On Quadruple Division Of Yogasastra

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 5

A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogašastra
297
heyam defined as 24 duhkham heyahetuh ) ) drastrdryayoh samyogah hanam
samyogabhavah, i.e. kaivalyam and finally, hanopayah
vivekakhyarir aviplava. Evidently this quadruple division is substantially identical with that expounded by the Bhäşyakára in his commentary on 2.15; and what the Vivaranakāra does is to resume this division. On the other hand, one cannot fail to observe that in the YS itself the division is neither ex. pressly stated to be a divisionary scheme; nor to be a quadruple one; nor to apply to the Yogasastra; nor, finally, is it compared to a similar division of the Cikitsasastra. Nevertheless, the conclusion apparently arrived at by the Bhasyakära, viz. that what the author of these sutras actually had in mind was really a quadruple division of the system of Yoga, cannot but be accepted, by any unbiased reader who is aware of the peculiarities of a Satra text, as being perfectly legitimate and cogent. The only material difference worth noticing here lies in the absence of even an allusion to the science of medicine in the YS: to all appearance, this is a new element that was probably introduced for the first time by the YBhasya.
Drawing now the final conclusion from what has been stated in the foregoing on the evidence found in the Bhäşya and in the Sutra for the quadruple division of the Yogaśāstra, I cannot help stating in so many words the impression, created not only by this part of Hacker's article, that he does not in this case endeavour to get the better of his prejudices, but overrides, rather arbitrarily, all facts that might stand in his way and are apt to undermine the basic assumption from which he starts. Thus his assertion that the system of Yoga eas found in the sátras themselves, is not divided in this manner is not merely bold, but demonstrably wrong", and it is by no means legitimate to give the author of the Vivarana credit for having established this division as Hacker says, or to state that the division is an interpretation introduced by S.,
2.3. As regards this division, any comparative study of the Vivarana, on the one hand, and of the presumably early or late works of S., the Advaitin, on the other, must hence start from the following obser. vations:
2. It is expounded likewise by the author of the YBhāşya, unequi
vocally and in detail, and it is he who apparently has to be given the credit for comparing the quadruply divided Yogasastra to the science of medicine; in any case, this comparison seems to have
been added later. 3. The division is but repeated by the Vivaranakära, viz. for the
obvious reasons stated already at the very outset of his work. In order not to go astray in interpreting the relevant passages, it is further advisable, if not even imperative, not to follow Hacker's argu. mentary approach. As has also been shown elsewhere it is by far better for considerations of method not to let oneself be impressed too much by the fact that the Vivarana is in its colophons ascribed to a Sankarabhagavant; what we should do instead is to take the authorship of the Vivarana to be a problem which is still unsolved. References to the quadruple division as a whole, or in part, found in a work of S., the Advaitin, should not therefore be studied on the basis of the assumption made by Hacker. Instead of arguing the way he does, viz. that if we assume the identity of the Vivaranakära and S., the Advaitin, we are able to explain peculiarly Yoga features in the authentic works of S.. the Advaitin, in the manner outlined by Hacker, we should face up to the real problem in all its seriousness and intricacy. viz. put ourselves, without bias, the pivotal question whether the quadruple division, if met with in a work of S.'s, or even suggestions of such a division there, can in fact best be explained by assuming the Vivarana to be another and then, to be sure, the earliest work of the famous Advaita philosopher.
This assumption could be regarded as necessary if, and only if the comparative study of the relevant passages in authentic works of s. listed by Hacker himself, on the one hand, and the exposition of the caturvyahatva of the Yogaśāstra in the Vivarana, on the other, were to reveal so specific a correspondence that the hypothesis that the author is one and the same in both cases would suggest itself as the only solution or, at least, the one most plausible.
In view of the close similarity between the Vivaranakāra's exposition and that of the Bhāşyakāra, specific correspondence could in our case firstly mean literal agreement ». No such agreement has, however, been pointed out by Hacker, and, to be sure, there is none. But, secondly, what about the condition of a peculiar property being common both to the Vivarana and an authentic work of $., the Advaitin?
Is not the sequence of the last two members of the fourfold division in the case of the USG reversed, and does not this change, on the one hand, stand clearly in contrast to the order of enumeration as found in the YS and -Bhasya, and strikingly agree, on the other, with the Viva
1. The division is clearly attested already in the YS though it is not
explicitly taught as quadruple and applying to the Yogasastra.
24. I am, of course, aware of the fact that not all the sátras quoted are definitions in the strict sense of the word.
25. At least as regards the caturvyahatva as a divisionary scheme. Obviously Hacker had lost sight of the important difference between a systematic division or divisionary scheme as such and Its having actually been made the basis of a corre sponding disposition of the material.
26. Viz. in the article mentioned in fn. 2.