Jain Journal 1996 10

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/520124/1

Page #1

VOL. XXXI
ISSN 0021-4043
A QUARTERLY
JAINOLOGY
No. 2 OCTOBER
ON
1996
JAIN Journal
॥ जैन भवन ॥
JAIN BHAWAN PUBLICATION

Page #2

Thus Spake Lord Mahavira Dr Bhani Ram Verma
Contents
Umāsvāti in Epigraphical and Literary Tradition
M.A. Dhaky
News on Jainism around the world

45
47
66

Page #3

Vol. XXXI
JAIN JOURNAL
No. 2 October
THUS SPAKE LORD MAHAVIRA
Dr BHANI RAM VERMA
As Earth is the Stand-point of all beings Peace is to the Enlightened.
Whatever thou wishest unto thyself, so unto all living beings. This is the Path of the Enlightened.
Those who say they alone are right And all the others and their ways are wrong Are out of the Way of the Blessed Ones.
I beg forgiveness from all beings
I extend forgiveness unto them all
I am the friend of all living beings
I am enemy of none whosoever.
As the ocean is the abode of all water beings so truth is the abode of all virtues.
Millions of hills of silver and gold
Can't quench the thirst of avarice. Cravings are like the boundless sky.

Those who control their senses Those who master their passions Those who meditate on the Self Are the true Followers of the Path.
My self is the river Styx of Hell My self is the sword-bladed tree My self is the Wish-granting Cow My self is the Garden of Paradise.

1996

Page #4

46
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
My self is the doer or undoer of
All its weal and woes.
Doing good makes you your best friend Doing evil your worse enemy.
The one who has won his own self
Is better than a victor of thousand battles.
Fight against the evils within And not with other living beings Your true victory is over your self The door to eternal happiness.
Never think these four small
The borrowed money, wounds, fire and passions, For they grow being with passing of time.
By shaving head you are not a Saint By uttering OM not true Brahmin By dwelling in jungle not a Hermit By bark-clothes not an Ascetic.
Equanimity makes one a Saint Victory of passions a Brahmin Enlightenement a true Hermit Austerity a true Ascetic.
Control over passions is the true fasting -the fasting of the heart.
Therefore the Saints, although they eat, Are always on the fast forever.
Defiance unto world is defiance unto self Regard unto others is true self-regard.
Dharma alone is the true shelter, abode, Stand-point, the island in the midst of the boundless ocean of existence.

Page #5

UMĀSVĀTI IN EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY TRADITION
M.A. DHAKY
Umāsvāti is remembered, revered, and reckoned as one of the more luminous, and hence more celebrated, figures of the Nirgranthadarśana. In our times, he is recognized as an author who pioneered writing in Samskrta, in lieu of the canonical Ardhamāgadhī, for doctrinal, dogmatical, and didactical teachings in the sūtra style akin to the Yogasūtra of Patañjali. He apparently came on the scene at the close of the age of the āgamas (Dixit 1971) and indeed soon after the end of the main monastic lines of the eminent early pontiffs. With Umāsvāti also began the era of systematic organization and clearer conceptualization of the knowledge scattered through, and cast in, the archaic modes and moulds of the ancient scared śruta books of Phase III, dating from c. 1st to the 3rd centuries A.D. In the process, for a few aspects, he made improvements on, and advances over, the known knowledge to a measurable degree. This he did by reference to the progress made in other contemporaneous darsanas like the Yoga and the Vaiśēșika (Sanghvi 1929, and its subsequent editions in Gujarati, Hindi, and English) and thus updated the Nirgrantha position on the fundamental questions about the "universal reals" as well as the “experiential realities" that are inalienably associated with them. The impact of his formulations on the subsequent Nirgrantha writers had been considerable; and for the Southern Nirgrantha Church, which does not possess the ancient canonical texts, i.e. the āgamas, Umāsvāti's famous work, which it calls the Tattvārtha-sūtra, is among the few and foremost books it recognizes as pivotal and sacred. The commentators of the āgamic and epistemological works of the Northern Nirgrantha Church as well time and agin invoke that Sūtra's authority.
As a personage, Umāsvāti is sufficiently ancient but also invisible, to be qualified from historical standpoint as 'mysterious' and 'shadowy.' The discussions by the writers of this century on Umāsvāti, those concerning his sectarial affiliation, his literary productions, and his date have often spawned controversies of unparalleled magnitude within the narrow world of the Nirgranthist scholarship. Indeed, many a battles royal-some overtly wordy and venomous, some frankly sectarian, hateful and uncordial, resorting at moments to polemics of the meaner level – had been fought in the journals, introductions,

Page #6

JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
and prefaces of some of the edited exegetical works on the Tattvärthasūtra, and no less in the articles written, papers read, reviews made, and books written by a few contemporary Nirgrantha writers in Hindi on Umāsvāti. Often indeed, no holds were barred or spared, and, in the process, standards of civility and proprieties of manners were coolly shelved. To borrow Folkert's (1980) phrase, those acrimonious exercises generated "more heat than light", this being an inevitable consequence of the unhealthy debates. As I look back and take stock of the phenomenal growth of literature revolving round Umāsvāti since late thirties, the other glaring facts that surface are that, in several cases, even where the writings are in a sober tone, there is virtually a total absence of a sound methodology (or what operated was just an apology for, or an illusion of, methodology) in historical investigations. A studied disconcern in regard to the vital criteria-objective approach, critical examination of the evidence, thorough analysis of the data and their contextual situations, impartial judgement and dispassionate presentation of the results achieved, implications sensed, determinations done, and answers got on the problems-is much too transparent in several of those writings. They at best reveal laboured efforts to prove the presuppositions and biases of a "sect", the real dimensiors and depths of the problems involved had largely been ignored, neglected, and, as a result, had remained opaque. The ambivalent attitude and the employment of double standards (ostensibly apparent in the writings of some learned votaries of the Nirgrantha-darśana of the past five or six decades) have consequenced in some curious as well as deplorable distortions of realities. Because, while almost all who discussed on Umāsvāti unequivocally held him in high esteem, his most famous work, the Tattvärthadhigama-sūtra (as called in its Bhāṣya's encomium available only in the Northern tradition) or the Tattvartha-sutra (as had been known in the Southern tradition), had become the main focus of dispute. The Svetāmbara sect, an off-shoot of the ancient Northern Nirgrantha Church, from the beginning took it for granted that the author belonged to its historical tradition and continuum. The Digambara, which in part is a surviving off-spring of the ancient Southern Nirgrantha Church, assertively put forward a claim that the work and its author (to some he is unknown, to others he is either Gṛdhrapiccha, Aryadeva, or Umāsvāti) were within its own sectarial fold. A third claim had been advanced in favour of Umāsvāti being a pontiff of the Yapaniya Sangha, a filiate sect of the Northern Church which had found a congenial
48
1. Luckily, these writings by the scholars (who all are followers of the Nirgrantha-darśana) had been in Hindi and were published during thirties and forties and hence not read by the Western Nirgranthologists.

Page #7

DHAKY : UMĀSVĀTI IN EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY TRADITION
49
home and comfortable climes and conditions for flourishing particularly in Northern Karnataka since the latter half of the fifth century A.D. The arguments forcefully advanced on behalf of this sect which is extinct since five centuries, are thus put forward by proxy (Premi 1956; Bronkhorst 1985; Patoriya 1988). The work's two varying titles, the Tattvärthādhigama-sūtra and the Tattvārtha-sūtra, in point of fact represent its two versions, the Southern showing improvements as well as modifications for some sūtras in terms of grammar, language, and structure, and in a few cases also of content; some sūtras concerning cosmography not found in the corpus of the Northern version were also added, supposedly for the sake of completing the unsaid details (Ohira 1982). The protagonists of the Southern version, in the process of establishing the genuineness of their version, had left no efforts to prove the ingenuineness of the Northern version and also vehemently, even sometimes bitingly, had controverted its claim for originality. Some of them also argued that the author of the Northern sūtra-text and of its Bhasya is not the
n (Mukhtar 1956; Phoolchandra 1971; Kailashchandra 1975, Patoriya 1988) and that the Northern is an altered version of the Southern which is original. The Praśamaratiprakarana, a work attributed to Uināsvāti in the Northern tradition since at least the eighth century in the recorded evidence, the quotations therefrom being available since the later half of the seventh century, has been kicked around (the work is virtually unknown in the Southern (Church)2 and Umāsvāti's authorship of that work had been opposed and rejected (Patoriya 1988). To write, therefore, on the historical aspects of Umāsvāti amounts, to follow Settar's now famous dictum,3 to "inviting death"! In view of the hostility that prevails for some decades in this field of historical research, it would be foolhardy to discuss anything that touches even the periphery of the problem. I shall, therefore, largely confine my observations in placing the evidence from the epigraphical and literary sides in their own context, sequence, and perspective and the implications that flow therefrom will then be indicated without assertive comments. 2. Excepting for the 25th kārikā therefrom quoted by Svāmi Virasena in
his Dhavalā-tikā (816 A.D.) where he does not mention the source or the name of the author. He quotes it by simply saying: atrā payogi ślokah
(Premi 1956: 526). 3. Arising from the title of his recent remarkable book (Settar 1986) used
here in a different context and with differing connotation. 4. Sobriety, composure, balance and reticence noticeable in the writings
of late Pandits Nathooram Premi and Sukhalal Sanghvi, Hiralal Kapadiya, Jagadishchandra Jain and Dalsukh Malwaniya were, regrettably, not always the accompaniments of the pen of several of the other Nirgrantha writers of the past decades on Umāsvāti.

