Yogadrstisamuccaya of Haribhadra Suri (Study)

by Riddhi J. Shah | 2014 | 98,110 words

This page relates ‘nature of a liberated soul (bhava-nirvana)’ of the study on the Yogadrstisamuccaya: a 6th-century work on Jain Yoga authored by Haribhadra Suri consisting of 228 Sanskrit verses. The book draws from numerous sources on traditional Yoga. Three important topics are stipulated throughout this study: 1) nature of liberation, 2) a liberated soul, and 3) omniscience.—This section belongs to the series “The Eight Yogadrishtis and the nature of a Liberated Soul”.

Chapter 4.9 - The nature of a liberated soul (bhāva-nirvāṇa)

The death of a living being is known as dravyanirvāṇa whereas the liberation of a soul from body, where no more involvement in the worldly affairs remains, is called bhāvanirvāṇa. While concluding the eighth yogadṛṣṭi namely parā, Haribhadrasūri says that at this stage the great soul resorts to the śaileśī[1] state by putting an end to the ailment called worldly existence (bhavavyādhi) and obtains liberation in true sense of the term[2] (i.e. bhāvanirvāṇa [3] ). All philosophical school accepts liberation as the ultimate goal of a seeker in his spiritual journey. However, every philosophical school defines the state of a liberated soul differently.

Each philosophical school defines the state of liberation (nirvāṇa) with different words. It is presented as follows in Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya:

saṃsārātītatattvaṃ tu, paraṃ nirvāṇasaṃjñitam |
taddhyekameva niyamā-cchabdabhede'pi tattvataḥ ||129||
sadāśivaḥ paraṃ brahama
, siddhātmā tathāteti ca |
śabdaistaducyate'nvarthā-dekamevaivamādibhiḥ ||130||

While narrating the state of a liberated soul from Jain philosophical view-point, Haribhadrasūri says that a liberate soul is the one who has suffered a lot from the ailment called worldly existence since time immemorial and now is freed from this ailment totally. Haribhadrasūri also says that the state of a liberated soul resembles with an ordinary man who is released from his ailment (vyādhimukta). That is to say formerly he suffered from the ailment and now whose ailment is no more with him[4] .

In this way by giving this comparison Haribhadrasūri implies three things:

  1. a soul suffers from the ailment called worldly existence since time immemorial.
  2. He seeks spirituality to absolve his soul from worldly existence and consequently is released from the ailment.
  3. In the liberated state the existence of the soul remains intact. It is only his ailment, named worldly existence that disappears.

Buddhism thinks that just like the fire of a lamp leaves nothing once it is extinguished, a liberated soul does not exist once liberated. The Buddhists believe that a soul of every living being possesses the ailment called worldly existence. However they consider the co-existence of this ailment with the soul to be momentary and not beginning less/ time immemorial. The Sāṅkhya school of philosophy considers a soul to be eternally unchangeable (kūṭastha nitya). The Sāṅkhya believes that a soul is pure forever and does not accept its beginning less co-existence with the ailment called worldly existence. The Sāṅkhya philosophy says that the soul imagines itself to be impure and ignorant due to delusion. Therefore the worldly existence a soul lives in is not real but illusory or imaginary. As soon as the soul gets rid of such illusion, it is called liberated. Thus the Sāṅkhya philosophy does not accept two facts: 1. since beginning less time a soul possesses the ailment called worldly existence. 2. it obtains liberation from this ailment by destroying its own capacity to accumulate karmans through spiritual practices.

To conclude we may that Buddhism does not accept existence of a liberated soul but believes in co-existence of a soul with the ailment called worldly existence. Moreover Buddhists accept this co-existence as momentary and not beginning less. The Sāṅkhya philosophy accepts the existence of a liberated soul but does not accept its beginning less co-existence with the ailment called worldly existence.

