________________
This understanding is very interesting. Harisena expressly confirms the first step of Yama on the path to spiritual self-realisation. He had lost his buddhi, as he could not even leam the Parica Namaskara, his guru had sent him away. But now he is able to understand the slow-wittedness of children looking for their lost toy, konikā. His new understanding represents a reactivation of his lost buddhi, which was only slumbering. He has not become a pandita, but he is now able to become an authentic muni.
Such is the last word of the story. Yama improves his qualities as a muni. and obtains the seven rddhis. The former result is mentioned in Bhagavati Ārādhana 771, but the latter only in Kathakośa and Brhatkathākusa. In his auto-commentary, Asadhara gives information on this Digambara traditional list of seven items. It encompasses buddhi, tapas, vikriva, ausadhi, rasa, bala and aksīnā. Some of these are magic powers. which, according to Schubring (2000 $ 181: 316), can be considered as a Jain concession to popular belief. Yet, the first two terms (mental power and asceticism) are quite different. The first one, buddhi, is of special interest in the context of the Yama case. It means not only the above mentioned reactivation of his lost memory power. but something more. If, according to Schubring, it cannot be the access to the highest stage of meditation (sukla-dhväna), it has probably some relationship with some wonderful improvement of buddhi such as kottha-buddhi. By this term buddhi is compared to a granary, which can contain seeds (biya) and veils (pada). When acquiring this kind of buddhi, some people are able to conceive the principles of the sciences, and to develop them to their final conclusion. The lack of such a buddhi was the main mark of the muni Yama. Was he not unable to learn even the seed, the Pañca Namaskära formula, and to develop it? This requirement of buddhi, not spectacular magic power, gave him the real means of a true spiritual improvement.
Last but not least, this story illustrates the meaning of an enigmatic verse of the Bhagavati Arādhanā, the last pāda of it being: kim puna jina-utta-suttenam-, i.e., moreover the sūtra told by the Jina. By this argument, the thought goes one step further. It is more rhetorical than logical. The extension proceeds not from one restricted class to a wider one, as in inductive reasoning, but by way of comparison, the ground of it being
2 BKK 61,58: Yamavogi paripräpva guru-samipvam ādarāt ! ghorain tapas cakaredam vividha-rddhisaman vilahll
25 VIII.81.
26 Ibid., and Aupapätika-stitra $ 24.
154