Page #8

50
JAIN JOURNAL : Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
Search for Umāsvāti in the domain of inscriptions at the very glance reveals two salient facts. First, in the available epigraphs of the Northern Nirgrantha Church, his name finds no allusion; second, he is for certain mentioned in the inscriptions of the Southern Church: but, in temporal terms, all of these hail exclusively from the medieval period and range in date from early 12th to early 16th centuries. The inscriptions relevant to the present context are eight, and they all come from the medieval Karnātadēša. Of these, seven are from Sravana Belagola alone; and the eighth, which is the latest, is available from Humcha. Those from Sravana Belagola are tabulated below according to their chronological order.5
Inscription No.
Site
Date
156
(47 (127)]
1115 A.D.
Sravana Belogola
(Chandragiri)
135
143 (117)]
1123 A.D.
Sravana Belagola
(Chandragiri)
173
(50 (140)
1145 A.D.
71 (40 (64)]
1163 A.D.
73
[42 (66)]
1176 A.D.
Sravana Belogola
(Chandragiri) Sravana Belogola
(Chandragiri) Sravana Belogola
(Chandragiri) Sravana Belogola
(Vindhyagiri) Sravana Belogola
(Vindhyagiri)
360
1105 (254)
1398 A.D.
361 [106 (255)]
1409 A.D.
The verse referring to “Umāsvāti" (which also mentions “Gțddhapiñccha" i.e. Gặdhrapiccha as his alias) occurring in the earliest inscription of 1115 A.D. verbatim figures in the subsequent four inscriptions tabulated above in their chronological order. The concerned verse in all the five inscriptions reads as follows:
5. The numbers follow the relevant numerical arrangement in the Epigraphia
Carnatica, Volume 2, Mysore 1973; the numbers as per the earlier (second) edition of the work are shown within the bracket in each case.

Page #9

DHAKY : UMĀSVĀTI IN EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY TRADITION
51
abhūd Umāsvāti muniśvaro asāv ācārya sabdõttara Gęddhrapiñchaḥ | tad anvayē tat sadrso (a)sti nānyastātkālik asēşa padārtha-vēdi 115 ||
The verse, moreover, states that Umāsvāti belonged to the spiritual lineage of (ācārya) Kondakunda.. The inscription of 1398 A.D. (which is from Vindhyagiri), however, has a different verse which, moreover, specifically attributes the composition of the Tattvārtha-sūtra to Umāsvāti (not done in the afore-cited verse) and looks upon Gțddhrapiñccha not as Umāsvāti's alias but as his disciple's name:
śrīmān Umāsvātir ayam yatīsas Tattvārtha-sūtram prakațicakāra | yan muktimārgācarano dyatānām pāthéyamarghyam
bhavati prajānām || tasyaiva śişyo (a)jani Gệddhrapiñchadvitiyasamjñasya
Baläkapiñcchah ||
And the inscription of 1409 A.D., also from Vindhyagiri, is the second in order to state that Umāsvāti composed the Tattvārtha-sūtra, its other assertions are in essence identical with those noticed in the former five Chandragiri inscriptions :
tadīyam vamšākarataḥ prasiddhād abhūd adāsā yatiratnamālā | babhau yadantar manivaḥ munindraḥ sa Kundakundõdita
canda-dandaḥ || abhūd Umāsvāti-muniḥ pavitrē vamśē tadiyē sakal ārthavēdī i sūtriksitam yēna jina-pranītam śāstrartha-jātam munipungavēna || sa prāņi-samraksana-savadhano babhāra yõgi kila griddhapakşān! tadā prabhsity ēva budhā yamāhur ācārya-sabdo ttara
Gțddhapiñccham II tasmād abhūd yogi-kula-pradipõ Balākapiñcchaḥ sa tapo
maharddhih!
(Incidentally, an inscription of 1154 A.D. Yelladahalli enlists Grddhrapiñcchācārya after Samantabhadra and Akalanka, the two other notable luminaries of the Southern Church (Vijayamurti 1957: 62, Ins. 324). There is, however, no mentioning there of Umāsvāti or the Tattvārtha-sūtra).
The eighth inscription is from the surroundings of the famous Padmāvati temple at Humcha (Vijayamurti 1957: 518, Ins. 667). It
6. There is a difference in the interpretation of the verse : some feel that
what is implied here is that Umāsvāti is Kundakunda himself (Gopal 1973, p. lxxvi ff.).

Page #10

JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
belongs to the late Vijayanagara period on the basis of its paleography as well as the historical allusions to the kings it contains and is datable to c. 1530 A.D. It also ascribes the authorship of the Tattvārtha-sūtra to Umāsväti and, in addition, qualifies him with the honorific term śrutakēvali-desiya not met with in the aforenoted inscriptions.7
52
There is, however, one other epigraph from Humcha (Vijayamurti 1953 294, Ins. 213) which, as per its date 1077 A.D., is the earliest among the available and which to some extent is pertinent in the present context; it does refer to the Tattvärtha-sūtra, but ascribes its authorship to some Aryadeva and not to Umāsväti or Gṛddhrapiñccha either. Incidentally, the Malliṣēņa-prasasti of 1129 A.D. on the Chandragiri at Sravana Belagola refers to Aryadeva and qualifies him as Rāddhanta-karta, an implied allusion to his authorship of the Tattvärtha-sutra.9 The inscription at the same time does not anywhere mention Umāsvāti or Gṛddhrapiñcchācārya either in its otherwise long list of the Southern Nirgrantha holymen. Aryadeva, however, is apparently a totally unknown entity in the entire corpus of knowledge on the patriarchs and pontiffs, friars and monks, of all the known sects of the Nirgrantha religion in Karnataka as well as in Northern India. 10 No modern writer predictably therefore has taken these last two inscriptional notices seriously. Their value is limited to the fact that the first is the earliest epigraphical reference to the Tattvārthasūtra, and the second possibly refers to it implicitly. From the inscriptions cited above, it is clear that, in the Southern tradition, 'Umāsvāti' was equated with 'Gṛddhrapiñccha' in early 12th century. In a later 14th century-inscription, Umāsvāti is for the first time clearly mentioned as the author of the Tattvārtha-sūtra. And if we were allowed to read in the phrase aseṣa-padartha-vēdi, knower of total "entity
7.
Tattvartha-sutra-karttaram Umäsväti-munisvaram/
Śrutakēvali-desiyam vandē 'ham guṇamandiram //
It may be noted in passing that the Nandigurvavali (c. 13th-14th centuries A.D.) also ascribes the Tattvartha-sutra to Umāsvāti, but does not address him as Śrutakēvali-dēsiya :
Tattvārtha-sūtra-kartṛtva prakaṭikṛita-sanmanāḥ/
Umāsvāti padācāryō mithyātva-timirāmsumān // 8. Tattvärtha-sutra-karttrugal enisid Aryadevar...
9. Epigraphia Carnatica II, 1973: 51, Ins. No. 77 (67). Acāryavaryō yatirAryadēvō rāddhanta-kartta dhriyatām...Räddhanta means siddhanta or doctrine. The Tattvärtha-sūtra embodies the doctrine of the Nirgrantha in sūtra style
10. Though he may perhaps have flourished in Southern India, we virtually know nothing about him. (A Nirgrantha ascetic 'Ariyadeva' figures in the inscriptions of Tamilnāḍu; but he is a medieval person).