When a soul gets rid of the ailment called worldly existence, the soul is said to be liberated in real sense of terms. Since time immemorial this ailment causes innumerable births and deaths to a living being. While depicting the nature of such an ailment Haribhadrasūri states that the worldly existence itself is the great ailment[5] . He further says that this worldly existence is characterized by birth and death which includes the state of old age, diseased body and so on[6] . Another form of worldly existence is the intense experience attachment and aversion caused by the rise of wrong faith (mithyātva)[7] . We may call birth, death, old age etc. as an external ailment (i.e. bāhya-bhavaroga) and the feelings of attachment aversion etc., raised due to wrong faith, as an internal ailment (abhyantara-bhavaroga). Moreover, Haribhadrasūri says that the worldly existence can never be illusory or fake[8] . It is so because the ailment called worldly existence is caused by the beginning less series of diverse types of karmans accumulated by a soul and it is directly experienced in the form of birth, death etc. by every living being[9] . The matter particles of karmans (i.e. pudgala of kārmaṇa vargaṇā) is called dravya karman and the feelings of attachment, aversion, which are born out of the rise of the various types of karmans, is called bhāva karman[10] . Thus the worldly existence is neither imagery nor illusory as believed by the Sāṅkhya school of philosophy.

If the worldly existence of a soul is real then the state of liberation, which is achieved by getting rid of the worldly existence, should also be real. A soul is afflicted by a disease called worldly existence. If the soul destroys the cause, i.e. beginning less series of accumulated karmans, of the worldly existence, then the soul becomes free from the disease called worldly existence. The implied meaning of word liberation (mukti) is to be liberated from something. Here the soul is liberated from the disease called worldly existence. Hence the liberation is real and not imaginary[11] . The Sāṅkhya philosophy posits that the worldly state of a soul is illusory. To support this tenet the Sāṅkhya philosophers say that every substance has its own nature and a substance has inseparable connection (avinābhāva saṃbandha) with its nature (svabhāva). That is to say that the substance is necessarily connected with its own nature and vice-versa. The substance does not exist in the absence of its nature and on the contrary the presence of the nature proves the existence of its substance. If the nature of the substance changes a little, the substance must change. If the nature of the substance disappears then its substance ceases to exist.

Till now we are well informed that since beginning less time a soul possesses the ailment called worldly existence and the soul is released from this ailment through spirituality. Now if we consider the worldly existence as the nature of a soul, then we have to accept its inseparable connection with the soul. It implies that as soon as the worldly existence disappears, the soul becomes non-extant. If the soul ceases to exist, then who will be liberated from the ailment called worldly existence. This question arises for the Sāṅkhya philosophers. Therefore they accept a soul to be pure and immaculate since beginning. If they think so, then they would face a new problem of believing the worldly state of a soul to be illusory. If the worldly state of a soul is illusory, then the worldly existence would definitely become unreal. If such is the case, then the state of liberation, achieved by getting freedom from the worldly state, has to be imaginary too. If the Sāṅkhya philosophers consider the state of liberation to be real, then they have to accept the worldly existence to be genuine.

It is only the theory of non-absolutism (anekāntavāda) of the Jainism, which has a solution for this problem. The Jainism proposes that transformation (pariṇamana) is a nature of a soul. The soul as a substance (dravya) remains constant but its modes (paryāya) changes constantly. The soul is constant from substantial stand-point (dravyārthika naya) and continuously undergoing transformation from modal stand-point (paryāyārthika naya). A soul possesses two types of traits. They are: Original traits (sahaja svabhāva) and Imposed traits (vaibhāvika svabhāva). The knowledge (jñāna), perception (darśana) etc. are called original traits which the soul possesses forever. Anger, pride, deceit etc. are called imposed traits which the soul possesses until it is associated with karmans. Both the traits are changeable. For example the soul gets angry in one moment and becomes egoistic in the next moment. Thus we can say that the imposed traits of the soul are changing. Moreover, when the soul is one-sensed living being, the clarity of knowledge is less whereas the same soul takes birth of a human being, the clarity of knowledge is more than the previous one. This is how even the original traits of a soul are of the nature of transformation[12] .

