________________
Sce, 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE 7. S.
28, Vattakera did rot follow the Uttaradhi ajora author in explaining the cortart of cărittamärga; he explained it by the concept of samyama in terms of the earlier canonical tradition. This is an amendment made on the Uttaradhyayana 28. Then, against the enlarged contest of sixfold samvaradvāras formulated by Umāsvāti, Vattakera came out with a proposal to the effect that the content of samvaradvāra should be confined within the domain of samyama by clarifying it to include vrata, samiti and gupti. Possibly he followed after Kundakunda on this matter. Since Vattakera revived the canonical treatment of samvaradvära by including vrata, samiti and gupti as its content, parişabajaya, anupreksā and dharma which were absorbed by Umāsvāti in this category had to go astray again. In consequence, Vattakera classed parişahajaya under the category of darśana as the bhāva type of vicikitsā, which in effect sounds more strange than what Umásvāti actually did. The five items of anupreksās, i. e., ekatva, anitya, aśarana, samsāra, and aśuci, are enumerated in the Agama as the observances of dharma dhyāna (the first four items) and sukla dhyāna (asuci which appears in the canon as aśubha). In addition to them, Umāsıātı formulates the rest of the seven anupreksa items after the model of the subdivisions of dharma-smrty-upasthāpābhyasas in the Abhidharmakosa VI, and treated these twelve items as an independent samvarad våra (for the details, see Ch. III, Sec. 1). Vattakera again took recourse to the Agamic treatment of anupreksās and placed all of them under the last subdivision of dharmya dhyāna. The nature of these anupreksās is predominantly conformable with the observance of dharma dhyāna, therefore Vattakera's performance is quite reasonable and commendable, thus it became standardized in the later works on dhyāna and yoga. (We should however note that the Malacāra VIII takes up twelve anupreksās as an independent category.) Tenfold dharmas are totally ignored in the Mulācāra V (which appear in its Ch. X called Silaguņādhikära). The Mūlācāra V thus offered certain positive amendments on the treatment of cāritra made by the Uttaradhyayana 28 and the T. S.
Unlike the Mülacāra which is a compendium of the Jaina ethical doctrines possibly composed by plural authors, Sivakoti's Mularādhanā is a detailed expository work on Jaina etbics made by a single hand. Virya which is the quality required for karmic destruction in the performance of tapas is a redundant item in the context of mokşamärga, and probably for this reason sivakcţi resorted to the traditional position of fourfold paths to liberation. In dealing with the concept of moksamārga, however, Sivakoti advances a step further in theory by sayirg that jñāna is included in darśana and tapas in cāritra (verses 3-6), of which the former is ultimately reduced to the latter category of cāritra (verses 8, 11, 14, etc.). The traces of the concept as such are not impossible in the canonical tradition, for instance, the inclusion of jñāna in darśana is adumbrated in the Avas yaka niryukti 1179, damsaņa-pakkho sävaya caritabhatthe ya mımda-dhamme ya damsana-caritta-pakkho samaņe paraloga-kamkhimmi." That caricra is the direct cluse of mokşa is also expressed in the Āvas yaka niryukti 1178,
111
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
