________________
306
.
A. Wezler
differences which cannot be ignored. Terminologically and conceptionally the fourth Noble Truth is distinguished by the fact that it explicitly states that the « remedy >> is not something lying at hand, but that in order to reach the final goal of duḥkhanirodha, one has to take a specific route leading to it. Though the distance to be covered is, quite understandably, not specified, the image of a path forms a peculiar and central element of the Buddhist concept 37. Of course, there cannot be the least doubt that it is precisely in this regard that the Yogic concept of « means of avoidance »is virtually identical with the fourth Noble Truth; for, the central purport of Yoga is to teach a practice by applying which one is gradually led to vivekakhyāti that ultimately brings about the irreversible cessation of the connection between subject and object, i.e. kaivalya 38. But it remains noteworthy that the character of being a process is not indicated by the corresponding term employed in Yoga texts or by the explanations given for it by the commentators 39. Inspite of this difference, however, the correspondence between the fourth Noble Truth and the vyūha listed in the last line of our chart cannot but be styled as quite close.
The final result achieved by our comparison of the Four Noble Truths as a whole with the quadruple division of the two Brahmanical Šāstras is, therefore, that the correspondence between them can be regarded as even strikingly close, if we make the assumptions noted above with regard to the explanation of Buddhist terms. It must not, however, be forgotten that it is but a systematic correspondence which has thus been discovered. The historical problems evidently involved have still to be taken up for consideration.
Regarding their order of succession the Four Noble Truths perfectly agree with the four vyūhas of the Cikitsāśāstra and those of the Yogaśāstra as enumerated in the YS and YBhāşya 40. In view of the above (p. 297 f.) discussion on the transposition of the last two members common to both, the Vivarana and the USG of Sankara, the Advaitin,
37. Note that the expression dukkhanirodhagamini pafipadā is replaced by maggo in what Norman (cf. fn. 31a) calls the « mnemonic >> sets. That this image is met with in the YBh also, viz. on YS 2.26 (p. 205, 1. 3 of the edition of the Vivarana), is most probably due to Buddhist influence (on which in general cf. L. DE LA VALLÉE POUSSIN, loc. cit., fn. 22).
38. In this connection cf., apart from passages already quoted, Vivarana e.g. p. 2.23 ff. and p. 121, 1. 4 f.: ... kaivalyasya sādhanam samyagdarśanam / yogasādhanäni ca yogadvārena samyagdarśanasādhanány eva / ...
39. Cf. fn. 37.
40. In the Sāmkhyapravacanabhāşya (cf. fn. 31) the order of succession has been changed, viz. to roga (= heya), arogya (= hāna), roganidāna (heyahetu) and bhaisajya (= hänopaya). This is, no doubt, equally a systematical order, only that the rationale is slightly different, viz.: first the contrary states are named and only thereafter, but with reference to them, the cause and the means, which again form a pair of corresponding entities. The term nidāna is also noteworthy in that it is used frequently in Buddhist texts, too, though first of all to denote the cause of metaphysical ailment.
