These four kinds of dhyāna came to be looked upon as four types of meditation, enumerated among the different kinds of inner asceticism.5 The later tradition, when it looked for canonical guidance regarding meditation, was henceforth confronted with a list of four kinds of “meditation,” only the last one of which, namely “pure meditation,” should properly be regarded as such.
The strange confusion described above was followed by an even more dramatic development. “Pure meditation” came to be considered inaccessible in the present age (in this world). Sometimes this is stated explicitly, as for example in Hemacandra’s Yogaśāstra.6 More often it is expressed by saying that one has to know the Pūrvas in order to reach the first two stages of “pure meditation.” The fourteen Pūrvas once constituted the twelfth major subdivision (aṅga) of the Jaina canon. But they were lost at an early date. Already the Tattvārtha Sūtra (9.40)7 states that knowledge of the Pūrvas is a precondition for entering “pure meditation.” This means that already in the time between 150 and 350 CE “pure meditation” was considered no longer attainable in this world.
Such an early date finds support elsewhere. We have seen that the canonical description of the four dhyānas assigns four reflections (anuprekṣā) each to “pious meditation” (dharmya dhyāna) and “pure meditation” (śukla dhyāna), in the following manner (in the case of “pious meditation,” the Sanskrit equivalents are here given, for comparison with what follows):8
In “pious meditation”:
(i) reflection on being alone (ekatvānuprekṣā)
(ii) reflection on transitoriness (anityānuprekṣā)
(iii) reflection on there being no refuge (aśaraṇānuprekṣā)
(iv) reflection on birth and rebirth of living beings (saṃsārānuprekṣā)
In “pure meditation”:
(i) reflection on infinity (aṇaṃtavattiyāṇuppehā)
(ii) reflection on change (vippariṇāmāṇuppehā)
(iii) reflection on what is inauspicious (asubhāṇuppehā)
(iv) reflection on sin (avāyāṇuppehā)
The Tattvārtha Sūtra (9.7) enumerates twelve reflections. They are:
(i) reflection on transitoriness (anityānuprekṣā)
(ii) reflection on there being no refuge (aśaraṇānuprekṣā)
(iii) reflection on birth and rebirth of living beings (saṃsārānuprekṣā)
(iv) reflection on being alone (ekatvānuprekṣā)
(v) reflection on the otherness (of body and soul; anyatvānuprekṣā)
(vi) reflection on impurity (aśucitvānuprekṣā)
(vii) reflection on influx (of karma; āsravānuprekṣā)
(viii) reflection on restraint (saṃvarānuprekṣā)
(ix) reflection on the destruction of karma (nirjarānuprekṣā)
(x) reflection on the world (lokānuprekṣā)
(xi) reflection on the difficulty of attaining enlightenment (bodhidurlabhānuprekṣā)
(xii) reflection on the truth well explained by the doctrine (dharmasvākhyātatattvānuprekṣā)
We see that the Tattvārtha Sūtra includes the four reflections connected with “pious meditation,” but not the four connected with “pure meditation.”9 This list, in the same or a slightly different order, and sometimes substituting bhāvanā for anuprekṣā, occurs in numerous other works, some of them late canonical (Mahānisīha, Maraṇasamāhī) or early non canonical (Kundakunda, Vaṭṭakera, Śivārya).10 But the four reflections of “pure meditation” are absent from all of these lists. This supports the view that “pure meditation” was no longer attainable when these lists were made. Interestingly, Śivārya’s Bhagavatī-Ārādhanā (1705, 1710) describes all twelve of the reflections as supports (ālaṁbana) of “pious meditation” (dharmya dhyāna).
