Studies In Umasvati And His Tattvartha Sutra

Author(s): G C Tripathi, Ashokkumar Singh
Publisher: Bhogilal Laherchand Institute of Indology
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/022529/1

Page #1

Studies in Umāsvāti
and his Tattvārthasūtra
Papers presented at an International Seminar organized by the B. L. Institute of Indology
Edited by G. C. Tripathi • Ashok Kumar Singh
विद्यायतमलानानि चाववाक्ति अयतः कावधिमाल्याधिवासनपदीयाद्यापाछामरतिनिधिताडिनयरुवमाधवंदना निरासालवतावकालियागमाराथमविश्वपक्षापाताकाल्पविनवासामानिकचमहाविानदासंघाlageaan पशमशलाकामद्यासवीयसंपदंसुल्तांसुतलवालिहासमिहिामतितिवाचकालांतारनियमान शत्यषवामशताफलमिक्ष प्राियावश्चत संघाशातयारिमारित्तिाचार अगाद्यपालनासतासीवादा धर्मकाधिकामिमांकारनाक रादिवास्वपदिकामुहतात्तवया॥20सझियशादाश दाहाकायलवायादा समितामतामसवायेवयं Bिhajimmयचासमंङसमिalaवासमया तायातदाखवापराधामयितांवासी मला
मलाकीसवधिविनिमयप्रकाशाक सय मिहिसाधा मिदमदासमंडयविश्वासक्ष्सवमनावमा विकिधर्माधिकाशिमाछापामाराधशियिय हावाबासरसमानामनियारमायामयिनिय छतावराण्यातहतिः साम्मे वासकरवायनामाचतात्तिाधिपतिश्रीवारितिममामिlain-तंतवा कल्याणमmalani
Hindioneebhauvebio
Taranास
O CHALLEDERCIACH
H
BHOGILAL LEHERCHAND INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY
ISTITUTE OF INDOLOGY

Page #2

"Umāsvāti alias
Umāsvāmi is one of the earliest and the most illustrious authors of the Jain philosophical views. His Tattvärtha [-adhigama-]sutra is hailed as the bedrock of the Jain philosophy and enjoys the same prestige among the Jainas as perhaps the Bhagavadgītā among the Hindus or the holy Bible among the Christians. It is also one of the very few texts which is highly revered and held in high esteem by both the Shvetambaras and
the Digambaras."

Page #3

Studies in Umāsvāti
and his Tattvārthasūtra Papers presented at an International Seminar
organized by the B. L. Institute of Indology

Page #4


Page #5

B. L. Series No. 23
Studies in Umāsvāti and his Tattvārthasūtra Papers presented at an International Seminar
organized by the B. L. Institute of Indology
Edited by G. C. TRIPATHI ASHOK KUMAR SINGH
AHOSILAL
OF INOVO
CHANO WA
WSTE
BHOGILAL LEHERCHAND INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY

Page #6

Published by Bhogilal Leherchand Institute of Indology Vijay Vallabh Smarak Jain Mandir G.T. Karnal Road, P.O. Alipur, Delhi 110036 Email: director@blinstitute.org Tel: 011-27202065, 27206630
First Edition: Delhi 2016
© B. L. Institute of Indology, Delhi
Price:
400.00
Typesetting by Raju Verma and Laxmi Kant, B. L. Institute of Indology
Printed by: Shree Maitrey Printech Pvt. Ltd., Noida

Page #7

Contents
Foreword
1. The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti
M. A. Dhaky 2. English Translations of the
Tattvārthādhigamasūtra
Colette Caillat 3. The Yoga of Umāsvāti
N. M. Kansara
4. Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha
Padmanabh S. Jaini
5. Karmic Bondage and Kaşāyas:
A Re-examination of 'Umāsvāti's Jainism’
Kristi L. Wiley 6. Some Observations on Tattvārthasūtra
Dayanand Bhargava 7. Reflection on the Implications of Some
Ideas of Umāsvāti in his Tattvārthasūtra
Nathmal Tatia 8. Sources of Meditation in Tattvārthasūtra
from Jaina Canons and Hindu Yoga-Šāstra
Jagat Ram Bhattacharyya 9. Umāsvāti on Omniscience
Fujinaga Sin

Page #8

125
135
145
155
171
189
vi Contents 10. Contribution of Ācārya Umāsvāti to
the Concept of Existence
Samani Mangal Prajna 11. Parallelism between Tattvārthasūtra
and Yogasūtra
Kusum Patoria 12. The Jaina Universe in a Profile of
Cosmic Man
Suzuko Ohira 13. Tattvārthasūtra Commentaries of Karnataka
Kamala Hampana 14. Apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada Literature
Hampa Nagarajaiah 15. The Epistemological Concepts of Umāsvāti:
As Interpreted by Yaśovijaya
G. L. Suthar 16. आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द और गृद्धपिच्छ उमास्वामी : एक विमर्श
प्रेम सुमन जैन 17. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का व्याख्या साहित्य
फूलचन्द जैन प्रेमी 18. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में आत्मा सम्बन्धी तत्त्व
लता बोथरा 19. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में निर्जरा की तरतमता के स्थान : एक समीक्षा
समणी कुसुमप्रज्ञा 20. उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन
धर्मचन्द जैन 21. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की पूज्यपाद देवनंदिकृत
सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति में उद्धरण कमलेशकुमार जैन Index
197
205
217
221
229
257
271