Page #11

DHAKY: UMĀSVĀTI IN EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY TRADITION
reals", for Umāsvāti in the inscription of 1115 A.D. (and the subsequent four which repeat the selfsame verse), a hint toward the Tattvārthasūtra, by equating padartha with tattua, may be sensed and it may be inferred that the early 12th century composer of the verse plausibly had in mind the authorship of the Tattvärtha-sūtra for Umāsvāti even when his phraseology does not directly so specify.
III
The Southern literary tradition on the Tattvartha-sūtra, is, of course, much older than the Southern epigraphical. It assumably therefore has a stronger bearing on the Umãsvāti problem. The earliest relevant source of the Southern affiliation is the Sarvārthasiddhi of Pūjyapāda Dēvanandi (active c. 635-680 A.D., see Dhaky 1990: 152158), which is a famous commentary on the Tattvārtha-sūtra. Before this date, in the Southern Nirgrantha literature, there is no allusion to the Tattvartha-sūtra, nor is encountered, before the eighth century, a citation from the selfsame work or its obvious influence in any Southern writing. Devanandi, on his part, however, professed complete ignorance on who the author of the work he commented upon was, ascribing it as he did to "some Nirgrantha pontiff", the Sūtra being an exposition in response to the query of some bhavya person." The next commentator on the Tattvārtha-sūtra, Bhaṭṭa Akalankadēva, in his Tattvārtha-vārttika (c. 730-750 A.D.), is likewise silent over the authorship of the Sutra. It was Svāmi Virasēna of the Pañcastūpānvaya who, in his famous Dhavalā-ṭīkā (comp'eted 816 A.D.) on the Satkhanḍāgama of Puspadanta and Bhutabali (c. 500 A.D.), 12 while quoting from the Tattvārtha-sūtra, for the first time names "Gṛdhrapicchācārya" as its author (Premi 1956: 530ff). Also Vidyananda, who is believed to have flourished in late eighth and the first quarter of the 9th century (he more correctly lived in the first
53
11. kaścid bhavyaḥ pratyāsanna-niṣṭhaḥ prajñāvān svahitam upalipsur viviktē parama-ramye bhavyasata-visrāmāspade kvacid äśramapade muniparisan madhye samniṣannam mūrttam iva mō kṣamārgam a vāgvisargam vapuṣā nirupayantam yukty agama-kusalam parahita-pratipadanaikakāryam ārya-niṣēvyam nirgranthācāryavaryam-upasadya savinayam paripṛcchati sma | Bhagavan, kim nu khalu atmane hitam syad iti I sa äha mōkṣa iti | sa ēva punaḥ pratyāha kim svarūpō (a)au mōkṣaḥ kaśc āsya prāpty upaya iti | ācārya aha-niravaseṣa-nirākṛta-karma-malakalankasya sarirasy ātmanō acintya svābhāvik ājñānādi-guṇam avyābādha-sukham ātyantikam avasthāntaram mo kṣa iti (Phoolchandra 1944: text p. 1).
12. The editor of the Satkhanḍāgama, Hiralal Jain, and those who follow him assign the work to the second century A.D. The external and internal evidence goes against it as I have discussed in "The Date of Satkhanḍāgama" as yet unpublished. Its real date is c. 500 A.D.

Page #12

54
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
half of the 10th century), 13 in his Tattvārtha-śloka-vārttika, quotes from the Tattvārtha-sūtra as of Gṛdhrapicchācārya (Kailāshchandra 1945, Part 2: 231).14 His contemporary, the famous Kannada poet Pampa, too, in his Adipurāṇa (Kannada, 941 A.D.), mentions Gṛddhrapiñchācārya. 15 And Vadirāja of the Drāviḍa Samgha, in his Pārsvanathacarita (1025 A.D.), offers salutation to 'Gṛddhapiccha' whom Kailashchandra (1945:231) takes as the author of the Tattvartha-sutra.16 Kailashchandra (1945: 232) also notices some Jayasena mentioning 'Gṛddhapicchācārya', but does not specify which one of the two known Jayasēna-s is meant, nor does he state as to the work in which this particular reference occurs and what its date, firm or plausible, had been.
Some of the manuscripts of the southern version of the Tattvarthasūtra contain the following verse which mentions ‘Umāsvāmī' in lieu of 'Umäsväti':
Tattvārtha-sūtra kartāram Gṛddhapicchōpalakṣitam | vandē ganindra-samjātam Umāsvāmi-munisvaram ||
However, as shown by Mukhtar (1956: 106-108), this altered appellation for Umāsvāti for the first time figures in the Tattvärthavṛitti of Śrutasāgara (c. late 15th-early 16th centuries), and Kailashchandra therefore conjectures that Śrutasagara may have based this nomen on a foot of a sloka figuring in the Nitisāra (of Indranandi: late 10 century A.D.) where the author of the Tattvārthasūtra is referred to as 'Svāmï':
Tattvārtha-sūtra-vyākhyātā Svāmīti paripaṭhyatē
(Kailashchandra 1945: 227)
Combining now the Southern literary and the inscriptional
13. My paper "The Epigraphical Evidence on the Date of Vidyananda," is currently in press, to appear in Dr. H.V. Trivedi Felicitation Volume from Bhopal. Therein I have produced full evidence for changing his date to c. 900-950 A.D.
14. etēna Gṛddhrapicchācārya-paryanta muni-sūtrēņa vyabhicāritā nirastā. 15. A.N. Upadhye, in his "Introduction" to the The Varangacarita of JațăSimhanandi, gives the following citation there on p. 15: Āryanuta-Gṛdhrapimchācārya Jaṭācārya viśruta-kirtyā | cārya purassaramapp ācārya parampareyam
kuḍugam bhavyotsavamam | I-12.
16. Verse 16, quoted in Kailashchandra 1945:231. atuccha-guna-sampātam Gṛddhapiccham nato'smi tam | pakṣikurvanti yam bhavyā nirvāṇāyōtpatiṣṇavaḥ ||

Page #13

DHAKY: UMĀSVĀTI IN EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY TRADITION
references to the Tattvärtha-sutra and its author," the following facts unambiguously emerge :
1. Devanandi as well as Akalankadeva, both of whom had commented on the Tattvartha-sūtra, are silent over the identity of the author, his preceptor's name, as well as the monastic sub-order to which he belonged. Thus, in the seventh as well as the eighth century, which in temporal terms represents the earliest phase of the Tattvärtha exegetical literature in the South, Umāsvāti as the Sūtra's author was, for some special reasons, not mentioned or acknowledged.
55
2. Virasēna, Vidyananda, Pampa, and Vadirāja, and the Humcha inscription of 1077 A.D. likewise do not mention Umāsvāti; thus up to the last leg of the 11th century, Umāsväti is nowhere mentioned as the author of the Tattvärtha-sutra. But the aforenoted four authors, instead, specify Gṛddhapiccha (either directly or inferentially) as the author of the Tattvārtha-sūtra. However, Gṛddhapiccha cannot be the author's monastic appellation; it arguably must have been conceived, at some stage, as his cognomen. The source for this cognomen is as yet unknown. Devanandi and Akalankadēva, the two earliest Southern commentators on the Tattvartha-sūtra, apparently were not willing to accord the authorship of the work to Umāsvāti; but they hardly would have had an objection against, or inhibition in, revealing Gṛddhapicchācārya as the author of that celebrated work. Why, then, did they suppress not only the name, but also the cognomen of the author, if it were then known? The problem does thus become somewhat complicated. Was it, it may be asked, then, Virasena who, in face of Devanandi's and Akalankadeva's silence, felt the need for having the author's identity specified (since the Tattvärtha was a very important doctrinal work) and hence coined for him the epithetic appellation 'Gṛddhrapicchācārya'? Was it, it may be suspected, coined for suppressing the name Umāsvāti as the author, since they knew he did not belong to the Digambara sect? It is by all counts certain that this second and cognomenic appellation 'Gṛddhrapicchācārya' had gained a wide currency in the Southern (Digambara) Church since the time Virasēna introduced it. It is, of course, totally unknown in the Northern
17. There are also some notices which see Kundakundācārya as the author of the Tattvartha-sutra, a supposition for which, however, there is absolutely no evidence and no serious scholar believes in that attribution. Moreover, the date of Kundakundācārya is as late as the latter half of the eighth century as I have elsewhere shown (Dhaky, 1991, pp. 187-206).

