Vivarapa on this sûtra. That this sûtra clearly exhibits Buddhist influence was shown by L. DE LA VALLEE POUSSIN, Mélanges Chinois et Bouddhique, V, 1936-37, p. 234 f. The term samskära has, of course, quite another meaning in Buddhist texts. Though one cannot, of course, be absolutely sure, it was probably reinterpreted already by the author of YS 2.15.\r\n295\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogadastra\r\nit does, the character of being nothing but Suffering. YS 2.15 must indeed be regarded as the pivotal statement about the nature of reality in the YS. And in the immediately following sutra (2.16: heyam duḥkham andgatam) it is taught that it is Suffering yet to come that has to be avoided, whereas in YS 2.17 the cause of that which has to be avoided (heyahetu) is defined as drastṛdrsyayoḥ samyogah, i.e. the connection of the subject with the object. As the three latter terms call for further elucidation, actually given in sütras 2.18-23, it is only in YS 2.24 (tasya hetur avidya) that nescience is expressly stated to be the cause of this connection. The term hana, which the reader now expects, is in fact met with in the next sütra (2.25) which reads thus: tadabhāvāt samyogabhavo hanam, tad dṛśeḥ kaivalyam: « Avoidance is the nonexistence of the connection on account of its (i.e. the nescience's) nonexistence; this is the seer's (i.e. the spirit's or soul's) being-absolutelyby-himself. The obvious question as to the means of avoidance, i.e. of attaining the state of liberation, is answered by the immediately following sūtra (2.26): vivekakhyatir aviplava hänopayaḥ the means to avoidance is the steady or firm lucidity-of-discriminating-knowledge », i.e. the complete or perfect realization of the absolute difference between purusa and prakṛti.\r\nThus it is already on the historical level of the YS itself that, in a series of sūtras obviously forming a unitary whole, four clearly demarcated concepts are attested, viz.\r\n23. The last word of this sütra (andgatam) which is left out in the Bhâşva- and Vivaranakira's independent expositions of the caturvyahatva, most probably for practical reasons only, is accounted for by the author of the YBh in the following manner: duhkham atitam (Viv.: vartamandi janmano 'tikrantajanmalaksanam duh kham) upabhogendtivähitam na heyapakse vartate (Viv.: svayam eva hinarvar) / var. tamanam ca (Viv.: janmalaksanam duḥkham) svaksane bhogarüdham (Viv.: svam vartamanan bhogavisistam ksanam adhvānam upabhujyamänätmakatvendrüdham) iti na tat kṣaṇantare heyatam dpadyate (Viv.: svayam eva bhogena hinam na handya ksandntaram apeksate) tasmad yad evandgatam (Viv.: prayanantarabhavijanmaduhkhalaksanam) duḥkham tad eväksipätrakalpam (cf. YBh on YS 2.15) yoginam klisnati (= udvejayari, cf. Viv. p. 164, 1. 7 ff.) \u003cnetaram pratipattaram\u003e (not at tested in the Vivarana and indeed to be suspected as being a later addition; cf. also Bh 164, 1. 3) / tad eva heyatdm dpadyate (the Viv. reads tad eva heyam here: the other reading might in fact have originated only secondarily, viz. due to heyatam apadyate in the second sentence; the Viv. adds by way of explanation: samyagdarsanena hänlyam ucyate/ bhavisyajjanmabhäväyaiva yatitavyam na vartamánaduḥ khanirodhaya / vartamänajanmayiyatisäyäm hi samyagdarsanam asakyaviniyogatvad anarthakam sydt / muktabänavat pravrttaphalatvad vartamánaduḥkhasya bhavisyati punar apravṛttatvdd bijanirodha upakalpata iti samyagdarsanarthavattvam svavisayo hi samyagdarsanasya sa [i.e. bhavisyajjanma] iti ). That is to say ac cording to the Vivarapakāra at least, Suffering yet to come means Suffering consisting in and experienced in the next birth(s). In any case, the sutra is right. as it is in fact only andgatam dulkham that can, if at all, be avoided; but at the same time the addition of andgatam may be taken to indicate that the author was more interested in actual Yoga practice and its exact description than in, making general abstract statements.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/5\"\u003ePage #5\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogašastra\r\n297\r\nheyam defined as 24 duhkham heyahetuh ) ) drastrdryayoh samyogah hanam\r\nsamyogabhavah, i.e. kaivalyam and finally, hanopayah\r\nvivekakhyarir aviplava. Evidently this quadruple division is substantially identical with that expounded by the Bhäşyakára in his commentary on 2.15; and what the Vivaranakāra does is to resume this division. On the other hand, one cannot fail to observe that in the YS itself the division is neither ex. pressly stated to be a divisionary scheme; nor to be a quadruple one; nor to apply to the Yogasastra; nor, finally, is it compared to a similar division of the Cikitsasastra. Nevertheless, the conclusion apparently arrived at by the Bhasyakära, viz. that what the author of these sutras actually had in mind was really a quadruple division of the system of Yoga, cannot but be accepted, by any unbiased reader who is aware of the peculiarities of a Satra text, as being perfectly legitimate and cogent. The only material difference worth noticing here lies in the absence of even an allusion to the science of medicine in the YS: to all appearance, this is a new element that was probably introduced for the first time by the YBhasya.\r\nDrawing now the final conclusion from what has been stated in the foregoing on the evidence found in the Bhäşya and in the Sutra for the quadruple division of the Yogaśāstra, I cannot help stating in so many words the impression, created not only by this part of Hacker's article, that he does not in this case endeavour to get the better of his prejudices, but overrides, rather arbitrarily, all facts that might stand in his way and are apt to undermine the basic assumption from which he starts. Thus his assertion that the system of Yoga eas found in the sátras themselves, is not divided in this manner is not merely bold, but demonstrably wrong\", and it is by no means legitimate to give the author of the Vivarana credit for having established this division as Hacker says, or to state that the division is an interpretation introduced by S.,\r\n2.3. As regards this division, any comparative study of the Vivarana, on the one hand, and of the presumably early or late works of S., the Advaitin, on the other, must hence start from the following obser. vations:\r\n2. It is expounded likewise by the author of the YBhāşya, unequi\r\nvocally and in detail, and it is he who apparently has to be given the credit for comparing the quadruply divided Yogasastra to the science of medicine; in any case, this comparison seems to have\r\nbeen added later. 3. The division is but repeated by the Vivaranakära, viz. for the\r\nobvious reasons stated already at the very outset of his work. In order not to go astray in interpreting the relevant passages, it is further advisable, if not even imperative, not to follow Hacker's argu. mentary approach. As has also been shown elsewhere it is by far better for considerations of method not to let oneself be impressed too much by the fact that the Vivarana is in its colophons ascribed to a Sankarabhagavant; what we should do instead is to take the authorship of the Vivarana to be a problem which is still unsolved. References to the quadruple division as a whole, or in part, found in a work of S., the Advaitin, should not therefore be studied on the basis of the assumption made by Hacker. Instead of arguing the way he does, viz. that if we assume the identity of the Vivaranakära and S., the Advaitin, we are able to explain peculiarly Yoga features in the authentic works of S.. the Advaitin, in the manner outlined by Hacker, we should face up to the real problem in all its seriousness and intricacy. viz. put ourselves, without bias, the pivotal question whether the quadruple division, if met with in a work of S.'s, or even suggestions of such a division there, can in fact best be explained by assuming the Vivarana to be another and then, to be sure, the earliest work of the famous Advaita philosopher.\r\nThis assumption could be regarded as necessary if, and only if the comparative study of the relevant passages in authentic works of s. listed by Hacker himself, on the one hand, and the exposition of the caturvyahatva of the Yogaśāstra in the Vivarana, on the other, were to reveal so specific a correspondence that the hypothesis that the author is one and the same in both cases would suggest itself as the only solution or, at least, the one most plausible.\r\nIn view of the close similarity between the Vivaranakāra's exposition and that of the Bhāşyakāra, specific correspondence could in our case firstly mean literal agreement ». No such agreement has, however, been pointed out by Hacker, and, to be sure, there is none. But, secondly, what about the condition of a peculiar property being common both to the Vivarana and an authentic work of $., the Advaitin?\r\nIs not the sequence of the last two members of the fourfold division in the case of the USG reversed, and does not this change, on the one hand, stand clearly in contrast to the order of enumeration as found in the YS and -Bhasya, and strikingly agree, on the other, with the Viva\r\n1. The division is clearly attested already in the YS though it is not\r\nexplicitly taught as quadruple and applying to the Yogasastra.\r\n24. I am, of course, aware of the fact that not all the sátras quoted are definitions in the strict sense of the word.\r\n25. At least as regards the caturvyahatva as a divisionary scheme. Obviously Hacker had lost sight of the important difference between a systematic division or divisionary scheme as such and Its having actually been made the basis of a corre sponding disposition of the material.\r\n26. Viz. in the article mentioned in fn. 2.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/6\"\u003ePage #6\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n298\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogašastra\r\n299\r\nranakära's exposition? One cannot but answer this question in the posi. tive, and it is surprising that Hacker is silent on this. Nevertheless, one will hesitate to rest satisfied with simply noting this admittedly inte. resting point of agreement, at least, if one wants to escape the reproach of superficiality or of drawing premature conclusions. For, the correspondence might equally be coincidental.\r\nNow, as for the USG, the reason for S.'s giving first what Hacker calls the initiation into discriminating knowledge and describing only thereafter the final goal or its attainment, is, I think, clear enough and need not provoke controversy. Since this portion of the USG is conceived by S. as a dialogue between a disciple and a teacher approached for instruction, there can hardly be any doubt that the instruction is given with a view to its application; what S. has in mind is the actual succes. sion of stages the disciple has to pass through; and that in reality the final goal is, if at all, attained last need hardly be mentioned.\r\nThe crucial point, however, is: are we to assume that the Vivarana. kära in changing the sequence was led by the same or a similar motive? In his case, the fact that he does not keep to the order of succession as found in the YS and Bhaşya is even more striking, since the four vyâhas of the Cikitsasastra are enumerated by him exactly in the same sequence as by the Bhāşyakara; the result being that the two series lack complete parallelism, and that the author is compelled to make clear in his last sentence that kaivalya in the quadruple division of Yoga corresponds to arogya in that of the Cikitsasastra (cf. drogyasthantyain the passage quoted above).\r\nIt is, however, this last sentence, together with the context in which the issue of the caturvy hatva as a whole stands in the Vivarana (cf. above p. 291), that provides us with the key for discovering the reason for the transposition in this text. The problem from which the author starts is, as has been noted already above, the exigency of dealing at the outset of his work explicitly with the prayojana of the Yogaśastra. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that particular stress is laid on that vynha to which the practice of Yoga is ultimately said to lead, and that this emphasis is achieved also by letting the whole discussion culminate in the exposition of what is taken to be the purpose, 1.c. of kaivalya.\r\nTo adduce further circumstantial evidence, if additional arguments are at all necessary: the transition from YS 2.24 to the subsequent one is gained in the Bhāşya by the following remark: heyam duhkham heya. karanamt ca samyogakhyam sanimittam uktam / atah paramt hanam vaktavyam/. All the Vivaranakära says in commenting on the latter sentence is (p. 203.13-14): a tah param hanam arogyasthaniyam mokşasastraprayojanam vaktavy a m / vaksyamanasamkirtanam ca srotrbuddhisamadhanartham /. It is true that he does not state explicity why « avoidance is to be taught next », but at the same time the absence of any remark on his part to the effect that in reality, i.c. in the practice\r\nof Yoga, what is called hanopaya comes, of course, first is, I think, quite conspicuous.\r\nThese observations will, I trust, suffice to corroborate the assump. tion made above, viz. that the conspicuous transposition of the last two vynhas in the introduction of the Vivarana is caused by nothing else than the wish to bring out into proper relief the Sastrarambhaprayo. jana » (cf. p. 161.11)\r\nTherefore, it can safely be stated that the agreement between the USG and the Vivarana as regards the interchange of the last two vyūhas is but coincidental, i.e. caused in each case by quite different deliberations It is hence quite possible, that S., if at all under the influence of Yoga texts in this respect, was inspired either by the YBhasya or perhaps even the YS itself. On the basis of the methodological considerations outlined above (p. 297) and in view of the observations made with regard to the exposition of the theory of the caturvyahatva in the three Yoga texts (cf. above p. 296), one cannot, therefore, help drawing the final conclusion that the comparative study of the USG and the Vivarana does not by any means yield sufficient evidence for the identity of the authors of the two texts as taken for granted by Hacker.\r\nAlthough Hacker's basic assumption is thus - once more - shown to be highly problematic, nay practically unjustified, the question arising next should not be left unasked, viz. whether an element in authentic works of S., the Advaitin, reminding us of the Yoga theory of catur. vyahatva warrants the assumption of an external influence in general or of an influence exercised on s. by the YBhāşya or the YS in parti. cular. What is called for in this connection is a critical reexamination of the passages referred to by Hacker; such a reexamination yields the following results.\r\n27. I do not, of course, want to keep silent about the fact that there is, on the other hand, a passage in the Vivarana where in striking and awkward contrast to its beginning it is the hanopaya, viz. samyagdarsana, that is spoken of as prayojana, viz. p. 169, 1. 14-15: arabhyamanasya sastrasya samyagdarsanam ova prayojanam (cf. also the quite frequent expression samyagdarśanasastra). If this latter remark is not merely meant to account for the somewhat puzzling fact that the Bhasyakára already in commenting on YS 2.15 (and not only on 2.20) touches on the topic of the hatr (cf. p. 169, 1. 10 f.), other explanations one could think of are [1] that this apparent inconsistency is due to an upacara: the term which primarily denotes the means is used metonymically to denote its result; or (2] that santyagdarsana insofar as it is the pratipaksa (cf. 168.16) of Nescience, the true cause of Suffering, is here regarded as the main thing to be achieved, ensuing almost automatically as it does hana; or (3] that samyagdarsana is given preference because hana is an avastu, ie. not something positive, but only the not-existing any longer of the connection bet. ween subject and object (bandhanoparama) (cf. p. 204, 1. 13-16). On the other hand. however, the text might be corrupt here: sastrasya could have replaced an original sutrasya (cf. also 1. 14 ... Sastram atahparam drabhyate) and samyagdarsanam could resume this term as used in a narrower sense in the YBh itself, viz. p. 170, 1. 2.\r\n28. In any case, the Vivaranakära's motive for the transposition cannot have been s's alsol On the order of enumeration of the four vyähas in Yoga texts and that of the Four Noble Truths cf. below p. 306.