Page #9

Foreword
Umāsvāti alias Umāsvāmi is one of the earliest and the most illustrious authors of the Jain philosophical views. His Tattvārtha [-adhigama-]sūtra is hailed as the bedrock of the Jain philosophy and enjoys the same prestige among the Jainas as perhaps the Bhagavadgītā among the Hindus or the holy Bible among the Christians. It is also one of the very few texts which is highly revered and held in high esteem by both the Shvetambaras and the Digambaras.
Literally translated, the word tattva, synonymous with the Buddhist expression 'tatha-tā', means 'that-ness', i.e. 'reality' or 'true nature'. The quest of this ‘reality does not stop at the level of the investigation of the physical world but extends far beyond to the domain of the Divine and still higher to the level of the Ontological. The Tattvārthasūtra has been composed in the Sutra style, a concisely expressed and methodologically arranged composition, much like the earlier works of other 'Āstika'schools of thought like Mimansa, Vedanta and Vaisheshika. There are around 350 Sutras (a little less or more according to the two factions of the Jainas) composed in Sanskrit and the work is usually assigned by the scholars to c. 400 ce. A comprehensive commentary (bhāshya) is also available on the work which is believed by many to be the work of Umasvati himself, although many others express their doubts on it. There are also Vārttikas on the text and a host of commentarial literature embellishes it.
The Tattvārthasūtra summarizes the religious views, philosophy, ethics and the cosmology of the Nirgranthas, which

Page #10

viii Foreword
found their first expression in the foregoing canonic literature, in such a wonderfully precise, yet comprehensive manner that no work on the philosophy and ethics of this faith has ever been able to ignore or bypass it. It served not only as a catalytic agent for the development of a whole body of Jinistic philosophical literature, but also as a model for it. What the Brahmasūtra is for the development of Vedanta, the Tattvārthasūtra is for the development of the Jinistic thoughts and views.
The present collection of papers contains twenty learned articles of the established scholars who were present during an International Conference on Umasvati (also known as: Vācaka Umāsvāti, Griddhrapiccha Svāmī &c.), organized by our Institute, way back the final years of the last century. They were lying unattended in our shelf till now due to reasons which are not very relevant to quote here, but we hope that through their publication we shall earn the gratitude of the living, and the blessings of the divine souls of those who are now no more with us. What to do? 'habent libri fata sua'!
I express my sincere gratitude to Prof. J. B. Shah and Dr Dhanesh Jain, the two Vice Chairman of the BLII, who not only assigned the job of editing to me but also closely followed its development. Hearty thanks are also due to my learned colleagues Prof. Phool Chand Jain ‘Premi' and Prof. Ashok Kumar Singh for their help and support and, last but not least, to Shri Laxmi Kant, the DEO of our Institute, who along with Shri Raju Verma has been very helpful in typesetting, page-making and preparing the press copy of the work.
January 2016
G. C. TRIPATHI
Director B. L. Institute of Indology, Delhi

Page #11

The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti
M. A. DHAKY
The medieval svetāmbara writers credit Umāsvāti to have composed some 500 works," figure that doubtless seems highly inflated from the standpoint of practicality.2 This numerical exaggeration palpably stemmed from the lofty esteem in which the author was held. He, in actuality, may have composed a fairly large number of works, understandably though nowhere even remotely close to the phenomenally high figure '500'.
Of his works, the Sabhāsya-Tattvārthādhigamasūtra, the Praśamaratiprakaraṇa, and the Kșetrasamāsa—better known as the Jambūdvīpasamāsa-are for long available and published, the first two through several different editions. I am of course aware that the authorship, and (especially in the first case), also the author's sectarial affiliation is in dispute. Controversies were vehemently raised and raked on purposethough at this distance in time they seem needless, puerile, partisan, and biased-in some quarters to assert their own convictions that were based on a few minor and superficial textual discrepancies in the text of the bhāsya and that of the Sūtra proper of the Tattvārthadhigama and the small divergencies from the Tattvārthādhigama noticeable in the Praśamaratiprakarana.4 The results of my detailed investigations, which have been intermittently underway for the past two decades,

