________________
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogaśāstra
299
of Yoga, what is called hāno pāya comes, of course, first is, I think, quite conspicuous.
These observations will, I trust, suffice to corroborate the assumption made above, viz. that the conspicuous transposition of the last two vyūhas in the introduction of the Vivarana is caused by nothing else than the wish to bring out into proper relief the « śāstrārambhaprayojana » (cf. p. 161.11) 27.
Therefore 28, 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 YBhāsya 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 caturvyūhatva 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 caturvyūhatva warrants the assumption of an external influence in general or of an influence exercised on s. by the YBhāsya or the YS in particular. 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 hänopāya, viz. samyagdarśana, that is spoken of as prayojana, viz: p. 169, 1. 14-15: ārabhyamānasya śāstrasya samyagdarśanam eva prayojanam (cf. also the quite frequent expression samyagdarśanaśästra). If this latter remark is not merely meant to account for the somewhat puzzling fact that the Bhāşyakāra already in commenting on YS 2.15 (and not only on 2.20) touches on the topic of the hātr (cf. p. 169, 1. 10 ff.), other explanations one could think of are [1] that this apparent inconsistency is due to an upacāra: the term which primarily denotes the means is used metonymically to denote its result; or [2] that samyagdarśana 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 hāna; or [3] that samyagdarśana is given preference because hāna is an avastu, i.e. not something positive, but only the not-existing-any-longer of the connection between subject and object (bandhanoparama) (cf. p. 204, 1. 13-16). On the other hand, however, the text might be corrupt here: śāstrasya could have replaced an original sūtrasya (cf. also l. 14 ... Šāstram atanparam ārabhyate) and samyagdarśanam could resume this term as used in a narrower sense in the YBh itself, viz. p. 170, 1. 2.
28. In any case, the Vivaranakāra's motive for the transposition cannot have been s's also! On the order of enumeration of the four vyūhas in Yoga texts and that of the Four Noble Truths cf. below p. 306.