Page #14

56
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
tradition, early or late, and this may have been perhaps the case also with the Yapaniyas in Karṇāṭadēśa.
3. The Humcha inscription of 1077 A.D. and the Sravana Belagola epigraph of 1129 A.D. ascribe the Sūtra neither to Umāsvāti nor to Gṛddhapiccha but to Āryadēva, thus coming in conflict with the notices of Virasēna, Vidyananda, Pampa, and Vādirāja as well as other inscriptions from Sravana Belagola.
4. The 12th century inscriptions beginning from 1115 A.D., alluded to the foregoing pages, for the first time, and indeed with no past precedent known so far in the Southern (Digambara) Church, mention 'Umāsvāti'; and 'Gṛddhapicchācārya' they note as his alias. This equation, in conjunction with other associations, explicit or implicit, would make Umāsvāti the author of the Tattvärthasutra. But what is the basis for equating 'Umāsvāti' with 'Gṛddhapicchācārya'? From where did the composer of the inscription of 1115 A.D. get this information, particularly when the earlier celebrated commentators on the Tattvärtha beginning from the seventh century and other subsequent but eminent early writers - Southerners all and indeed of the Digambara persuasion-till 11th century A.D. do not mention Umāsvāti at all? Why, all of a sudden, did Umāsvāti appear in the Southern epigraphical notices ?
5. Again, the inscription of 1115 A.D. for the first time mentions Koṇḍakundācārya as Umāsväti alias Gṛddhapiccha's preceptor, a statement that had been never met with before this date, nor can it be upheld by any sound external or internal evidence.
The direct and most ancient source, the testimony of the author himself, is what is explicitly believed to be his own encomium at the end of the Sūtra-text's Bhāṣya, the Bhāṣya being available in, and recognized only by, the Northern tradition: and this proclaims the authorship of the Tattvārtha-sūtra (in point of fact the Tattvarthädhigamasastra as the author himself therein calls it) positively in his own name, Umāsvāti; and this encomium could hardly have been available to the medieval composers of inscriptions in Karṇāṭa. Nor could they have deduced that it was Umāsvāti who is the author of the Sutra, at least, not from the earlier writings of their own sect. To all seeming, the Humcha inscription of the 16th century, earlier noted, which quotes a couplet in Anustubh, palpably from some medieval Yapaniya writing (since the term śruta-kēvali-dēsiya it uses it typically of Yapaniya usage and not known in the vogue either of the Digambara or of the Svētāmbara sect), may have been the source

Page #15

DHAKY : UMĀSVÄTI IN EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY TRADITION
57 for this information, a source which probably was then available to the Digambara writers in the 12th century Karnata. At the same time, that couplet does not equate Umāsvāti with Grddhapicch-ācārya. (Like the Svētāmbara sources, it too shows unawareness of that cognomen). This necessitated replacing the original second foot of the selfsame verse by a new foot which duly included the epithet Grddhapicchācārya (of the Digambara coinage) as seen in some fairly late manuscripts of the Tattvārtha-sūtra which also render Umāsvāti as 'Umāsvāmi' as noticed in the foregoing pages (Kailāshchandra 1945: 227). Incidentally, the Bhāsya was known both to Dēvanandi (Premi 1956) as well as to Akalankadēva (Jagdishchandra 1939). Yet these two early Southern authors did not mention 'Umāsvāti'. Their silence, if it seems intriguing, is also very significant. (Was it perhaps deliberate or out of necessity ?).
IV
In the Northern Nirgrantha tradition, as earlier observed, no inscription so far known mentions Umāsvāti. A somewhat equivalent of, and virtually coeval with, the Southern inscriptional notices are the long or short specific eulogies of the varied Northern literary compositions in which Umāsvāti sometimes figures. The earliest such reference is by Jinadatta Sūri of Kharatara-gaccha in his Ganadharasārddha-sataka (c. very early years of the 12th cent. A.D.);18 next, the Praśamarati-prakarana-ţikā of Haribhadra sūri (1129 A.D.), 19 the Amamasvāmi-carita of Muniratna Sūri of Purnimā-gaccha (1169 A.D.)20 and finally the Kalpapradipa of Jinaprabha Sūri of Kharatara-gaccha (1333 A.D.)21 which reveren cially remembers Umāsvāti among the great pontiffs of the Svetambara sect. But all of these are medieval sources and what can be of real value has to be the more ancient references and which, to be really significant, must unequivocally attribute, even
18. Ch. Gandhi 1967: 93.
pasamaraipamuha payaraña pamcasayā sakkayā kayā jēhim /
puvvagayavāyagānam tesim Umāsāi nāmānam // 19. Cf. Deshai 1933: 101.
praśamasthēna yēnēyam kştā vairāgya-paddhatiņ /
tasmai vācakamukhyāya namo bhūtārtha-bhāşiņē // 20. Deshai (1933) quotes the following opening verse from the Vțiti :
Umāsvātër vācakasya vācaḥ kasya na cētasi /
dhvanamty adyāpi ghantāvat täratankāra sundarah // 21. Jina Vijaya 1934:69, Pataliputrakalpa.
Umāsvāti-vācakaś ca Kaubhisani-gotrah pañcaśatasamskrta-prakarana prasiddhas tatraiva Tattvārthadhigamam sabhāsyam vyaracayat /

Page #16

JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
stipulate, the authorship of the Tattvārtha-sūtra (i.e. the Tattvārthadhigama-sutra) to Umāsvāti.
58
Before proceeding with that inquiry, it may at this juncture be mentioned that, besides the Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra, its Bhāṣya (which is the earliest available commentary on the text) is looked upon as Umāsvāti's auto-commentary in the Northern tradition. Also recognised as his works are the Prasamarati-prakarana and the Kṣētrasamāsa (alternative title, the Jambūdvipa-samāsa). Gandhahasti Siddhasēna, in his Tattvārthādhigama-vṛitti (c. 760-770 A.D.), refers to Umāsvāti's another work, the Sauca-prakarana,22 now unavailable. Also unavailable is his Śrāvaka-prajñapti. The Navāngavṛttikāra Abhayadeva Süri of Candra-gaccha ( active c. 1052-1083 A.D.), and before him the Vadivētāla Santi Sūri of Thārāpadra-gaccha (1040 A.D.) in his Uttaradhyayana-vṛtti, cite from Umāsvāti's other works, now unknown and indeed lost for the past several centuries.23
On the Sa-bhāṣya Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra of Umāsvāti, Yakinisūnu Haribhadra Sūri wrote his commentary up to about 61⁄2 chapters (c. 785 A.D.). His slightly senior contemporary, Gandhahasti Siddhasēna, earlier referred to, wrote a full commentary (c. 760-770 A.D.) on the selfsame work; and both of them regard the Sūtra as well as its Bhāṣya as of Umāsvāti. Haribhadra profusely quotes from the Tattvärthadhigama-sūtra in several of his other earlier commentarial works, particularly those on the agamas, all composed between c. 745 and 760 A.D. The commentators on other works whose writings predate Siddhasena's and Haribhadra's, such as Kōtyācārya (in his commentary, c. 700-725 A.D.) on the Viseṣa Avasyaka-bhāṣya of Jinabhadragani Kṣamāśramaņa, c. 585 A.D., also Koṭṭārya vādi gani (in his commentary, c. 700 A.D., which is a supplementary extension for completing the incomplete auto-commentary of Jinabhadra), and Simhasūra Kṣamāśramaņa (in his Dvādaśāra-naya-cakra-vṛtti, c. 680690 A.D.), also quote from the Tattvarthadhigama-sūtra. (The last noted author also cites from the Bhāṣya). Not only that, several cumicommentaries on the āgamas which were composed between c. 650700 A.D., quote from the Sutra. Among the still earlier such works, the Avasyaka-cūmi (c. 600-650 A.D.), which plausibly was composed a few decades before Devanandi's Sarvārthasiddhi, cites from the Tattvārthadhigama. The most important of them all are the four
22. Since the point is not very significant, I forego citation.
23. Kapadia collected several such quotations and grouped them into the Tattvärthadhigama-sutra, pt. I, chapts. I.V., Bombay 1926, "Introduction (in Sanskrit)", pp. 20-22. Some of these definitely reflect Umāsvāsti's style.