If we acknowledge the transformation as the nature of a soul, we neither have to face the problem that the soul ceases to exist as soon as it gets rid of its nature called worldly state nor accept that the state of liberation is unreal. Here we can say that since beginning less time a soul has been suffering from the ailment called worldly existence and now the same soul is changed into the liberated soul. When a worldly soul leaves off certain features viz. birth, death, old age etc., which had characterized a worldly soul till now, the same soul acquires certain new ones viz. cessation of re-birth in the state of liberation. During this process of transformation the soul certainly retains its inherent nature[13] .

It is said in the Bhāṣya of Tattvārthādhigamasutra that,

“… |yadiha manuṣyatvādinā paryāyeṇavyayata ātmano devatvādinā paryāyeṇotpādaḥ ekāntadhrauvye ātmani tattathaikasvabhāvatayā'vasthābhedānupatteḥ | evaṃ ca saṃsārāpavargabhedābhāvaḥ|...:- siddhatvenotpādovyayo'sya saṃsārabhāvato jñeyaḥ| jīvatvena dhrauvyaṃ tritayayutaṃ sarvamevaṃ tu ||5||[14] .

There are two forms of a substance. They are: 1.Existence (bhāva) and 2. Nonexistence (abhāva). Since the etymology of a word svabhāva (i.e. nature) is one’s own state of being, only existence form of a substance can be called the nature of the substance. Therefore Haribhadrasūri says that by the nature of a soul we mean its very being, its existence and this nature accompanies is so long as it lasts (i.e. always)[15] . If we consider non-existence as the nature of the substance then there will arise the atiprasaṅga doṣa[16] .

Haribhadrasūri gives an illustration of the substance namely Time (Kāla) to explain the atiprasaṅga doṣa. The time passes away continuously. The past time never returns and the future moments cannot be lived in present time. It is only the present moment that exists. In other words we may say that there is non-existence (abhāva) of the past and future moments in the present moment. The nature of the present (vartamāna) is to exist. Now, if we consider the nonexistence of the past and future moments as the nature of the present moment, then the past and future moments will accept the existing nature of the present. This is how the past and future moments exist. Thus the past and future moments will become the present only. Therefore there does not remain anything called past moments or future moments. Now the present has no contradiction with past and future moments because they have turned into present. Hence the present appears to be the eternal. The Buddhists believe that everything is momentary. Therefore they will also consider the present as momentary[17] . We have seen that the present has become eternal. Thus the Buddhists will have to face the problem of self-contradiction if they admit the non-existence as the nature of a substance. Now if one does not consider the non-existence of the past and future moments as the nature of the present, then the present will have contradiction with the past and future moments. It is so because every present moment was once a past moment and will become the future moment too. Therefore there remains no distinct existence of the present. This is how the Buddhists, who believe in monetarism, face a problem in both the propositions[18] .

The Sāṅkhya philosophers believe in the Absolute Eternalism. According to them an effect actually exists in its cause before the production. It is called the Satkāryavāda. The Sāṅkhya philosophers state that “sa eva anyathā bhavati”. The effect (sa), which is dormant in its cause, that only (eva) becomes apparent as an effect (anyathā bhavati). For example one can extract oil from a sesame seed and not from a particle of dust. Since beginning the effect called oil is present in its cause the sesame seed. Therefore the oil can be acquired from the sesame seed and not from the dust-particle.

The Buddhists, who believe in the Absolute Momentarism, state that:

sa eva na bhavati”.

They are called Asatkāryavādins. According to them an effect is non-existent in its cause before production.

The Buddhists, who believe in the Absolute Momentarism, find fault with the aforementioned statement of the Sāṅkhya philosophers[19] . The Buddhists pick two words ‘sa’ and ‘anyathā’ from the statement made by the Sāṅkhya philosophers. The Buddhists say that if it is ‘that’ (i.e. ‘sa’) then how can it be something else (i.e. ‘anyathā’) and vice-versa? A same thing can never be both, i.e. ‘that’ and ‘something else’[20] . This is how the Buddhists say that the statement, made by Sāṅkhya philosophers, is self-contradictory. Haribhadrasūri points out the similar type of self-contradiction in the above mentioned statement of the Buddhists. The word ‘sa’ denotes existence whereas the words ‘na bhavati’ stand for non-existence. Here Haribhadrasūri states that how can be an existing substance becomes non-existing one? Thus the statement of the Buddhists is also faulty[21] .

