________________
300
A. Wezler
On the one hand it has to be admitted that the disciple in USG 47 compares himself to a sick person (rogin) and that S., led by deliberations like those outlined above, might have deliberately changed the sequence of the last two vyūhas against that attested in the YBhāṣya and YS. On the other hand, it cannot be disputed that the quadruple division itself is nowhere in the USG stated explicitly. This fact was, admittedly, noticed by Hacker; but is the explanation he offers, viz. that the division « is proper only to Yoga », not too simple a solution, or rather an attempt to avoid addressing himself to the methodological problem involved? In any case, Hacker's remarks are thought-provoking; for he is clearly of the opinion that the dispositional structure underlying the USG materially corresponds to the four vyūhas as enumerated by the Vivaraṇakāra; this might be true, though there still remains a doubt, viz. that when he « discovered » this internal structure of the USG Hacker was fully convinced of the identity of the two authors. It is, of course, not possible to adduce against Hacker the argument that it would then hardly be understandable that S. should, nevertheless, have refrained from explicitly introducing the quadruple division itself precisely because it «< is proper only to Yoga » 29. For Ś. may have applied the quadruple division to the teaching of Vedanta inspite of its impropriety, i.e. deliberately, yet also so inconspicuously that it passes almost unnoticed.
Therefore, what can be said is at best that the possibility of an influence exercised by the YBhāṣya or perhaps the YS itself cannot be entirely ruled out. And if the internal structure of the USG really reflects the quadruple division, such an influence may even be regarded as comparatively probable in view of the fact that S.'s works show this influence in other respects, too. But, the other possibility cannot be excluded with absolute certainty, viz. that Ś. was, on the contrary, under the influence of some other tradition, or under no specific influence at all. As to this latter alternative, one cannot but ask the following questions: would not anyone who takes life to be nothing but Suffering, or Illusion, and who accordingly looks upon man as in need of liberation incline most naturally to the view that man as he is can be compared to a person suffering from a physical ailment? Is not anyone who takes such a view of life quite easily led to put himself the question as to
29. Apart from the self-contradictory character of Hacker's respective remarks (cf. fn. 16), I should like to stress the following: even if S did not regard the quadruple division as « proper only to Yoga », the fact that it is not stated by him expressly to be the USG's divisionary scheme might be due to some other reason also; after all this is also not done in the YS. In any case, this possibility does not affect my argument.
