________________
VOGADRSTISAMUCCAYA
The type of understanding associated with the eight right viewpoints (i. e. with the eight yoga-viewpoints) may respectively be compared to the type of light given out by the particles of hay-fire, the particles of of cowdung-fire, the particles of wood-fire, a lamp, jewel, star, the sun and the moon.
[15] This verse only makes it clear that the eight yoga-viewpoints sought to be described by Haribhadra are in fact eight grades of practisiog yoga (in Haribhadra's sense of the word).
यमादियोगयुक्तानां खेदादिपरिहारतः । अद्वेषादिगुणस्थानं क्रमेणैषा सतां मता ॥१६॥ yamādiyogayuktānāni khedādi pariharataḥ / adresādigunasthānañ kramenaişa satām malā ||16||
Wise men have held that these (eight yoga--viewpoints) are respectively characterized by the yoga-factors like gama etc., that they are respectively free from the spiritual demerits like weariness etc., that they are respectively the seats of the spiritual merits like 1001-enmity etc.
[16] This verse lays down what may be called the architectonic of the Yagadrstisamuccaya. Haribhadra seems to have had before him three important treatment of the successive stages in the process of spiritual development, treatments which all enumerated these stages as eight. Having bimself decided to divide the process in question into eight stages Haribhadra felt that the eight successive stages occurring in the treatment of his three predecessors exactly correspond eight that were to occur in his own proposed treatment. Oft treatments one is that of Patñjali's Yogasūtra whose eigh to be counted as eight successive stages in the process of spiritual development. It is difficult to see how the traditional Jaina scheme of fourteen gunasthānas can be made to run exactly parallel to Patañjali's scheme of eight yogāngas, Perhaps mindful of the difficulty Haribhadra gave up the traditional Jaina scheme and adopted one that was of obscure origin. (Almost certainly, a similar difficulty must have arisen in the case of the other two schemes of classification endorsed by Haribhadra, but we are mentioning only Patañjali because we are in actual possession of his work and commentaries thereupon while the authors of those other two schemes are mere names for us). Even then there remain difficulties and artificialities in Haribhadra's procedure. For the three schemes of classification he chooses to endorse were mutually heterogenous and it could never have been the intention of their respective authors that they should run exactly parallel to each other. However, without making further fuss
