On Quadruple Division Of Yogasastra

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 6

298
A. Wezler
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogašastra
299
ranakära's exposition? One cannot but answer this question in the posi. tive, and it is surprising that Hacker is silent on this. Nevertheless, one will hesitate to rest satisfied with simply noting this admittedly inte. resting point of agreement, at least, if one wants to escape the reproach of superficiality or of drawing premature conclusions. For, the correspondence might equally be coincidental.
Now, as for the USG, the reason for S.'s giving first what Hacker calls the initiation into discriminating knowledge and describing only thereafter the final goal or its attainment, is, I think, clear enough and need not provoke controversy. Since this portion of the USG is conceived by S. as a dialogue between a disciple and a teacher approached for instruction, there can hardly be any doubt that the instruction is given with a view to its application; what S. has in mind is the actual succes. sion of stages the disciple has to pass through; and that in reality the final goal is, if at all, attained last need hardly be mentioned.
The crucial point, however, is: are we to assume that the Vivarana. kära in changing the sequence was led by the same or a similar motive? In his case, the fact that he does not keep to the order of succession as found in the YS and Bhaşya is even more striking, since the four vyâhas of the Cikitsasastra are enumerated by him exactly in the same sequence as by the Bhāşyakara; the result being that the two series lack complete parallelism, and that the author is compelled to make clear in his last sentence that kaivalya in the quadruple division of Yoga corresponds to arogya in that of the Cikitsasastra (cf. drogyasthantyain the passage quoted above).
It is, however, this last sentence, together with the context in which the issue of the caturvy hatva as a whole stands in the Vivarana (cf. above p. 291), that provides us with the key for discovering the reason for the transposition in this text. The problem from which the author starts is, as has been noted already above, the exigency of dealing at the outset of his work explicitly with the prayojana of the Yogaśastra. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that particular stress is laid on that vynha to which the practice of Yoga is ultimately said to lead, and that this emphasis is achieved also by letting the whole discussion culminate in the exposition of what is taken to be the purpose, 1.c. of kaivalya.
To adduce further circumstantial evidence, if additional arguments are at all necessary: the transition from YS 2.24 to the subsequent one is gained in the Bhāşya by the following remark: heyam duhkham heya. karanamt ca samyogakhyam sanimittam uktam / atah paramt hanam vaktavyam/. All the Vivaranakära says in commenting on the latter sentence is (p. 203.13-14): a tah param hanam arogyasthaniyam mokşasastraprayojanam vaktavy a m / vaksyamanasamkirtanam ca srotrbuddhisamadhanartham /. It is true that he does not state explicity why « avoidance is to be taught next », but at the same time the absence of any remark on his part to the effect that in reality, i.c. in the practice
of Yoga, what is called hanopaya comes, of course, first is, I think, quite conspicuous.
These observations will, I trust, suffice to corroborate the assump. tion made above, viz. that the conspicuous transposition of the last two vynhas in the introduction of the Vivarana is caused by nothing else than the wish to bring out into proper relief the Sastrarambhaprayo. jana » (cf. p. 161.11)
Therefore, it can safely be stated that the agreement between the USG and the Vivarana as regards the interchange of the last two vyūhas is but coincidental, i.e. caused in each case by quite different deliberations It is hence quite possible, that S., if at all under the influence of Yoga texts in this respect, was inspired either by the YBhasya or perhaps even the YS itself. On the basis of the methodological considerations outlined above (p. 297) and in view of the observations made with regard to the exposition of the theory of the caturvyahatva in the three Yoga texts (cf. above p. 296), one cannot, therefore, help drawing the final conclusion that the comparative study of the USG and the Vivarana does not by any means yield sufficient evidence for the identity of the authors of the two texts as taken for granted by Hacker.
Although Hacker's basic assumption is thus - once more - shown to be highly problematic, nay practically unjustified, the question arising next should not be left unasked, viz. whether an element in authentic works of S., the Advaitin, reminding us of the Yoga theory of catur. vyahatva warrants the assumption of an external influence in general or of an influence exercised on s. by the YBhāşya or the YS in parti. cular. What is called for in this connection is a critical reexamination of the passages referred to by Hacker; such a reexamination yields the following results.
27. I do not, of course, want to keep silent about the fact that there is, on the other hand, a passage in the Vivarana where in striking and awkward contrast to its beginning it is the hanopaya, viz. samyagdarsana, that is spoken of as prayojana, viz. p. 169, 1. 14-15: arabhyamanasya sastrasya samyagdarsanam ova prayojanam (cf. also the quite frequent expression samyagdarśanasastra). If this latter remark is not merely meant to account for the somewhat puzzling fact that the Bhasyakára already in commenting on YS 2.15 (and not only on 2.20) touches on the topic of the hatr (cf. p. 169, 1. 10 f.), other explanations one could think of are [1] that this apparent inconsistency is due to an upacara: the term which primarily denotes the means is used metonymically to denote its result; or (2] that santyagdarsana insofar as it is the pratipaksa (cf. 168.16) of Nescience, the true cause of Suffering, is here regarded as the main thing to be achieved, ensuing almost automatically as it does hana; or (3] that samyagdarsana is given preference because hana is an avastu, ie. not something positive, but only the not-existing any longer of the connection bet. ween subject and object (bandhanoparama) (cf. p. 204, 1. 13-16). On the other hand. however, the text might be corrupt here: sastrasya could have replaced an original sutrasya (cf. also 1. 14 ... Sastram atahparam drabhyate) and samyagdarsanam could resume this term as used in a narrower sense in the YBh itself, viz. p. 170, 1. 2.
28. In any case, the Vivaranakära's motive for the transposition cannot have been s's alsol On the order of enumeration of the four vyähas in Yoga texts and that of the Four Noble Truths cf. below p. 306.