________________
314
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogasastra
315
.
the Four Noble Truths. One may find it surprising or even significant that none of the specialists quoted until now thought it, if not necessary then at least, desirable to adduce the reasons, too, that could convince their readers that what they have to do with is not an arbitrary and fanciful assumption, but a well-founded hypothesis. Yet, it is by no means a peculiar feature of Indology that an allegedly true and certain piece of knowledge is handed down from generation to generation, not because of a general lack of the critical faculty, but simply because nobody happened to take a second look at it, and in the present case it is but fair to admit that the assumption is in fact suggestive to such an extent that one is easily lulled into a sense of absolute security. Nevertheless, it bears renewed discussion.
4.1. The first question to be asked, then, is this: Who was the first scholar to make this assumption and what gave him this idea? By a note of Oldenberg's one is referred to the original source, viz. H. Kern's
Geschicdenis van het Buddhisme in India, that was translated into German by H. Jacobi in 1882. It is there that for the first time in a foot-note it is apodictically stated that the Four Truths are borrowed from the art of healing ". In the text itself of Kern's book a statement to the same effect is found at p. 367 (=469 in the German translation), and surprisingly enough followed by a reference to the YBhäşya on YS 2.15 from which the relevant passage is quoted in translation. Though it is not expressly stated one cannot but draw the conclusion that it was precisely this passage that gave Kern the idea of the Four Noble Truths having been borrowed from the art of healing. This conclusion is in fact corroborated by Kern's Manual of Indian Buddhism where it is sald: It is not difficult to see that these four Satyas are nothing else but the four cardinal articles of Indian medical science, applied to the spiritual healing of mankind, exactly as in the Yoga doctrine in a footnote a portion of the text of the YBh on YS 2.15 is given), and two passages from the Lalitavistara are quoted to vindicate the assertion that this connection of the Aryasatyas with medical science was apparently not unknown to the Buddhists themselves . The Lalitavistara,
however, is of so late a date that it could not by any means be regarded as evidence for the fact that the quadruple division of the science of medicine antedates the historical Buddha or was even developed in his youth. Yet in reality the division as such is not mentioned at all, nay not even alluded to in this text; what is said in the two passages pointed out by Kern is merely that the Buddha is a vaidyaraja in that he is a pranocakaḥ sarvaduḥkhebhyah or a sarvavyddhipramocakah: that is to say, he is but compared to a physician.
4.2. But before continuing the critical discussion of Kern's remarks, and the arguments brought forward by others, it is advisable to reflect on the implications the assumption examined here cannot but have. This might seem superfluous, but is nevertheless necessary since nowhere in the relevant secondary literature do I find them explicitly stated so that one cannot help suspecting that they were not clearly realized by Kern and those depending on him directly or indirectly. These implica tions are, of course, that the science of medicine was either already before the Buddha or at least in his times divided in this manner and that the Buddha knew this systematic division.
Our knowledge of the historical person called the Buddha does not permit us to answer the question whether at all or to what extent he was familiar with the contemporary science of medicine. Therefore it is not possible to check whether the second condition can be regarded as fulfilled. As for the first and basic implication, one would have to look for pre-Buddhist medical literature. As even the most ancient of the so-called Ayurvedic texts are of later origin, it could only be one of the Vedic texts where one could strike on a relevant statement. Nobody, however, has so far come up with any such reference. This holds good for the other possibility also, viz. that the quadruple division be attested in a non-medical text of pre-Buddhist origin. Therefore, it has to be stressed that all we actually have are at best references in
65. Viz. in his: Buddha, Sein Leben, seine Lehre, seine Gemeinde, 1923, p. 236. It should be noted that J. Filliozat in the article mentioned in fn. 99 below arrives at the same conclusion.
66. Haarlem, 1882 (Eerste deel), 1884 (Tweede deel).
67. Der Buddhismus und seine Geschichte in Indien. Eine Darstellung der Lehren und Geschichte der buddhistischen Kirche, 2 Bde., Leipzig, 1882-84.
68. Viz. fn. 4 on p. 207 of the first part (corresponding to p. 265 in the German translation).
69. (Grundriss d. Indo-Arischen Philologle u. Altertumskunde III.8) Strassburg, 1896; the quotation is from p. 46 f.
70. The expression applied to. and the reference to the YBhasya preclude, I think, the possibility of taking Kern's remarks as meant to point out a systematic similarity only.
71. Viz, Lal. V. p. 448: utpanno vaidyarajah pramocakali sarvadukkhebhyah, pra risthapako nirvanasukhe, risannas Tathagaragarbhe Tathagatamahadharmardasane, and p. 458: cirdure jivaloke klesavyddhiprapidite / vaidyardt tvam samutpannah sarvavyddhi pramocakah //.
72. Laudable exceptions to the rule, however, are H. Oldenberg and J. Filliozat. Oldenberg (in the foot-note referred to above in fn. 65) clearly dissociates himself from Kern's opinion with the remark that it will not be possible to ascertain whether, as regards the fourfold division, Buddhism is the borrowing side a re. mark which does not simply show scepticism, but is most probably due to O.'s being well aware of the fact that there is no pre-Buddhist medical text to attest the division; Filliozat in his article (cf. below fn. 99) says more clearly: . Il eut fallu prouver que cette médecine les [= les quatre vérités] possédait avant le Boud. dhisme; Kern ne l'a point fait
73. From the description of Indian medical literature as given e... by J. Jolly in Medicin, Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie u. Altertumskunde III.10, Strass. burg. 1901) it follows that we have no medical texts of the intervening period [between the Vedic literature and the texts of Caraka and Susruta) as stated by A. L. Basham (The Wonder that was India, London, 1954, p. 499).
