On Quadruple Division Of Yogasastra

SR No.: 269542
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Total Pages: 25
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 5 MB

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.