लघुदण्डक का एक विमर्शनीय बोल
By प्रोफेसर मुनि महेन्द्र कुमार
Summary
The text examines a specific doctrinal point within the Jain Śvetāmbara tradition concerning the *Laghuḍaṇḍaka*, an ancient text widely accepted in the tradition. The point of contention is the thirteenth *dṛṣṭidvāra* (section on viewpoints) of the *Laghuḍaṇḍaka*, which states that the gods of the nine *Graiveyaka* heavens possess only two types of vision: *samyag-dṛṣṭi* (right vision) and *mithyā-dṛṣṭi* (wrong vision), explicitly denying the presence of *samyag-mithyā-dṛṣṭi* (mixed right-and-wrong vision). The author argues this contradicts the *Jīvājīvābhigama* Sūtra, an authoritative *Āgama*, which clearly states that the gods in the *Graiveyaka* heavens, like those in the *Saudharma* and *Īśāna* heavens, can possess all three types of vision. The commentary by Malayagiri on the *Jīvājīvābhigama* confirms this interpretation. To resolve the apparent discrepancy, the text turns to the *Bhagavatī Sūtra* (13/14-16, 13/37) and its commentary. These sources explain that while *samyag-mithyā-dṛṣṭi* beings cannot be born into (*upapanna*) or depart from (*udvartana*) the *Graiveyaka* heavens—because death does not occur in the third *guṇasthāna* (stage of spiritual development)—they can attain this state during their celestial lifespan. Consequently, the *Graiveyaka* realm is sometimes devoid of such beings and sometimes not. Therefore, the *Laghuḍaṇḍaka*’s statement is correct only from the perspective of birth and departure, but incorrect regarding the overall presence of beings with mixed vision. The author concludes
Conclusion
The analysis reveals a critical textual discrepancy in the *Laghu Dandaka* regarding the spiritual perspectives (*drishtis*) present among the *Graiveyaka* deities. While the text asserts only two perspectives—right and wrong—the *Jivajivabhigama* and *Bhagavati Sutra* clearly document three, including the mixed perspective. This oversight likely stems from focusing solely on birth and death transitions, where the mixed perspective does not occur, while neglecting the period of existence (*aviraha kala*) within the celestial realm. The implication is that the *Laghu Dandaka* requires a definitive correction to align with canonical authority. The outcome of this revision would be a more accurate representation of Jain doctrine, ensuring that the *Graiveyaka* deities are correctly understood to possess all three perspectives during their lifespan. This correction not only resolves a long-standing interpretive error but also reinforces the primacy of *Agama* texts in doctrinal