Moreover Haribhadrasūri further mentions the other fault namely ‘rise of non-existence’ in the statement of the Buddhists[22] . According to the Buddhists every substance is momentary. A substance exists only for a moment and in the next moment it ceases to exist. When one says that the substance has ceased to exist, it means that it has become non-existent. That is the substance which was existing in the previous moment has taken the form of non-existence. When we say that the substance has become non-existent, it implies that the non-existence is born. In the first moment the existence takes place. In the next moment with the end of existence the nonexistence takes birth. Whatever is born definitely comes to an end. Here, the non-existence, which is born in the second moment, comes to an end in the third moment. The extinction of the non-existence is nothing but the rise of existence again[23] . Therefore the extinction of the nonexistence and rise of the existence takes place on the same moment i.e. on the third moment. Now on the fourth moment again the extinction of existence will take place. On the first moment a substance exists, it becomes non-existent on the second moment, again on the third moment, with the extinction of non-existence of that substance, it comes to the existence, on the fourth moment the same substance becomes non-existent and on the fifth moment the same substance becomes existent again. This is how on the basis of the principle ‘everything is momentary’ the Buddhists form such a chain of existence and non-existence of a substance where it no more remains momentary.

Further Haribhadrasūri asks the Buddhists that what do they think about the nature of non-existence? Do they think the non-existence to be eternal or momentary? If they accept that the non-existence is eternal then the non-existence remains present forever. The eternality of the non-existence leaves no space for existence. If the non-existence of a substance becomes eternal then the substance can never exists[24] . It is thus because two contradictory forms namely nonexistence and existence of one and the same substance can never be together. If the Buddhists say that the nature of non-existence is momentary, then they will face a new problem. The nonexistence of a substance is as momentary as the substance itself. The non-existence stays for a moment and then the destruction of the non-existence takes place. The emergence and destruction of the non-existence continues in chain [25] . Since it leads to nowhere, it is inappropriate. To sum up we may say that the Absolute Momentarism propounded by the Buddhists is irrelevant.

The Sāṅkhya philosophers, who believe in the Absolute Eternalism, posit that a soul possesses unchangeable eternity. It remains pure forever. It does not change even a little. It neither assumes new features nor loses anything. If the soul were eternally unchangeable, it could not undergo transformation from the life of a human to that of a celestial being and vice versa. The acceptance of absolute permanence would, moreover, obliterate the distinction between worldly life and the state of liberation and, consequently, the spiritual discipline for the achievement of liberation would lose all meaning[26] .

Thus the Absolute Eternalism and Absolute Momentarism could neither justify the reality of two states of a soul i.e. the state of a worldly existence and the liberated state nor establish the fact that a substance viz. a soul flows through its constantly changing ‘modes’ (paryāya) and thereby persists. According to Jainism all substances are real as they have existence. Existence is the combination of impermanence and permanence, modes and substance. What appear and disappear are modes. What persists is substance. The modes are impermanent, but the substance is permanent. The eternal soul, worldly or liberated, has modes that appear and disappear, leaving the soul intact[27] . It is possible because transformation (pariṇamana) is the nature of a soul. For instance a soul who is angry has become calm. That is to say that appearance of calmness causes the anger to disappear. This is how the soul becomes anger-free. In the same way when a soul is released from the bondage of attachment, aversion etc., it is called liberated in true sense of terms.

Finally it is established that a soul is neither absolutely eternal nor momentary, it is changeably constant (pariṇāmī nitya). The theory of change-cum-constancy is propounded by Jainism.