Page #17

DHAKY : UMĀSVĀTI IN EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY TRADITION
59
citations, two from the Sūtra-text and two from the Bhāsya done directly in the name of Umāsvāti, figuring as they do in the cūrņi by Agastuasimha (c. 575-600 A.D.) (see Punya Vijava. 1973: 85) on the Daśavaikälika-sūtra (c. 4th-2nd centuries B.C.). These being the earliest very clear references to Umāsvāti (and his two compositions, the Sūtra and the Bhāşya), I cite them below in extenso : sarvāsrava-dvāra-pratyapāya-darśanārtham bhagavad
Omāsvātinābhihitam"himsādişvihāmūtra cāpāyāvadya darśanam"
(Tattvā 7.4), "duḥkham ēva vā” [Tattvā 7.5), "vyādhipratikāratvāt kandūparigatavaccābramha...”
(Tattvā 7.5 Sūtrabhāsyē). "parigrahēșvaprāptanaştēșu kāńkşā-śö kau prāptēşu ca rakṣaṇam upabhōgē cāpyatşptiņ"
[Tattvā 7.5 Sūtrabhāsyē] Although he does not mention Umāsvāti or the Tattvärthādhigamasūtra and its Bhāsya, the great Svetāmbara dialectician, Mallavādi Ksamāśramana, the author contemporaneous to Agastyasimha, 2 quotes a phrase, yathārthābhidhānam sabdah, (Jambuvijaya 1976 596) which is a definition of the term sabda that has been traced inside the Bhāsya(Jambuvijaya, 1966: 23). And earlier than Mallavādi, Siddhasēna Divākara (active c. 400-444 A.D.)25 seems familiar with the Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra as well as its Bhāşya and possibly also with the Prasamarati-prakarana.26 This unambiguously proves the antiquity of the Sūtra text as well as of the Bhāsya, and places Umāsvāti's date before the fifth century A.D. The most direct, just as the earliest, evidence on the authorship of the Tattvārthādhigamasūtra (as well as its Bhäsya) is of course the grantha-prašasti at the end of the Bhasya as had been lucidly shown by Sanghvi, Jagadishchandra, as well as Premi.27 I cite below this encomium (with which epigraphers and non-Nirgrantha historians in India in general are unfamiliar), followed by its translation in English:
24. I. as well as Jitendra Shah (n.d.), date Mallavādi to the latter half of the
sixth century and not to the fourth century A.D. as has been done by
most Svētāmbara Jaina scholars. 25. I am discussing the date of Siddhasēna Divākara elsewhere. 26. The opening verse of his Dvātrimśikā 19 which is an echo of the sūtra 1
of the Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra; and the opening verse of his Dvātrimsikā 20 which reflects awareness of the kārikā 204 of the Prasamarati
prakarana. (In the former connection Cf. Upadhye 1971:162, 164). 27. In a long paper I am discussing their views with all citations and
observations thereof.

Page #18

60
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
vācaka-mukhyasya Śivaḥsriyah prakasa-yasasaḥ prasisyēna | sisyena Ghoşanandi-kṣamanasy aikadaśānga-vidaḥ ||1|| Aryā vacanaya ca mahāvācaka kṣamana Munḍapādasiṣyasya | siṣyēņa vācakācārya Mülanamnaḥ prathita-kirtēḥ ||21| Nyagro dhika-prasūtēna viharata puravarē Kusuma-nämni Kaubhiṣaṇinā Svāti-tanayēna Vatsi-sutēn arghyam 11311 Arhad-vacanam samyag gurukramen āgatam samupadhārya | duḥkhārtam ca duragama-vihatamatim lokam avalo kya 11411 idam Uccairnagara-vācakēna sattvānukampaya dṛbdham | Tattvarthādhigamakhyam spaṣṭam Umäsvātinā sastram 1511
The prasasti is cast in an archaic mould as well as in highly compressed form; it is divisively distributed for meeting the metrical requirements and is by disposition somewhat involved: hence strophe by strophe literal translation would only end in a jigsaw puzzle. I have therefore preferred rearranging the writing, otherwise faithfully following the sense and intent of Umäsvāti.28 (He,) vācaka Umāsvāti of the Uccairnagara sub-order (of the Northern Nirgrantha friars), born at Nyagrōdhikā, of Kaubhiṣaṇi clan (gōtra) (and) son of Svāti and of Vatsi, grand disciple of the illustrious chief preceptor (vācakamukhya) Śivaśrī and disciple of kṣamana Ghōṣanandi; he, who received his knowledge of the holy scripture (vācana) from Mula, the disciple of mahāvācaka Muṇḍapāda: receiving thoughtfully as he did the Word of Arhat (which flowed) through the succession of right (authentic) teachers, and sensing as he did people's suffering from sorrow, their intellect dulled by the evil doctrinal treatises, -out of compassion, composed in clearer terms (spaṣṭam, i.e. with the commentary) (this Tattvārthadhigama-sastra while sojouring, during his itinerary, in Kusumapura (Pāṭaliputra)."
"29
I am aware that some scholars (Ghatage 1935) held that the encomium is an addition of a later date. But its form and style are fairly archaic, and agree with the general style and modal nuances not only of the opening 31 and closing 32 kārikās of the Sutra, but also with those of the Prasamarati-prakarana as well as of some of the citations from the lost works of Umāsvāti. Moreover, the ecclesiastical status 'vācaka' is nowhere met with after the Gupta period. And the term 'kṣamana', too, is nowhere applied after the fifth century in the Northern Nirgrantha tradition, although the term 'kṣapanaka' is used in the Samskṛta plays and elsewhere in postGupta times. Likewise, the convention of mentioning the gōtra of a
28. The encomium verses have been cited from Kapadia 1926:19. 29. I have made small alterations and rearrangement with a view to improving upon the translation presented by Dixit, and recently by Zydenbos.

Page #19

DHAKY: UMÄSVĀTI IN EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY TRADITION
pontiff goes out of vogue after the fifth and early sixth centuries A.D. There is thus nothing to doubt about the antiquity as also its contemporaneity as well as its connection with the Sūtra-text and the Bhāṣya and hence the authenticity of its content. Had it not been so known or understood or interpreted even in earlier times, Agastyasimha in the sixth century and Siddhasēnagani and Haribhadra Suri in the eighth century could not have ascribed the Sūtra as well as the Bhāṣya to Umāsvāti.
V
In the Northern tradition, Umāsvāti is thus known by name and also as the author of the Tattvārthādhigama-Sutra from the evidence of the encomium of the work, which is the earliest, positive, and direct reference, and this must be from c. 350-375 A.D., which is the probable date of its composition.30 The other evidence, direct but outside the original work, earlier noted, is of the Daśavaikālika-cūmi of Agastyasimha; this is of the late sixth century or over half of millenium anterior in date to the Sravana Belagola inscription of 1115 A.D. The evidence on Umāsvāti from the literary notices on Umāsvāti in the Southern Nirgrantha Church is definitely negative till we come to late medieval period when, however, Umāsvāti is called 'Umāsvāmï'; and in early ninth and tenth centuries, the Sūtra was ascribed by the relevant writers to 'Gṛddhapicchācārya' and not to 'Umāsvāti'. As already noted, it was as well ascribed to Āryadēva in some quarters in Karṇāṭa in the late 11th and early 12th centuries A.D. The aforenoted Śravana Belagola inscription of 1115 A.D. for the first time equates 'Gṛddhapicchācārya' with 'Umāsväti', but without, as it today may seem, the support of its own earlier literary tradition which either did not know, or for some reasons avoided mentioning, Umāsvāti as the author of the Tattvartha-sutra. The Northern tradition, on the other hand, does not mention or know 'Gṛddhapicchācārya' at all. Indeed the many works beginning from the late sixth to the 12th centuries, which mention the author or cite from the Sutra as an authority, irrespective of whether they specifically noted Umāsvāti or not, provide not a single instance of an allusion there to 'Gṛddhapicchācārya' (or to Aryadēva either). There was neither ambiguity nor were conflicting claims about the name of the author of the Tattvarthādhigama-sūtra. He was, from the beginning to the end and unequivocally, Umāsvāti.
61
30. Umāsvāti's date has been a matter of controversy. Some place him in the fifth, some to the eighth. Since he flourished before Siddhasēna Divākara-his style, too, is archaic-I have preferred the bracket c. 350375 A.D. for his active years.