Page #12

2
Studies in Umāsvāti
have convinced me that the author of all these three works in question unambiguously is Umāsvāti, on very firm grounds of the uniformly and unequivocally present peculiarities-style-image, linguistic habits, the tendencies reflected in the choice of words and phrasing, also the predilection for listing as well as using synonyms, and very characteristic, indeed distinctive, manner of the overall composition and modulation, not to say of the discernibly individualistic tonality and cadence.5 He, from the sectarial standpoint, was neither Śvetāmbara, nor Digambara, nor Boika/Ksapanaka of North India, not even a pontiff of the latter's probable off-shoot, the Yāpanīya of southern India. As the available evidence points out, he seems to have belonged to the pre-svetāmbara north Indian main and major stream of the Nirgrantha religion which was organized into several ganas, sākhās, and kulas (recorded in the Sthavirāvalī of the Paryusaņā-kalpa, C. AD 100–503/516) and in whose monastic discipline a single bowl and a piece of cloth (besides the rajoharana hand-broom) were permitted as monastic upakaranas to a friar who otherwise maintained nudity as a monastically practised convention within the Church of Arhat Vardhamāna.
Besides the aforenoted three works, the existence in the past of at least four other compositions of Umāsvāti is indicated or is inferable through allusions to and/or direct quotations therefrom. Moreover, these quoted verses/ sentences are absent in the Sabhāsya-Tattvārthādhigamasūtra or the Praśamarati-prakarana, but otherwise they can be, on stylistic premises, unhesitatingly stipulated as Umāsvāti's. Since considerable amount of writing of our times on the Sabhāsya-Tattvārthādhigamasūtra and on the Praśamaratiprakaraṇa exist, in this paper I shall solely focus, with one exception, upon the evidence, indeed reasonably dependable, for those other compositions attributable to him but now no longer available.

Page #13

The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti 3
(1)
The Saucaprakaraṇa
Gandhahasti Siddhasena Gaṇī, in his commentary (C. AD 760-70) on the Sabhāṣya-Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra (c. AD 350), thus quotes from Umāsvāti's Śaucaprakaraṇa:10
Tathā tasyaiva bhāṣyakṛtaḥ Śaucaprakarana granthaḥ:
Adattādānaṁ nāma paraiḥ parigṛhitasya tṛṇāder-apyanisṛṣasya grahanam steyam/
In this context, a notice taken by Muni Śīlacandravijaya (now Acārya Vijayaśīlacandra Suri), of a quotation figuring inside the commentary (probably before AD 1025) of Vadivetāla Santi Sūri (of the abbatial order Thārāpadra-gaccha) on the Uttarādhyayana-sūtra 12.39 ('Harikeśi-adhyayana') in the name of 'Vācaka', may also be considered:11
Tathā ca Vācakaḥ:
Śaucam-ādhyātmikaṁ tyaktvā bhāva-śuddhy-ātmakaṁ śubhaṁ/ jalādi-śaucam yatreṣam mūḍha-vismāpakaṁ hi tat/
This verse advocates preference for the spiritual/internal cleanliness (sauca) to the one externally done (of the body through the use of) water, etc. To all seeming, this verse, too, had belonged to the above-noted lost Śaucaprakarana and the 'Vācaka', whose authority is here invoked, predictably is none else but Umāsvāti, an inference that as well receives support on the basis of the stylistic features of the verse under reference.
(2)
The Śrāvakaprajñapti
Some Svetambara writers of our time confounded (and still confuse) the Savayapanṇatti, a prakarana in Prakrit by Yakinīsūnu Haribhadra Sūri (of Vidyadhara Kula) (c. 3rd quarter of the eighth century AD) with Umāsväti's Śrāvakaprajñapti. 12 The last-noted work, to all seeming, had been composed in Sanskrit,

Page #14

4 Studies in Umāsvāti because Umāsvāti, as his extant works as well as the citations from his lost compositions indicate, had written exclusively in Sanskrit.13 The following two citations, from two different medieval commentaries, very plausibly were taken from the Śrāvakaprajñapti since the content in both these cases relate to śrāvaka and, what is more, the authors of the commentaries attribute these to Umāsvāti. The Navānga-vrttikāra Abhayadeva Sūri (of Candra kula), in his Tīkā (c. AD 1080) on the Pañcāśaka of the aforementioned Haribhadra Sūri, ascribes the following sentence to Umāsvāti:14
Umāsvāti-Vācakenāpy-asya samarthitvā na tathā-hi tenôktam: Samyag darśana-sampannaḥ sadvidha-āvaśyaka-niratasca śrāvako bhavati. The phrasing here undoubtedly is in Umāsvāti's style. Also, Municandra Sūri (of Brhad-gaccha), in his Tīkā (c. AD 1100) on the Dharmabindu of the illustrious Haribhadra Sūri, explicitly mentions Umāsvāti's Śrāvakaprajñapti and quotes therefrom:15 Umāsvāti-viracita-Śrāvakaprajñaptau tu atithiśabdena sādhv-ādyāś-ca catvāro grhitāḥ tatas-teșāṁ saṁvibhāgaḥ kārya ity uktam/ Tathā ca tat-pāhaḥ: Atithi-samvibhāgo nāma atithayaḥ sādhavaḥ sādhvyaḥ śrāvakān śrāvikāś-eteșu grham-upāgateşu bhaktyābhyutthāna-āsana-dāna-pāda-pramārjana-namaskārādibhir-ar-cayitvā yathā vibhava-sakti anna-pāna-vastrauşadha-ālaya-ādi-pradānena samvibhāgaḥ kārya iti/
The work is today unavailable. It apparently was composed in prose.
(3)
The Dānaprakaraņa The earlier mentioned Abhayadeva Sūri, in his commentary (AD 1064) on the Sthānānga-sūtra (present version finalized in