Various philosophical schools use different words for the state of liberation (nirvāṇa). Similarly every philosophical school defines the cause of worldly existence with different word. Some one believes that didṛkṣā is the cause of existence. While according to some it is avidyā which causes the worldly existence. Some call it sahaja mala and for some it is bhavādhikāra[28] . The word didṛkṣā is referred by the Sāṅkhya philosophers. According to them the desire to see (didṛkṣā) is the transformation of the Prakṛti. That is to say that Pradhāna, Prakṛti, Buddhi, Mahat etc. are born from the didṛkṣā. The Sāṅkhya philosophers posit that Prakṛti, the basic principle of materiality, undergoes transformation in the form of things of our everyday experience so long as and only so long as Puruṣa, the basic principle of consciousness, suffers from the desire to see (didṛkṣā). Even though didṛkṣā, avidyā, sahaja mala etc. is the nature of a soul since beginning less time, it can be destroyed[29] . If we do not believe that didṛkṣā etc. can be removed, then they will become original nature (sahaja svabhāva) of a soul instead of its imposed nature (vaibhāvika nature). Consequently the worldly existence, which is born out of didṛkṣā etc., would become eternal. If the worldly state of a soul is eternal, then how can a soul attain liberation[30] ? On the contrary if one considers didṛkṣā etc. as unreal, then he has to accept the worldly existence, which is arisen from didṛkṣā etc., to be fake or imaginary. If the worldly existence is so, then the experience of worldly existence, which every worldly being has, should also be unreal.

It is said that if the Sāṅkhya philosophers say that a living being’s experience of worldly existence is illusory, then what support do they have to justify their statement[31] ? The Sāṅkhya philosophers tell that the fakeness of the worldly existence is confirmed by the yogic knowledge. The great seers have acknowledged that a soul is pure since the beginning and will remain so forever. Under the influence of didṛkṣā, avidyā etc. a soul acknowledges itself to be impure and worldly. Such acknowledgement of a soul is illusory and not real. Haribhadrasūri replies that yogic knowledge is not something which a soul possesses from beginning. The yogic knowledge is obtained by a soul through practicing spirituality. It implies the two states of a soul i.e. without the yogic knowledge and with the yogic knowledge. If the Sāṅkhya philosophers admit only one state of a soul, then they have to accept that the yogic knowledge, which is another state of a soul, is illusory. If the yogic knowledge is illusory, then how can such yogic knowledge mention the worldly existence to be imaginary[32] ? However the yogic knowledge is real only. A soul did not have yogic knowledge previously. When the state of a soul changes from worldly existence to spirituality, the soul obtains the yogic knowledge. Just as the state of a soul changes, similarly the soul is worldly and then becomes liberated.

In the ordinary world only that person is called released from ailment who suffered from it in earlier time and now has become free from it. The person, who is still suffering from an ailment, cannot be called one released from the ailment. Moreover the non-existence of the person is not the state of freedom from the ailment. It is so because if a person is not existing, then whom to identify as one released from ailment? The person, who is healthy and no more suffering from any ailment, can never be called one released from the ailment[33] .

Similarly three types of soul is not a liberated soul.

  1. The soul who is worldly.
  2. The complete absence of a soul.
  3. The soul who is never polluted by worldly existence and free from the beginning only[34] .

To sum up we may say that Haribhadrasūri establishes three things while describing changeably constant (pariṇāmī nitya) nature of a soul.

He says that:

  1. Since beginning less time a soul is worldly.
  2. Through practicing spiritual discipline the soul destroys its worldly existence and achieves the liberated state.
  3. In the state of liberation a soul exists.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

The śaileśī state is a meditative trance which a person performs on the eve of attaining liberation, which is characterized by a cessation of all bodily, mental and vocal operations and which signifies the attainment of fourteenth stage of spiritual development (guṇasthāna).

[2]:

tatra drāgeva bhagavā-nayogād yogasattamāt |
bhavavyādhikṣayaṃ kṛtvā, nirvāṇaṃ labhate param ||186||
-Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010).

