________________
38
Hemacandra does not recognize ārta and raudra dhyāna. He groups the four sthas together with the four āgamic subdivisions of dharmya dhyāna under the object of meditation. Dharmya dhyāna has herein two different categories of classification, which is still a deviated practice from the traditional viewpoint. These two categories must be somehow coalesced into one. Subhacandra accepts all the four ãgamic divisions of dhyāna, and subordinates the four sthas beautifully to the last subdivision of dharmya dhyāna, samsthāna-vicaya, to which these fit best. Herein, the derivative category is most logically fused into the traditional category, which puts an end to its transition process towards integration.
Whether Yogaśastra borrowed ideas from Jñonarnava, or vice versa, is a point of controversy, and I am far from its judge. Conceptually both are very close to each other. However, Jñanarnava is generally presented in the more well organized form, that is, thoroughly detailed and orthodox as the standard work of Jaina dhyāna than Yogaśastra. From this standpoint, it is improbable to assume that the above process can be reversed. That is, if Hemacandra had copied Subhacandra's classification of dharmya dhyāna, which is evidently the most intelligible form of all without contradicting the Agamas, he would have accepted it, and would not have allowed to it to have those two kinds of classification. However, it may be dangerous to infer that Hemacandra was succeeded by Subhacandra from the above ground alone, because it is also possible to view that Hemacandra's attitude is more rational, and his presentation is more succinct, therefore
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
