________________
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
of an ayoga kevali who has just accomplished videha-mukti or the final release. Therefore the statement that its dhyātā is an ayoga ke vali precisely represents the canonical view of this dhyāna, which involves no problem. However the concept of sūksmakriyā expressed by Umāsvāti that it is the preformance of kāya-yoga-pirodha comes into conflict with the Uttaradhyayana 29.72 which says that it is the performance of yoga-nirodha in three forms. While formulating his own idea or sūksmakriya dhyāna, Umāsvāti seems to have taken recourse to the Uttarādhyayana passage of ‘kāya-samaharana' saying that collection of kāyayoga alone leads one to moksa but not the collection of mental and vocal activities (29.55-58). It should be reminded here that Univāli altered th: order of threefold yogas into kāya-van-manas in the T.S. VI:1 from the usual order of mano-väk-kāya. It is however difficult to widen the said concept of käya-yoga-nirodha as inclusively expressive of the nirodha of all the threefold yogas beginning with kāyayoga, because it invites technical difficulties involved with the other established concepts in this connection. According to Unāvāti, a sayoga kevali thus performs the third stage of sukla dhyāna immediately after completing the process uf bringing his subtle activities of mind and speech into cessation which takes place after the performance of samudghäta.
The Uttară shyay.na 39.35 reads, 'atta-ruddāņi vajjittä, jhā?jja susamāhie dhamma.Sukkāim jhānāmi, jhānam tam tu buhā vae', which finds an expression in the T.S. IX:30 (29) that the last two dhyānas alone are the causes of mok$1. And since dhyāna which is a part of tapas is here taken up in the context of samvara and pirjarā, ārta and raudra dhyānas do not fall in the context in question. The definition of dhyāna offered in 1X:27-28 which contains three different categories, i.e. the dhyātās' physical prerequisite of the best joints, the definition of chyāna proser and the duration of dhyāna, must be therefore primarily formulated in view of moksamārga But here he brought in all the four types of dhyāna in the canop, perhaps in order to distinguish the Jaina concept of dhyā ia from that of the other schools. This invited ambiguity by leaving an impression that the said definition is applicable to all the types of dhyāna. Or as we have previously understood and as so also understood by the later authors on dhyāna, Umājvāti might have desired to extend the said blanket definition to them all, because 'ekāgra-cinta' surely applies to ārta and raudra dhyānas also. And even if we exclude these two lower types from the said definition of dhyāra, the proviso of uttama-samanana (which certainly is over too narrow to be applied to the two lower types) is over narrow to be applied to the class of dhrama dhyāna, which led Pujyapāda to expand its content up to the third division of joints. Neither Umāsvāti lucidly expresses that 'ekāgra-cinta' is applicable to those in cbadmastha and 'kāya-nirodhi' to kevalis, as these are aphorized in one compound in singular ending. This obscure expression invited a misunderstanding as so evinced in the commentaries on the T. S. in both traditions. These unbappy points are therefore bound to fuo: in provenzats, of which task was vested in bis successors.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