Page #15

The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti 5
AD 353 or 366 apparently at the Mathurā Synod), cites a group of eight verses relating to dāna (charity) which he ascribes to Vācakamukhya Umāsvāti'.16 The author therein designates the dāna types according to the donees involved and the motive (of the donor) behind the charity. I cite here only the first verse from this lot:
Uktam ca Vācaka-mukhyair-Umāsvāti-pādaiņ: Krpane-nātha-daridre vyasana-prāpte ca roga-soka-hate, yad dīyate krpā-arthād-anukampā tad bhaved dānam//
The style of the eight verses in question clearly endorses the authorship as of Umāsvāti as rightly attributed by the commentator from the source and information he had. 17
Incidentally, the earlier referred to śānti Sūri, in his Vrtti, cites a verse in āryā as of Vācaka's, which is related apparently to the topic of dhyāna:18
Āha ca vācakah:\ Yāvat para-guna-dosa-parikīrtana vyāpstaṁ mano bhavati/ tāvad varam visuddhe dhyāne vyagram manaḥ kartum//
I had at first sight thought that it may have belonged to some prakaraṇa related to dhyāna: But it turned out to be the kārikā 184 of the Praśamarati-prakaraņa.
(4)
The Dharma-prakaraña Seemingly, Umāsvāti had composed a work on the topic of dharma as the three Āryā quotations in the name of Vācaka' (and these indeed are in his style), figuring in śānti Sūri's Vrtti, reveal: Na bhavati dharmaḥ śrotuḥ sarvasy-aikāntatā hita-śravanāt/ bruvato-'nugraha-buddhyā vaktus-tv-ekāntato bhavati//
(Sānti Sūri, p. 19)

Page #16

6
Studies in Umāsvāti
And,
Prāg-Lokabindusāre sarvākṣara sannipāta paripahitah/ dhrñ-dharaṇārtho dhātus-tad-artha-yāgād-bhavati dharmaḥ Durgati-bhaya-prapāte patantam-abhayakara-durlabha-trāņe/ samyak-carito yaḥ syād-dhārayati tataḥ smrto dharmaḥ//
(śānti Sūri, pp. 183-4) A few other verses quoted in the name of Vācaka' are also encountered in Sānti Sūri's Vștti and in some other sources.19 Some of these, from the point of view of content and style, could be attributed to Umāsvāti; however, they are not always composed in the āryā meter so much favoured by him but in anușubh, a meter he secondarily had employed in his compositions; hence these have not been taken here into major consideration.20 A few other verses that are composed in āryā, which may be likened to Umāsvāti's manner of writing, but could not with confidence be ascribed to any of his aforenoted works, have also been traced.21
The style of what is reflected in all those quoted verses I cited in the main text of this paper, I may repeat, is clearly, indeed genuinely, of Umāsvāti. What is significant, as this survey demonstrates, more number of works of that illustrious author apparently were available till the medieval period to the Svetāmbara writers. A diligent search for further verses/ prose passages or phrases within the hundreds of quotations in Sanskrit encountered in several different classes of the Nirgantha commentarial literature (particularly of the Svetāmbara persuation) may bring to light some more verses attributable to this great writer.22
Verses in the Bhāşya of the
Tattvārthādhigama Sūtra The opening and the closing kārikās of the selfsame sūtra with its bhāsya are too well-known. Siddhasenagani has very briefly commented on most of these verses. After studying the 32 kārikās

Page #17

The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti 7
of the closing part of the work, Bansidhara Bhatt thus observed: Vss. 1-32 (section b) are possibly the only remainder of the complete metrical commentary on the sūtras, running parallel to the bhāsya, which is in prose throughout.'23 I largely concur with Bhatt except with one qualification that there are, within the main corpus of the printed bhāsya, quotations at several places, from a few to several verses, some of which were (with the exception of a single case) never suspected to be of Umāsvāti, because Siddhasenaganī did not comment on these. Moreover, in most of such cases, instead of placing these immediately after the bhāsya, the commentator situated them after his own commentary portion on the bhāsya, with the result that, in each instance, it looks as though it is the Siddhasenaganī who quotes these from some source! Of course, a few of the Sanskrit verses cited in the corpus of the bhāsya-īkā complex for certain were extracted from some other sources and doubtless are quotations by Siddhasenaganī, but, in several cases, the peculiar genre, expression, manner, verse, and the nuance are clearly, indeed very characteristically, of Umāsvāti. And, what is more, many of these are composed in āryā, a meter for which Umāsvāti, as earlier noted here, evinced special fondness.24
Seemingly, Umāsvāti himself had created these as a sort of sangrahanī verses in support of the bhāsya which is in prose. He was possibly following the āgamic convention of inserting the sangrahaņī-gāthās, with the difference that the composers of the latter may often be different persons or sometimes these were extracted from the floating verse collections, whereas here it is Umāsvāti himself who seems to be the author of such verses. Aside from the support of the style—which as a factor is strong enough—one other signifier is that there is as yet no evidence for a Nirgrantha author writing in Sanskrit before Umāsvāti. And, as in the āgamas so in the bhāsya, all the chapters do not contain the sangrahaņī-verses, some chapters do, some do not.25
Umāsvāti's style of versification (as well as of prose writing) is somewhat archaic, but nonetheless dynamic, forceful,

