________________
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogaśästra
303
Hacker's remarks imply that the first vyūha, i.e. the first line of our chart, is taken by him to correspond to the first Noble Truth of the Buddha, i.e. that of dunkha (P. dukkha); and this correspondence can in fact be hardly disputed. Yet, of the second and third truth he says that they « are gathered into one »; this cannot but mean that there is but one element in the quadruple division of the Cikitsā- and Yogaśāstras corresponding to the truths of duhkhasamudaya (P. dukkhasamudaya) and duḥkhanirodha (P. dukkhanirodha) taken together. Hacker does not specify to which of the remaining vyūhas these two are to correspond, and it is indeed quite difficult to reconstruct his argument. In any case, his assertion is far from being convincing. Therefore, it seems advisable to examine the question at issue once more, without reference to Hacker's view.
What is meant by the concept rogahetu of the Cikitsāśāstra and by heyahetu, corresponding to it in Yoga, is clearly nothing but « what constitutes the cause of the disease >> or < the cause of that which has to be avoided ». If dunkhasamudaya, on the other hand, is taken to denote a process, i.e. the rise of Suffering, one would have to take note of a striking conceptional difference, viz. that between cause and process as denoted by these terms respectively. But, can it simply be taken for granted that it is this and nothing else that is meant by the term duḥkhasamudaya 3la? Such an assumption is scarcely satisfactory, and not so much because the formation of the primary noun samudaya- would, at least according to Pāņ. 3.3.56 in connection with 3.3.18 and 19, allow among others of a meaning « that from which or by which something arises », but because there are passages in canonical Buddhist texts which seem to show clearly that the term was in fact used to denote that by which the rising of dunkha is caused; e.g. at Vbh 107 it is expressly stated: tanhā ca avasesā ca kilesā ayam vuccati dukkhasamudayo; or, to give another example, at S III.158 the question katamo ca bhikkhave dukkhasamudayo is answered thus: yāyam tanhā ponabbhavikā nandi rāgasahagatā tatra tatrābhinandini, seyyathidam kāmatanhā bhavatanhā vibhavataṇhā ayam vuccati bhikkhave dukkhasamudayo.
One cannot, of course, be absolutely sure that these explanations are meant to be proper definitions of the term dukkhasamudaya; nor that they meet the original intention of the term; nor that the term was not elsewhere understood to denote a process. But it has, on the other hand,
31a. For a detailed and careful discussion of the grammatical and syntactical problems posed by the different versions in which the Four Noble Truths are stated in Buddhist texts cf. the recent article of K. R. NORMAN, The Four Noble Truths: A Problem of Pāli Syntax, in « Indological and Buddhist Studies, Volume in Honour of Professor J. W. de Jong on his Sixtieth Birthday », ed. by L. A. Hercus et al., Canberra, 1982, pp. 377-91. Norman does not, however, address himself to the semantic problems involved. As for dukkhasamudaya, cf. L. SCHMITHAUSEN, On Some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of « Liberating Insight >> and < Enlightenment » in Early Buddhism, in «Studien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus, Gedenkschrift für Ludwig Alsdorf >>, Wiesbaden, 1981, p. 203, fn. 14a.
