________________
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogaśāstra
307
and on the basis of the tentative explanations proposed for the transposition in either text, the conclusion that suggests itself is that the traditional order of succession of the Four Noble Truths, strictly observed, as far as I know, whenever all of them are enumerated in Buddhist texts, is like that of the four vyuhas of the Cikitsāśāstra a systematical one, i.e. reflecting logical stages of analysis, but not stages passed through successively in actual practice.
3.1. A further problem, and to be sure, an important one, not discussed in the foregoing is posed by the comparison drawn in Yoga texts between the science of Yoga and the science of medicine. What I am referring to is the assertion met with first in the YBhāṣya that systematically the Cikitsāśāstra is divided into four parts. This is stated in such a manner that one cannot but gather the impression that the division is a genuine one: it is hardly conceivable that the caturvyuhatva of the Cikitsāśāstra as expounded in the YBhāṣya and the Vivarana is simply a fabrication made for the sole purpose of establishing a parallel to the fourfold division of the Yogasastra as implied already by the Sūtra itself. The whole tenor of the relevant passages has, on the contrary, to be taken to clearly indicate that the caturvyuhatva of the science of medicine was regarded by the authors as an indisputable, if not even a well-known, fact they could draw upon, in accordance with the basic function of a dṛṣṭanta, for the sake of illustration.
But, I think, one can go even a step further and make the assumption that this correspondence is not stated merely for the sake of illustration, but that much more is intended by it, viz. to bring the method of Yoga into close systematic proximity to the Cikitsäsästra and to intimate thereby that it is not merely of equal importance, but that it surpasses the science of medicine in that it does not cure simply an accidental physical disease, but forms the (allegedly) only remedy against the ailment every living being naturally suffers from, an ailment medicine is unable to cope with.
That this interpretation does not go too far is clearly corroborated by a well-known Samkhya text, viz. Isvarakṛṣṇa's Samkhyakārikā where already at the very outset, i.e. in Kārikā 1, it is expressly stated that the perceptible means of removal of the threefold suffering have neither an absolutely sure nor a necessarily final effect (dṛṣṭe sāpārthā cen naikāntātyantato'bhāvāt), And there can hardly be any doubt that the commentaries, above all the Yuktidīpikā 41, do meet the intention of Isvarakṛṣṇa when referring here to the Ayurveda.
3.2. Therefore, it is legitimate to check this assertion of Yoga authors and to ask the elementary question whether this quadruple division is attested in any of the extant medical texts. But before actually looking into any of these works it is necessary to realize a basic problem
41. Cf. p. 12, 1. 9 ff. in R. C. Pandeya's edition, Delhi, 1967.