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/7\"\u003ePage #7\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\nA. Wexler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n301\r\nOn the one hand it has to be admitted that the disciple in USG 47 compares himself to a sick person (rogin) and that S., led by delibe. rations like those outlined above, might have deliberately changed the sequence of the last two vydhas against that attested in the YBhasya and YS. On the other hand, it cannot be disputed that the quadruple division itself is nowhere in the USG stated explicitly. This fact was, admittedly, noticed by Hacker; but is the explanation he offers, viz. that the division is proper only to Yoga », not too simple a solution, or rather an attempt to avoid addressing himself to the methodological problem involved? In any case, Hacker's remarks are thought-provoking: for he is clearly of the opinion that the dispositional structure underlying the USG materially corresponds to the four vydhas as enumerated by the Vivaranakära; this might be true, though there still remains a doubt, viz. that when he discovered this internal structure of the USG Hacker was fully convinced of the identity of the two authors. It is, of course, not possible to adduce against Hacker the argument that it would then hardly be understandable that S. should, nevertheless, have refrained from explicitly introducing the quadruple division itself precisely because it is proper only to Yoga For S. may have applied the quadruple division to the teaching of Vedanta inspite of its impropriety, i.e. deliberately, yet also so inconspicuously that it passes almost unnoticed.\r\nTherefore, what can be said is at best that the possibility of an influence exercised by the YBhäşya or perhaps the YS itself cannot be entirely ruled out. And If the internal structure of the USG really reflects the quadruple division, such an influence may even be regarded as comparatively probable in view of the fact that S.'s works show this influence in other respects, too. But, the other possibility cannot be excluded with absolute certainty, viz. that S. was, on the contrary, under the influence of some other tradition, or under no specific influence at all. As to this latter alternative, one cannot but ask the following questions: would not anyone who takes life to be nothing but Suffering, or Illusion, and who accordingly looks upon man as in need of liberation incline most naturally to the view that man as he is can be compared to a person suffering from a physical ailment? Is not anyone who takes such a view of life quite easily led to put himself the question as to\r\nthe reasons of this metaphysical ailment, the means of overcoming it and the state of final liberation? Thus it is, perhaps, even equally possible that S. was here influenced by a general religious tradition or a more specific one to which he himself belonged.\r\nThe probative force of the other two passages to which Hacker has drawn attention, viz. USP 19.1. and the introduction of the Mandakvabhāşya, turns out to be weaker still if examined on the basis of the methodological considerations which have been outlined above.\r\nThe metaphor contained in the expression jñanavirágabhesajam and the characterization of this medicine as trsndjvaranasakaranam cikitsi tam in the USP do not by themselves warrant the conclusion that what S. is actually doing here is to resume concepts developed by him when still an adherent of Yoga. This holds equally good for the passage in the Mändokyabhāşya Hacker must have had in mind; there the question as to the prayojana of the teaching expounded in this Upanişad 15 answered by the following statement:\r\nrogartasyeva roganivettau svasthata / tatha duhkhatmakasydtmano, dvaita prapancopašame svasthata / advaitabhavah prayojanam dvaita prapancasydvidydkytatvad vidyaya tadupasamah sydd iti brak.\r\nmavidyaprakasandya asydrambhah kriyale. Since the problem from which S. starts here is the same as that di scussed by the Vivaranakära, one could, of course, take here, too, the view that s. is but resuming older ideas of his, but again it is by no means self-evident that other possibilities of accounting for this compa: rison, possibilities which suggest themselves most easily, can be excluded with any degree of certainty. On the contrary, one cannot but wonder if, before the publication of the Vivarana expressly attributing it to Sankara, Hacker himself or anybody working in the same field would have thought of suspecting these passages of showing an (external) influence.\r\n2.4. What remains to be followed up now is Hacker's suggestion of a certain similarity between the quadruple division of the Yoga Sāstra and the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha. Unfortunately, it is not quite clear whether what he had in mind was only a structural similarity or an historical connection: the manner in which he formu. lates his view, though probably with the aim of revealing yet another instance of Hinduism being indebted to Buddhism, does not by itself preclude the first interpretation. Be that as it may, in order to examine critically his standpoint it is advisable to summarize the results of our foregoing study of Yoga texts, and this is best done by a synoptical chart:\r\n29. Apart from the self-contradictory character of Hacker's respective remarks Icf. En. 16), I should like to stress the following: even if S did not regard the qua druple division as proper only to Yoga \u003e, the fact that it is not stated by him expressly to be the USG's divisionary scheme might be due to some other reason also; after all this is also not done in the YS. In any case, this possibility does not affect my argument.\r\n30. The term praparicopasama is met with also in Nagarjuna's Mülamadhyami. kakärikā, viz. 25.4.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/8\"\u003ePage #8\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n302\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n303\r\nduḥkhapracurah heyam =\r\nsamsāraḥ\r\ntasya hetuh =\r\navidyānimitto drastrdssyasamyogah\r\nvivekakhyātau satyam drastrdryasamyogoparamah tannivșttav atyantiko avidyānivșttih hānam =\r\nvivekakhyātir aviplavā hanopayah\r\n3. Vivarana\r\ncaturvyahatva of the Yogasastra according to the\r\n2. Yogabhăşya\r\nheyahetuh/samsārahetuh =\r\npradhanapuruşayoh samyogah\r\nduhkhabahulah heyam =\r\nsamsāraḥ\r\nhānam/mokṣaḥ = samyogasyatyantiki nivsttih\r\nHacker's remarks imply that the first vyúha, i.e. the first line of our chart, is taken by him to correspond to the first Noble Truth of the Buddha, i.e. that of dukha (P. dukkha); and this correspondence can in fact be hardly disputed. Yet, of the second and third truth he says that they are gathered into one; this cannot but mean that there is but one element in the quadruple division of the Cikitsa- and Yogasastras corresponding to the truths of duḥkhasamudaya (P. dukkhasamudaya) and dunkhanirodha (P. dukkhanirodha) taken together. Hacker does not specify to which of the remaining vahas these two are to correspond, and it is indeed quite difficult to reconstruct his argument. In any case, his assertion is far from being convincing. Therefore, it seems advisable to examine the question at issue once more, without reference to Hacker's view.\r\nWhat is meant by the concept rogahetu of the Cikitsasastra and by heyaletu, corresponding to it in Yoga, is clearly nothing bu constitutes the cause of the disease or the cause of that which has to be avoided. If dunkhasamudaya, on the other hand, is taken to denote a process, i.e. the rise of Suffering, one would have to take note of a striking conceptional difference, viz. that between cause and process as denoted by these terms respectively. But, can it simply be taken for granted that it is this and nothing else that is meant by the term dukha. samudaya ? Such an assumption is scarcely satisfactory, and not so much because the formation of the primary noun samudaya. would, at least according to Pån. 3.3.56 in connection with 3.3.18 and 19, allow among others of a meaning that from which or by which something arises, but because there are passages in canonical Buddhist texts which seem to show clearly that the term was in fact used to denote that by which the rising of duḥkha is caused; e.g. at Vbh 107 it is expressly stated: tanha ca avasesd ca kilesd ayam vuccati dukkhasamu. dayo; or, to give another example, at S III.158 the question katamo ca bhikkhave dukkhasamudayo is answered thus: ydyam tanha ponabbha. vika nandi ragasahagata tatra tatrabhinandini, seyyathidam kamatanha bhavataṇhd vibhavatanha ayam vuccati bhikkhave dukkhasamudayo.\r\nOne cannot, of course, be absolutely sure that these explanations are meant to be proper definitions of the term dukkhasamudaya; nor that they meet the original intention of the term; nor that the term was not elsewhere understood to denote a process. But it has, on the other hand,\r\nhanopāyaḥ/moksopāyah =\r\nsamyagdarśanam\r\n31. Later occurrences of the theory of the caturvyahatva are found c.g. in Madhava's Sarvadarsanasamgraha at the end of its exposition of the Patanjaladarsana. (ed. by T. G. Mainkar, Government Os, Class A, no. 1, Poona, 1978. p. 388), Vijana bhiksu's Samkhyapravacanabhasya at the end of the introduction as well as at the end of the first Adhyâya (ed. by R. Garbe, HOS, II, Cambridge, Mass. 1943, p. 5 and p. 74) and (except for the comparison with the science of medicine) in Nardyapatirtha's commentary, called Candrika, on the Samkhyakärikā (ed. by Dhundhiraja Sastri, Haridas SS, 132, Benarcs, 1941, P. 1, ed. by Bechanarama Tripathi, BSS, S, Benares, 1883, p. 2; cf. also TH. AUFRUCHT, Catalogi codicum manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodlianae, pars 7, codices sanscriticos complectens, Oxford, 1864, p. 237b (no. 5691).\r\n1. Yogasutra\r\nheyam =\r\nduhkham\r\nheyahetuh =\r\ndrastrdryayoh samyogah\r\nsamyogabhāvah.\r\nviz. kaivalyam hānam =\r\nhānopāyaḥ =\r\nvivekakhyātir aviplavā\r\ncaturvyuharva of the Cikitsasastra according to the YBhäşya and the Vivarana\r\n2. rogahetuh\r\n1. rogah\r\n31a. For a detailed and careful discussion of the grammatical and syntactical problems posed by the different versions in which the Four Noble Truths are stated in Buddhist texts cf. the recent article of K. R. NORMAN, The Four Noble Truths: A Problem of Pali Syntar, in Indological and Buddhist Studies, Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. by L.A. Hercus et al., Canberra, 1982, pp. 377-91. Norman does not, however, address himself to the se mantic problems involved. As for dukkhasamudaya, cf. L. SCHMITHAUSEN, On Some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of Liberating Insight and Enlightenment in Early Buddhism, in Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus, Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf, Wiesbaden, 1981, p. 203, fn. 14a.\r\n3. arogyam\r\n4. bhaisajyam\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/9\"\u003ePage #9\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n305\r\nto be admitted as another possibility that Buddhist monks themselves have taken it to mean the cause of Suffering, i.e. that which causes duḥkha to arise. And it is this possibility that alone matters in the present context; for, if understood thus, the second Noble Truth would indeed fully correspond to the second vydha.\r\nAs for duhkhanirodha, similar observations can be made. In view of its formation, the term could denote the process of suppressing or destroying, viz. that which causes Suffering; or else it could mean the\r\nis process is ultimately to lead to, viz. the final suppression or rather cessation of Suffering. Again, there are passages indicating that Buddhist authors themselves may well have taken the term to denote the result; c.g. at S III.158 it is defined as tanhaya asesaviraganirodho cago pafinissaggo multi andlayo, and explained at Nd 1.94 by nibbanam. There are two possibilities of interpreting the first of these two statements: either it is a definition proper; in this case, the implicit equation of dukkhanirodha with tanhanirodha (which is expressly given at A III.416) precludes the possibility of taking nirodha, to denote the result; or it is a quasi-definition, i.e. an inexact explanation where the substitution of the result by that which causes it, i.e. of dukkha by tanha, is quite understandable, and not only in terms of metonymy; in this latter case, it would have to be regarded as evidence warranting the assumption that the term dukkhanirodha has in fact been used to denote the result. Interpreted in this manner, and, to be sure, this interpretation is more probable, the third Noble Truth could be said to be quite similar to the third vyaha, i.e. drogya/hana . This assumption is further corroborated by the fact that the nirvana is compared also in the Abhidhar makosabhäsya to the state of drogya .\r\nHowever, the fact should not be lost sight of that the latter term virtually means the state of being again free of disease, ie. that the basic idea is in this case palpably different in that, in accordance with biological facts, a previous state of health is presupposed which is but regained. The Buddhist analysis of existence does not, of cours, know of an analogous previous state of freedom from Suffering: on the contrary, Suffering is recognized as the fundamental constituent element of existence. However, this conceptional difference does not really detract from the conclusion arrived at above, viz. that the third Noble Truth in fact corresponds to the third element in the quadruple division of the Cikitsasastra; for, what has been said with regard to the\r\nrelation in which the term duḥkhanirodha stands to the term arogya, holds good likewise for the comparison between the science of medicine and Yogasastra: for, also according to Yoga there is no such thing like a previous state free from duhkha, i.e. preceding samsára. There fore, one cannot but observe that already the correspondence between the four vyähas of the Cikitsasastra, on the one hand, and the four divisions of the Yogaśāstra, on the other, is conceptionally and terminologically not an absolutely complete one. Yet, at the same time one will recall the mediaeval proverb omne simile claudicat \" and, accordingly, refrain from overrating this element of discrepancy in either case, i.e. as regards the correspondence between the Cikitsasastra and the Yogasastra as well as that between this caturvyâhatva and the Four Noble Truths. In any case, one cannot subscribe to Hacker's including that last voiced by him, viz. that in accordance with the more positive outlook of Brahmanism a chapter is added on the final goal; for, though the concepts of hana, etc., on the one hand, and of duhkhanirodha, etc., on the other, are admittedly different in terms of philosophical content, one cannot fail to notice that the descriptions given in Yoga texts of the final goal, i.e. absolute independence (kaivalya), too, do not stand out by being particularly detailed. On the contrary, one is rather struck by the obvious reserve of Yoga authors in this regard\r\nThus one cannot but arrive at the conclusion that, since the third line of our chart might well correspond to the third Noble Truth, there is hardly any basis for Hacker's assumption that this vyäha forms a peculiar addition on the part of the Brahmanical Sastras, not to speak of the more positive outlook of Brahmanism it allegedly demonstrates. The Buddha, too, did not confine himself to analysing existence and to unveiling its basic character of being nothing but Suffering, but has at the same time claimed to have discovered a practical path to liberation.\r\nThe final question to be discussed in this connection is whether the last Noble Truth, i.e. that of the dunkhanirodhagamini pratipad (P. duk. khanirodhagamini pațipada), can also be compared to one of the four vyuhas. Though Hacker is silent on this question, it is, I think, by no means illegitimate to assume a correspondence between this dryasatya and the remaining Vyaha, i.e. bhaisajya or hanopdya.\r\nSystematically, they are in fact not different: common to all three of them is the status and function of a remedy. But there are also\r\n32. Note that hdna is explained by Yoga authors to consist in the non-existence (abhava) or in the coming-toan-end (nivsiti, uparama) of that which causes Suffering or in liberation (moksa).\r\n31. P. 202.8: I thank Dr. Ch. Lindtner for having drawn my attention to this passage. According to the Hobógirin p. 229. le Nirvana est deja compare a l'absence de maladie ... dans une stance gnomique du Madhyamagama... [MN 1.510.9-10). CF. also Pancaskandhaprakarapa, ed. by Ch. Lindtner, in AO, 40 (1979), p. 122, fn. 28, as well as the relcrences s.v. drogya in the CPD.\r\n34. At least not for the individual living beings.\r\n35. Cf. H. WALTHER, Lateinische Sprichwörter und Sentenzen des Mittelalters. Göttingen, 1963-69, Bd. II, 3. p. 590 (nr. 19877b).\r\n36. This reserve may be caused either by the Yoga conception of kaivalya itself (cf. the Vivaranakära's characterization of hdna as an avastu: see fn. 27) or to the well-known reluctance of mystics to give a detailed positive description of their experience(s), or to the lack of such experience(s) on the part of the authors con cerned, or, finally, to a combination of some of these reasons.