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 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.