Page #20

62
JAIN JOURNAL : Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996 As I survey the writings on Umāsvāti of this century, the following divergent trends with regard to this vexed issue are met with : 1. Several scholars regard the Sūtra and the Bhāsya as of Umāsvāti.
This is the view largely of the Nirgrantha-Svetāmbara scholars. Jagadishchandra Jain as well as of several Western scholars.
particularly the German Nirgranthologists. 2. At least one scholar felt that the encomium naming Umāsvāti at
the Bhāşya applies to the Sūtra alone (Ghatage 1935). But most Digambara scholars, and few Western scholars (Williams 1963; Zydenbos 1983) regard the Sūtra as of the Nirgrantha-Digambara sect and the Bhāşya alone is ascribed by them to a Śvētāmbara Umāsvāti, or, alternatively, for some the name of the Bhāşyakāra must be looked upon as unknown. And one scholar held that there were two Umāsvāti-s, the author of the Sūtra, an earlier Umāsvāti who was Digambara and the second later, a Svētāmbara Umāsvāti who altered the original text and composed the Bhāsya (Phoolchandra 1971).
3. In the opinion of still others, both the above-cited claims are
unjustified and the author of the Sūtra as well as of the Bhāsya, doubtless Umāsvāti, was a Yapaniya (Premi 1956 1956; Upadhye 1971). Alternatively according to some, the Sūtra was composed by a Yapaniya but the Bhāsya's author was a Svētāmbara (Bronkhorst 1985; Patoriya 1988).
I shall offer no comments on these views, -all as mutually conflicting as are diverse--for it is a subject of a separate paper or a series of papers for clearing the mess they have created. The conclusions I have reached as the result of my own researches is that Umāsvāti possibly was a pre-Śvētāmbara or non-Śvētāmbara, and hence non-abbatial Northern Nirgrantha holyman.31 Uccairnāgarasākhā, to which he belonged, was not a filiate of the Southern (Digambara) Church, nor of the Yapaniya Samgha. It was within the ambit of the early Northern Nirgrantha main stream tradition. The readings and content as well as some details of the version of the āgamas followed by the Uccairnāgara-sakhā, as met with particularly in the Bhāsya, apparently had differed at places from the āgamas of the Vajri-sākhā that are currently available with, and inherited by,
31. The Svētāmbara sect has been for the first time referred to in the literary
and epigraphical notices of the later part of the fifth century. At the beginning it apparently was a caityavāsi or abbatial sect and for long had so continued to remain a sect.

Page #21

DHAKY: UMĀSVĀTI IN EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY TRADITION
the Svētāmbara sect. They likewise differ for some matters and details from those of the Digambara as well, as has been shown by some previous writers (Premi 1956, Ohira 1982). Umāsvāti arguably had before him a version of agamas followed by his own branch, the Uccairnagara-śākha which apparently had differed from the version of the Vajri-sākhā for some details.
Post Script
While completing this paper, I had missed an important article by A.V. Narasimhamurti, namely the "Epigraphical References to Umāsvāti," in Svasti Śri (Dr. B.Ch.Chhabra Felicitation Volume), Delhi, 1984, pp. 57-60. Narasimhamurti, on the authority of P.B. Desai, has noted an inscription of 1098 A.D. in the Jaina basadi at Hunasi Hadagali, which refers to Gṛddhapiñcha but not to Umāsvāti. (Cf. P.B. Desai, Jainism in South India and Jaina Epigraphs, Sholapur 1957, p. 241). Thus, till the very end of the 11th century, Umāsvāti does not figure in the epigraphical tradition of Southern India.
After sending the material to the editors of Śri Nāgābhinandanam volume, I noticed to have missed a reference to a specific mention by the Yapaniya pontiff Palayakirti Šakaṭāyana in his grammar; therein, he refers to the ten (chapters) of Umāsvāti (dasakā Umāsvātijā) and thereby to the Tattvārthadhigama Sūtra. (Cf. Śākaṭāyana-Vyākaraṇa, ed. by Pt. Sambhunatha Tripathi, BJMJG, Skt. series no-39, New Delhi 1944, II, 4; 182). Śākaṭāyana may have been the source from which the composer of the Śravana-Belagola inscription of A.D. 1115 "ot and included this specific information.
Bronkhurst, Johannes
Dhaky, M.A.
Dhaky, M.A.

63
References
1985 On the Chronology of the
Tattvärtha-sūtra and some early commentaries, Archiv Für Indische Philosophie, Wiener Zeitschrift Für Die Kunde Südasiens, Sonderdruck Aus Band XXIX, 155-184. 1990 The Jaina "Jinendrabuddhi" and incidental questions, Indian History and Epigraphy, Dr. G.S. Gai Felicitation Volume, Delhi: 152-158. 1991 The Date of Kundakundācārya in M.A. Dhaky & Sagarmal Jain (eds.),

Page #22

64
Deshai, Mohanlal Dalichand
Dixit, K.K.
Folkert, Kendall, W.
Gandhi, L.B. (ed.)
Ghatage, A.M.
Gopal, B.R.
Jagadish chandra Jain
Jambuvijaya, Muni (ed.)
Jina Vijaya (ed.)
Jitendra B. Shah
Kailash chandra Shastri
Kapadia, Hiralal (ed.)
Mukhtar, Jugalkishore
Ohira, Suzuko

JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
Aspects of Jainology, Vol. III, Pt. Dalsukhbhai Malvania Felicitation Volume I, Varanasi, pp. 187-206.
1933 Jaina Sahityano Samkṣipta Itihasa. (Gujarati), Bombay. 1971 Jaina Ontology, LDS No. 31, Ahmedabad.
1980 Jain Religious Life at Mathura : The Heritage of Late Victorian Interpretation, (cyclostyled paper), read at the Seminar "Mathura: The Cultural Heritage," held in Mathura. 1967 The Three Apabhramsa Works of Jinadatta Suri with commentaries, G.O.S. No. 37 (reprint), Baroda. 1935 The Text of the TattvarthādhigamaSūtrāņi, Journal of the University of Bombay, 4 (Nov. 1935).
1973 "Introduction" in Epigraphia Carnatica, Vol. II, Mysore.
1939 Tattvärthādhigama bhāṣya aur Akalanka" (Hindi), Anekanta 3/4, V.N.S. 2066.
1966 Dvādasaranayacakram, (with introduction in Sankrit), Bhavanagar.
1976 Ibid., Part II.
1934 Vividhatirthakalpa, SJS Vol. X, Santiniketan.
n.d.
"Mallavādi-no Samaya", to be
published in the Nirgrantha. Ahmedabad (in press).
1945 Jaina Sahitya kā Itihāsa, (Hindi), second part. Varanasi V.N. 2502. 1926 Tattvārthadhigama-sutra, (with Introduction in Sanskrit) Part I, Bombay.
1956 Umāsvāti ya Umāsvāmi ?, Jaina Sahitya aur Itihāsa par Visada Prakāśa (Hindi), Calcutta, pp. 106108.
1982 A Study of Tattvärtha-sutra with

Page #23

DHAKY : UMĀSVĀTI IN EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY TRADITION
65
Bhāsya, LDS No. 86, Ahmedabad. Patoriya, Kusum
1988 Yapaniya aur Unkā Sahitya, (Hindi)
Varanasi. Phoolchandra,
1971 Sarvārthasiddhi, Delhi-Varanasi. Siddhantashastri Pandit (ed.) Premi, Nathooram
1956 Umāsvātikā Sabhāsya Tattvārtha,
Jaina Sāhitya aur Itihāsa, (Hindi).
Bombay. Punyavijaya, Muni (ed.) 1973 Dasavekāliyasuttam, Ahmedabad. Sanghvi, Sukhlal
1929- Tattvārtha-sūtra, First edition,
30 Ahmedabad. Settar, S.
1986 Inviting Death, Dharwad. Upadhye, A.N. (ed.) 1971 Siddhasena's Nyāyāvatāra and
other Works, Bombay. Vijayamurti, Pandit 1953 Jaina-Silālekhasangraba, Part II,
Bombay (V.S. 2009).
1957 Ibid. Part III (V.S. 2013). Williams, R.
1963 Jaina Yoga, London Oriental Series,
Vol. 14, London. Zydenbos, Robert J. 1983 Moksa in Jainism according to
Umāsvāti, Wiesbaden.*
*
This is a revised version of the author's previous article.