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/10\"\u003ePage #10\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n306\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasasira\r\n307\r\ndifferences which cannot be ignored. Terminologically and conceptionally the fourth Noble Truth is distinguished by the fact that it explicitly states that the remedy is not something lying at hand, but that in order to reach the final goal of duḥkhanirodha, one has to take a specific route leading to it. Though the distance to be covered is, quite under standably, not specified, the image of a path forms a peculiar and central element of the Buddhist concept\". Of course, there cannot be the least doubt that it is precisely in this regard that the Yogic concept of e means of avoidance , is virtually identical with the fourth Noble Truth; for, the central purport of Yoga is to teach a practice by applying which one is gradually led to vivekakhyati that ultimately brings about the irreversible cessation of the connection between subject and object, i.e. kaivalya But it remains noteworthy that the character of being a process is not indicated by the corresponding term employed in Yoga texts or by the explanations given for it by the commentators \". Inspite of this difference, however, the correspondence between the fourth Noble Truth and the vyäha listed in the last line of our chart cannot but be styled as quite close.\r\nThe final result achieved by our comparison of the Four Noble Truths as a whole with the quadruple division of the two Brahmanical Sastras is, therefore, that the correspondence between them can be regarded as even strikingly close, if we make the assumptions noted above with regard to the explanation of Buddhist terms. It must not, however, be forgotten that it is but a systematic correspondence which has thus been discovered. The historical problems evidently involved have still to be taken up for consideration.\r\nRegarding their order of succession the Four Noble Truths per fectly agree with the four vydhas of the Cikitsasastra and those of the Yogasastra as enumerated in the YS and YBhasya In view of the above (p. 297 f.) discussion on the transposition of the last two members common to both, the Vivarana and the USG of Sankara, the Advaitin,\r\nand on the basis of the tentative explanations proposed for the transpo sition in either text, the conclusion that suggests itself is that the traditional order of succession of the Four Noble Truths, strictly observed, as far as I know, whenever all of them are enumerated in Buddhist texts, is like that of the four vyāhas of the Cikitsasastra a systematical one, i.e. reflecting logical stages of analysis, but not stages passed through successively in actual practice.\r\n3.1. A further problem, and to be sure, an important one, not discussed in the foregoing is posed by the comparison drawn in Yoga texts between the science of Yoga and the science of medicine. What I am referring to is the assertion met with first in the YBhäsva that systematically the Cikitsasastra is divided into four parts. This is stated in such a manner that one cannot but gather the impression that the division is a genuine one: it is hardly conceivable that the carurvyahatva of the Cikitsasastra as expounded in the YBhāşya and the Vivarana is simply a fabrication made for the sole purpose of establishing a parallel to the fourfold division of the Yogaśāstra as implied already by the Sätra itself. The whole tenor of the relevant passages has, on the contrary, to be taken to clearly indicate that the caturvyahatva of the science of medicine was regarded by the authors as an indisputable, if not even a well-known, fact they could draw upon, in accordance with the basic function of a drsanta, for the sake of illustration.\r\nBut, I think, one can go even a step further and make the assumption that this correspondence is not stated merely for the sake of illu. stration, but that much more is intended by it, viz. to bring the method of Yoga into close systematic proximity to the Cikitsasastra and to inti. mate thereby that it is not merely of equal importance, but that it surpasses the science of medicine in that it does not cure simply an accidental physical disease, but forms the allegedly) only remedy against the ailment every living being naturally suffers from, an ailment medicine is unable to cope with.\r\nThat this interpretation does not go too far is clearly corroborated by a well-known Sämkhya text, viz. Isvarakrsna's Samkhyakärikä where already at the very outset, i.e. in Kärikā 1, it is expressly stated that the perceptible means of removal of the threefold suffering have neither an absolutely sure nor a necessarily final effect (drste sapartha cen naikan. tatyantato'bhavar). And there can hardly be any doubt that the commen. taries, above all the Yuktidīpika \", do meet the intention of Isvarakrsna when referring here to the Ayurveda.\r\n3.2. Therefore, it is legitimate to check this assertion of Yoga authors and to ask the elementary question whether this quadruple division is attested in any of the extant medical texts. But before actually looking into any of these works it is necessary to realize a basic problem\r\n37. Note that the expression dukkhanirodhagaminl paripada is replaced by maggo in what Norman (cf. fn. 31a) calls the emnemonic \u003e sets. That this image is met with in the YBh also, viz. on YS 2.26 (p. 205, L. 3 of the edition of the Vivarapa). is most probably due to Buddhist influence (on which in general cf. L. DE LA VALLDE POUSSIN, loc. cit., fr. 22).\r\n38. In this connection cf., apart from passages already quoted, Vivarana e.g. p. 2.23 II. and p. 121, 1. 4 f.: ... kaivalyasya sadhanam samyagdarsanam / yogasddhadni ca yogadvarena samyagdarsanasadhandny eva / ...\r\n39. Cf. fn. 37.\r\n40. In the Samkhyapravacanabhasya (cf. fn. 31) the order of succession has been changed, viz. to roga (= heya), drogya (= hana), roganidana (heyahetu) and bhaisaiya (= hanopdya). This is, no doubt, equally a systematical order, only that the rationale is slightly different, viz.: first the contrary states are named and only thereafter, but with reference to them, the cause and the means, which again form a pair of corresponding entities. The term middna is also noteworthy in that it is used frequently in Buddhist texts, too, though first of all, to denote the cause of mctaphysical ailment.\r\n41. Cf. p. 12, 1. 9\r\n. in R. C. Pandeya's edition, Delhi, 1967.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/11\"\u003ePage #11\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n308\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n309\r\ndrogya, it is highly probable that what Buston has in mind is the same quadruple division as drawn upon in our Yoga texts.\r\nAfter consulting well-known works of secondary literature on Indian medicine where, however, the quadruple division is apparently not men tioned at all, I decided to turn for help to some of the specialists in this field of learning instead of setting out myself on possibly a wildgoose chase in the impenetrable jungle of the extant Ayurvedic texts (begging pardon for the all too mixed metaphor). It was my colleague R. E. Emmerick who drew my attention to Carakasamhita, sūtrasthāna 9.19, i.e. to the following verse:\r\ninvolved. Is the assumption at all justified that the division when attested in such texts forms at the same time the scheme on which the actual exposition of the argument of the texts concerned is based? In other words: Can we expect to find the quadruple division attested in an Ayurvedic text in such a manner that this text itself is explicitly or implicitly divided into exactly four systematic parts or chapters corre sponding to the four vyâhas? As to this, it seems expedient to proceed with caution; for, a first\r\ninst such an assumption is the observation, simple though it is, that, in any case in Yoga texts, the caturvyahatva is at best stated to be a divisionary scheme, but that it is nowhere actually made the basis of a corresponding disposition of the material: there is no Yoga text in which this systematic division is taken seriously in such a manner that the exposition actually follows this scheme. A second warning is given by another division of the science of medicine referred to in medical texts themselves, viz. the octopartite division of therapy. Yet, it is not these eight parts of Ayurveda as listed e.g. in the Sušruta. samhita I, 1, 7, or in the Astăngahşdaya I, 1, 5cd-6ab, that matter in the present context, but a fact stressed by J. Filliozat in the introduction to his recent edition of the Yogaśataka, a medical text attributed to Nägărjuna for, referring to an article of C. Vogel's he points out that dans le titre des Asiangasamhita et Asidigahrdayasamhita de Vägbhaga, astanga désigne la science médicale en général et parties de l'ouvrage\r\nWhat both these observations come to is that it would indeed be well to distinguish between a division of the science of medicine taught somewhere, on the one hand, and the actual internal organisation of medical texts, on the other. Therefore, one has to reckon with the possibility that all one finds in medical texts is simply a reference to the scheme, perhaps even in an offhand manner. The degree of probability that at least this kind of evidence can actually be found is, however, quite high, for the quadruple division is, according to C. Vogel, referred to by yet another witness, and, to be sure, an independant one, viz. Buston (1290-1364) who in his comprehensive History of Buddhism coming to speak of medical works, says : « As for the works on medicine, they teach four (topics): disease, cause of disease, medicament as antidote to disease, and method of curing thereby . Though the suc. cession of the last two members is, again, reversed and the Tibetan gso-ba'i spyod-lam does not fully correspond to the Sanskrit term\r\nhetau linge prasamane roganām apunarbhave/ jnanam caturvidham yasya sa rajarho bhişaktamah //.\r\nCakrapanidatta does not explain this verse, but there can hardly be any doubt that the fourfold knowledge » spoken of here is practically identical with our quadruple division of the Cikitsasastra; for the expression apunarbhava can be equated with our arogya, the only difference being that by the former health as something regained is para phrased as the not-occurring-again (of a disease) ; further, the term prasamana closely corresponds to our bhaisaiya, at least if taken to denote that by which (a disease) is tranquillized, i.e. cured ; and, finally, as regards the expression linga, here it cannot but meansymptom , and thus it corresponds to our roga, only that it is not the disease itself that is denoted, but its characteristic sign(s), and this is clearly done with the aim of bringing out into proper relief an essential virtue of any physician, viz. to make a proper diagnosis by the symptoms. Particularly noteworthy, however, is that it is not every physician who is expected to have this fourfold knowledge, but only a bhisaktama, an excellent physician, and that he is in addition stated to be fit or worthy of treating) a king .; for, this cannot but imply that the common variety of a bhişaj ordinary people have to depend on need not necessarily be equally well versed in all four parts of the science of medicine. Nevertheless, what is attested in this verse of the Carakasamphitā is clearly a systematic division of the Cikitsaśāstra into four parts and, to be sure, a division which may, inspite of certain terminological and conceptional differences, well be taken to be virtually identical with that referred to by the author of the YBhäsya, etc.; on the other hand, however, it has to be stressed that even if the verse\r\n42. Publications de l'Institut Français d'Indologie, no. 62, Pondichéry, 1979.\r\n43. Viz., On Buuston's View of the Eight Parts of Indian Medicine, in IIJ, VI (1962), pp. 290-95.\r\n44. Op. cit., p. IV. In Vogel's article (the reference should be «p. 291, n. 3, not. n. 2.), however, this is not expressly stated though perhaps implied.\r\n45. The reference is to his article mentioned in fn. 43. 46. Quoted from Vogel, loc. cit., p. 290.\r\n47. Viz, insofar as for obvious reasons the medical treatment itself is given prominence and not the aim it has to achieve.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/12\"\u003ePage #12\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n310\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\nforms an original part of the Carakasamhita \" the quadruple division is, strangely enough, given but an extremely marginal importance.\r\nTo an eventual second instance of the quadruple division being attested in a medical text my attention was drawn by K.G. Zysk's review of Filliozat's edition and translation of the Yogasataka, referred to above. Zysk critically examines Filliozat's rendering of verse 2 which runs thus:\r\npariksya helimayalaksanani cikitsitajena cikitsakena /\r\nnirdmadehasya hi bheșajani bhavanti yuktany amstopamdni 17: he not only proposes an, indeed, more appropriate translation for hetvamayalaksanani, viz.. the characteristics of the diseases and (their) causes (which should, however, perhaps be replaced by the cause[s] and the characteristics of diseases , but also points out that the Tibetan translator, apparently equally at a loss with the expression wirdmade hasya, renders the second line thus: The body becomes free from disease by the combination of medicines which resemble ambrosia Zysk rightly adds the remark that the Tibetan translation seems more acceptable, but in addition he refers approvingly to Filliozat's note «T, au 3e pada, a remplacé ama par nad, Amaya, et entend nirama \"sans dénutrition\" comme nirmaya \" sans maladie\". However, I am not sure that this assumption is justified; for according to Monier Williams Indian lexicographers list an amal, sickness, disease which is referred to also by Edgerton. On the other hand one wonders how the Tibetan translator thought that the line construes and whether his interpretation is at all possible.\r\nYet I do not want to enter on my part into a detailed discussion of the philological problems involved here; instead, I should like to confine myself to referring to the Tibetan translation; for, it is there that we find the four systematic parts of the science of medicine reflected, to wit, in a manner that reminds us of the verse quoted above from Caraka.\r\nBoth these references to the quadruple division - and, of course, first of all the more unequivocal one of the Carakasamhita - are no\r\nmore than bare references, and the result of our examination of Ayur. vedic texts is accordingly rather disappointing, for in them the qua. druple division is not given the fundamental importance peculiar to it in Yoga texts. One is, therefore, left with two alternatives, viz. either that it was these Yoga thinkers who realized division, or that what these Yoga thinkers refer to is but a later develop ment in Indian medicine. However, this much is clear beyond doubt: the fourfold scheme as such, even if not also applied in writing medical works, did actually exist.\r\nThis conclusion is additionally corroborated by a clearly inde pendent witness not called into evidence so far. What I am referring to is an hitherto unpublished passage in the frutamayt bhami of the Yoga carabhami which was pointed out and given to me by my friend L. Schmithausen . It runs thus: cikitsa katamd/ sd caturakara vedi. tavya / tadyatha abadhakausalyam abadhasamurthanakausalyam uifpan. nasydbadhar....sya prahanakausalyam prahinasydbadha[ ... ]sydyat yām anupadakausalyam / esam ca kausalyanām vibhango yarhasátram eva veditavyah // . Which of many things (or: Of what kinds) is medical trentment? It has to be regarded as having four forms, viz. skill (in diagnosing) the disease, skill (in determining) the origination (i.e. cause) of the disease, skill (in applying) the means of getting rid of the disease which has arisen (and finally) skill (in ensuring] that (the disease] which one has got rid of does not arise again in future. Moreover, as for the detailed explanation of these (medical] skills, it is not given here, but) has to be known precisely according to what has been taught) in the [respective] Sūtras ».\r\nThough the terminology is palpably different, there can hardly be any doubt that the quadruple division taught is practically identical with that referred to in Caraka, and thus, ultimately, also with that drawn upon in our Yoga texts, the four kausalyas corresponding to roga, rogahetu, bhaisajya and arogya, respectivelyThe last sentence of the passage quoted is of particular importance; for it cannot but be taken as evidence for the fact that this division was expounded already\r\n48. Apart from the fact that this verse is not commented upon by Cakrappi datta (a fact which by itself is, of course, by no means conclusive), what creates suspicion is that the verse does not really fit into the context so that it might well have been added later since in the immediately preceding verse a special designation, viz. pradbhisára, is taught for a bhisaj who possesses certain (other) qualifications.