________________
Sec. 3, SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
In the Avasyaka niryukti 1477, Bhadrababu offers a definition of dhyans in chadmastha after Umäsväti by dropping the proviso of the best joints, 'amtomuhuttakalam cittass-egaggaya havai jhanam/tam puna ayam ruddam dhammam sukkam ca nāyavvam." In its gatha 1481 onwards, however, he expresses a dissatisfaction about Umāsvāti's idea of sukṣmakriya dhyana to be the performance of käya-yoga-nirodha in three kinds,tatthu bhanijja kol Jhanam jo manaso parinamol tam na havai jina-dittham jhanam tivthe-vi jogamni/1481// kde-vi-ya ajjharm vayai manassa ceva jaha hoi kaya-vaya-mmo-juttam tiviham ajjhappam-ahamu//: 484// jai egaggam cittem dharayao va nirumbhto vä-viljhanam hoi nanu taha iaresu-vi de em-eval/1485//. He emphatically explains then that väg-yoga-nirodha also falls in the domain of dhyana. His criticism in the first half of the gatha 1481 is obviously directed against Patanjali's definition of yoga, and a similar criticism against it pervades in the works of his successors.
Bhadrabahu is quite right in proposing this amendment by representing the canonical view described in the Uttaradhyayana 29.72. It is interesting to see however that his proposal faces a doom to be turned down by Jinabhadra who offers a full support to Umasväti's view in his Viseṣāvas yakabhasya, sudadha-ppayaṭṭa-vāvāraṇam nirodho va vijjamāṇāṇam! jhāṇam karaṇāņa matam na tu citta-nirodha-metra yam//3669// hojja na manomayam vayiyam va jhanam jinassa tad-abhave! kaya-nirodha-payatassa bhavam-iha ka niväreti? //3670// aha'bhave manaso chatumatthass-eva tam na jhanam sel adha tad-abhäve vi matam jhanam to kinna suttassa/3672// juttam jam chatumatthassakaraṇa-mettä nusari-nāṇassal tad-abhävammi payatthabhavo na jinassa so jutto//3675// chatumatthassa mano-metta-vihitajattassa jati matam jhanam/kidha tam na jinassa matam kevala-vihita-ppayattassa//3676// Jinabhadra explains this point again in his Jhanajjhayana 83-34, 'nivvaa-gamṇa-käle, kevalino dara-niruddha-jogassa suhumakiriya niattim. talam tanukaya-kiriyassal tass-eva ya selesim gayassa selesu va nippakampassa/vucchinnakiriamappadi-vaim jhanam parama-sukkam. Also he attempts to remove the ambiguity created by Umäisväti, thus he says in the Jhana'jhayana 2-3 in his own words that 'ekagra-cinta' applies to chadmasthas and 'nirodha' to kevalis, jam tthiram-ajjhavasãe, tam jhanam jam calam taya cittam! tam hujja bhavana và, aṇupeha va have cimla/ amonautta-mittam. clutavatthāyam-ega-vasthumni/ chaumatthäṇam jhanam, joga-niroho tu. He followed Bhadrabahu in removing the proviso of uttama-sambanana, and the definition of dhyana thus improved by Jinabhadra came to be generally accepted by the later Jaina authors.
jinan
Yet here is Agastyasimha who wants to say something about the Jhanajjhayana treatment of dhyana, because his curni on the Daśavaikālika (Prakrit Text Society ed., p.16) reads, 'idagim jhanam/tassa imam sāmaṇņam takkhaṇam egagg-ciqua-niroho jhanam ...egagzassa cimtā egagga-clmiä, etam jhanam chaumatihassa; niroho kevalino jogassa, cinta nahi ttl kevalin tan-niroho na sambhavati" tti keti, tam na, davvamaṇa-niroho tass1 bagato, jati egizza-cimia jhanam tato joga-niggaho sutaram-eval je puna
94
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
