Pushkarmuni Abhinandan Granth

Author(s): Devendramuni, A D Batra, Shreechand Surana
Publisher: Rajasthankesari Adhyatmayogi Upadhyay Shree Pushkar Muni Abhinandan Granth Prakashan Samiti

Page 643

O
O
YLE
eit gemegfa afaran yra : 687 Eve
(Anger, pride, deceit, greed--originated in whichever being, know that to be the kaşayaLOKA as instructed by the eternal jinas.)
tivvo rāgo ya doso ya udiņņā jassa jantuņo
bhava-LOGAM viyāņähi ananta-jina-desiyam. 1149|| (Severe attachment and vice-or, hatred-originated in whichever being, know that to be the bhava-LOKA as instructed by the eternal jinas.)
This recurs in almost identical form as (Avaśyakaniryukti) Bhāṣya vs. 201 :
tivvo rāgo a doso a udinna jassa jantuņo
āṇāhi bhava-LOAM' ananta-jina-desiam sammam. 11201||
Here, the second line has been extended by addition of "sammam" (samyag, "properly") to form an äryä line. This change and the fact that the kaşaya theme (Mülācāra 7.47) got lost in the Avasyakaniryukti (Bhasya) indicate that the Mülācāra material is more authentic than the material of the Svetämbaras. The articles on "raga" and "dosa" (dosa or dveşa) in the PTS dictionary already indicats a certain osmosis between-krodha, mãna, māyā, lobha, on the one hand, and-raga, dosa (or dveşa), on the other. This may help to explain the combination-not of raga/dosa, but of the term: bhava with the term: kaşaya in the Acara-tradition. § 2.2. The "blending" of the Acara-and the Avaśyaka-tradition :
The "blending" of the Acara-and the Avaśyaka-tradition has two aspects. On the one hand, a LOKA-Nikşepa was not supplied. The Niryukti vs. 176 says: "LOGO bhanio", the Cürņi says: "LOYA-nikkhevo jaha LO'ujjoyagara-Nijjuttie", the Tika says: "LOKO'ṣṭadha nikşepârtham präg upâdeśi". By contrast, the Niryukti mentions in vs. 176 the four determinants (davvam, khittam. kalo, bhava) for "VIJAYA" and the due explanation or explication is supplied by both, Curni and Ţikā (though in an independent manner). In other words, "blending" means that for LOKA only a reference to tradition is given. In so far, only a mechanical juxtaposition of the old LOKA-Nikşepa and the new "VIJAYA"-Nikṣepa takes place.
The situation is different, as far as the kaṣaya complex is concerned. This was a theme of utmost importance. The Ţikā says (in explanation of the Niryukti vs. 1734): "Samsara-taror mulam......kaṣāyāḥ". The tradition regarding "VIJAYA" (i.e. regarding the individual "concepts" to be supplied) was not unanimous in the Acara-tradition. Also, the Niryukti vs. 176 was spurious (as will be seen later on), i.e. spurious in the sense of an explanatory intercalation. The introduction of the kaşaya complex was nevertheless decided from the very beginning. The Niryukti vss. 175 and 177 supply the following: "kasaya-LOGO; ahigaro tassa VIJAENAM" and "vijio kasayaLOGO", translated: "the kaşaya-LOKA; its investigation is the main point" and " (this) kaşayaLOKA is investigated". The problem arising for the ancient authors was to find a way for weaving the kaşaya-"vijaya" in the texture of the twin Nikṣepa. The exegetical limitation was carried to the extreme that any matter could only be supplied by connecting them with few words or words appearing at the beginning of a section of the Sütra-text-Avaśyaka Sūtra 2 is an instance of this. Both, Mülācāra and Avaśyaka Niryukti-cum-Bhāṣya are mainly concerned with its first verse ("logassa ujjoyagare......"). Again, the only possible mechanism of establishing a relation was the Nikṣepa, and this could, of course, be twisted in such a way that it accommodated every conceivable subject. At the same time, it must be admitted that the Nikṣepa was more than a means to an end. Nikṣepa and some other procedures (e. g. etymology and synonyms) were necessary as such. The Nikṣepa matter can be sub divided in the following way :
(a) Stop-gaps (e. g. nama sthäpane sugamatvād anādṛtya-Ṭīkā)
(b) Ad hoc material (e. g. puttam nattham maggati-Cūrņi, line 24)
(c) Important material taken verbatim from tradition (e. g. LOKA-Nikşepa)
(d) Important material, more or less traditional in its contents, but brought into literary
form for the relevant Nikṣepa (probably the tree-simile-Ṭīkā)
In the case of (b) above, we have to distinguish between trivial matter, invented ad hoc, and more or less complicated matter taken from tradition-not however, for its own sake but in order to fill various positions of the Nikşepa in a learned manner. An instance of the latter variety is