________________
justification of it would become an over-deduction ad absurdum. It is said that the absorption of the self in its very self is the definition of dhyāna. But it is also disregarded, because thought is accepted as the object to be restrained. The [ Buddhist ] dogma that nothing but the non-existence of any thought is dhyāna, or nothing but thought alone is dhyāna is also removed. Because if the nature of dhyāna is taken as nothing but the nonexistence of valid knowledge which is the innate nature of the human being, or as the negation of all thoughts, then, by all means, the same voidness would be applied to liberation also. Opponents contend, "The state of yoga wherein the self becomes unconscious of the object is the cause of the ultimate bliss (cf. Vacaspatimiśra's Tattvavaišaradi 1-20). Therefore, the self in this state is described as abiding in its transcendental nature. This state is truly the final liberation, or this state is verily dhyāna." No, your opinion is contradictory, because the self which is by all means characterized by its inherent non-dual nature is irrelevant to be characterized by the dual nature simultaneously [i. e., the self in the released state is characterized by consciousness, but the mundane soul in the meditating state is characterized by the dual nature, i.e., consciousness and unconsciousness ). The Jainas consider that a soul is modified by manifold nature. Hence, the validity of the Jaina doctrine of dhyāna is established since the self characterized by unwavering thought is expressly meant to be the nature of dhyāna, the self in this mode is elsewhere called dhyāna from the figurative point of view. And when the cause of the
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
