________________
On a Prose Passage in the Yuktidipika of Some Significance for the Ilistory of Indian Medicine
ALBRECHT WEZLER
1. At the very beginning of his commentary on Sankhyakärikä (= SK) 43' or, to be more precise, of his 'avatarana', i.e. introductory explanations meant to prepare the reader for the quotation and discussion of the kärikä itself the unknown author of the Yuktidipika (= YD) brings in the/an opponent' to make the following objection (123.16f):
aha: bhava iti tatra bhavatabhidhiyate na casya sabdasyärtham pratipadyamahetasmad vaktavyam idam ke punar ami bhava
iti 1.
'You speak of bhavas with reference to it, but we do not understand the meaning of this word; therefore it should be explained [by you] which those bhavas are.'
The defendant replies (123.17f.):
dharmadya bhavaḥh I dharmo jñānam vairagyam aiśvaryam adharmo jñānam avairagyam anaiśvaryam ity ete bhavaḥ,
For corrections of, and addenda to, my article 'On Two Medical Verses in the Yuktidipika' published in Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society 1.1990: 127-148, see my article 'Der Tod als Mittel der Entsühnung (gemäß dem Dharmasastra)' to be published in 1994 in the proceedings of a symposion (organized by G. OBERHAMMER) entitled 'Im Tod findet der Mensch sein Selbst. It seems advisable, however, to mention here too that in the JEAS article on p.132, 1.19 from above pratyaksata has to be read (instead of pratyaksa), and on p.136, 1.16 from above 'member' (instead of 'number').
1
Which reads as follows:
sāmsiddhikaś ca bhāvāḥ praktikā vaiktat ca dharmadyah | drstah karanätrayinah käryäfrayinat ca kalaladyāḥ 11.
2 In terms of the dialectical structure of the YD one could speak of a single opponent; with regard to the positions (philosophical, etc.) stated in order to refute Sänkhya tenets, however, many different opponents would have to be distinguished.
3 Reference is to the second edition of R.C. PANDEY, Delhi/Varanasi/Patna 1967. -The new critical edition I am preparing together with Prof. Shujun MOTEGI will be published at the end of 1993, or at the beginning of 1994 at the latest..
4 The pronoun most probably refers to the concluding sentences of the commentary (in the narrow sense) on SK 42, namely lasmad bhavanimittaḥ samsäraḥ I tannimittänutpädanän moksah || (123.15.).
A. Wezler, On a Prose Passage in the Yuktidipika
283
but not without adding that regarding these 'conditions (of the buddhi's there is a 'difference of opinion among the teachers (of Sankhya]' (tatracāryaṇām vipratipattily). The subsequent part of the 'avatarana' is then, as expected, devoted to outlining the various opinions of Pañcädhikarana, Vindhyavasin and finally Iśvarakrsna himself." According to the opinion of the latter the bhavas are threefold, (viz.] samsiddhika, prakrtika and vaikṛtika", i.e. 'are seen' to occur in three different forms, 'one innate, one caused by [an inflow of] primary matter and one caused by (a) transformation-product(s)'." Kārikā 43, however, in addition introduces the dichotomy of karanaśrayin, based on the instrument (i.e. the internal organ together with the five senses of perception and the five organs of action)', and käryäśrayin, "based on the effect (i.e.
5 E. FRAUWALLNER (Geschichte der indischen Philosophie 1, Salzburg 1953, pp.340ff;370ff.) renders bhavaḥ by Zustände der Erkenntnis' (buddhi) and 'psychische Zustände'. G.J. LARSON (Classical Sankhya, Delhi/Varanasi/Patna 21979, eg. pp.192f.) proposes 'conditions' or 'dispositions' as English equivalents, but as far as I can see he does not clarify in which of its several senses he uses the latter expression. According to SK 23 (adhyavasayo buddhir dharmo jñānam viraga aitvaryam I sättvikam etad ripam tämasam asmad viparyastam 11) they are the 'sättvika' or 'tamasa' form of the buddhi. Though the term bhava is not semantically explained in the YD, what is said in this com mentary on SK 23, not to mention the Sanskrit lexicon as such, clearly supports FRAU
WALLNER.
6 Note that this 'difference of opinion' does not refer to the distinction between 'three' and 'eight' and 'fifty' 'bhavas' (on which latter see LARSON, op. cit. in fn.5, p.193).
7 One cannot but suspect that the text of the YD contains a lacuna here, as Palanjali's opinion is not reported in course of the explanation of the introductory statement tatrācāryanām vipratipattiḥ, whereas it is referred to at the end of the exposition of isvarak şṇa's own position (124.15f.: evam trividhabhavaparigrahat tv äcāryasya na sarvan svataḥ patanjalivat ...); cf. also 121.3ff. (Pañcadhikarana, Patanjali and, finally,. Vindhyaväsin).
According to the YD his teaching is identical in substance with that of the much earlier Varsaganya.
Note that the expressions prākta and vaikyta are also used side by side with prakatika and vaikṛtika.
10 Cf. YD 124.8.: anyesam tu sattvasyāpatutvāt kālāntareṇa prakṛtyabhisyandad drug iti bhavati kṛṣṇasarpadarsanavat I tat prakṛtam 1.
11 CL. SK 25.
12 Literally 'characterized by an effect as [its] locus/substratum'.