Yogbinduna Tikakar Kon

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Yogbindu na Tīkākār Koṇ?" (Who is the Commentator of Yogbindu?) by Jambuvijay, based on the provided text:

The article "Yogbindu na Tīkākār Koṇ?" by Muni Jambuvijay addresses the widely held belief that Acharya Haribhadra Suri, the author of the Yogbindu text, also wrote its commentary. However, Jambuvijay argues strongly against this notion, presenting several pieces of evidence to prove that the commentator is a separate individual from Haribhadra Suri himself.

Key Arguments Presented by Jambuvijay:

1. The Commentator's Humility and Admission of Weakness:

   • The commentary begins with a benedictory invocation followed by verses 2 and 3.
   • Verse 2 states the commentator's intention to write a concise commentary on Yogbindu.
   • Verse 3 reveals a crucial detail: the commentator admits, "I have not received instruction of that kind from a guru, nor do I possess any such superior intellect. Yet, due to my love for Yoga, I have undertaken this effort for the practice of Yoga."
   • Jambuvijay argues that if Haribhadra Suri were the commentator, he would not need to declare his own intellectual weakness or lack of guidance while explaining his own work. This admission clearly indicates a distinction between the original author and the commentator.

2. Interpretation of the Word "Śeva" (Service) in Verse 179:

   • Verse 179 and its commentary discuss the interpretation of the word "śeva" (service). The commentator asserts that "śeva" specifically refers to Sakrubandhaka (those who bind themselves once) and not to Margapatita (those who have fallen from the path) or Margābhimukha (those facing the path).
   • The commentator then engages in a detailed refutation of the opposing view that "śeva" can include Margapatita and Margābhimukha.
   • Jambuvijay points out that if Haribhadra Suri were the commentator, the meaning of a word he himself used in the original text (Yogbindu) would not be a point of contention requiring extensive defense against alternative interpretations. The fact that the commentator feels compelled to establish his interpretation by referencing other texts of Haribhadra Suri (like Lalitavistara and Pañcasūtra Vṛtti) and refuting others' views strongly suggests the commentator is a distinct entity.

3. Misattribution of Dharmakirti's Ideas to Mīmāṃsakas:

   • Verses 438-442 of Yogbindu present the philosophical stance of the prominent Buddhist logician Dharmakirti. Dharmakirti emphasizes the need for a "knower of reality" for liberation, regardless of whether that person is omniscient.
   • The commentator, however, misinterprets these verses and the underlying Buddhist thought. He labels them as the views of the Mīmāṃsakas and explains them according to Mīmāṃsaka philosophy, even attributing the four verses to the Mīmāṃsaka leader Kumārila.
   • Jambuvijay highlights that Haribhadra Suri, being a scholar of various philosophical schools, would be aware of Dharmakirti's Buddhist origins and would not mistakenly classify his arguments as Mīmāṃsaka doctrines. The commentator's error in this regard further proves he is not Haribhadra Suri.

4. Self-Reference as "Bhagavan Haribhadra Suri":

   • The final verse (527) of Yogbindu and its commentary are presented. The commentary contains the statement: "Vidyātiṁ māvadhaḥ Śrīharibhadraḥ svapāḍyo'dhyakṛtiḥ." (This work is undertaken by the blessed Haribhadra Suri).
   • Jambuvijay asserts that Haribhadra Suri himself would never refer to himself in such a reverential manner ("Bhagavan Haribhadra Suri") when writing a commentary on his own work. This self-referential address is a clear indicator that the commentator is a different person, showing respect to the original author.

Conclusion:

Muni Jambuvijay concludes that all these points conclusively demonstrate that the commentator of Yogbindu is not Acharya Haribhadra Suri himself, but another individual. He notes that the commentator's identity, lineage, and time of existence are unknown, as he does not mention his gurus or other personal details in the commentary. Jambuvijay expresses hope that further research into the sources cited in the commentary might help in determining the commentator's period of existence.