________________
Soc. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T.S.
The text of Pujyapāda drops the portion of dhyātā from the sotra 37 along with the succeeding sūtra 38 of the Svetāmbara recension. Consequently, no statement is made in the Digambara text as to the authorized performers of dharmya dhyāna, of wbich explanation must be supplied by the commentaries. The Sarvārthasiddhi on the aphorisms (36-37) explains that the meditators of dharmya dhyāna belong to the 4th through the 7th stages prior to the ascendance of śreņis. Here arises a discordance between the two recenions of text, which however does not mean the doctrinal divergence between the two traditions, because the Dhivala 13/5.4.26/14/10 is in perfect agreement with the view held by the svetāmbara tradition.19 Pūjyapāda, who is thoroughly familiar with 14 guṇasthānas and the concept of karanas involving two śreņis, insists that dharmya dhyāna cannot be performed in the stages beyond the ascendance of $reņiz. However it is not at all clear what is the exact reason underlying this rule of prohibition, because commenting the sūra (37) he permits the performance of dharmya dhyāna to the possessors of the pūrras in the 11th and 12th stages, "ca' sabdena dh armymapi samucciyatel tatra "vyākhyanato visesa-partipattih" iti srenyāroh indt-prāg-dharmyam, srenyoh sukle iti vyakhyayate.' His statement is doubtlessly confused and contradicted. His position is defended by Akalarika urder the sūtra (36), 'kaścid - āha-upasānta-kşiņamoha-kaṣāyayos-ca dharmyam dhyānam bhavati na pūrveşam eveti; tan-na; kim kāraṇam ? suklābhāva-prasangat/14/ syād-etat-ubhayam dharmyam suklam copasanta-kşiņakaṣāyayor-astiti? tan-na; kim kåranan ? pūrvasyänişğatvāt / pūrvam hi dharmyam dhyānam srenyor-nesyate ārse, pūrveșu cesyate /15/ (36).' The defence is made in a miserably poor manner. This obviously explains that Akalanka was also unable here to find a logical reason for the creation of the border lice of śrenis beyond which belongs to the domain of sukla dhyātās.
Umsāvāti utilized the existing canonical materials and systematically arranged the respective dhyātās in the corresponding gunastbānas after the model of the treatment of dhyāna made in the non-Jaina circles. His table can impart a general idea as to which type of dhyālās falls in approximately which collective stages of gunasthāpa. However, the canonical classification and subclassification of dhyāna are on the whole schemed according to the objects of meditation, therefore the gradation of dhyānas and dhyātās in the orderly stages as so worked out by the non-Jainas requires the total reclassification of dhyāna itself in the canon. Haribhadra approached this problem from the entirely different angle and established his own scheme of the stages of dhyātās under the influence of the non-Jajna yoga. Some authors solved this problem by way of introducing the four steps of pada, piņda, lūpa, and arūpa to dharmya dbyāna under the influence of the Saiva yoga.20 The treatment of the stages of dhyāna thus gave rise to new approaches in the post-Umāsvāti period. .
As we have observed in the texts like the Bhagavati dhyāna had already met a semi-systematic treatment regarding its laksaņa, ālambana and anupreks in the later Āganic stage, which Unāsvāti did not adopt. Jinabhadra revived this canonical
97
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