Page #24

NEWS ON JAINISM AROUND THE WORLD
The bas relief panel of Lord Mahāvīra at Satyamangalam
The Archaeological Survey of India, which is supposed to maintain the magnificent bas relief panel of the Jain Saint Mahāvīra, atop the monolithic boulder at Satyamangalam, 6 km from Kulithalai, seems to have forgotten its existence. The panel, measuring 6 feet in length and 5 feet in height, on a single piece of rock, popularly called 'Gundankallu', is over 1,000 years old, and depicts Lord Mahāvīra in sitting posture flanked by a Yakṣa and Yakṣi on either side. The typical three-umbrella motif of Jains is seen just above the head of Mahavira. Fortunately, despite the elements, the panel is in a very good condition.
A song sequence of a popular film was shot at the site recently, and a large portion of the rock just right of the panel was painted in gaudy colours, to give effect to the dance scene. When the shooting was over, all connected with the shooting left the area without bothering to clean it up. The local villagers, however, with great difficulty managed to remove the paints. There seems to have been a board at the site, put up by the ASI declaring the bas relief panel as a protected monument. But now the board is not there, and only a long iron rod, where the board existed once upon a time, is the proof that the ASI was incharge of the monument.
From The Hindu, October 2, 1995.
Jain Acarya brings life to sleepy village
Kolanpak, a sleepy village in Nalgonda district, about 80 km from Hyderabad, came alive on one Friday with people from neighbouring areas thronging it to have "darshan" of the Jain Acharya Sri Rajyesh Surishwarji who had come 1,200 km from Durg (Madhya Pradesh) on foot to be present at the installation of eight idols in a 200-year-old Jain temple there on Jan. 26.
The temple is being renovated for the big day. Men from Jaipur have been working since 1990 on white marble and coloured stones brought from the Pink City for use in the temple. The consecration ceremonies in the temple-stated to be about 200-year-old begin on Jan. 18.

Page #25

67
NEWS ON JAINISM AROUND THE WORLD
The idols, prepared in Jaipur and to be installed in the temple, are thsoe of Jinadatta Surishwarji, Manidhar Chandra Suri, Kushal Surishwarji, Chandra Surishwarji, Seemandhar Swami, Pundarik Swami, Gautam Swami and Mātā Padmāvati.
In an event of social importance to the community, Reshma Surendra Saha of Bharaundha (Gujarat) became a “sādhvi" on Jan. 25.
The Andhra Pradesh Home Minister, Mr. A. Madhava Reddy, received the Acharya when he reached the village. The“ pratipada" of
ains - who stayed in the village until Jan. 26 giving daily "pravacana" -was taken round in a "shobhā yātrā" along with the Minister, a large number of school children and community people from different parts of the country. The Acharya returned to the temple bringing back with him eight idols from the nearby Shiv Mandir which was also installed in the temple.
Shri Kulpak Tirtha Pratishthā Mahotsava Samiti, the organisers of the installation function, held a community lunch ("anna prasād") for thousands of people of five adjoining villages. The samiti officebearers are distributing a kg of jaggery, a steel plate and a tumbler, besides notebooks and ballpen in each house in Kolanpak to mark the occasion.
In his address to the gathering, the Ācārya called upon the people to offer sacrifices for the benefit of others ("tyāga"), to help others ("poropakāra") and try not to harm fellow humans. This should be the motto of people, as was enshrined in the Vedas and propagated in the country's cultural ethics.
Mr Madhava Reddy hailed the Jain community for its contribution in providing health, medicare and education facilities to the needy in interior areas of the State, complementing the efforts of the Government.
The Jiva Raksā Pracāraka Mandali put up an exhibition near the temple to impress upon the people the need to eschew cruelty against animals and saving them for the welfare of community. Ms. Amala, wife of the Telugu film star Nagarjuna, who heads Blue Cross, an animal welfare organisation, was slated to visit Kolanpak during the consecration ceremonies.
The Samiti leaders announced that an eye hospital would be set up at Kolanpak to be run by either the L.V. Prasad Eye Institute or

Page #26

68
JAIN JOURNAL : Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996 Medi Citi Hospitals. The building would be put up at a cost of over Rs. 20 lakhs. The equipment would be brought from foreign countries. The hospital would benefit people from 40 villages in the district, they said.
From The Hindu 13.1.1996.
Stone sculpture piece found in Polur
A 10th century A.D. stone relief of a Jain Tirthankara was discovered recently at a Adi-Dravida colony at Vellur village near Sandhavasal, Polur taluk in Tiruvannamalai Sambuvarayar district.
According to Mr M. Gandhi, curator of the Government Museum, Vellore, the figure is seated on a long 'pida' in the 'dhyāna' poseplacing both palms on the lap. A 'prabhā' with tongues of flames is seen raised above the shoulders of the 'Jina'. Above the head, a 'tricakra' has been beautifully chiselled but has been damaged by the ravages of time. The face of the 'Jina' is square. A long raised pillow supports the 'Jina's back. From the top of the 'tricakra', flowers and buds with stalks fall on both sides.
The figure is four feet tall and three feet wide. Inscribed beams and parts of the temple were found scattered in front of the piece. According to the local residents, the pieces were brought from the Ammayappisvara Temple of Padavedu, built during Sambuvarayars rule.
From The Hindu 7.2.1996.
Vepery Jain temple ‘pratişthā' on May 23
The 'pratişthā' (kumbhābhişekam) of Sri Sambhavanatha, a Jain temple on EVK Sampath Road, Vepery, was performed on May 23. The 37th Jain temple in the City under the auspices of 1008 Ācārya Srimad Vijaya Kalapūrņa Śri Sūriswaraji Mahārāj Saheb has been built of pure white marble. No iron materials have been used in the construction of the temple.
A striking feature of the temple, the height of which is 55-ft long and width of 30 ft., is the exquisite carving on pillars and walls in the sanctum sanctourim. About 12,000 cubic feet of white marble stone

Page #27

NEWS ON JAINISM AROUND THE WORLD
has been used, and it has taken about 13 years to complete the temple, the foundation for which was laid in 1983 under the auspices of Acārya Navin Sri Surishwarji Maharaj Saheb. Acharya Vikaram Suriswarji Maharaj, Acharya Padmasagar Suriswaraji Maharaj and Acharya Rajesh Suriswaraji Maharaj have been the guidance forces.
69
To commemorate the 'pratiṣṭhā', various pūjās, bhaktis and navkarsi had organised from May 13 to 24. The main idol measuring 41 inches is of Sri Sambavanatha Bhagavan, the 3rd Thirthankara. Twelve more idols will be installed in the temple, which has been built on two levels.
Acarya Śrimad Kalpūrṇa Suriswaraji Mahārāj performed the Anjansalaka and Prathista mahotsava.The Anjansalaka depicting the various facets of life of the Tirthankaras were portrayed through dramas and cultural shows from may 17 to 23.
A traditional procession of the Lord decorated in a silver chariot was taken out on May 22.
From Indian Express, May 12, 1997.
Sittannavasal paintings endangered
The famous Jain cave temple, Arivarkovil (the temple of the Tirthankara), at Sittannavasal, 14 kms off Pudukottai, is fast losing its pristine glory and charm due to bureaucratic apathy.
The Sittannavasal paintings carry on the tradition of the wellknown Ajanta frescoes of the first seven centuries A.D., the Ceylon Sigiriya frescoes of the fifth century and Gwalior's Bagh frescoes of the sixth and seventh centuries A.D. Sittannavasal paintings are an early example of the Ajantan or post-Ajantan period and in merit are comparable to Ajanta and Sigiriya. Such a marvellous paintings and the cave temple are on the verge of decay owing to the indiscriminate granite quarrying around the cave temple.
This rock-cut temple is believed to have been done by Pallava king Mahendravarman-I circa 640-670 AD. Though the king was responsible for many more cave temples, this is the only Jain temple, with all others having been dedicated to Hindu gods.

