________________
The Practice of the Earlier Tirthankaras
169
means there was no division of the vows into even two classes, to say nothing of the four. Division and classification come only with Chedopasthanika samyama, which according to Jayasena commentator of Pravacanasâra of Kundakunda (III, 10) may mean:
छेदेन व्रतभेदेन उपस्थापनं छेदोपस्थापनम् ।
तच्च संक्षेपेण पंच-महाव्रतरूपं भवति ।। i.e. presentation of Sârnyama by cutting it into several distinct vows is called Chedopasthâpanâ which briefly consists of the five vows. This is also what is meant by the author of Sarvârthasiddhi (IX, 18) when he says STYR1141 faarufafaat which is further explained in Raja-varttikka as सावा कर्म हिंसादिभेदेन विकल्पनिवृत्तिः छेदोपस्थापना।
Viewed in the light of these explanations of Sâmâyika and Chedopasathậpanâ samyama, the statement in the Mulâcâra as set forth above is found to mean, so far as the distinct Characterstic of Pârsvanatha's ascetic practice is concerned, that while Pârsvanatha regarded all Samyama as one (Sâmâyika, Mahâvîra classified it into five vows Chhedopasthânka).
Let us now see whether this view finds any support in the Arhdha Mâgadhi Canon. The first statement that caught my eye in this context was Uttarâdhyayana XXXIX, 8 which is as follows:
सामाइएण भंते जीवे किं जणयइ? सामाइएण सावज्ज-जोग-विरइं जणयइ।
Further, the statement Bhagavati (25, 7, 785) made the whole position clear. It is as follows:
सामाइयंमि उ कए चाउज्जामं अणुत्तरं धम्म । विविहेण फासयंतो सामाइय-संजओ स खलु ।। छेत्तूणं य परियागं पोराणं जो हुवेइ अप्पाणं ।
धम्मम्मि पंचजामे छेदोवट्ठाणओ स खलु ।। Here we are told beyond any possibility of doubt that Sâmâiya sanjama itself involves Caujjâma while splitting of the vows into five restraints would constitute the Chhedovatthâniyam. If we leave for the moment the word Caujjama out of consideration the distinction between Sâmâyika and Chhedopasthậpanâ is