[3]:

, nirvāṇaṃ labhate paraṃ, bhāvanirvāṇamityarthaḥ ||186||
   -The Auto-commentary of Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010).

[4]:

kṣīṇavyādhiryathā loke,vyādhimukta iti sthitaḥ |
bhavarogyeva nu tathā, muktastantreṣu tatkṣayāt ||206||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010).

[5]:

bhavaḥ–saṃsāra eva mahāvyādhiḥ |... ||188||
   -The Auto-commentary of Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010).

[6]:

kiṃ viśiṣṭa ityāha–janmamṛtyuvikāravān, jarādiupalakṣaṇametat,... ||188||
   -Ibid

[7]:

bhava eva mahāvyādhi-rjanmamatृ yuvikāravān |
vicitramohajanana-stīvrarāgādivedanaḥ ||188||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010).

[8]:

mukhyo-nirupacarito ayaṃ-bhavavyādhiḥ ātmano-jīvasya |... ||189||
   -The Auto-commentary of Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010).

[9]:

mukhyo'yamātmano'nādi-citrakarmanidānajaḥ |
tathānubhavasiddhatvāt, savarprāṇabhūtāmiti ||189||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010).

[10]:

anādicitrakarmanidānajaḥ–dravyabhāvabhedabhinnakarmabalotpanna ityarthaḥ |... ||189||
   -The Auto-commentary of Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010).

[11]:

etanmukatśca mukto'pi, mukhya evopapadyate |
janmādidoṣavigamāt, tadadoṣatvasaṅgateḥ ||190||

..., mukhya evopapadyate pravṛttinimittabhāvāt |
tathā cā''ha-janmādidoṣavigamāt kāraṇāt tadadoṣatvasaṅgatestasya doṣavato'doṣatvaprāpteriti ||190||

Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya and its auto-commentary (2010)

[12]:

See lines: 8-13 of p. 130 of the Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (Gujarati), written by Yugabhushanavijaya (2005)

[13]:

tatsvabhāvopamarde'pi, tattatsvabhāvyayogataḥ |
tasyaiva hi tathābhāvāt, tadadoṣatvasaṅgatiḥ ||191||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010)

[14]:

See lines: 25-27 of p.277 and lines: 19-20 of p.278 of Sabhāṣyatattvārthādhigamasūtra, published by Shreeparamashrutaprabhavaka Jainmandal, Mumbai in 1932 A.D.

[15]:

svo bhāvo'syasvabhāvo ya-nnijā sattaiva tattvataḥ |
bhāvāvadhirayaṃ yukto, nā'nyathā'tiprasagṅgataḥ || 192||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010).

[16]:

| bhāvāvadhirayaṃ yuktaḥ–svabhāvo'nantaroditaḥ, nā'nyathā yuktaḥ |
ku ta ityāha–atiprasaṅgata iti ||192||

   -The auto-commentary of Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010).

[17]:

anantarakṣaṇābhūtiḥ–bhāvikṣaṇābhūtirityarthaḥ, ātmabhūteha yasya tu-vartamānasya vādino vā | tasya doṣamāha-tayā - anantarakṣaṇābhūtyā avirodhāt kāraṇād vatarmānabhāvena, kimityāha-nityo'sau vatarmānaḥsyāt, tadvat sadā tadbhāvaditi |... ||193||
   -Ibid.

[18]:

anantarakṣaṇābhūti-rātmabhūteha yasya tu |
tayā'virodhānnityo'sasau, syādasan vā sadaiva hi ||193||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010)

[19]:

sa eva na bhavatyeta-danyathā bhavatītivat |
viruddhaṃ tannayādeva, tadutpattyāditastathā ||194||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010)

[20]:

| sa hi ” sa evā'nyathā bhavatītyukte evamāha - ”yadi sa eva, kathamanyathā bhavati? anyathā ced bhavati kathaṃ sa?” iti |.. ||194||
   -The Auto-commentary of Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010)