\r\n549. The fourfold physicians. (caturvidha vaidydli) mentioned in Mbh (Poona ed) 12.69.57 are most probably to be taken in accordance with Nilakantha's expla. nation (visasalyaroga krydhard)) as reference to four different types of medical specialists. Cf. also R. P. DAS' review of G.N. THITE, Medicine. Is Magico-Religious Aspects according to the Vedic and Later Literature, in II, 27 (1981). p. 235 1.\r\n50. In IIJ, 23 (1981), pp. 309-13. 51. A Sanskrit.English Dictionary, p. 146. 52. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Dictionary s.v. 2 dina.\r\n53. In this latter case one would have to assume that it was not given due at: tention in later medical texts because the tradition of how a medical treatise should be dispositionally structured had become fixed to such an extent that alterations were not possible (any more).\r\n54. On this occasion I should also like to acknowledge with sincere gratitude the vivid interest he showed in the present study in general and its part 4 in parti. cular, for much of the material referred to there I owe his pigeon-hole.\r\n55. The passage is found in the Patna MS of the Sravakabhami at 2 B 6-2 ( = 96 a 2 of the Patna MS of the Yogăcarabhumi]. The former adds vi at the very beginning, which, however, seems to have been deleted, and the latter reads drastavyd in the place of veditavyd and 'anu[...]pdda'. By square brackets deleted aksaras are indicated.\r\n56. Particularly close is obviously the similarity with the Carakasamhits (cf. the term apurarbhava in the latter): see below p. 323.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/13\"\u003ePage #13\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n312\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOit the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n313\r\nin a Sutra, to be sure a Buddhist Sūtra. In view of the probable date of the Yogācārabhūmi, this Satra, according to Schmithausen, can hardly belong to a period after the beginning of the 4th century, but is probably carlier.\r\nIn the light of this additional evidence the following observations and assumptions can be made:\r\na) that the science of medicine or medical treatment can be syste\r\nmatically divided into four parts was common knowledge of\r\neducated people, or at least it was widespread; b) this knowledge is attested obviously independently in Brahma.\r\nnical as well as Buddhist 57 sources the most ancient of which\r\ndate back to the first half of the 1st millennium; c) it seems natural to assume that the division was first conceived\r\nby a medical author and only later referred to and utilized by others, i.e. applied to other Sastras also which, though signifi. cantly different, nevertheless exhibited a specific similarity with\r\nthe science of medicine. 4. In what follows, Buddhism again may serve as a cue for focus. sing attention on still another problem raised by the theory of the quadruple division of the Cikitsasastra, a problem which is perhaps even more important than all those discussed so far in the course of the present study. What I have in view is the assertion found in not a few works on or expositions of (early) Buddhism, viz. that this fourfold division of medicine it was that inspired the Buddha to his\r\nFour Noble Truths. Thus c.g. E. Frauwallner simply states as though it were a fact established beyond any doubt, and without giving any reference, that the fourfold division of the truth discovered [by the Buddha)... is borrowed from the medical method, Equally apodictic is H. Zimmer who in his « Philosophies of India » \"remarks: Following the procedure of the physician of his day inspecting a patient, the Buddha makes four statements concerning the case of man. These are the so. called \"Four Noble Truths\" which constitute the heart and kernel of his doctrine.\r\nThat this opinion has become a commonplace with many a Buddho logist can also be seen in A. Bareau's monograph where it is said: «The Four Noble Truths are, as regards their classification, obviously taken from the dialectics of an old Indian medical school. Starting from the disease one is led to its origin, from this to its suppression, i.e. the restoration of health, and finally to the medicine which brings it about or, to give just one more example: D. Schlingloff, too, is thoroughly convinced that just as in the Old Indian medicine the theory of disease, of the origin of disease, of the suppression of disease and of the way's leading to the suppression of disease was developed, here (i.c. in the Four Noble Truths). Suffering, its origin, its suppression and the way leading to its suppression are spoken of.\r\nOther scholars, however, are a bit more cautious in that they confine themselves to merely pointing out the close similarity between the Four Noble Truths and the corresponding division in medicine.\r\nThus E. Conze states in his . Buddhism. Its Essence and Develop ment : The holy doctrine is primarily a medicine. The Buddha is like a physician. Just as a doctor must know the diagnosis of the dif. ferent kinds of illness, must know their causes, the antidotes and remedies, and must be able to apply them, so also the Buddha has taught the Four Holy Truths, which indicate the range of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way which leads to its cessation. A si statement is found in K. Mizuno's book, viz.: The Four Noble Truths were taught on the basis of a principle of healing spiritual suffering and misery that is similar to the principles that doctors follow in curing illness of the body ».\r\nYet it is with the first kind of statements that I am concerned here. It is, I think, not necessary to try to collect more such examples from secondary sources on Buddhism; and it would be rather futile to rack one's brains about the question who copied whom in this case. Instead, it should be stated in summing up that it is evidently a widespread conviction of scholars of Buddhism that it was this systematic division of the science of medicine that served as a model for the conception of\r\n57. Of the two other Buddhist authors referred to in the foregoing, viz. Bu-ston and Nagarjuna, at Icast the former might have derived his knowledge from the lost Sūtra and not directly from a medical text. In any case, there is no clear evidence in favour of the assumption that the Buddhist sources depend on the Brahmanical or vice versa as regards the quadruple division of medicine.\r\n58. Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, Bd. I. Salzburg, 1953, p. 184 = History of Indian Philosophy, tr. by V. M. BEDEKAR, vol. I, Delhi, 1973, p. 146.\r\n59. New York, 1951, p. 467; the German translation, Zürich, 1961 (= Frankfurt, 1973, Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft 26), p. 417 f. Cf. also H. ZIMMER, Indische Sphären, Zürich-Stuttgart, 1963, pp. 219 and 221.\r\n60. Der indische Buddhismus, in: Die Religionen Indiens III (Die Religionen der Menschheit Bd. 13), Stuttgart, 1964, p. 33.\r\n61. If the unknown French original of the German . augenscheinlich (which I render by obviously) is used to indicate that there obtains here, to some degree at least, an incertitude (the German expression does indicate this), Bareau's position would have to be classified with the more guarded ones quoted below.\r\n62. Die Religion des Buddhismus I. Der Heilsweg des Mönchstums (Sammlung Göschen Bd. 174), Berlin, 1962, p. 70. H.J. GRESCHAT, Die Religion der Buddhistent (Uni-Taschenbücher 1049), München, Basel, 1980, p. 66. expresses himself in such a vague manner that it is not possible to decide if he is to be classed with the fore. going group of scholars or with the subsequent one.\r\n63. Oxford, 1951, p. 17. In the German translation (Urban-Bücher 5), Stuttgart, 1956, the corresponding passage is found on p. 14.\r\n64. The Beginnings of Buddhism..., transl. by RICHARD L. GAGE, Tokyo, 1980, p. 43.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/14\"\u003ePage #14\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n314\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n315\r\n.\r\nthe Four Noble Truths. One may find it surprising or even significant that none of the specialists quoted until now thought it, if not necessary then at least, desirable to adduce the reasons, too, that could convince their readers that what they have to do with is not an arbitrary and fanciful assumption, but a well-founded hypothesis. Yet, it is by no means a peculiar feature of Indology that an allegedly true and certain piece of knowledge is handed down from generation to generation, not because of a general lack of the critical faculty, but simply because nobody happened to take a second look at it, and in the present case it is but fair to admit that the assumption is in fact suggestive to such an extent that one is easily lulled into a sense of absolute security. Nevertheless, it bears renewed discussion.\r\n4.1. The first question to be asked, then, is this: Who was the first scholar to make this assumption and what gave him this idea? By a note of Oldenberg's one is referred to the original source, viz. H. Kern's\r\nGeschicdenis van het Buddhisme in India, that was translated into German by H. Jacobi in 1882. It is there that for the first time in a foot-note it is apodictically stated that the Four Truths are borrowed from the art of healing \". In the text itself of Kern's book a statement to the same effect is found at p. 367 (=469 in the German translation), and surprisingly enough followed by a reference to the YBhäşya on YS 2.15 from which the relevant passage is quoted in translation. Though it is not expressly stated one cannot but draw the conclusion that it was precisely this passage that gave Kern the idea of the Four Noble Truths having been borrowed from the art of healing. This conclusion is in fact corroborated by Kern's Manual of Indian Buddhism where it is sald: It is not difficult to see that these four Satyas are nothing else but the four cardinal articles of Indian medical science, applied to the spiritual healing of mankind, exactly as in the Yoga doctrine in a footnote a portion of the text of the YBh on YS 2.15 is given), and two passages from the Lalitavistara are quoted to vindicate the assertion that this connection of the Aryasatyas with medical science was apparently not unknown to the Buddhists themselves . The Lalitavistara,\r\nhowever, is of so late a date that it could not by any means be regarded as evidence for the fact that the quadruple division of the science of medicine antedates the historical Buddha or was even developed in his youth. Yet in reality the division as such is not mentioned at all, nay not even alluded to in this text; what is said in the two passages pointed out by Kern is merely that the Buddha is a vaidyaraja in that he is a pranocakaḥ sarvaduḥkhebhyah or a sarvavyddhipramocakah: that is to say, he is but compared to a physician.\r\n4.2. But before continuing the critical discussion of Kern's remarks, and the arguments brought forward by others, it is advisable to reflect on the implications the assumption examined here cannot but have. This might seem superfluous, but is nevertheless necessary since nowhere in the relevant secondary literature do I find them explicitly stated so that one cannot help suspecting that they were not clearly realized by Kern and those depending on him directly or indirectly. These implica tions are, of course, that the science of medicine was either already before the Buddha or at least in his times divided in this manner and that the Buddha knew this systematic division.\r\nOur knowledge of the historical person called the Buddha does not permit us to answer the question whether at all or to what extent he was familiar with the contemporary science of medicine. Therefore it is not possible to check whether the second condition can be regarded as fulfilled. As for the first and basic implication, one would have to look for pre-Buddhist medical literature. As even the most ancient of the so-called Ayurvedic texts are of later origin, it could only be one of the Vedic texts where one could strike on a relevant statement. Nobody, however, has so far come up with any such reference. This holds good for the other possibility also, viz. that the quadruple division be attested in a non-medical text of pre-Buddhist origin. Therefore, it has to be stressed that all we actually have are at best references in\r\n65. Viz. in his: Buddha, Sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde, 1923, p. 236. It should be noted that J. Filliozat in the article mentioned in fn. 99 below arrives at the same conclusion.\r\n66. Haarlem, 1882 (Eerste deel), 1884 (Tweede deel).\r\n67. Der Buddhismus und seine Geschichte in Indien. Eine Darstellung der Lehren und Geschichte der buddhistischen Kirche, 2 Bde., Leipzig, 1882-84.\r\n68. Viz. fn. 4 on p. 207 of the first part (corresponding to p. 265 in the German translation).\r\n69. (Grundriss d. Indo-Arischen Philologle u. Altertumskunde III.8) Strassburg, 1896; the quotation is from p. 46 f.\r\n70. The expression applied to. and the reference to the YBhasya preclude, I think, the possibility of taking Kern's remarks as meant to point out a systematic similarity only.\r\n71. Viz, Lal. V. p. 448: utpanno vaidyarajah pramocakali sarvadukkhebhyah, pra risthapako nirvanasukhe, risannas Tathagaragarbhe Tathagatamahadharmardasane, and p. 458: cirdure jivaloke klesavyddhiprapidite / vaidyardt tvam samutpannah sarvavyddhi pramocakah //.\r\n72. Laudable exceptions to the rule, however, are H. Oldenberg and J. Filliozat. Oldenberg (in the foot-note referred to above in fn. 65) clearly dissociates himself from Kern's opinion with the remark that it will not be possible to ascertain whether, as regards the fourfold division, Buddhism is the borrowing side a re. mark which does not simply show scepticism, but is most probably due to O.'s being well aware of the fact that there is no pre-Buddhist medical text to attest the division; Filliozat in his article (cf. below fn. 99) says more clearly: . Il eut fallu prouver que cette médecine les [= les quatre vérités] possédait avant le Boud. dhisme; Kern ne l'a point fait\r\n73. From the description of Indian medical literature as given e... by J. Jolly in Medicin, Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie u. Altertumskunde III.10, Strass. burg. 1901) it follows that we have no medical texts of the intervening period [between the Vedic literature and the texts of Caraka and Susruta) as stated by A. L. Basham (The Wonder that was India, London, 1954, p. 499).\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/15\"\u003ePage #15\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n316\r\nA. Wezler\r\npost-Buddhist Indian literature. To say that the references discussed in the preceding part of this article, including the YBhasya, so important to Kern, do furnish the evidence needed, would be nothing but an arbitrary assertion, merely meant to warrant an assumption that cannot be supported otherwise.\r\n4.3. But what about the evidence found in Buddhist texts themselves? As regards the Lalitavistara passages, all that can be learned from them is that the Buddha was compared to a physician by his adherents. And this can hardly be regarded as a new and important piece of information. For, firstly, the idea that God\" or a particular god or the propounder of a doctrine of salvation helps men by healing physical and/or spiritual ailments is so widely spread that there is nothing strange in that such a comparison may have been drawn by Buddhist authors, too, without their possessing any tradition that the Buddha himself had actually learnt from medicine, and shrewdly applied its division to his own teaching; and, secondly, it is already in much earlier Buddhist texts that the Buddha is characterized or sometimes even made to say of himself that he is an anuttaro bhisakko sallakatto, an unsurpassed physician, (the best) surgeon\". This comparison (echoed as it were in statements like those of Conze and Mizuno quoted above) is not only met with rather frequently already in early canonical texts, but has obviously also proved a quite fruitful idea, variously developed in later times, as was shown recently by R. Birnbaum\" who aptly remarks\" that the Buddha frequently made analogies to disease and healing to explain various facets of his teaching». Nevertheless, one cannot but observe that in the passages inspected or referred to until now the Four Noble Truths are not mentioned at all, not to speak of explicitly paralleling them with corresponding systematic parts of the science of medicine. And, to be sure, passages like Mil 247.11 where a\r\n«\r\n74. Cf. also the recent study of G. BUDDRUSS, Khowar-Texte in arabischer Schrift (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz), Wiesbaden, 1982, p. 12. For an interesting comparison between God the Lord and a physician in the context of a theodicy-like discussion see BIASARVAJRA's Nydyabhusana, p. 458.16 ff. As noted. by W. Halbfass (Studies in Kumarila and Sankara, Reinbek, 1983, p. 15, cf. also fn. 81), the samsåramocaka [too] presents himself as a benevolent physician in the wider context of samsåra, and reference is made to the expertise of the good doctor who knows that sometimes he has to apply harsh means to bring about a change for the better. God is called a medicament (ausadha) by Madhva in his Bhasya on Taitt. Up. 2.2.\r\n75. It 101.15-16; cf. (without bhisakko) Sn 560 and (sallakatto only) Sn 562. The first of these passages is referred to Mil. 215.11; as for the well-known parable of the man wounded by an arrow cf. M 1.429 as well as M II.216, Mil 169.9 ff., 247.10 ff.; for a kusalo bhisakko in a simile ef. A III.238.5 f., Mil 229.5 ff.; bhisakko is called an adhivacana of the Buddha A IV.340.5 ff.; the Buddha is compared to a kusalo vejjo Pj 1.21.19 f.\r\n76. The Healing Buddha, Boulder (Co.), 1979.\r\n77. Viz. on p. 15; cf. also the subsequent sections.\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasästra\r\n«\r\nphysician (bhisakka) is characterized as roguppattikusala, well-acquainted with competent in discovering the origin of disease, is by no means conclusive.\"\r\nBut what about the passage in Buddhaghosa's Vism 512.7-9 referred to by Birnbaum\" which runs thus: rogo viya ca dukkhasaccam, roganidanam iva samudayasaccam, rogavüpasamo viya nirodhasaccam, bhesajjam iva maggasaccam? It is true, the Four Noble Truths are here clearly compared to corresponding parts of medical science; but, on the other hand, one must not forget that the famous commentator is sepa rated approximately by a millenium from the Buddha himself and one cannot overlook that this is but one in a series of different analogies given by Buddhaghosa without (explicit) reference to canonical texts and that it does not at all imply that the Truths were borrowed from the medical method.\r\n317\r\nThere is, however, a further reference by Oldenberg which has still to be followed up, viz. that to an article of L. de la Vallée Poussin \" who after having quoted the relevant lines from Kern's Manual of Indian Buddhism draws on his part attention to some more material, viz. two passages in the Bodhicaryavatāra and an explanation found in Yasomitra's Abhidharmakośavyäkhyä. Among these quotations the two former ones are but reformulations of ideas attested already in canonical Päli texts in the context of the comparisons mentioned above (p. 316). What the author is concerned with is to lay stress (1) on the extreme foolishness of him who though suffering from a disease refuses the help of a person capable of healing it and (2) the (correct) observation that there is no physician but cures disease with some pain in the treatment\". The latter reference, however, is indeed of such a kind\r\n78. Viz. in fn. 37 on p. 22.\r\n79. JRAS, 1903, pp. 578-80. The two passages quoted from the Bodhicaryavatara\r\nare II.55 ff.:\r\nitvaravyddhibhito 'pi vaidyaväkyam na langhayet /\r\ntatra sarvajñavaidyasya sarvasalydpaharinah / väkyam ullanghayamiti dhig mam atyantamohitam //. and VIII.22 ff.:\r\nsarve 'pi vaidydḥ kurvanti kriydduḥkhair arogatām / tasmad bahuni duḥkhäni hantum sodhavyam alpakam // kriyam imam apy ucitām varavaidyo na dattavan / madhurenopacarena cikitsati mahaturan //\r\nadau säkädidäne 'pi niyojayati nayakaḥ /\r\ntat karoti kramåt pascad yat svamämsäny api tyajet //\r\n80. Practically all of them are quoted also above, p. 315 and fn. 71.\r\n80a. The same idea is also met with e.g. in Samadhirajasūtra 9.43-46.\r\n81. This is de la Vallée Poussin's rendering of the first line of his second quo tation from the Bodhicaryavatara (cf. above fn. 79), the gist of which, however, is that the Buddha differs from a physician precisely in this respect. The idea expressed in the first line was appealed to also by the so-called Samsaramocakas; cf. fn. 74 above.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/16\"\u003ePage #16\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n318\r\nA. Wezler\r\nthat it fully warrants Oldenberg's remark that it compares quite expressly the four truths to the quadruple medical teaching of disease, its origin, its healing [and] the prevention of its resurgence». For what Yasomitra says is:\r\nvyādhim dṛṣṭveti. vyadhir duḥkha-satyasyopamānam, tannidänam samudaya-satyasya. tat-kşayo nirodha-satyasya. tadbhesajam margasatyasyopamanam H. sütre 'py eşa satyanam drstämta iti. Vyadhyadi. sütre, katham. caturbhir amgaiḥ samanvägato bhişak salyapahartă rajarhaś ca bhavati raja-yogyaś ca rajangatve ca samkhyam gac chati\", katamais caturbhiḥ, abadha-kušalo bhavati, abadha-samutthana-kusalaḥ. abadha-prahana-kušalaḥ. prahinasya cabädhasyaya. tyam anutpada-kušalaḥ, evam eva caturbhir amgaiḥ samanvägatas Tathagato 'rhan samyak-sambuddho 'nuttaro bhisak\" salyapahariety ucyate. katamais caturbhiḥ. iha bhikṣavas Tathagato 'rhan samyaksambuddha idam duḥkham arya-satyam iti yathabhatam prajānāti. ayam duḥkha-samudayah. ayam duḥkha-nirodhaḥ, iyam duḥkhanirodha-gamini pratipad arya-satyam iti yathabhutam prajānātīti.\r\nAs stated by de la Vallée Poussin\" the Sütra referred to by Vasu bandhu and quoted by Yasomitra is d'après la version de Hiuan-Tsang,\r\n82. Loc. cit., cf. fn. 65.\r\n83. I quote from Sphutärtha Abhidharmakosavyäkhyä by Yasomitra, ed. by U. Wogihara, Tokyo, 1971, p. 514 f.; see, however, fn. 85. Mr. Yoshifumi Honjo whom I met at the XXXI CISHAAN in Japan kindly drew my attention to the fact that a more complete quotation from that very Satra is found in Samathadeva's Abhidharmakosapayika, viz. Peking Tanjur, Thu 32 b 6 ff.\r\n84. From sütre 'py esa onwards this passage is also quoted by DE LA VALLÉE POUSSIN, in note 4 on p. 121, of his translation, L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu traduit et annoté..., cinquième et sixième chapitres, Paris, 1925, the final part, however, being abbreviated, viz. iha bhiksavas tathdgato... idam duḥkham dryasatyam iti yathabhatan prajānāti...\r\n85. In his article (cf. fn. 79) de la Vallée Poussin reads vyddhisütre; the reading as given by Wogihara is, however, also found in the footnote in de la Vallée Poussin's translation of the Abhidharmakosa, and has to be accepted as correct; interpret: in the Sütra (dealing with) disease [cause of disease], etc. ».\r\n86. The MS has here (and infra) kalpäpah'; the emendation, proposed also by de la Vallée Poussin in his article and accounted for by the remark I suppose that the old Nepalese ligature has been misunderstood by a modern copyist, is most convincing, not only because of the Tibetan equivalent, viz. zug-rňu 'byin-pa, but also and above all in view of the Päli parallels (see above p. 316 and fn. 75). 87. The following sentences up till dbddha-prahana-kusalah are in Wogihara's edition printed in italics and thus characterized as a quotation. This cannot but be a mistake, for evidently the quotation from the Vyadhyadisütra», the beginning of which is found already in the Kosa itself, extends as far as yathabhutam prajänätiti, the iti indicating its completion, because the reference in the Koda is introduced by the remark sütre 'py esa eva satyanam drstanto darsitals this very analogy of the [Four Noble] Truths is shown also in a Sûtra».\r\n88. In his article de la Vallée Poussin reads anuttarabhisak.\r\n89. Viz. in the foot-note to his translation of the Abhidharmakosa referred to in fn. 84.\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\nle Sütra du bon médecin; d'après Paramartha, le Sütra de la comparaison du médecin (Samyukta 15.19; 17.14). Unfortunately, de la Vallée Poussin does not give any further explanation on the identity of the « Sûtra du bon médecin ». His second reference, however, can be traced, namely with the help of the Hôbôgirin\" where the relevant passage from the Samyuktagama as preserved in Chinese translation is rendered into French. It clearly shows a close similarity to the quotation by Yasomitra, but does not, on the other hand, seem to agree fully with it\". On closer examination, however, it becomes evident that what Demié ville or one of his collaborators actually did was to give but a free paraphrase of the Chinese translation, intermingling later portions of the detailed explanation (vibhanga) with earlier parts of the Sütra. When the Chinese translation itself (T 99, no. 389) is compared with the Sanskrit text quoted by Yasomitra, one cannot but arrive at the conclusion that it is precisely this Sanskrit text that was translated by Guna. bhadra, i.e. that what Yasomitra quotes is in fact nothing else but this Sūtra of the Samyuktagama. The Chinese translator, however, seems to have read rajabhogyaś instead of rajayogyas and the Chinese text obviously contains a corruption, not recognized by Demiéville: the character standing between that denoting King and that equivalent\r\n319\r\n90. I do not know which edition is referred to by de la Vallée Poussin; by the former reference, however, T 99, no. 344, might be meant and by the latter T 99, no. 389. In the latter passage three ailments are referred to, viz. kama, bhava. and avidya (roga, or a similar expression) (evidently under the influence of the three dsravas); however, it is not a comparison that is drawn here between the Four Noble Truths and medicine, but the concept of ailment is only used metaphorically in a context modelled after the Truths.\r\n91. Viz. s.v. byd, p. 224 ff.\r\n92. For according to Demiéville (loc. cit., p. 228) it runs thus: On appelle un grand roi des médecins celui qui réalise les quatre Essences suivantes: (1) Bien connaître la maladie, i.e. les différentes sortes de maladies...; (2) bien connaître l'origine de la maladie: due au Vent, ou au Flegme..., ou aux sécrétions salivaires.... aux différentes espèces de froid, à un fait actuel, à la saison...; (3) bien connaitre le Contrecarrant de la maladie: onguents, expectorants ou vomitifs..., évacuations infé rieures (purgatifs), instillations nasales..., fumigations.... sudorifiques...; (4) bien savoir traiter la maladie de telle façon qu'ayant été traitée il n'y ait aucun danger de récidive... de même. le Tg--Arhat-S s buddha, ce grand roi de médecins, réalise quatre vertus grâce auxquelles il soigne les maladies des Etres; en effet, il connalt les quatre Saintes Vérités: (1) de la Douleur...; (2) de la Formation de la Douleur....: (3) du Barrage de la Douleur...; (4) du Chemin de ce Barrage... Le médecin Mondain ne connait pas vraiment, tels qu'ils sont..., les Contrecarrant radicaux (fondamen taux), à savoir le Contrecarrant radical de la Naissance..., et celui de la Vieillesse, de la Maladie. de la Mort, du chagrin, des plaintes, des douleurs, des Tribulations...... The differences, marked here by italicizing the corresponding elements in the translations, are, on the other hand, of such a kind that (except perhaps for the final portion which may simply have been left out of his quotation by Yasomitra) they can easily be accounted for by the assumption that they represent but later additions of an explanatory character to a text which may well have been identical with that attested in the Abhidharmakośavyäkhya. See, however, also below p. 320. 92a. Viz. 436-443 A.D. according to E. LAMOTTE, Histoire du Bouddhisme Indien, Louvain, 1958, p. 169.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/17\"\u003ePage #17\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n320\r\nA. Wexler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n321\r\nto \"arha, viz. , seems rather to be an error for z; if the latter is accepted, there is full agreement between the Sanskrit original and the Chinese translation also as regards the expression rajarha! The compa. rison further shows that the vibhanga portion of the original Sotra, which preceded the sentence beginning with evam eva caturbhir antgaih, was simply left out by Yašomitra, and it was left out in the Yogacara. bhūmi (s. above p. 311) as well, where the reader is, however, referred to the original source precisely as regards this detailed explanation !\r\nBut there is a very similar passage in a second, probably older, yet rather inaccurate translation of the Samyuktāgama, viz. T 100, no. 254, where also the vibhanga is missing. Therefore, one cannot be sure which of the two « versions of the SA are actually referred to by the Yogacarabhūmi and Vasubandhu or quoted by Yasomitra, respectively. In any case, the passage as a whole is missing in the Pali SN, and there is hence a high degree of probality that it forms but a later addition; for it is quite impossible to discover a motive for a transmitter dropping it. Yet, whatever the exact historical relation may be in which the different sources stand to each other, this much has to be accepted as established: Hinayānistic Buddhist texts knew of a quadruple division of the science of medicine and compared the teaching of the Four Noble Truths to it.\r\nThe most important source is, of course, the Vyädhisätra passage as quoted in the Abhidharmakosavyakhya: it is preserved in Sanskrit and it is here that the Four Noble Truths are expressly compared to the corresponding systematic parts of the science of medicine. The parallel drawn is, however, not completely convincing, as already noted by de la Vallée Poussin who adds the remark: You will observe that, according to this sätra, the third satya is the way (märga, upaya) to the destruction of the disease, and the fourth the way to its not. appearing again (a.punarbhava). The scholastic point of view, so far as I know, is different ».\r\nOne might feel some reluctance to follow de la Vallée Poussin as regards his interpretation of the expression prahinasydbadhasyayatyam anul padakusalal; for it is highly improbable that it refers to a way! However, the impression one cannot but gather is that there is no full correspondence between the last two medical skills and the last two of the Four Noble Truths. And this becomes particularly evident in the case of the fourth Noble Truth \u003e which is clearly different from what is meant by prahinasydbddhasydyaryam anupadakusalah. One further wonders whether de la Vallée Poussin's adding the term apunarbhava by way of explanation is merely due to a free association or else evoked by a particular passage in an Indian medical text. For, it is exactly the term which is used in the verse from the Carakasamhita drawn upon\r\nabove ($ 3.2.). In any case, the fourth systematic part of the science of medicine as taught in the Vyadhisätra, conceptionally agrees what is called roganam apunarbhavah in Caraka, and hence with drogya. In passing it may be noted that the slight unevenness the comparison in the Vyadhisätra thus shows was apparently felt among others (cf. Hobôgirin p. 2304) by Aśvaghoșa also; for verse 41 of Canto XVI of his Saundarananda reads as though it were a deliberate improvement on it, viz.\r\ntad vyddhisamjham kuru dunkhasatye doseșy api vyddhinidanasamnam / drogyasamjnam ca nirodhasatye bhaisajyasamjham api margasatye //*.\r\nBut there are more peculiarities to be observed in the passage quoted by Yasomitra. It should be emphasized that Yasomitra, or rather, to be sure, already Vasubandhu, speaks of a drsanta only. That is to\r\nn between a physician and the Tathagata as pointed out in the Sätra to be but a comparison meant to exemplify the particular and extraordinary qualities of the Buddha as one healing not a physical illness, but the ailment of existence itself. Evidently they did not know of any tradition - nor did it occur to them independently - that it was this quadruple division of medicine that inspired the Buddhal In fact, this it is what all relevant passages in Buddhist texts amount to the Buddha is merely compared to a physician or the doctrine to a medicine, etc.nowhere can be found any traces of an awareness that the Buddha in conceiving the Four Noble Truths could have drawn on a similar systematic division of the Cikitsasastra! Of course, one might object here that it is hardly to be expected that a Buddhist monk even if he were fully aware of it, should have overtly admitted that the kernel of the Buddha's teaching is but an adaptation of principles of medical science. Nevertheless, it is worth taking note of that for the Buddhist tradition itself this similarity was obviously never anything more than a comparison. On the other hand I cannot but add the following remark here: the fact that the equation of the Four Noble Truths with the four parts of medical science is in fact attested in Buddhist literature, though with varying degrees of agreement in conception and terminology, fully corroborates what has been said above (p. 303) in my critical discussion of Hacker's view on the relation between the caturvyahatva and the Four Noble Truths: Hacker's view does not only not stand an independent critical test, but\r\n93a. Full parallelism can be observed also in Ratnagotravibhāga, 4.52: this kd. rika is translated by J. TAKASAKI, A Study on the Ratnagotravibhaga (Uttaratantra). Being a Treatise on the Tathagatagarbha Theory of Mahayana Buddhism (SOR. vol. XXXIII), Rome, 1966, p. 367, as follows: Illness is to be cognized, its cause removed, Health should be attained, and a remedy used; Like that, Suffering, its Cause, Extinction and the Path, are to be cognized, removed, touched and observet.