The reasons why “pure meditation” came to be looked upon as no longer attainable in this world seem clear. It appears to be the almost unavoidable consequence of the gradual exaltation of the Jina, the enlightened Jaina master, and of the state of liberation preached by him. A comparable development took place in Buddhism, where already superhuman qualities came to be ascribed to Arhats11 and release was postponed to a next life.12
Whatever the reason that “pure meditation” came to be excluded from actual practice, it is clear that all existing practice had henceforth to be assimilated into the descriptions of “pious meditation.” (“Afflicted dhyāna” and “wrathful dhyāna” were, very understandably, considered bad forms of meditation.) This means that two historical developments—first, the addition of “pious meditation” under the heading “meditation” (dhyāna), and second, the exclusion of “pure meditation” from it—left later meditators with a canonical “description of meditation” that was never meant for such a purpose.13
Postcanonical Meditation
It can cause no surprise that the practice of meditation has often been neglected in the subsequent history of Jainism. Yet Jainism never totally abandoned it. Adelheid Mette, in “Gotama und die Asketen,” has drawn attention to a legend from the early postcanonical Āvaśyakacūrṇi, in which Mahāvīra’s main disciple, Gotama, emphasizes the importance of thought control (dhyānanigraha) above outward signs of penance.14 This tendency persisted. A number of later Jaina works deal with meditation. But how did these later authors treat the subject? One option was to simply repeat the canonical classification, thus ignoring the problem. Several authors, however, chose other solutions, such as the following:
1. An obvious step to take was to drop afflicted (ārta) and wrathful (raudra) dhyāna from the canonical classification, and retain only pious (dharmya) and pure (śukla) dhyāna. This is done in Vīrasena’s Dhavalā on the Ṣaṭkhaṃḍāgama Sūtra 5.4.26 (13, 70–88). Another interesting feature of the description in the Dhavalā is that the only difference between “pious meditation” and “pure meditation” is stated to lie in the duration: short in the former, long in the latter (74–75). Nothing in the canonical description of these two forms of meditation warrants such an idea.
2. An extension of the canonical description are the four types of dhyāna called piṇḍastha, padastha, rūpastha, and rūpātīta. These are looked upon as belonging to the fourth manifestation of “pious meditation”: “examination of forms” (saṃsthānavicaya). They are mentioned in a number of works, among them Yogīndudeva’s Yogasāra (verse 98) and Śubhacandra’s Jñānārṇava (chapters 37–40). The lengthy description of these forms of meditation in the Jñānārṇava shows that they consist in visualizing objects and mantras inside and outside the body; the rūpātīta meditation, in particular, has as its object “the highest self” (paramātman), which consists of consciousness and bliss (cidānandamaya) and is without form (amūrta). Since these are not notions we find in early Jainism but which are common in many forms of Hinduism, a suspicion of influence by similar forms of Hindu meditation seems justified. We do indeed find the same four kinds of meditation mentioned and comparably described in a number of Hindu texts, among them the Kubjikāmata Tantra (chapters 17–19), the Mālinīvijayottara Tantra (chapters 2 and 19), Abhinavagupta’s Tantrāloka (10.241 f.), the Navacakreśvara Tantra (Mahāprajña, Jaina Yoga, 9), and the Gurugītā (verses 119 f.).15 Note that by adopting these forms of meditation the Jainas could interpret dharmya dhyāna as a form of real “meditation,” not of “thinking.”
3. A far more drastic departure from the scriptures is made by Haribhadra in his Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (verses 5–6). Haribhadra does not deny that what he writes goes beyond the scriptures:16 “This [kind of Yoga] called ‘[Yoga of] competence’ is best; its means have been indicated in the scriptures [but] its range goes beyond them in matters of detail because of the abundance of energy. / The precise causes leading to the state called siddhi are not in their totality correctly understood by the Yogins from the scriptures alone.” Haribhadra then proceeds to collect information on “this best form of Yoga” from “various works on Yoga,” as he admits towards the end of his book (verse 207)
. The course of Yoga that he describes consists of eight stages. These stages are said to correspond with the eight stages mentioned in works by other authors, among them Patañjali.17 All of these stages cover far more than meditation alone, but even in the last stages nothing resembling the canonical descriptions of meditation shows up. Haribhadra’s break with tradition is complete in this respect.