The whole cave, consisting of the walls, ceilings, cornice, beams and pillars was originally covered with plasters and paintings and

Page #28

70
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
the sculptures were also covered with painted stucco. Now the paintings on the walls have perished and some paintings on the ceiling beams and some on the upper parts of the pillars alone remain intact. After the cave had been declared a national monument the entire area was fenced by ASI and a big iron gate was also fixed.
The paintings above the three images in the sanctum, those on the ceiling, the images in the ardhamanḍapa and the ones on the corbels, beam and cornice now give a faded and defaced picture.
But, unless some drastic action is taken to contain the ongoing granite quarrying works in the hill region, these rare pieces of art will collapse very soon.
On the southern part of the cave temple, the death bed (resting place) of the Jain saints is situated on a hillock about 200 feet height from the ground level. It is said that the Jain saints, during their final days, preferred an isolated place like natural caverns in order to observe 'sallekhanam fast' unto death. One such place is in Sittannavasal but is being ignored by officials.
There are 15 such beds on this hillock and the place has been protected with an iron gate. In the absence of any watchman to look after these structures exclusively, the quarry workers around the area used to scale the iron gate and damage the beautifully carved stone beds, sometimes even with the help of chisels!
Moreover, owing to the free usage of explosives to blow rocks, the upper portions of the beds have developed cracks and may collapse at any moment. The impact of explosions is so devastating that the paintings, along with the plaster, vanish into thin air, pointed out Kudavayil Balasubramaniyam, a noted Historian from Thanjavur.
Hence, unless the Government imposes a total ban on quarrying in Pudukottai district as the district has the maximum number of protected monuments, the rarest of art forms, sculptures and caves would be lost for ever.
From The Indian Express, 9.9.1996.
A Modern Jaina Mathematician
There are 24 Tirthankaras of the present age in Jainism. The first Tirthankara is Rṣabhadeva, who is mentioned in all the Jaina Purāņas as well as in the Rgveda. Bharata, son of Rṣabha, was the first Cakravarti and our country got the name 'BHARATAVARṢA' from him.

Page #29

NEWS ON JAINISM AROUND THE WORLD
71 The well-known and world famous Bahubali is another son of Rşabha. The last Tirthankara is Mahāvira, who was a contemporary of Buddha.
Mahāvira visited different parts of India for thirty years and explained to the people the various problems of life and their solutions. The influence of the great principles preached by Mahāvīra is seen in India even outside Jainism. He left behind a legacy of systematic religion and philosophy and also a well-knit social order of ascetics and lay followers who earnestly followed and practised his preachings.
Mahāvira stressed the dignity of man as man and preached to the masses in their own language regarding high moral ideals which advanced the individual on the spiritual plane and further contributed to social solidarity.
It is really a pleasant surprise that even in the 20th century also there are some persons who are playing a significant role in spreading and upholding the high spiritual values of Jainism and studying Jaina Āgamās as well as the mathematical contents contained in Jaina literature. The object of this article is to introduce one such person Dr Anupam Jain and give a biographical sketch of his life and works.
Anupam Jain was born on 17th June 1958 in his grand father (Nānā) Sri Sumeru Chand Jain Shastri's house in Bahraich (Uttar Pradesh). His father is Sri Trilok Chand Jain and mother is Mrs. Indira Jain. His father was a resident of village Chattarī. For the sake of business his father left this village and started living in Firozabad from 1960.
Anupam Jain had his primary education at Sri Digambara Jaina Pathsāla at Bahraich. He studied VI standard in P.D. Jain Inter College, Firozabad, and then he was a student of Rajakiya Inter College, Bahraich, during his study of VII to XII standards. He obtained both his B.Sc. (1977) and M.Sc. (1979) degrees with distinction from the C.L. Jain Degree College, Firozabad, which is affliated to Agra University. For further studies he went to Meerut. Staying in Jain Boarding House at Meerut, he obtained his degree of M Philosophy (M. Phil.) in 1980 with 1st division from the Meerut University, Meerut. Under the guidence of Professor Suresh Chandra Agrawal he was awarded Ph.D. degree in History of Mathematics for his thesis entitled "Gañita ke Vikāsa main Jaina Ācāryon kā Yogdāna" from the Meerut University, Meerut, in the year 1992.
Anupam Jain wedded to Nisha Jain on 6th May 1984 at Firozabad. Nisha Jain is a simple and kind-hearted lady, Ambuj, Anuj and Ayush are the three sons of this couple.

Page #30

72
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
Anupam Jain's three books entitled
1. Jambudvipa Parisilana (Hindi), Dig. Jaina Institute of Cosmographic Research, Hastinapur, 1982.
2. Mahāvirācārya-Ek Samikṣātmaka Adhyayana (Hindi), Coauthor Prof. Suresh Chandra Agrawal, D.J.I.C.R., Hastinapur,
1985.
3. Philosopher Mathematicians (English), Co-author Prof. L.C. Jain, D.J.I.C.R., Hstinapur, 1985.
have been published and more than 32 research articles of him have also been published in various national and international Journals. He has successfully edited two felicitation volumes, two proceedings and many books. He writes continuously in many national and international magazines. He is the editor of "Arhat Vacana", which is a quarterly research Journal published from Kundakunda Jñānapīṭha (Research Centre) at Indore. He is not only active in social field, but is also equally active in his own subject-Mathematics. He is the youngest member among the International Editorial Board of the International Research Journal 'Ganita Bhārati', a publication from Indian Society for History of Mathematics, New Delhi.
Anupam Jain is a member of Indian Science Congress and Mathematical association of India. He is the founder member of National Group of History and Pedagogy of Mathematical Sciences, New Delhi.
He delivered a lecture on 'Indian Contributions on Mathematics with Special References of Jainācāryās' in the International Symposium on History of Mathematics and Mathematical Education held at Gumma University, Japan, during 7-10 August 1987.
In the world conference on Ahimsa held at New Delhi during 31.10.1980 to 4.11.1980, he presented the paper 'Ahimsa and Ecological Balance'.
Motivation from His Study of Jaina Mathematics
On being asked his interest in Jaina Mathematics, he said-'When I was 14 years old, Prof. Manohar Ray's book was the text book for us in the 10th standard and it was mentioned in that book: "In the past few days a book by name Dhavalā has been found and in this book there are a number of formulae in Algebra". This fact was firmly rooted in his mind which evolved when he was doing his M. Phil, degree, as

Page #31

NEWS ON JAINISM AROUND THE WORLD
a consequence, he started writing research papers on Jaina Mathematics.'
Using the explanations of the mathematical terms contained in (i) Jainendra Siddhanta Kośa, (ii) Varni Abhinandana Grantha, (iii) Nathurama Premi Abhinandana Grantha, and (iv) the materials published in Jaina Siddhanta Bhaskara as source material he started writing disertation which resulted an M.Phil. and Ph.D. degrees upon him.
Awards and Titles
He was honoured with the title Jñānaväridhi' in the year 1992, in 1993. In 1995, he was given the title 'Śrutasri' by Upadhyāya Muni Sri Jñānasagara Ji at Saharanpur.
73
BOYD SMITHS PVT. LTD.
B-3/5 GILLANDER HOUSE 8 NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD CALCUTTA-700 001

Dr (Mrs) Padma Vathamma.
PHONE: 220 8105/2139, RESI : 244 0629/0319

Page #32
Registered with the Registrar of Newspapers for India Under No. R. N. 12121/66. Autumn 1996 BHILAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION LTD. Industrial Area, Post Box No. 31 Bhilai 490 001, Madhya Pradesh Telephones : 355417/356447/355358 Fax Numbers : 0788 355527/355427 Telex Numbers : 0771-214/245/204 Manufacturers Erectors of Equipments for Coal Mining, Steel Plant, Power Plant, Cement Plant and Manufacturers of Sulpheric and Super Phosphate Fertilizers Regional Offices 13 Masjid Moth, Local Shopping Centre New Delhi 110 048 Telephones : 6445815 6445819 6434987 6414390 Fax Number: 011 6445819 4B Little Russel Street, 2nd Floor Calcutta-700 071 Telephones : 242 7606 / 3372 Fax Number: 033-2427061 31 Makers Chambers III 3rd Floor, Nariman Point, Bombay 400 023 Telephones : 231724 2043647 244208 2873789 Telex Number : 0118 4054 Fax Number : 022 287 3611 By the courtesy-ANTARCTICA GRAPHIC LIMITED 1A, Vidyasagar Street, Calcutta-700 009 Phone : 350-21731542417658