\r\n93. De la Vallée Poussin's short article (cf. fn. 79) has actually the form of a letter addressed to Professor Rhys Davids.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/18\"\u003ePage #18\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n322\r\nA. Wezler\r\nit also stands clearly in contradiction to unequivocal passages in Buddhist texts themselves!\r\nThere is, however, still another striking feature in the Vyadhisūtra passage one should not silently pass over as done by de la Vallée Poussin. What I am referring to is the fact which cannot but be styled as strange that the physician conversant with the four angas is characterized as worthy of [treating] a king (räjärha), befitting a king (rajayogya), and is, finally, said to class with the king's property (rajangatve ca samkhyam gacchati). It would seem hardly necessary to state that these predicates can by no means have to do with the frequent designation of the Buddha as vaidyaraja.\r\nYet one might feel induced to refer to the well-known fact that Buddhist monks off and on succumbed to the temptation of acting as medical practitioners, and that for many reasons they might have even tried to qualify as royal physicians. But though it has to be admitted that historical social reality is reflected in (Buddhist) texts in this regard, too, in the passage under discussion there is no indication whatsoever that we have to do with such a case.\r\nI think I should not any longer avoid coming to the point which, of course, is the following: the characterization of the physician as rajarha, etc., in the Vyädhisûtra cannot consistently and convincingly be accounted for but by assuming that it was retained when the exposition of the quadruple division of the science of medicine was taken over from another source. Another particular feature that was simply retained was the order of enumeration of the four skills of a physician which, significantly enough, does not perfectly correspond to the traditional order of succession of the Four Noble Truths. And this source\r\n94. In view of the parallels in the Abhidharmakosa, viz. pp. 136.15.3, 114.23, 115.9, and in Pali texts (e.g. AN I.244.8-10 where the stock phrase rajdraha rajabhogga (sic!) ranño angan l'eva sankham gacchati, said of a thoroughbred horse, is met with, or AN 1.284.11-12, etc.) one would expect here rather rajdigam iti ca... Yet, the text as it is transmitted can, I think, be accepted if -tva is taken to denote a collective idea and is construed in accordance with J. S. SPEIJER, Sanskrit Syntax, repr. Kyoto, 1968, 238. It should, however, be noted that \"tve ca in Sanskrit might go back to Pali tveva which latter, quite often met with, is according to an information kindly given me by my friend O. von Hinüber a wrongly sanskritized form for teva (\u003city eva). In rendering... sankhyam gacchati I follow the proposal of the PD pp. 570 and 664; as for the expression rajanga, cf. CPD s.v. anga.\r\n95. bhisakka is styled an adhivacana of the Tathagata at AN IV.340.5-6; as for vaidyardja itself cf. the book of R. Birnbaum (cf. fn. 76) as well as the Hōbōgirin s.v. byd, p. 230. ff.\r\n96. Cf. e.g. A. L. BASHAM, The Wonder that was India, London, 1954, p. 499, and R. BIRNBAUM, op. cit., p. 6 ., p. 20 f. (with further references); as noted by the latter, the Suvarpaprabhāsottamasutra even describes how Sakyamuni [himself] in a past life studied all the principles of medicine in order to aid his contemporaries, a legend which not only has grown out of particular Mahäyänistic ideas, but is also most probably due to the wish to make the Buddha himself the prototype of what a Buddhist monk had become in the course of time.\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasăstra\r\n323\r\ncannot have been a Buddhist text; it was in all probability a medical text, or, at least, the science of medicine. This conclusion, though cogent in itself, is further and most clearly corroborated by the fact that the only Sanskrit medical text in which the four systematic parts are at all mentioned, viz. the Carakasamhită, surprisingly enough comes to speak of them only in connection with the description of the qualifica tions of a rajärho bhişaktamaḥ\" and shows the same order of enumerating them. To regard this striking agreement as quite an accident would, no doubt, be nonsensical. Of course, one cannot be absolutely sure that it was this verse of the Carakasamhita which was the source drawn upon by the author of the Vyadhisūtra, for the alternative possibility, viz. that both go back to a common, though unknown source, cannot be ruled out with certainty. But this much seems clear: the fact that the science of medicine falls into four systematic parts, viz. those mentioned in quite a few different texts, was discovered first by medical men.\r\nTo return now to the central question\" as formulated at the outset of this paragraph. It has to be stated that Buddhist sources do not by any means support the assumption that « les \"Quatre Vérités\" du Bouddhisme sont empruntées à la médecine; on the contrary, they give clear evidence that the science of medicine with its four systematic parts was drawn upon only for the sake of illustration; it is but the following hypothesis these sources warrant to frame: the obviously old comparison of the Buddha to a physician, of his teaching to a medicine and similar ideas were in the course of time elaborated, but it was not until the quadruple division of the science of medicine originating in medical circles became known to Buddhist authors that the Four Noble Truths as such were by way of comparison paralleled to the corresponding parts of the Cikitsäsästra, though a full parallelism, i.e. regarding the order of succession also, was achieved only by a second step. However, it seems that the full importance of this systematic division was not realized by medical men, but significantly enough by quite different people, viz. those Yoga and Buddhist authors who applied it for the first time to their respective doctrines of salvation.\r\nTherefore, one cannot but draw the final conclusion that there is not the slightest evidence for the assumption that this fourfold division of the science of medicine it was that inspired the Buddha to his Four\r\n97. As there were already similar idioms in Buddhist tradition (cf. p. 316 and fn. 94), it was quite easy for Buddhist authors to seize on this suggestion of medical\r\ntexts.\r\n98. In contradistinction to the authors of the Höbögirin who (loc. cit.) voice the opinion that la question de savoir si le bouddhisme a \"emprunté\" ses quatre Vérités à la médecine n'a guère d'intérêt, I find this question extremely interesting. and not only because many Buddhologists do believe in this borrowing; but I differ also from Oldenberg in that I am less pessimistic as to the possibility of finding an answer to it, though, of course, only a hypothetical one.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/19\"\u003ePage #19\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n324\r\nNoble Truths. This was virtually already shown by J. Filliozat as early as in 1934, but his article does not seem to have been given the attention it, undoubtedly, deserved. The conclusion arrived at in the present more comprehensive study does not, of course, prove that such an influence of the contemporary medicine on the Buddha is by no means impossible; all I want to say, yet this emphatically, is that this assumption is without any basis whatsoever, i.e. that as to its philological foundation it stands in a vacuum as it were. For, the similarity between the Four Noble Truths and the four parts of medicine, highly suggestive though it is, cannot by itself be regarded as warranting any such assumption: this similarity can consistently be accounted for by assu ming a material coincidence arising quite naturally out of the essential element both, physical illness and existence viewed as suffering, do have in common; for to recapitulate what has been stated already above (p. 300 f.), yet this time in the words of Vasubandhu 100 that to which one is attached and by which one is given pain and from which one seeks to free oneself, it is that is examined first in the phase of consideration, i.e. the Truth of Suffering; thereafter [one puts oneself the question] \"What is its cause (ie. the cause of Suffering)?\" [and thus examines] the Truth of that which causes [Suffering] to arise 10; [then one puts oneself the question] \"What does its suppression (i.e. the suppression of suffering) consist in?\" [and thus examines] the Truth of Suppression; [and finally one puts oneself the question] \"Which is the way [leading to] it (i.e. to its suppression)?\" [and thus examines] the Truth of the Way\r\n-\r\nA. Wezler\r\n5. The idea of a quadruple division of the doctrine of salvation is, however, not confined to the traditions of Pätañjala-Yoga and of Buddhism alone. It is equally attested in yet another school of thought, viz. that of Nyaya. The historical problems the philologist is faced with are hence even more complicated than was assumed until now in the course of the present study.\r\n99. JA (1934), pp. 301-7, referred to in HOBOGIRIN, loc. cit.\r\n100. Viz. Abhidharmakosa, ed. by P. Pradhan, p. 328.6-8: yatra hi sakto yena ca badhyate yatas ca moksam prärthayate tad evddau vyavacdrandvasthayam duḥkhasatyam pariksyate / paseat ko 'sya hetur iti samudayasatyam ko 'sya nirodha iti nirodhasatyan ko 'sya mdrga iti märgasatyam /.\r\n101. Incidentally, this passage in the Kosa corroborates my interpretation of the term samudaya as given above p. 303.\r\n102. Cf. also the verse of the Saundarananda quoted above (p. 321) as well as fn. 93a. For the gradual apprehension (anuparvabhisamaya) of the Four Noble Truths cf. also a fragmentary Sanskrit MS from the Turfan discoveries described. and edited by E. WALDSCHMIDT, Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden, Teil I (Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, hrsg. von W. Voigt, Bd. X.1), Wiesbaden, 1965. p. 294; this passage is of particular interest in another respect also in that it shows close similarity to the passage from the Samyuktagama (cf. fn. 92) by equally pointing out different causes of disease and different methods\r\nof treatment.\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogaşăstra\r\n5.1. Commenting on NS 1.1.1 Pakṣilasvamin Vätsyāyana states almost right at the beginning: dtmädeḥ khalu prameyasya tattvajñānān nihśreyasadhigamaḥ / tac caitad uttarasütreṇänüdyata iti / heyam, tasya nirvartakam, hanam atyantikam, tasyopayo 'dhigantavya ity etäni catvary arthapadani samyag buddhva niḥśreyasam adhigacchati/,« Out of proper knowledge of what such objects of valid cognition like soul, etc., in reality are, the Highest Good is attained; and this is repeated in the following sutra (i.e. NS 1.1.2), thus [has NS 1.1.1 to be interpreted], One has to understand that which is to be avoided, that which brings it forth, [its] absolute avoidance [and] the means [leading to] it; having properly understood these four right statements, one attains the Highest Good.\r\n325\r\nIn justification of my interpretation which is at variance with the explanation given by Uddyotakara, some brief remarks should be made.. According to Uddyotakara the four arthapadas are heya, hana, upaya and adhigantavya equated by him to moksa. That is to say, he started from the assumption that adhi-gam must necessarily be used here in the same sense it has in the syntagma niḥśreyasam adhigacchati, i.e. the predicate of the sentence as a whole. This conclusion is, however, by no means cogent, and the parallel in the introductory portion of the Bhasya on the 2. Ahnika of the 4. Adhyaya to which one could refer 14, viz. apavargo 'dhigantavyaḥ, does not help much because it is continued by tasyadhigamopayas tattvajñānam, i.e. by an unequivocal statement according to which the means for attaining liberation consists in tattvajñana 10. On the contrary, in explaining hanam by tattvajñānam, and upayaḥ by sastram, Uddyotakara stands clearly in contradiction to this statement of the Bhasyakara's. Besides, the construction of the Bhasya passage obviously assumed by Uddyotakara would be rather odd, there\r\n103. One of the problems the commentators of NS 1.1.1 are faced with lies in that pramdna is mentioned along with prameya among the entities true knowledge of which leads to the Highest Good. Following Pakşilasvamin all of them, therefore, opt for an interpretation according to which it is the tattvajñāna of the different prameyas only which has this function.\r\n104. In G. Jha's edition (POS 58), Poona, 1939, this parallel is found on p. 2893 f. 105. The fourfold division spoken of in this passage of the NBhasya (evam calastbhir vidhäbhil prameyam vibhaktam asevamanasya... tattvajñānam utpadyate) docs at first sight appear to be not identical with the four arthapadáni mentioned in the commentary on NS 1.1.1; for the four elements seem to be things, viz. rebirth, result (of acts) and pain, to be known (jñeya), things, viz. karman and defects, to be avoided (praheya), liberation as that which has to be attained. (apavargo'dhigantavyah) and, finally, true knowledge as the means for attaining liberation (tasyddhigamopdyas tattvajñdnam). In the light of relevant passages in the preceding part of the Bhasya, viz. yas tu duḥkham duḥkhayatanam duḥkhanusaktam sukham ca sarvam idam duḥkham iti pasyati sa duḥkham parijanti / parijñdtam ca duḥkham prahinam bhavaty anupädänāt savişännavat / evam dosan karma ca duḥkhahetur iti pasyati /, however, it becomes clear that in fact the same quadruple division is ultimately intended. But I find it difficult to decide whether catasṛbhir vidhäbhih has to be construed with vibhaktam or else with dsevamanasya.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/20\"\u003ePage #20\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n326\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n327,\r\n(who is anyway an extremely remarkable author). In justifying the question kimilaksanam of the mala, referring to prameyam , he explains that what is meant is a particular object of valid cognition (prameyavišeşa) defined by him thus : yad visayam tatt vaja namanya j Adnanu payogilvenaivanih sreyasangam bhe. vari, mithyajñanam ca samsaram pratanoti, tar prameyam 1:\r\nObject of valid cognition is that the tattvajnana of which forms a means for [attaining) liberation without being of any use for the acquisition of) other knowledge 10, and the mithyajidna (i.e. false know. ledge) (of which) extends Samsāra Bhasarvajña adds the further ex. planations :\r\nbeing no reason why Paksilasvamin should in a series of nouns have decided in favour of a verbal and imprecise expressione as regards the final member. There is hence good reason for taking adhigantavyah as predicate to be construed with all four subjects. In addition it should be noted that it is on the basis of this assumption that a proper under standing of the term arthapada can be achieved: evidently it is to be regarded as a tatpurusa-compound the prior member of which corre sponds to a dative (arthaya padanı), and thus fully agrees with Pali atthapada for which the CPD gives the meaning a right or profitable word (often referring to the holy texts), i.e. a word that is to the advantage of another person. The equation of hana with tattvajnana is furthermore highly unconvincing because its characterization as atyantika in the Bhişya itself, which clearly echoes NS. 1.1.22 (tadatyantavimokso 'pavargah), cannot but be taken to indicate that what is meant by the expression hana here is not means of avoidance, but avoidance » itself as that which is to be attained. Taking into account this\r\nsary correction of Uddyotakara's interpretation, one can unhesita tingly subscribe to his concluding remark 1 etani catvary arthapadani sarvasv adhyatmavidyasu sarvacaryair varnyanta iri /; it is noteworthy, nay extremely interesting that Uddyotakara did not regard the teaching of these four systematic parts to be a specific feature of Nyaya only, but expressly states them to be a common possession of all adhyatmavidyas without exception 1. Evidently it did not bother him where this doctrine developed first: historical problems were not of concern to him in contradistinction to the Western philologist. He will not rest satisfied with observing that the distinction drawn by Paksilasvămin between heyart, tasya nirvartakam, hanam atyantikam and tasyopayah is in striking agreement with that drawn by Yoga texts between heyam, heyahetuh, hanam and hanopayah, but face up to the historical problem(s) involved.