________________
320
A. Wezler
to "arha, viz. *, seems rather to be an error for Ź; if the latter is accepted, there is full agreement between the Sanskrit original and the Chinese translation also as regards the expression rājārha! The comparison further shows that the vibhanga portion of the original Sūtra, which preceded the sentence beginning with evam eva caturbhir amgaih, was simply left out by Yaśomitra, and it was left out in the Yogācārabhūmi (s. above p. 311) as well, where the reader is, however, referred to the original source precisely as regards this « detailed explanation !
But there is a very similar passage in a second, probably older, yet rather inaccurate translation of the Samyuktāgama, viz. T 100, no. 254, where also the vibhanga is missing. Therefore, one cannot be sure which of the two « versions » of the SĀ are actually referred to by the Yogācārabhūmi and Vasubandhu or quoted by Yaśomitra, respectively. In any case, the passage as a whole is missing in the Pali SN, and there is hence a high degree of probality that it forms but a later addition; for it is quite impossible to discover a motive for a transmitter dropping it. Yet, whatever the exact historical relation may be in which the different sources stand to each other, this much has to be accepted as established: Hīnayānistic Buddhist texts knew of a quadruple division of the science of medicine and compared the teaching of the « Four Noble Truths » to it.
The most important source is, of course, the Vyādhisūtra passage as quoted in the Abhidharmakośavyākhyā: it is preserved in Sanskrit and it is here that the Four Noble Truths are expressly compared to the corresponding systematic parts of the science of medicine. The parallel drawn is, however, not completely convincing, as already noted by de la Vallée Poussin who adds the remark: «You 93 will observe that, according to this sūtra, the third satya is the way (mārga, upāya) to the destruction of the disease, and the fourth the way to its notappearing-again (a-punarbhava). The scholastic point of view, so far as I know, is different ».
One might feel some reluctance to follow de la Vallée Poussin as regards his interpretation of the expression prahīņasyābādhasyāyatyām anut pādakuśalah; for it is highly improbable that it refers to a « way »! However, the impression one cannot but gather is that there is no full correspondence between the last two « medical skills » and the last two of the Four Noble Truths. And this becomes particularly evident in the case of the fourth « Noble Truth » which is clearly different from what is meant by prahinasyābādhasyāyatyām anut padakuśalah. One further wonders whether de la Vallée Poussin's adding the term apunarbhava by way of explanation is merely due to a free association or else evoked by a particular passage in an Indian medical text. For, it is exactly the term which is used in the verse from the Carakasamhitä drawn upon
93. De la Vallée Poussin's short article (cf. fn. 79) has actually the form of a letter addressed to Professor Rhys Davids.
