________________
On the Quadruple Division of the Yogaśästra
311
more than bare references, and the result of our examination of Ayurvedic texts is accordingly rather disappointing, for in them the quadruple division is not given the fundamental importance peculiar to it in Yoga texts. One is, therefore, left with two alternatives, viz. either that it was these Yoga thinkers who realized the full importance of the division, or that what these Yoga thinkers refer to is but a later development in Indian medicine 53. However, this much is clear beyond doubt: the fourfold scheme as such, even if not also applied in writing medical works, did actually exist.
This conclusion is additionally corroborated by a clearly independent witness not called into evidence so far. What I am referring to is an hitherto unpublished passage in the śrutamayī bhūmi of the Yogacārabhūmi which was pointed out and given to me by my friend L. Schmithausen 54. It runs thus: cikitsa katamā sā caturākārā veditavya tadyatha äbädhakausalyam abädhasamutthanakausalyam utpannasyābādha[...]sya prahāṇakausalyam prahinasyābādha[...]syāyatyām anutpadakausalyam esam ca kausalyanam vibhango yathāsūtram eva veditavyah // 55. « Which of many things (or: Of what kinds) is medical treatment? It has to be regarded as having four forms, viz. skill [in diagnosing] the disease, skill [in determining] the origination (i.e. cause) of the disease, skill [in applying] the means of getting rid of the disease which has arisen [and finally] skill [in ensuring] that [the disease] which one has got rid of does not arise again in future. Moreover, as for the detailed explanation of these [medical] skills, it [is not given here, but] has to be known precisely according [to what has been taught] in the [respective] Sūtras ».
Though the terminology is palpably different, there can hardly be any doubt that the quadruple division taught is practically identical with that referred to in Caraka, and thus, ultimately, also with that drawn upon in our Yoga texts, the four kausalyas corresponding to roga, rogahetu, bhaiṣajya and arogya, respectively 5%. The last sentence of the passage quoted is of particular importance; for it cannot but be taken as evidence for the fact that this division was expounded already
53. In this latter case one would have to assume that it was not given due attention in later medical texts because the tradition of how a medical treatise should be dispositionally structured had become fixed to such an extent that alterations were not possible (any more).
54. On this occasion I should also like to acknowledge with sincere gratitude the vivid interest he showed in the present study in general and its part 4 in particular, for much of the material referred to there I owe his pigeon-hole.
55. The passage is found in the Patna MS of the Sravakabhūmi at 2 B 6-2 [= 96 a 2 of the Patna MS of the Yogacarabhūmi]. The former adds vi at the very beginning, which, however, seems to have been deleted, and the latter reads draṣṭavyā in the place of veditavya and anu[...]tpăda'. By square brackets deleted akşaras are indicated.
56. Particularly close is obviously the similarity with the Carakasamhita (cf. the term apunarbhava in the latter); see below p. 323.