\r\n5.2. Yet, before doing so it is advisable to inspect some more rele vant material from Nyāya literature, though a comprehensive study of it cannot be undertaken here, as it would inevitably mean writing a history of the doctrine of liberation in this school of thought. There is, however, one Naiyayika whose testimony seems to be of such outstanding importance that it should not be omitted, viz. that of Bhasarvajna\r\ntad eva tativato india vyam sarvada bha vita vyam (read: bhavayitavyar) ca natuklasa mkhyad y api pra. meyam teşa minanasya nih sreya sanu payogitvar / 12 taccaturvidham: heyam, tasya nirvartakam, hanam atyantikam, tasyopaya itil. This is that has to be known according to its true nature and what has always to be kept present. The number of beetles, and similar things, however, does not equally represent an object of valid cognition\", because knowing them is of no use for [attaining) liberation. This (object of valid cognition) is of four kinds, viz. (ii) that which is to be avoided, that which brings it i.e. the former) about, absolute avoi. dance (and) the means for [attaining) it (l.e. absolute avoidance),\r\n108. Nyaya) Bhus(ana), ed. by. Sväml Yogindrananda, Benares, 1968. p. 436.1 f.\r\n109. NBhQs 436.11-12; passages which literally agree with formulations of the Nyayasira are printed in spaced type.\r\n110. Similarly Nyayamafjarl (ed. by K. S. Varadacharya, ORI Series no. 46. My. sore, 1969). 22.5-6: drmdpavargaparyanta- (read: dmddya pavargaparyanta) dvddašavi. dhapramevajnánar fávat anyajidndnau payikam eva sdksdd a pavargasddharam iti vaksydmah (viz. at the beginning of the prameyabhdga): for anya Adnanaupayika Cakradhara (Nyayamañjarigranthibhanga, ed. by Nagin J. Shah, LD. Series 35. Ahme dabad, 1972) gives the following explanation (5.12-14): anyajAdnam anaupayikam advdram anupdyo yasya / updya evou payikam iti svd the vineyddipdthar thak hrasvas ca (cf. Pån. 5.4.34 and Ganapatha 2113) / artyajidnasya vārupdyah sad a pavargasadhanam na punah pramdnadij Adnam iva prameyaj Adnopdyatayely arthah // It is, of course, the second of these explanations which has to be accepted the expression used in the NBhûs, viz. anyajiandnu payogitvenaiva, is unequivocal in this respect what is meant in both cases is to point out that the prameya Adna differs from the knowledge acquired with the help of means of valid cognition, etc., in that the former is of direct importance for liberation.\r\n111. NBhûs 436.14-16.\r\n112. The formulations in the Nyayasära are slightly different, viz. na ca kirasarkhyddi tajjnanasydnu payogitvdr.\r\n113. The editor of the NBhos refers here to Pramanavarttika 2.33: tasmadamu. stheyagaram jidnam atra vicdryaram / klfasamkhydparijfidan tasya mah kvopo yujyate Il.\r\n105a. The gender, too, would be most disturbing, for Paksilasvamin would indeed demand a great deal from his readers were they compelled to realize on their own that it is masculine because a pavargah has to be supplemented\r\n106. Nydyadariana of Gautama with the Bhasya of Vatsylyana, the Varttika of Uddyotakara, the Tätparyatika of Vacaspati and the Parifuddhi of Udayana, vol. I, chapter 1. ed. by A. Thakur (Mithila Institute Series, Ancient Text no. 20), Dar bhanga, 1967, p. 14, 1. 4.\r\n107. Already Paksilasvamin is, however, at pains to show that the Nyaya system is by no means an adhyatmavidyd only like the Upanişads, but represents, on the contrary, an independent fourth vidyd; cf. NBhasya 3.3-8.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/21\"\u003ePage #21\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n328\r\n1. Werler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n329\r\nMy interpretation of the NBhasya passage quoted above is thus fully corroborated by Bhasarvajña 18. In addition it has to be noted that Bhäsarvajña is more explicit than Paksilasvamin in that he unequivocally states that what falls into these four parts is in fact the \u003cobject of valid cognition, whereas in the Nyayabhasya it is left open whether the four arthapadani are at all related to the category prameyd \u003e and, if so, precisely in which manner. According to Bhasar vajna , too, the category object of valid cognition is in itself ambivalent: if it becomes the object (vişaya) of proper knowledge, i.e. if its true nature is cognized, its knowledge leads to liberation; however, it its true nature is not understood, this false knowledge has the opposite effect, i.e. causes the process of rebirth to continue. It must, however, be borne in mind that this category includes only certain entities that are to be truly cognized, viz. those which are of direct importance for the attainment of the final goal.\r\nBhasarvajna's assertion that it is divided into four parts only, viz. heyam etc., is quite understandably objected to by an opponent who rightly draws attention to the fact that according to NS 1.1.9 where the different pranevas are enumerated and according to NS 1.1.10 ff. in which the individual objects of valid cognition are defined, there is a total of twelve of them, but not four. This objection \"17 is met by Bhasarvajna by the following arguments : satyam, dvddašavidham uktam, kim tu tad dvddašavidham api heyadirapena caturdha bhavya. manam niņsreyasanimittam bhavanity atas caturvidham uktam / satra. karas tu nyayapraptam caturvidhyam iti manyamanah saksan noktavān 1 na hi heyddirapaniscaye sariradisy ahamkaranivritivairagyot padana. dvdrena tadaryantavimokso 'pavargah sambhavarl caturvargantarbhata. tvdc ca dvddašavidhasydpl/. It is true, (the \"object of valid cognition\"] is taught (in the Satra) as twelvefold; but it functions as the cause of attaining) liberation (only) when it, though twelvefold, is presented to the mind as fourfold, [i.c.) as having the forms of that which has to be\r\navoided, etc.; it is for this reason that it is stated (by me) to be of four kinds. The author of the Stra, however, did not state this expressly as he was of the opinion that the fact that it falls into four parts follows logically so that it need not be made explicit]: for, liberation as an absolute freeing oneself from Suffering by means of stopping egotism and by creating (in oneself) the state of indifference with respect to [\"objects of valid cognition \") like the body and so forth is not possible if [these objects) are not ascertained as having the form of that which has to be avoided, etc.; and (the fourfoldness of the \"object of valid cognition\" was not expressly stated by the Satrakāra also) because (the \"object of valid cognition \") even if twelvefold is subsumed in the four groups (of that which has to be avoided, etc.).\r\nThat is to say, according to Bhasarvajna the two divisions are not mutually exclusive; on the contrary, the twelvefold division is contained in the fourfold; the latter one, however, is the decisive one in so far as it, and it only, leads to liberation: evidently the tattvajnana of the twelve different prameyas is regarded as not sufficient for attaining the Highest Good, each and every object of valid cognition is to be looked into as regards whether it represents something that has to be avoided or something that causes that which has to be avoided, etc.; and only then is it that knowing their true nature functions as a means to liberation.\r\nThis is clearly a doctrine which goes beyond the wording and inten. tion of the NS: the impact of soteriological ideas which had led to refashioning the old Nyaya tradition so as to make it, too, look like a moksasastra, continued to be felt by Naiyāyikas who met the challenge by elaborating ideas found in the Bhaşya and, of course, by trying their very best to vindicate their conviction that what are but later ideas were at least thought of and realized by the Sätrakāra himself.\r\nNevertheless, Bhāsarvajna's view, though historically untenable, is, of course, worthy of notice, and not only as regards the manner in which he handles the received mula text, viz. the NS\". For, the explanation he gives for the Satrakāra's not having expressly stated the cäturvidhya of the object of valid cognition is not accepted by his opponent who raises the objection that Gautama should have taught it w precisely in view of its central importance. Bhāsarvajña does not let this objection pass, his answer being 18: na, paramatanişedharthardt / tatra samkhydndm matam: heyam duhkham rajovsttydimakam, drastrdryayoh sam. yogo heyahetuh\u003e (YS 2.17), tasya hefur avidya » (YS 2.24) tadabhavdt samyogabhavo hanam tad drseh kaivalyam (YS 2.25), « viveka. khyatir aviplava hdnopdyah (YS 2.26) iti / sakyanan ca: dukkhasamu\r\n114. Because he follows the tradition of those Nalyayikas who wrote commentaries on the NBhasya, i.e. the so-called Vydkhydtdraf (cf. A. Wezler, in WZKSO, XIX, 1975, 135-146)?\r\n115. The term arthapada itself does not help in answering this question, and the other passage in the NBhasya quoted above (p. 325) can be interpreted in two dif ferent ways (cf. fn. 105).\r\n116. Who is, however, in agreement with Paksilasvamin (cf. Bhasya on NS 1.1.9. 2378: asty antyad api dravyagunakarmasdn dryavisesasamavdydb prameyam (viz. that taught by the Vaisesikas) tadbhedena cd parisarikhyeyam: asya tu (.e. that taught in NS 1.1.9) tartvajlandd a pavargo mithyddndt samsdraity ata elad upadista vise seneti //) and Uddyotakara (cf. his Värttika on the beginning of the 4 Adhyâya; ed. by V. P. Dvivedin and L. S. Dravid, KSS 33, Benares, 1916-17, 500.8-10: yes talTvajAdnavisayalvena vyavatisthamdnah samsdravyavacchedahetur bhavall yas como havisayardt sairisdrar pratanoti sa tativato freya iti .\r\n117. Extending from NBhds 437.1 to 441.23. 118. NBhus 441.25 and 442.3.\r\n119. It is in this regard that the NBhus in general is of particular interest and hence calls for a careful and comprehensive study.\r\n120. NBhas 442.5: yady evan cdturvidhyam eva satraksid kasman noktam? 121. NBhus 42.5-11 and 19-20.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/22\"\u003ePage #22\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n330\r\nA. Wezler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\ndayanirodhamargakhyacaturdryasatyajndnam muktyartham istam /... 12 ... tad evam paramate 'pi heyddicatustayajAdnan mukrinimittam istam / tanmatanişedhartham atmadibhedopanyasah kytahl.\r\nTo put it in a nutshell: according to Bhasarvajña - who, on the one hand, almost grotesquely comes short of historical truth, but, on the other, i.e. if his presuppositions are taken for granted, argues in a quite understandable and remarkable manner - Gautama did not expressly state the prameya to be fourfold, but instead confined himself to teach and define the twelve different objects of valid cognition, because he wanted to refute the opinion of others, viz. the Samkhya-Yogins and the Buddhists, who equally considered the knowledge of the four elements of heya etc. to be a means for liberation. His final remark may be taken as a hint at the importance Bhäsarvajña attributes in this connection to the concept of arman and the Nyaya view of it. This is corroborated by what he says in introducing the next paragraph, viz. 1 tatrdimajnane sari paralokukamksa bhavati nanyatheti vaksymall, the desire for the other world (i.c. the wish to attain liberation) arises (only) when among these [different kinds of knowledge) there is knowledge of the atman, not otherwise this I shall teach (later)\r\nBut before examining the further development of his argument it is necessary to dwell on the passage just quoted. Bhasarva na was evidently not the first to realize that the idea of the doctrine of salvation being divided into the four systematic parts does not constitute a peculiarity of Nyaya; but Uddyotakara's relevant remark 1 looks rather colourless in that he still confines himself to claiming for the Nyayasastra the status of being, among other things, an adhyatmavidya, too, and does not deem it necessary to determine more precisely the relation in which his school stands in this respect to other doctrines of salvation. Viewed against this background Bhasarvajña's corresponding remarks are not only much more informative, but are also evidence of a considerable progress in analysis. For he not only points out the basic doctrinal cor. respondence between the school of Nyaya and particular other systems which he does not hesitate to name, but he also enters into a discussion of the specific doctrinal differences. It is, of course, by no means sur prising that what he right from the beginning aims at is to prove the claim that, inspite of the quadruple division being common to other doctrines also, it is the Nyaya doctrine of salvation alone that stands a critical test and should hence be universally accepted. This claim is not, however, connected with the fourfold division as such, but with the definitions of the four systematic parts as given by the Samkhya-Yogins\r\nand Buddhists, respectively: it is but the conceptional and doctrinal content that his criticism is directed against. Yet his remarks, systema. tically comprehensive as they are, arrest the philologist's attention in other respects, too: They furnish a welcome corroboration of the conclusion arrived at earlier in the present study as regards the problems of the quadruple division being attested already in the YS itself and the correspondence between it and the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha. Noteworthy, however, is that Bhasarvajña does not refer in this connec tion to the caturvyliharva of the Cikitsasastra; he must have known the relevant passage in the YBhāşya; apparently he was not interested in pointing out this similarity; a further reason may have been the conspi. cuous absence of this comparison in the older Nyaya tradition.\r\nIn continuing his exposition Bhāsarvajna draws attention to the fact that there is still another reason for the prameya having been taught in the NS as being twelvefold. The argument is as follows: when the body (Sarlra) is recognized as being different from the atman, it is not any longer mistaken for the Arman and henceforth one does not commit acts of violence, etc., for the sake of one's body. When it is realized that the body is the seat of pain and suffering (duhkha), attachment to it ends. The next step consists in coming to know the nature of the senses (indriya), i.e. that defects (dosa) do not arise when the senses do not function even though there may be causes that could give rise to defects; thereupon one strives to withdraw the senses (pratyahara), and in doing so one does not any longer look upon their objects (artha) (which have been recognized as causing suffering) as something one should grasp. and then one frees oneself of all desires (vairágya). Having realized that false (mithyabuddhi) and true knowledge (rattvabuddhi) are the causes of liberation and samsdra, respectively, one eliminates the former and develops the latter by making consistent efforts for it. Then greatest efforts are made to conquer the mind (manas) which is the root of all functions of the senses. When the activities (pravrtti) are recognized to be the root of suffering in so far as they bring about merit (dharma), demerit (adharma), etc., they are avoided. As soon as the true nature of the defects (dosa) is understood, viz. in the light of NS 4.1.60 1, one undertakes the greatest exertions to remove them. Then it has to be realized that the beginningless process of rebirth (pretyabhava) and, hence, the extreme suffering in the form of birth and death cannot be brought to an end but by liberation (a pavarga); and similarly it is to be realized that the result (phala) [of activities and defects) a consisting\r\n122. Read thus against the edition! In the passage left out here. viz. NBhos 442.11.19, Bhisarvajna gives a brief explanation of the Four Noble Truths.\r\n123. NBhas 442.22. 124. Viz. NBhas 461.15 ff. 125. Cl. above p. 326.\r\n126. CF. NBhus 442.22-26 and 443.6-15. 127. Cf. NBhu$ 440.10-13 to which Bhasarvajña refers back.\r\n128. According to the numbering in: Die Nyayasútra's. Text, Ubersetzung, Erlau terung und Glossar von W. Ruben (AKM XVIII.2), Leipzig, 1928.\r\n128a. Cf. Paksilasvamin's definition (NBhasya 31.7): pretyabhdvomid punar. janma.\r\n129. CE. NS 1.1.20.