Page #18

8 Studies in Umāsvāti
vibrant, and impressive, possessing as it also does formal terseness and subtle pithiness, just as the resulting productions are clear in meaning. However, for verses it is very largely devoid of the poetic excellences and elegances, ornamental graces and sophistications, and does not reflect the special compositional skills and refinements that more or less scintillatingly pervade through the works of the classical and post-classical Nirgrantha writers like Siddhasena Diväkara (c. first half of the fifth century AD), Harigupta Vācaka (c. AD 475-529), Mallavādi (c. AD 550600), Samantabhadra (c. AD 550-625), Mānatungacarya (c. AD 575-625), Pujyapada Devanandi (active c. AD 650-85) and the most lyrical of them all, Jaā Simhanandi (c. latter half of the seventh century AD).
Umāsvāti's main objective behind composing these prakaraṇas appears to be collecting and presenting in the most honoured medium of the time, Sanskrit, the available information on the greater part of the central Nirgrantha doctrines, dogmas, and didactic, ethical, and moral precepts relating to the ideal conduct for friars as well as lay followers, and the procedure for achieving the soteriological goal in lucid, concise, and precise language as well as in well-organized form. He also included a sketchy outline of the cosmology/cosmography as perceived and believed in the Nirgrantha religion. His works set an example, a model in systematics, which stimulated the minds of the Nirgrantha/ Jaina scholars of the age of logic and epistemology which was soon to follow. Umāsvāti's organized writings thus ushered in a movement which carried the ancient Nirgranthism toward its transformation into classical Jainism. Some of his works, incidentally, provided a mine of powerful, profound, authoritative, and quotable aphorisms for the authors of the Jaina commentaries in the post-Gupta, pre-Medieval, and Medieval times.26 In his writings, we notice the beginnings of the progressive revelations resulting from advanced thinking as well as deeper exploratory endeavours which created the scope for testing the validity as well as potentiality of the core concepts of the Nirgrantha

Page #19

The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti 9 darśana: The results got therefrom armed the subsequent writers with some basic tools for building up the defence of its principal and vital doctrinal positions. The influence of his sūtras and the kārikās can be discerned on many subsequent Jaina writers, irrespective of the sects to which they belonged.27 After reaching the saturation point in epistemological scholasticism as spearheaded by Mallavādi and Samantabhadra and culminated in the writings of Akalankadeva, efforts in a different direction between the last two authors transcended the limits of those intellectual undertakings and entered into the field of pure metaphysics and mysticism. This is first, and indeed tangibly, noticeable in the seventh century, in Pūjyapāda Devanandi's remarkable work, the Samādhitantra, followed within a century by the most notable work produced by the Jainas, the Samaya-prabhṛta of the greatest and the most progressive of all Nirgrantha thinkers, Acārya Padmanandi of the monastic order (anvaya) Kondakunda.28
In retrospect, just as in the ultimate analysis, it becomes visibly clear that the post-āgamic Jaina religion and its thoughtconstructs are deeply indebted to Umāsvāti and his works which had served as a starting point in the forward direction.29 It is now time to work out an evaluatory annotated bibliography of all that has been written on Umāsvāti and his works and dispassionately assess the progress achieved as well as the regress suffered on that front, keeping of course in view the evidence-oriented and critically objective, circumspective, and for that matter nonsectarian attitude as modus operandi as well as the pivotal principle with which no compromise can be permitted or tolerated.30 The historical writings on Jainism, at the hands particularly of the contemporary Jaina writers, has suffered innumerable distorations and is full of falsehoods, fallacies, as well as anachronisms and very faulty chronologies due on the one hand to the ignorance of the methodology of historical investigations and, on the other, to the bias for one, and bias against the other sect, be it overt or concealed and subtle.

Page #20

10
Studies in Umāsvāti
References
1. Jinadatta Sūri of Kharatara-gaccha, in his Prakrit work, the
Ganadhara-sārddhaśataka (C. AD 1125), refers to this belief: Pasamaraï-pamuha payarana pañcasayā sakkayā kayā jehiñ puvvagaya-vāyagānam tesim Umāsāi-nāmānaṁ// (Cf. Mohanlal Dalichand Deshai, Jaina Sahitya-no Itihāsa, (Gujarāti), Bombay 1933, p.101. For the original, see 'Ganadhara-sārdha-śataka', in Three Apabhraṁsa works of Jinadattasūri, ed. L.B. Gandhi, GOS 37, Baroda, 1967, p. 93, vs. 50.) Also, Vādi Deva Sūri of Bịhad-gaccha, in his Syādavādaratnākara, 1.3 (c. 2nd quarter of the twelfth century), records the same belief: Pañcasati-prakarana-pranayanavīrair-atra bhavadbhir umāsvāti-Vācakamukhyaiḥ /
(Desai, p. 104, infra 91) (I do not at the moment have Vādi Deva Sūri's original work in print before me for quoting the location of the verse therein.) An avacūri on the Praśamarati-prakarana, plausibly written in the late medieval times, also refers to 'Umāsvāti-vācaka' as “pañcaśataprakaraṇaprantā': Cf. Praśamarati-prakaraṇam, ed. Rajkumarji Jain Shastri, Śrī Raicanda Granthamālā-21, Bombay 1950, ‘Parisisa-1', p. 217; and Y.S. Shastri, Praśamarati-prakarana, L.D. Series No. 107, Ahmedabad 1989. And lastly, Jinaprabha Sūri of Kharatara-gaccha, in his famous work, the Kalpapradīpa (completed c. AD 1333), besides noting him as the author of the Sabhāsya-Tattvārthādhigama, also qualifies him as of '500-Samskrta-prakaranas fame': 'Umāsvāti-Vācakaś-ca Kaubhīşani-gotraḥ pañcaśata-saṁskṛta-prakarana-prasiddhastatraiva Tattvārthādhigamaṁ sabhasyaṁ vyaraca-yat.' See the ‘Pāaliputranagara kalpa', in the Vividha Tirthakalpa, ed. Jina Vijaya,
Singhi Jaina Series No. 10, Sāntiniketan 1934, p. 69. 2. The Nirgrantha mind in general, and the Svetāmbara in particular,
is prone to superlative exaggerations. For example, it is believed that the great Haribhadra Sūri had composed 1400/1444 works; the temple of Ajitanātha built by the Solanki emperor Kumārapāla (AD 1165) was 32 storeys high; the caturmukha Dharanavihāra at Rānakpur (AD 1449 and later) has 1444 columns, etc.
3. He was reckoned as 'Purvavid' in the tradition, a title implying his

