________________
२३
In the light of this historical context, we can add a few comments on our Dhyanastava. Bhaskarnandi states that dhyana is again all classified into four sthas. Although he does not explicitly mention, it is evident that this classification is altogether based on the object of meditation. He accepted dhyana, as Amitagati did, in two categories, agamic and non-agamic. Āgamic category is the traditional classification of dhyana, and non-agamic, new method under the head of the object of meditation. The latter is not found in his Vṛtti, as Sarvärthasiddhi etc. are silent about it. Grammatically it is even possible to interpret our verse 24 that all the types of dhyana, e.g., arta, together with their subdivisions, are each again subdivided by these four sthas. However, it is not at all feasible from the historical context to take it in this sense of mechanical combination, hence it should be disregarded. Also, we may be able to analyze Dhyanastava in the aspects of meditation, types of meditation, meditator, and result. Meditation is defined in verse 6; classification of meditation is treated in verses 8-23 (agamic) and 24-36 (non-agamic ); desirable nature of the meditator, that is, of dharmya and śukla dhyana, is dealt in verses 7, 13-14, 38-92. Verses 13 and 14 are specifically concerned with dharmya dhyāna, however, as śukla dhyana is said to be "verily virtuous with profound purity," it should, of course, demand these qualities. The result of meditation is implied in the expression, such as, "the cause of deliverance," in verses 8, 36 and so forth.
Thus, before Hemacandra, there were two kinds of classification of dhyana, old and new, existing side by side.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
