________________
298
A. Wezler
raņakāra's exposition? One cannot but answer this question in the positive, and it is surprising that Hacker is silent on this. Nevertheless, one will hesitate to rest satisfied with simply noting this admittedly interesting 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 ś. 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 $. has in mind is the actual succession 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 Vivaraņakāra 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 Bhāsya is even more striking, since the four vyūhas of the Cikitsāśästra are enumerated by him exactly in the same sequence as by the Bhāsyakāra, 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 ārogya in that of the Cikitsāśāstra (cf. arogyasthānīyao in the passage quoted above).
It is, however, this last sentence, together with the context in which the issue of the caturvyūhatva 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 Yogaśāstra. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that particular stress is laid on that vyūha 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 », i.e. 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 duḥkham heyakāranam ca samyogākhyam sanimittam uktam / ataḥ param hānam vaktavyam/. All the Vivaranakāra says in commenting on the latter sentence is (p. 203.13-14): atah param hānam ārogyasthānīyam mokşaśāstraprayojanam vaktavy am / vakşyamāṇasamkārtanam ca śrotsbuddhisamādhānārtham /. 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.e. in the practice