Page #21

The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti 11 expertise in the highly prestigious “Pūrva' or anterior i.e. earlier or more ancient texts, believed to be 14, assumably of the Church of
Arthat Pārsva. 4. I have, in brief, called attention to these unhappy assertions in
my paper, 'Umāsvāti in Epigraphical and Literary Tradition,' Sri Nāgābhinandanam, Dr. M.S. Nagaraja Rao Festschrift, ed. L.K. Srinivasan and S. Nagaraju, Bangalore 1995, pp. 506-22. The paper has been reprinted in the Jain Journal, vol. XXXI, no. 2, October
1996, pp. 47–65. 5. I have discussed the stylistic features and peculiarities of Umāsvāti's
writings in my paper, A Propos of 'The Chronology of the TattvārthaSūtra and some Early Commentaries', Nirgantha 3, Ahmedabad 1998. His sūtra-formulations apparently followed the models of the Sankhya-sūtra as well as the Yoga-sūtra of Patañjali, and his bhāsya somewhat emulated the spirit of, and a few specific details from the Yoga-bhāsya by Vyāsa and, also perhaps, some other earlier brahmanical dārśanic bhāsya. All these last-noted works apparently had been composed in the period from the second to early fourth. As for the Praśamarati-prakarana, Srimad Bhagvad Gītā may have been its source of inspiration, particularly for its formal mode and
dynamism as Jitendra Shah feels. 6. Umāsvāti was located in north (north-eastern central) India and
from his encomium to the Sabhāsya-Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra, it may be inferred that he had then been travelling in eastern India. He belonged to the Uccairnāgara-śākhā (senior to the famous Vajrī-śākhā by a generation) and apparently had before him a version of the āgamas which differed in a few details and dogmatic particulars from the āgamas of the Vajrī-śākhā inherited by the Svetāmbaras. While Umāsvāti appears to have flourished in the middle of the fourth century AD, the Svetāmbara sect at that time was still in its infancy. Its prevalence, moreover, was restricted to Lāa (southern Gujarat) and eastern Saurāșra, which together represent the provenance of its origin and early base in western India. Umāsvāti could not have belonged to this sect because he refers only to (a single) vastra (not vastrāni) and (a single) pātra (not pātrāni) in his bhāsya. Also, the Svetāmbara sect originated from the sedentary caityavāsī abbots and monks, and was not created by the itinerant/mendicant friars of the main stream alpacela Nirgrantha order in north India to which Umāsvāti belonged. Also, there are some divergencies in dogmatic

Page #22

12
Studies in Umāsvāti
details and doctrinal deviations in his bhāsya when compared to the corresponding ones of the version of the Canon of the Vajrī-sākhā fixed at the Mathurā Synod I (C. AD 363) and collated in Valabhī at the Synod II there (AD 503) with the earlier version fixed there at Synod I in the fourth century AD Predictably, the version used by Umāsvāti, which reflects a different tradition on some points, may have been followed by his Uccairnāgara-śākhā which he, in turn, had followed in c. AD 350, a date which plausibly antedated the Mathurā Synod. (In any case, there is no clear evidence that the friars of the Uccairnāgara-śākhā were also present at the Mathurā Council
presided over by Arya Skandila of the Vajrī-sākhā.) 7. A few of his sūtras in the Tattvārthādhigama go against the
Digambara belief, such as 12 instead 16 kalpas, the five types of Nirgrantha friars, nudity as parīşaha instead of an obligatory monastic discipline, '11 parīşahas for a Jina' (which, moreover, did not include nudity even when Jina is believed to follow acelakya etc., etc. Earlier scholars like Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi (1929, 1940), H. R. Kapadia (1926, 1930), Sāgarānanda Sūri (1935), and Pt. Nathooram Premi (1956) have already called attention to some of these unconformities in the Sūtra-text with the Digambara dogmatic positions and ideology. There are of course several more points to which, on the basis of the observations particularly of Sāgarānanda Sūri, I have referred to in my aforenoted paper being published in the Nirgrantha 3. And, what is more, there are no sūtras which hold the Digambara dogmatic positions such as mokṣa is possible only for
male sex, and a friar who remains nude. 8. Unlike the Digambara Sect, the Boika/Ksapanaka (founded by
the pontiff Arya Sivabhūti, who brought about a schism in the main stream Nirgrantha church of north India, sometime in the second quarter of the second century AD) as well as apparently the latter sect's off-shoot, the Yāpanīya Sangha, located specifically in upper southern India, did recognize and followed the āgamas (of the pre-Mathurā Synod period, probably of the period of Arya Phalgumitra as I had deduced from the study of the sthavirāvalī of the Paryusaņā-kalpa some 15 years ago and casally had mentioned it some years ago to Shri Sagarmal Jain), unlike the Digambara sect. But both of these sects laid a strong stress on total nudity and absolute possession-less state, the conditions not reflected in the Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra or its bhāsya, or in the Praśamaratiprakarana either.