[21]:

| etacca “ sa eva na bhavatītyatrā'pi samānameva | tathāhi - “yadi sa eva, kathaṃ na bhavati? abhavan vā kathaṃ sa eva?” iti viruddhametat |... ||194||
   -Ibid

[22]:

| abhyuccayamāha-tadutpattyādita ityabhāvotpattyādeḥ tathā-viruddhamiti ||194||
etadbhāvanayaiva''hasato'sattve tadatु pāda-stato nāśo'pi tasya yat |
tannaṣṭasya punarbhāvaḥ, sadā nāśe na tatsthitiḥ ||195||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya and its auto-commentary (2010)

[23]:

sato-bhāvasya asattve'bhyupagamyamāne “ sa eva na bhavatiiti vacanāt, kimityāha-tadatु pāda ityasattvotpādaḥ |
kādācitkatvena tata-utpādāt nāśo'pi tasyā'sattvasya, “yadatु pattimat tadanityamitikṛtvā, yad-yasmādevaṃ tat-tasmāt, naṣṭasya sattvasya punarbhāvastaneैva rupeṇa, tadasattvavināśānyathānupapattaḥे |... ||195||
   -The Auto-commentary of Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010)

[24]:

… | atha nāśo nāśātmanā bhāvāt prāk paścāccā'vasthita eva-etadāśaṅkyā''ha-sadā nāśe abhyupagamyamāne, kimityāha - na tatsthitiḥ-vivakṣitakṣaṇe'pi tannāśāditi ||195||
   -Ibid

[25]:

sa kṣaṇasthitidharmāced, dvitīyādikṣaṇe'sthitau |
yujyate hayetadapyasya, tathā coktānatikramaḥ ||196||
kṣaṇasthitau tadaivā'sya, nā'sthitiryuktyasaṅgateḥ |
na paścādapi sā neti, sato'sattvaṃvyavasthitam ||197||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010)

[26]:

tadabhāve ca saṃsārī, muktaśceti niratharkam |
tatsvabhāvopamardo'sya, nītyā tāttvika iṣyatām ||199||
   -Ibid

[27]:

For detail see 5.29 to 5.32 verses of the Tattvārthādhigamasūra.

[28]:

didṛkṣā'vidyāmalabhavādhikārādi,... |... ||200||
   -The auto-commentary of Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010)

[29]:

didṛkṣādyātmabhūtaṃ ta-nmukhyasya nivartate |
pradhānādinaterhetu-stadabhāvānna tannatiḥ ||200||
   - Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010)

[30]:

anyathāsyādiyaṃ nitya-meṣā ca bhava ucyate |
evaṃ ca bhavanityatve, kathaṃ muktasya sambhavaḥ? ||201||
   -Ibid

[31]:

avasthā tattvato no ce-nnanu tatpratyayaḥ katham? |
bhrānto'yaṃ kimaneneti?, mānamatra na vidyate ||202||
   -Ibid

[32]:

yogijñānaṃ tu mānaṃ cet?, tadavasthāntaraṃ nu tat |
tataḥ kiṃ? bhrāntametat syā-danyathā siddhasādhyatā ||203||
   -Ibid

[33]:

vyādhitastadabhāvo vā, tadanyo vā yathaiva hi |
vyādhimukto na sannītyā, kadācidupapadyate ||204||

vyādhitaḥ–sañjātavyādhireva, tadabhāvo vā, tadanyo vā–vyādhitānyo vā tatputrādiḥ, yathaiva hivyādhimukto na trayāṇāmeko'pi, sannītyā–sannyāyena kadācidupapadayata iti dṛṣṭāntaḥ ||204||

Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya and its auto-commentary (2010)

[34]:

saṃsārī tadabhāvo vā, tadanyo vā tathaiva hi |
mukto'pi hanta no mukto, mukhyavṛttyeti tadvidaḥ ||205||
kṣīṇavyādhiryathā loke,vyādhimukta iti sthitaḥ |
bhavarogyeva nu tathā, muktastantreṣu tatkṣayā ||206||
- Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya (2010)

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: