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 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.