4. Hemacandra’s Yogaśāstra constitutes a special case. Hemacandra describes traditional forms of meditation in chapters (prakāśa) 7 through 11. Here he follows to a large extent earlier texts—in particular the Jñānārṇava; this means that he includes forms of meditation such as piṇḍastha, padastha, rūpastha, and rūpātīta. What makes Hemacandra special is his twelfth chapter. It begins with a verse that deserves to be quoted: “What is learnt from the ocean of scriptures [and] from the mouth of the teacher has here been completely shown; now [however] the pure truth as it has been obtained through experience will be explained.”18 From what follows in chapter 12 it is clear that something quite different from what precedes it has been introduced. Most noteworthy is Hemacandra’s insistence on not using constraint. If one exerts no restraint on the mind it will reach peace, not otherwise: “Wherever the mind goes, don’t restrain it from [going] there; for what is restrained becomes stronger, what is not restrained becomes peaceful. / The mind is like an elephant in rut, which becomes stronger when restrained with effort, but comes to peace after satisfying its needs without restraint.”19 Nothing could better illustrate the remarkability of Hemacandra’s views in the context of Jainism than the example of an elephant that must satisfy its sexual needs. Equally remarkable is verse 51, in which Hemacandra expresses indifference concerning the question of whether the result of these practices is liberation or not: “It may be liberation or not, but it certainly is the highest bliss, in which all forms of happiness appear as if nothing.”20 The editor of the Yogaśāstra, Muni Jambuvijaya, has found very similar ideas, often expressed in virtually identical words, in a work titled Amanaska Yoga, which is attributed to Gorakṣa Nātha. It seems therefore that Hemacandra again introduced new practices into the Jaina tradition, beside or perhaps rather instead of the traditional practices. In this case, the “traditional” practices included the additions made by such authors as Śubhacandra.
5. One further innovation that has taken place in recent years must be mentioned. Ācārya Mahāprajña (1920–2010) of the Terāpantha tradition of the Śvetāmbara sect of Jainism introduced, in 1975, what he called prekṣā-dhyāna, “prekṣā meditation.” Samani Pratibha Pragya, who is preparing a doctoral dissertation on this innovation, points out in a recent article that this innovation was the result of an encounter with modern Buddhist systems of meditation.21 Moreover, she clarifies that “prekṣā meditation becomes a means of purification rather than liberation.” For details about the precise influences that Ācārya Mahāprajña underwent (the Buddhist vipassanā meditation taught by the Burmese teacher S. N. Goenka played an important role) and the way he used these influences to create this form of meditation, we will have to wait until the completion of Samani Pratibha Pragya’s doctoral dissertation.22
Discontinuity and Innovation
These few examples must suffice to show that the history of Jaina meditation is not continuous. The canonical description that came to be held authoritative was itself the result of scholastic activity that had little understanding of the practice of meditation. Those later authors who had a practical interest in meditation felt free to work rather independently from the canonical description, often borrowing elements from non-Jaina schools of meditation.
One of the reasons for this peculiar development was, as we have seen, the hand that people of greater scholastic than meditational capability had in the development and interpretation of the canonical texts. Another factor must have been the relatively minor role played by meditation in Jaina circles. It is true that every now and then there were individuals who had a strong interest in its practice, and this might sometimes lead to a “revival” in a certain period and region, such as we seem to be witnessing today among the Terapanthis of northern India. But these individuals had to start almost from scratch, so to speak. They had to look for a teacher among the Jainas, but perhaps more often elsewhere. They also had to decide how far the canonical guidelines could be considered adequate. This led to the peculiar developments to which the preceding pages draw attention.
Notes
1. “Certainly it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that later Jain writers discussed [meditation] only because participation in the pan-Indian socio-religious world made it necessary to do so” (Dundas, Jains, 167).
2. For details, see Bronkhorst, Two Traditions, chap. 3; and Schubring, Doctrine of the Jainas, 313 ff. For a brief characterization of the difference between Buddhism and Jainism as presented in the early Buddhist texts, see Bronkhorst, Buddhist Teaching in India, 44 ff.
3. A muhūrta often corresponds to forty-eight minutes, but the term can also be used loosely to refer to any short period of time.
4. See Dundas, Jains, 167: “The fact that an early source … uses the term dhyāna with reference to carnivorous birds contemplating fish and heretics considering sensual pleasures suggests that the term in origin implied for the Jains not so much calm meditation as unhealthy and obsessive brooding.”
5. See Viyāhapaṇṇatti Sutta 25.7.217, 237 f./580, 600 f.; and Uvavāiya, section 30. The confusion is complete in Āvassaya Sutta 4.23.4, where the monk is made to repent these four types of dhyāna; obviously only the first two are such as should be repented of, and these are not forms of meditation.
