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 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.