On Quadruple Division Of Yogasastra

This document is an academic article by A. Wezler titled "On the Quadruple Division of the Yogaśāstra, the Caturyūhatva of the Cikitsāśāstra and the << Four Noble Truths >> of the Buddha." It is part of a series of studies on the Patanjalayogasastravivarana.

The article critically examines the widely held academic view, popularized by scholars like Paul Hacker, that the Buddha's "Four Noble Truths" were borrowed from the four-part division of Indian medical science (Cikitsāśāstra). Wezler delves into the historical and philological evidence from various Indian texts, including:

• The Yogaśāstra: Specifically, the Yoga Sutras (YS), the Yoga Bhasya (YBh), and the Patanjalayogasastravivarana (YV).
• The Cikitsāśāstra (Medical Science): Examining references to a four-part division in medical texts.
• Buddhist Texts: Focusing on the Four Noble Truths and their potential connection to medical divisions.
• Nyāya Philosophy: Investigating the Nyāya tradition's own four-part division related to liberation.

Key Arguments and Findings:

1. The Quadruple Division in Yoga: Wezler argues that the idea of a four-part division (caturyūhatva) is present in the Yoga Sutras themselves, specifically in the commentary on YS 2.15. This division, analogous to medical therapeutics, involves:

   • Suffering (duḥkha) as the illness (roga).
   • The cause of suffering (heyahetu) as the cause of illness (rogahetu).
   • Avoidance or liberation (hānam/kaivalyam) as health (ārogya).
   • The means to avoidance (hānopāya) as the remedy (bhaiṣajya). The Yoga Bhasya elaborates on this, explicitly comparing Yoga to medical science. The Vivarana largely repeats this division, initially placing it at the very beginning of the text to establish the purpose of the Yogaśāstra.

2. Critique of Hacker's Thesis: Wezler challenges Hacker's assertion that the quadruple division was an interpretation introduced by Sankara in the Vivarana and that it was uniquely characteristic of Yoga. Wezler demonstrates that the division is traceable to the Yoga Sutras and the Yoga Bhasya, and that the attribution of its creation solely to Sankara is questionable.

3. The Quadruple Division in Indian Medicine: Wezler investigates whether the Cikitsāśāstra itself supported this four-part division. He finds references in texts like the Carakasamhitā and a Buddhist Sūtra (Vyādhisūtra). However, he notes that the division, while present, did not hold fundamental importance in medical texts to the same degree it did in Yoga. The comparison to medicine seems to serve as an illustration of Yoga's therapeutic approach to spiritual liberation.

4. The Buddha and the Four Noble Truths: Wezler meticulously examines the claim that the Buddha's Four Noble Truths were "borrowed" from medical science. He traces this idea back to H. Kern and subsequent scholars. While acknowledging a striking structural similarity between the Four Noble Truths and the medical division (suffering, cause of suffering, cessation of suffering, path to cessation, paralleling illness, cause of illness, cure, remedy), Wezler finds no direct evidence to support a claim of historical borrowing.

   • He argues that the comparison in Buddhist texts often serves as a metaphor to illustrate the Buddha's role as a healer of spiritual suffering, not as proof of direct influence on the doctrine's formation.
   • The earliest Buddhist texts that draw this comparison, like Buddhaghosa's commentary, appear much later than the Buddha.
   • Crucially, the Sanskrit source (Vyādhisūtra) that most explicitly equates the Four Noble Truths with medical divisions also contains elements that do not perfectly align with the Buddhist structure, suggesting a complex interrelationship rather than direct borrowing.

5. The Nyāya Tradition: Wezler also analyzes the Nyāya system, where a similar four-part division related to achieving the Highest Good is found in Vātsyāyana's commentary on the Nyāya Sutras. He notes the terminology (heya, nirvartaka, hāna, upāya) closely mirrors that found in Yoga. Bhāsarvajña's commentary is highlighted, showing a sophisticated attempt to reconcile the Nyāya's twelvefold classification of "objects of valid cognition" with the fourfold soteriological framework. Wezler suggests that the Nyāya tradition likely borrowed from or was influenced by the Yoga tradition's established four-part structure.

Overall Conclusion:

Wezler concludes that while there is a clear and pervasive structural analogy between the four-part division of medical science, the Yogaśāstra, the Four Noble Truths, and the Nyāya doctrine of liberation, the hypothesis that the Buddha's Four Noble Truths were historically borrowed from medical science lacks concrete evidence. Instead, he suggests a more nuanced understanding:

• The four-part division of medical science existed.
• Yoga thinkers, particularly in the YS and YBh, adopted and applied this division to their system, comparing Yoga to medicine.
• Buddhist authors later drew comparisons between the Four Noble Truths and this medical/Yoga framework, using it metaphorically.
• The Nyāya tradition also incorporated a similar four-part framework, likely influenced by Yoga.

Wezler questions the "obviousness" of the medical origin of the Buddha's teachings, suggesting that the perceived similarity might be a "preconceived idea" influenced by modern Western conceptions of medicine. He posits that the Buddha's profound analytical capacity might have independently arrived at a similar structure, which was then later mapped onto medical classifications. The study emphasizes the need for rigorous philological analysis and caution against readily accepting established scholarly hypotheses without thorough investigation.