6. Hemacandra, Yogaśāstra 11.4: “Duṣkaraṃ apy ādhunikaiḥ śukladhyānaṃ yathāśāstram.” The editor of the Yogaśāstra, Muni Jambuvijaya, quotes in this connection Tattvānuśāsana 36: “Dhyātuṃ śuklam ihākṣamān aidaṃyugīnān uddiśya” (1149).
7. See Bronkhorst, “Chronology of the Tattvārtha Sūtra,” 176, 179f.
8. The order is slightly different in Uvavāiya, section 30.
9. Perhaps aśucitva- must be identified with asubha- or asubhaya-, as it is substituted by the latter in at least one text; see Upadhye, Swāmi-Kumāra’s Kārttikeyānuprekṣā, 14 (Maraṇasamāhī).
10. See Upadhye, Swāmi-Kumāra’s Kārttikeyānuprekṣā, Intr.
11. See Bareau, “Les controverses relatives.”
12. In later times, the reason adduced for this was often that liberation would become possible after rebirth in the time of a future Buddha, especially Maitreya; see Kloppenborg, “Place of Maitreya,” 47.
13. This is not to say that the canonical description of “pure meditation” is very satisfactory. Hemacandra (Yogaśāstra 11.11), for example, rightly points out that the last two stages of “pure meditation” concern the body rather than the mind.
14. See Mette, “Gotama und die Asketen.”
15. See Goudriaan, “Introduction, History and Philosophy,” 61; 1981: 54; and Gupta, “Modes of Worship and Meditation,” 178.
16. Haribhadra, Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya verses 5–6: “Śāstrasandarśitopāyas tadatikrāntagocaraḥ / śaktyudrekād viśeṣeṇa sāmarthyākhyo’yam uttamaḥ // siddhyākhyapadasamprāptihetubh edā na tattvataḥ / śāstrād evāvagamyante sarvathaiveha yogibhiḥ.”
17. The authors and their lists of stages are enumerated in Haribhadra’s own commentary on verse 16, and are tabulated in K. K. Dixit’s edition, also under verse 16.
18. Hemacandra, Yogaśāstra 12.1: “Śrutasindhor gurumukhato yad adhigataṃ tad iha darśitaṃ samyak / anubhavasiddham idānīṃ prakāśyate tattvam idam amalam.”
19. Hemacandra, Yogaśāstra 12.27–28: “Ceto’pi yatra yatra pravartate no tatas tato vāryam / adhikībhavati hi vāritam avāritaṃ śāntim upayāti // matto hastī yatnān nivāryamāṇo’dhikībhavati yadvat / anivāritas tu kāmān labdhvā śāmyati manas tadvat.”
20. Hemacandra, Yogaśāstra 12.51: “Mokṣo’stu mā’stu yadi vā paramānandas tu vidyat
e sa khalu / yasmin nikhilasukhāni pratibhāsante na kiñcid iva.”
21. Pragya, “Prekṣā Meditation.”
22. See the various publications of Yuvācārya Mahāprajña in the bibliography. The “revival” initiated by Mahāprajña may not be unconnected with the interest in meditation among non-Indians; see, for example, Mahāprajña, Prekṣādhyāna, 3.
Bibliography
Note: For further bibliographical information, the following works may be consulted: Jainendra Siddhānta Kośa; Dige, Jaina Yoga kā Ālocanātmaka Adhyayana; Mahāprajña, Jaina Yoga, 7–12 (Prastuti); Mehatā and Kāpaḍiyā, Jaina Sāhitya kā Bṛhad Itihāsa, 227–266; Tatia, “Jaina Yoga.”
Abhinavagupta. Tantrāloka. Edited, with commentary by Rājānaka Jayaratha, by Madhusūdan Kaul. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies, no. 41. Vol. 7 (Āhnikas X, XI and XII). Bombay, 1924.
Āvassaya Sutta. Edited by Muni Shri Puṇyavijayaji and Pt. Amritlāl Mohanlāl Bhojak. Jaina-Āgama-Series no. 15. Bombay: Shri Mahāvīra Jaina Vidyālaya. 1977.
Bareau, André. “Les controverses relatives à la nature de l’Arhant dans le Bouddhisme ancien.” Indo-Iranian Journal 1 (1957): 241–250.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. Buddhist Teaching in India. Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2009.
———. “On the Chronology of the Tattvārtha Sūtra and Some Early Commentaries.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 29 (1985): 155–184.
Asian Traditions of Meditation Page 17
