On Quadruple Division Of Yogasastra

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 4

294
A. Wezler
the Vivarana; the one substantial difference to be dealt with first is the point at which this quadruple division is taught in either work; appa-rently, by the time of the Vivaraṇakara it had become usual for (sub)commentators or authors of scientific works to deal already at the beginning with the purpose (prayojana), etc., of their main subject in order to convince the reader or hearer that it was worthwhile to take the trouble of studying it carefully. That is why the Vivaraṇakāra decided to point out the quadruple division of the Yogasăstra already at the very outset of his commentary; and, to be sure, he need not state explicitly that this example (drstanta ), i.e. the comparison of the Yogasastra with the science of medicine, was not his own invention; instead, what was of importance to him was to emphasize that the division is in accordance with explicit statements of Patañjali himself. And this claim of the Vivaraṇakära cannot be a limine treated with contempt as yet another example of the common practice of commentators to have what is but their own idea or, at least, an idea of later origin sanctioned, as it were, by the accepted authority of the mala text. His assertion that the caturvyahatva of the Yogasästra is pointed out (pradarsita) in the YS itself, beginning with sūtra 2.15, obviously does not belong to the category of such wishful, forced interpretations. Yet, it calls, nevertheless, for closer examination.
The Vivaranakara's reference to YS 2.15 may have been provoked in the first place by the fact that it is that sütra in explaining which the Bhasyakara deals with the subject of the caturvyahatva, i.e. makes the statement (quoted above) about the quadruple division of the YogaSastra; nonetheless it cannot be denied that the sûtra itself:
pariņāmatāpasamskaraduḥkhair gunavirodhac ca duḥkham eva sar.
vam vivekinaḥ
stands out in that in it the term duḥkha is not simply used as in others also, but is central to it; for it declares that to a vivekin, i.e. the Yogin who possesses discriminating insight into reality as analysed by Yoga, everything is Suffering in view of the various forms of Suffering consisting in change, mental or physical pain and subliminal impressions 22 and because of the fact that the functions of the constituents [of primordial matter] are opposed to each other». Undoubtedly, this is a central element of Yoga as expounded in the Sütra. Ascribing to life, as
21. This term is used by the Vivaraṇakära himself, viz. p. 168, 1. 21.
22. The author of the Vivarana explains (p. 159, 1. 12) that strictly speaking all three of them are but causes of Suffering (duḥkhanimittäni). For further eluci dation, I should like to refer the reader to the Bhasya and the Vivarapa on this sûtra. That this sûtra clearly exhibits Buddhist influence was shown by L. DE LA VALLEE POUSSIN, Mélanges Chinois et Bouddhique, V, 1936-37, p. 234 f. The term samskära has, of course, quite another meaning in Buddhist texts. Though one cannot, of course, be absolutely sure, it was probably reinterpreted already by the author of YS 2.15.
295
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogadastra
it does, the character of being nothing but Suffering. YS 2.15 must indeed be regarded as the pivotal statement about the nature of reality in the YS. And in the immediately following sutra (2.16: heyam duḥkham andgatam) it is taught that it is Suffering yet to come that has to be avoided, whereas in YS 2.17 the cause of that which has to be avoided (heyahetu) is defined as drastṛdrsyayoḥ samyogah, i.e. the connection of the subject with the object. As the three latter terms call for further elucidation, actually given in sütras 2.18-23, it is only in YS 2.24 (tasya hetur avidya) that nescience is expressly stated to be the cause of this connection. The term hana, which the reader now expects, is in fact met with in the next sütra (2.25) which reads thus: tadabhāvāt samyogabhavo hanam, tad dṛśeḥ kaivalyam: « Avoidance is the nonexistence of the connection on account of its (i.e. the nescience's) nonexistence; this is the seer's (i.e. the spirit's or soul's) being-absolutelyby-himself. The obvious question as to the means of avoidance, i.e. of attaining the state of liberation, is answered by the immediately following sūtra (2.26): vivekakhyatir aviplava hänopayaḥ the means to avoidance is the steady or firm lucidity-of-discriminating-knowledge », i.e. the complete or perfect realization of the absolute difference between purusa and prakṛti.
Thus it is already on the historical level of the YS itself that, in a series of sūtras obviously forming a unitary whole, four clearly demarcated concepts are attested, viz.
23. The last word of this sütra (andgatam) which is left out in the Bhâşva- and Vivaranakira's independent expositions of the caturvyahatva, most probably for practical reasons only, is accounted for by the author of the YBh in the following manner: duhkham atitam (Viv.: vartamandi janmano 'tikrantajanmalaksanam duh kham) upabhogendtivähitam na heyapakse vartate (Viv.: svayam eva hinarvar) / var. tamanam ca (Viv.: janmalaksanam duḥkham) svaksane bhogarüdham (Viv.: svam vartamanan bhogavisistam ksanam adhvānam upabhujyamänätmakatvendrüdham) iti na tat kṣaṇantare heyatam dpadyate (Viv.: svayam eva bhogena hinam na handya ksandntaram apeksate) tasmad yad evandgatam (Viv.: prayanantarabhavijanmaduhkhalaksanam) duḥkham tad eväksipätrakalpam (cf. YBh on YS 2.15) yoginam klisnati (= udvejayari, cf. Viv. p. 164, 1. 7 ff.) <netaram pratipattaram> (not at tested in the Vivarana and indeed to be suspected as being a later addition; cf. also Bh 164, 1. 3) / tad eva heyatdm dpadyate (the Viv. reads tad eva heyam here: the other reading might in fact have originated only secondarily, viz. due to heyatam apadyate in the second sentence; the Viv. adds by way of explanation: samyagdarsanena hänlyam ucyate/ bhavisyajjanmabhäväyaiva yatitavyam na vartamánaduḥ khanirodhaya / vartamänajanmayiyatisäyäm hi samyagdarsanam asakyaviniyogatvad anarthakam sydt / muktabänavat pravrttaphalatvad vartamánaduḥkhasya bhavisyati punar apravṛttatvdd bijanirodha upakalpata iti samyagdarsanarthavattvam svavisayo hi samyagdarsanasya sa [i.e. bhavisyajjanma] iti ). That is to say ac cording to the Vivarapakāra at least, Suffering yet to come means Suffering consisting in and experienced in the next birth(s). In any case, the sutra is right. as it is in fact only andgatam dulkham that can, if at all, be avoided; but at the same time the addition of andgatam may be taken to indicate that the author was more interested in actual Yoga practice and its exact description than in, making general abstract statements.