Page #23

The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti 13
9. Such friars are portrayed on several of the pedestals of the Jina
images of the Kuşāņa period (c. late second and third century AD) from Mathurā. They are not Yāpanīya as some scholars including late Dr. U.P. Shah thought and recently Dr. Padmanabh Jaini reaffirmed. (I forgo citing references here since I am discussing the whole
problem in a separate long [review] paper.) 10. Cf. the Tattvarthādhigama-sūtra, pt. 2, chapts. II-X, Ed. Hīrālāl
Rasikdās Kāpadiā, Sheth Devchand Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar Fund Series,
No. 76, Surat 1930, commentary on 7.10, p. 78. 11. 'Türk nondh' (Gujarātī), Anusandhāna, No. 5, Ahmedabad 1995, p.
63 (In the Praśamarati-prakarana, however, Umāsvāti takes a little more lenient view: Yad-dravyopakarana-bhakta-pāna-dehādhikarakaṁ saucam
tad-bhavati bhāva-saucānuparodhādyātnatah-kāryam//171//) 12. Cf. the discussions ‘Umāsvāti-Arya-Samudra-nāñ navaprāpta padyo
vise', (Guj.) Madhusudan Dhanki (M.A. Dhaky), Anusandhāna 5, Ahmedabad 1995, pp. 54-59; and ibid., 'Turk Nondh', Śīlacandravijaya gani, Vācaka Umāsvāti (?)-nuñ vadhu eka padya', p. 63; also, Muni Dhurandharvijaya, 'Svādhyāya: Anusandhāna-na Arko-no', Anusandhāna 6, Ahmedabad 1996, p. 116; and rejoinder by Madhusudan Dhanki, Carcāpatra (1) Anusandhāna 7, Ahmedabad
1996, pp. 120-3. 13. It is clear that he preferred Sanskrit to Prakrit. And although he
had fully utilized the Ardhamāgadhi canon in composing his major works, nowhere did he cite from the āgamas in his bhāsya on the Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra. This significant point has a bearing on his orientation and reveals his innate and strong inclination toward Sanskrit. (Post Script: Dr. Padmanabha Jaini also made this observation in his
paper he read at the Seminar.) 14. Cf. K. P. Mody, Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra, pt. 1, Calcutta S.1959/AD
1903, Appendix, p. 45: And Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra, pt. 1, SDLJPFS
No. 67, ed. H.R. Kapadia, Surat 1926, “Prastāvanā' (Sanskrit), p. 20. 15. Modi, 'Appendix D’, p. 45; and Kapadia, TS, pt. 1, Surat 1926
‘Prastāvanā', p. 19, infra, 3. 16. Modi, ibid., p. 44, and Kapadia, ibid., p. 20.

Page #24

14
Studies in Umāsvāti
17. śānti Sūri (p. 363) has cited a verse in āryā which, too, may be from
Umāsvāti: Uktam hi: Dadhi-madhu-ghrtānya-pātre ksiptāni yathā sunāśam upayānti/ evam apātre dattāni kevalam nāśam-upayānti// Could this verse be from the Dānaprakarana? Some time in the second quarter of the 11th century, Surācārya, an abbatial Svetāmbara monk (probably of the Nivrtti kula), who resided in Anahillapattana, the capital of the Solankīs of Gujarat, had composed a fine work entitled the Dānādiprakarana (eds. Pt. Amrutlal M. Bhojak and Nagin J. Shah, L.D. Series No. 90, Ahmedabad 1983.). Was it inspired by Umāsvāti's Dānapra-karana? Incidentally, I noticed that, whenever śānti Sūri quotes in the name of 'Vācaka', he is, in most cases, quoting either from Umāsvāti or from Hārila (Harigupta) Vācaka (C. AD 475-529) as the style of composition characteristic of each of these two writers clearly demonstrate. There are of course a few, indeed very few, quotations from other vācakas (like Aśvasena, Siddhasena (different from Siddhasena Divākara]), and some unspecified authors, but his main sources of extraction are the works of the above referred to two authors. Hārila Vācaka's work, which was like the Vairāgyaśataka of Bharthari (early fifth century AD), is lost and we today know about the quality and depth of his writing only through the quotations, available virtually (and exclusively) from a single work, namely Santi Sūri's Vrtti. (Very few quotations stylistically somewhat resembling his, but otherwise not ascribed to any author, not even to a Vācaka, are known to me but here any reference to these would be out of
place.). 18. Kapadia, ibid., p. 22; śānti, p. 190. 19. Cf. Kapadia, ibid., pp. 20-22. Also cf. Šānti Sūri's Vștti, p. 190. It
seems that Kapadia got inspiration from Mody's Appendix D and added several other verses extracted from different sources where these were quoted as of Vācaka'. (Some of these stylistically,
however, do not appear to be from Umāsvāti's writings.) 20. Since the end-kārikās of the Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra are in anus
ubh meter, it is likely that, at least a few verses in anuşubh figuring as quotations in Sānti Sūri's Vrtti, as of "Vācaka', appear on stylistic grounds to be of Umāsvāti. I here select the following seven verses: Uktam ca Vācakaih:

