On Quadruple Division Of Yogasastra

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 8

296
A. Wezler
heyam defined as 24 duḥkham heyahetuh
drastrdrśyayoh samyogan hānam
samyogābhāvah, i.e. kaivalyam and finally, hānopāyaḥ
vivekakhyātir aviplavā. Evidently this quadruple division is substantially identical with that expounded by the Bhāsyakāra in his commentary on 2.15; and what the Vivaranakāra does is to resume this division. On the other hand, one cannot fail to observe that in the YS itself the division is neither expressly stated to be a divisionary scheme; nor to be a quadruple one; nor to apply to the Yogaśāstra; nor, finally, is it compared to a similar division of the Cikitsāśāstra. Nevertheless, the conclusion apparently arrived at by the Bhāsyakāra, viz. that what the author of these sūtras actually had in mind was really a quadruple division of the system of Yoga, cannot but be accepted, by any unbiased reader who is aware of the peculiarities of a Sūtra text, as being perfectly legitimate and cogent. The only material difference worth noticing here lies in the absence of even an allusion to the science of medicine in the YS: to all appearance, this is a new element that was probably introduced for the first time by the YBhāsya.
Drawing now the final conclusion from what has been stated in the foregoing on the evidence found in the Bhāsya and in the Sūtra for the quadruple division of the Yogaśāstra, I cannot help stating in so many words the impression, created not only by this part of Hacker's article, that he does not in this case endeavour to get the better of his prejudices, but overrides, rather arbitrarily, all facts that might stand in his way and are apt to undermine the basic assumption from which he starts. Thus his assertion that the system of Yoga «as found in the sūtras themselves, is not divided in this manner »> is not merely bold, but demonstrably wrong 25, and it is by no means legitimate to give the author of the Vivarana credit for having « established > this division as Hacker says, or to state that « the division is an interpretation introduced by S.».
2.3. As regards this division, any comparative study of the Vivarana, on the one hand, and of the presumably early or late works of S., the Advaitin, on the other, must hence start from the following observations: 1. The division is clearly attested already in the YS though it is not
explicitly taught as quadruple and applying to the Yogaśāstra.
24. I am, of course, aware of the fact that not all the sütras quoted are « definitions >> in the strict sense of the word.
25. At least as regards the caturvyūhatva as a divisionary, scheme. Obviously Hacker had lost sight of the important difference between a systematic division or divisionary scheme as such and its having actually been made the basis of a corresponding disposition of the material.