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/23\"\u003ePage #23\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n332\r\nA. Wexler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n333\r\nin pain and also in alleged pleasure is ultimately the same in that both, pleasure and pain, are brought about by one's own karman 1. Next, pain and suffering (duḥkha) have to be properly understood so as to be able to keep them present to one's mind. When one has come to realize that each and everything, from God Brahma down to a grass-blade, is permeated by pain and suffering, one does not take interest in it any longer. And when, finally, liberation (apavarga) is recognized to be the unsurpassed, endless and altogether pure means for the ceasing of all pain and suffering, one strives for that goal only.\r\nBhasarvajña concludes this passage by stating tad evamt dvddasa. prahdreşv api tartvajanabhavand copayujyata ity ato 'pi dvadasadhd prameyam uktam / sarksepabhavanarthat ca tasya caturvidhyam ucyate : Hence, true knowledge is also realized in all these twelve ways; it is for this reason, too, that the \"object of valid cognition\" is taught (in the NS) as twelvefold; and that it is (on the other hand) of four kinds (only), this is taught for the sake of keeping (true knowledge] present to one's mind in a concise form.\r\nThat is to say, Bhasarvaja first demonstrates the true knowledge\r\nas to develop with respect to the twelve prameyas, following their order of enumeration as given in NS 1.1.9, and states thereafter by way of summarizing his exposition, that they have been taught by the Satra. kāra not only in order to refute the theory of the quadruple division of the doctrines of salvation as expounded by other schools, but also to intimate that all twelve of them should be reflected upon in the manner outlined by Bhäsarvajnia himself. His very last remark is particularly interesting, and that in two respects: it determines more precisely the relation between the two alternative divisions of the prameya, the twelve fold and the quadruple; and the characterization of the latter as being introduced sanksepabhavanartha niakes one wonder whether this is another instance of the well-known tendency, so important in the history of Indian religions down to the present day, to replace complicated and time-consuming religious acts by « abridgements. But it is by no means clear that what Bhasarvajña has in mind is such a substitution; he might have equally thought of a real alternative only, or even regarded the choice of the sainksepa as a means to intensifying the bhavand of true knowledge which ultimately leads to liberation.\r\nYet, such theoretical deliberations are of little use here, at least as long as the apparent contradiction is not discussed in which these remarks of Bhasarvajnia's seem to stand to what had been said by him earlier on the relation between the two divisions. Had he not claimed that it is the quadruple division only that leads to liberation and does he not clearly contradict himself in asserting now that true knowledge is also realized in all these twelve ways ? I think that the two relevant passages appear contradictory only at first sight. For what Bhasarvajña\r\nactually had said, and, to wit, also with respect to the particular proce dure of the Satrakāra, was that liberation as an absolute freeing oneself from Suffering by means of stopping egotism and by creating (in oneself) the state of indifference with respect to \"objects of valid cognition \") like the body and so forth is not possible if (these objects] are not ascertained as having the form of that which has to be avoided, etc.; and what he shows in the second passage is precisely the cognitive and spiritual development of a Naiyāyika who reflects upon the twelve\r\nobjects of valid cognition on the basis of the more important division of heyam, etc. Therefore, not only his earlier statement that\r\nthe object of valid cognition) even if twelvefold is subsumedin the four groups (of that which is to be avoided, etc.), but also what he says here, viz. that the fourfold division is taught samksepa. bhavandriham, are fully intelligible in that, understood thus, the fourfold division in fact comprises in itself the twelve prameyas and for this very reason forms the quintessence of their bhavand. In the light of these deliberations it is hence more probable that what Bhasar. vajña wants to intimate by his final remark is but the superior impor. tance of the caturvidhya as emphasized by him already at the very outset.\r\nSpace being limited it is not possible to deal here with the same extensiveness as hitherto with what Bhasarvaja says in the subsequent paragraphs of his Bhusana. The gist of his exposition, however, may be briefly outlined, following mainly the Nyayasara: in order to define the concept of heyam he quotes YS 2.16 1 and adds that suffering is of twenty-one kinds, i.e. that it comprises the body, the six senses (manas is included), their six objects, the corresponding) six (types) of cognition, pleasure and pain in that all - except for the body which is the seat of pain and except for pleasure which is nothing but pain because it does not occur without pain and, of course, except for pain itself which is dulkha par excellence as it consists in badha, pida and san. 1dpa of them lead to suffering. That which brings about the heyam (tasya nirvartakam), i.e. its specific cause, is stated to be nescience (avidya) and thirst (trend), on the one hand, and merit and demerit (dharmadharmau), on the other; nescience is then defined as false know. ledge of that which has been shown by true adhydrmavids, and it is made clear that it includes the mental impression left by nescience\r\n132. See above p. 295. 133. NBhus 444.5-19; cf. also 441.9-15 and 445.24 ff.\r\n134. Of the two Slokas quoted by Bhasarvajna to give an example of what true knowers of the man and those blind with passion. say (NBhus 444.27-20), not identified by the editor, the first one is from Mbh. (Poona) 12.316.42 and 43; the second one seems to belong to the vast stock of floating stanzas one finds so often quoted in anthologies and Indian narrative literature; it is included in 0. BÖHTLINGK'S. Indische Sprüche, I, repr. Osnabrück, 1966, p. 98 (no. 3565); for further references sce L. STERNBACH, Supplement to O. Böhrlingk's Indische Sprüche (AKM XOXVII.1). Wiesbaden, 1965, p. 9.\r\n135. C. NBhoş 444.23-30 and 445.4-7. Note that by duh khastre (which is mee with also NBhus 443.22, 445.20, 446.14 and 584.16) Bhasarvajha refers to NS 1.1.2 dealt with in detail NBhds 72.15 t.\r\n130. CE. NBhd$ 441.2-7 and 9-15 to which Bhisarvaja refers back. 131. NBhos 443.14-15. Read 'bhavanopayujyale or 'bhdvanaivopa'!\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/24\"\u003ePage #24\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________\r\n\r\n334\r\nA. Wexler\r\nOn the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra\r\n335\r\n\"thirstis explained to be the longing for rebirth . The reason for dharma and adharma being mentioned separately is that nescience is the main cause of suffering (pradhanam duhkhanimittam) 17, and merit and demerit are, properly speaking, specific causes of pleasure and pain, respectively, and that both of them are equally to be regarded as duḥkha. karana because it is a matter of experience that one is given pain by cold wind, etc., even when nescience and thirst do not persist any longer M. Hanam is then defined to be the cessation of suffering (duhkha. viccheda), and the addition of absolute (atyantika) is vindicated by referring to the fact that a temporal elimination of personal (adhydr. mika) pain and suffering can be achieved also by applying the means taught in the Dharma-, Artha-, Kama- and Vaidya-Sastras 13, that is to say, the attribute is meant to make clear that the liberated atman does not ever again and in no manner come in contact with duḥkha.\r\nFinally, the fourth element, i.e. the means for attaining complete avoidance (tasyopdyah), is determined to consist in true knowledge of the atman. That out of the twelve e objects of valid cognition aiman alone is mentioned is justified by the wish to stress its outstanding im portance (pradhanya) which, according to Bhasarvajña, has also led to its being enumerated first in NS 1.1.9. The atman is said to be of two kinds, viz. para and apara, of which two the former is none else but the Mahesvara\" and the latter is he who experiences the result of Samsara (samsaraphalopabhokis), i.e. the individual permanent and omnipresent soul 10\r\nRegarding the role these two objects of valid cognition \u003e play in attaining the final goal, it is stated that the true knowledge of the apa. ratman represents a means to it (niņfreyasanga) because it leads to activity aimed at the other world in that it helps to realize that the paraloka really exists and because it causes the elimination of demerit ; the true knowledge of the partman, on the other hand, is ascribed a similar function, only that it works by being a constitutive element of the upåsand of the Maheśvara.. That both these tattvajñanas are not of exactly the same rank is finally stated by emphatically proclaiming that liberation is attained only because of perceiving God Siva (tasmdc\r\nchivadarsandd eva moksa iti) 14. Out of the many points in Bhasarvajna's extensive commentary on NS 1.1.9 which ought to be taken up for discussion the following should not be passed over silently here. On the one hand, Bhasarvajña quotes a series of relevant sūtras from the YS (above p. 329) and clearly in a pārvapaksa section on the other, he uses YS 2.16 in his own definition of heyam (cf. above p. 333) -as also YS 2.15 in his explanation of phala 14This contradiction is, of course, only seemingly one. The solution cannot but be that Bhasarvajna accepts such elements of Patanjala-Yoga as are doctrinally so to say neutral in that they refer to a practical method of self-control, etc. 14 In doing so he is not only clearly in keeping with the NS itself, and he himself quotes the relevant sätra viz. 4.2.457, but he also gives Yoga as such its due in so far as it essentially teaches a method that can be and was applied to different systems of thought, can and was practised by people of different persuasions. Bhasarvajia does, of course, not show « faith in the doctrines of that school, as V. S. Abhyankar and I. R. Devadhar would have it on the contrary, he severely and repeatedly criticizes them. All one can perhaps say is that he shows a strong predilection for Yoga, also in a later part of his work , yet this is a side-issue which I cannot follow up here 150\r\n145. NBhus 590.6 and 7 ft. as well as 514.24; cf. also NBhds 540.13-14: drmarudvi. Sesetl (read: višese 'pi) kasmdndnyadarsand moksa iti cel, na, anyasya (i.e. para mamanah Sivdd anyasya) sarvdnimittarydt: na hy anyo 'pi dimd sarvor partimatda nimittam iti. On the distinction between the murdman and the paramešvara cf. also NBhas 449.4 ff.\r\n146. Viz. NBhus 441.13 f.\r\n146a. According to the editor's Nyayabhäsapatartippapoddhetavákyävalib (pp. 631 ) It is a total of 16 stras of the YS which are quoted by Bhasarvajta. On the occasion of quoting the concluding portion of NS 4.245 Bhasarvajna makes the following important remark (NBhas 584.11 ff.): ...iti vacandr/pdraljaládisastres apy upadisah wpdyah svasastravirodhena (read, of course, \"dvirodhena) praliparra. vyah / taira yuktisamarthydc ca (/) . paramaram aprarisiddham anumaram ini tantrayukri /: that is to say, he himself clearly states the principle he proceeds upon in accepting the opinions of others. As for this tanirayukli. cf. NBhasya 16.3 I. (on NS 1.1.4).\r\n147. Viz. NBhus 445.28 and cf. fn. 146a. The reading 'vidyupdyaih given there is however, a misprint for 'vidhyupdyait.\r\n148. Nyayasära of Acharya Bhasarvajna with the Nyayasarapadapanchika of VS. sudeva of Kashmir, Poona, 1922, p. 84.\r\n149. Viz. NBhas 584.9 1. where Bhisarvajna, with reference to his definition of tipdsandvidhi, not only refers to NS 4.2.45, but also to the means (updya) taught in the . Påtajal disastrani, stating that this wpdya has also to be accepted to the extent that it does not stand in contradiction to Nyaya tenets and is hence not expressly objected to (prarişiddha). Note also the remark NBhos 584.18 19: dvddašaprameya/Adnam api not pannamdaram asahdyam ragadinivstrau samartham / kim Tarhi? yogopdydnusthanasahitam, by which Bhasarvajna plainly states his particular position: true knowledge of the objects of valid cognition is not by itself as soon as it has been gained capable of bringing all desire to an end, it needs support, viz. practising the means of Yoga. Cf. in this connection also NBhQs 441.14 where YS 2.15 is quoted as the statement of an adhyamavid\r\n150. As far as I know it is presently being studied by G. Oberhammer.\r\n132. See above p. 295. 137. Cf. NBhoş 445.20-21. 138. Cl. NBhos 445.22 f.\r\n139. The text as read in the edition of the NBhos, viz. 446.7 dharmadharmarthak\u0026mavaid yasastrair... is corrupt and has to be emended to dharirartha'.\r\n140. CF. NBhos 146.13-16. 141. Hence the subsequent long Isvaravida section NBhQs 447 ft. 142. Cf. NBhQs 487.19 . 143. CI. NBhos 548.1-2 and 19 ff. 144. Cf. NBhus 574.1 and 12.\n\n\u003ca href=\"https://jainqq.org/explore/269542/25\"\u003ePage #25\u003c/a\u003e\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------\n________________ A. Wezler On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra 337 analytical capacity and sensibility of the Buddha to which Indian medicine in its turn owes the recognition of its caturvyuhatva? tad etad anyair api kathinyarataih suksmadarsibhir yatnena vicaryatain ity alani ativistarena 152. 152. I likewise withstand the temptation to enter on my own into an independent comparative study of medicine and doctrincs of salvation the comparison of which could, of course, be carricd much farther than it was ever done by Indian authors. 5.3. Returning now to the central problem, one has to put oneself the following question: what are the historical conclusions to be drawn from the observation that the quadruple division of the doctrine of sal. vation is attested in a substantially identical form not only in the Indian science of medicine, certain Yoga texts and the Four Noble Truths of the Buddha, but also in thc Nyaya tradition? There is but a hypothesis I am able to offer, viz. the assumption that suggests itself quite naturally when the relative chronology of the respective earliest sources is taken into account and when a casual convergent development is a priori excluded: the quadruple division was discovered by the Buddha; it was thereafter taken over by the author of the relevant sutras of the YS (which shows strong Buddhist influences in other respects, too), who also chose other, i.e. neutral, terms for the four different elements. Paksilasvamin borrowed them probably from the YS 151 as the terminology used by him is practically identical with that of the YS. Similarly, it found, though probably earlier, its way into the Carakasamhita which directly or indirectly influenced the author of the Yogabhasya and that of the Buddhist Vyadhisutra so that they decided to refer to the science of medicine by way of comparison. This hypothesis, of course, implies that the assumption made above (p. 323 f.), viz. that the science of medicine may claim priority as regards the \u003c\u003c discovery \u003e\u003e of the quadruple division, has to be abandoned. Yet, I think, it offers a more plausible explanation of the undisputable fact that this division was never of real importance in the tradition of the Cikitsasastra. There is another point I should like to make in this connection: is not the widespread belief that the quadruple division as taught in medicine it was that inspired the Buddha perhaps suggested also by the assumption that the Buddha could not have conceived his systematically divided four aryasatyani had he not had in mind a concrete and wordly example which he need only apply to his doctrine of salvation? And might not the idea, \u003c\u003c natural \u003e\u003e though it seems, that this \u003c\u003c discovery \u003e\u003e cannot but have been made first by people concerned with the somatic aspect of man's existence turn out to be a preconceived one, in the case of Indian culture at least; is it not perhaps even due to the fact that a rather modern and Western conception of medicine is unconsciously taken as basis? Could not just the reverse be true, viz. that in India it was a person deeply reflecting on man's existence as such that led to this \u003c\u003c discovery \u003e\u003e, i.e. that it was the extraordinary 151. Similarly G. OBERHAMMER, Paksilasvamin's Introduction to his Nyayabhasyam, in \u003c\u003c Asian Studies, vol. 2 (1964), pp. 311-15. Cf. also his Strukturen yogischer Meditation, Wien, 1977, p. 210.","srno":"269542"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/booktext/[title]/[srno]","query":{"title":"On_Quadruple_Division_Of_Yogasastra","srno":"269542"},"buildId":"KruAbK91IxewCHJQMFB7a","isFallback":false,"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}