Page #25

Śīta-vātātapair-daṁśair-maśakaiś-cāpi kheditaḥ/
mā samyaktv-ādiṣu dhyānam na samyak samvidhāsyati// (Kapadia, 'Prastāvanā', p. 21; Śanti Sūri, p. 95. Could this verse belong to the Dhyana-prakaraṇa?)
Also,
Uktam ca Vācakaiḥ:
Mangalaiḥ kautukair-yogair-vidyā-mantraiśca-auṣadhaiḥ/ na śakyā maraṇāt-trātum sêndrā devagaṇā api// (Kapadia, p. 22; Śanti Sūri, p. 191)
And
The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti 15
Vācakenāpyuktaṁ:
Yad-raga-dosavad vākyaṁ tattvād-anyatra vartate/ savadyam vāpi yat satyam tat sarvam anṛtam viduḥ// (Kapadia, ibid.)
(Cited also by Siddhasenagani in his commentary on 7.9 of the Tattvärthādhigama-sūtra, pt. 2, p. 75.)
Also see the following verses;
Uktam hi:
Na pita bhrātaraḥ putrāḥ na bhāryā na ca bāndhavāḥ/ na śaktāḥ maraṇāt-trātuṁ saktān samsara-sāgare// (Śānti Sūri, p. 399)
And
Tathā ca Vācakaḥ:
Carma-valkala-cīrāņi kūrca-muṇḍa-jaā śikhā
na vyapōhanti pāpāni śodhakau tu daya-damau//
(Santi Sūri, p. 292)
The undernoted verse, too, perhaps may be from some work of
Umāsvāti:
Tathôktam:
Anagāro munir-maunī sādhuḥ pravrajito vratī śramaṇaḥ kṣapanaś caiva yatiś caikārtha-vācakāḥ// (Santi Sūri, p. 18)
Now to some Āryā quotations:
Tathā ca Vācakaḥ:
Dhūrtānaikṛtikāḥ stabdhāḥ lubdhāḥ kārpāikāḥ śahāḥ/ vividhām te prapadyante tiryag-yonim duruttarām// (Santi Sūri, p. 281)

Page #26

16
Studies in Umāsvāti
And
Tad-uktam:
Āpāta-mātra madhurā vipāka-kaavo vişôpamā visayāh/ Aviveki-janā- 'caritā viveki-jana-varjitāḥ pāpāḥ//
(śānti Sūri, p. 190) Also Tathā ca Vācakah: Śañcita-tapodhanānāṁ nityaṁ vrata-niyama-samyama-ratānāṁ utsava-bhūtam manye maranam-anaparādha-vrttīnām/
(śānti Sūri, pp. 241-2) And Tathā caitad-anuvādi Vācakah: Na tuşir-iha šatāj jantor na sahasrān na koitah/ na rājyän naiva devatvam nendratvād-api vidyate//
(śānti Sūri, p. 318) And lastly a quotation from the Uttarādhyayana cūrņi (c. late seventh century AD): Na vrttim cintayet prājñah dharmam evānucintayet/ janma-prabhrti-bhūtānāṁ vrttir-āyuśca kalpitam// (śrīmanti Uttarādhyāyanāni, Śri Rsabhadevajī Keśarīmaljī Śvetāmbara Samsthā, Indore 1933, p. 150)
All these verses possess the glitter of the style of Umāsvāti. 21. I forego citing these in the present discussion. 22. 'Tattvārtha Studies III (Summary)', Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlän- dischen Gesellschaft (ZDMG), Supplement III-2, Wiesbaden
1977, p. 804. 23. Since I am discussing these sangrahani insertions in the bhāsya in a
separate paper, I shall not enlarge upon this point here. In the bhāsya of the last two chapters (9 and 10) of the Tattvārthādhigama, they
occur far more abundantly. 24. His Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra is the most often used source, and its
very first sūtra, namely 'Samyag-darśana-jñāna-caritrāņi mokşamārgah' (1.1) is the most oft-quoted aphorism. (Subsequently, it also gave birth to the conceptual term 'tri-ratna'.) The next one is ‘Guņaparyāyavat dravyam' (5.37), and the third is ‘Mūrchā-parigrahah' (7.12). (For the numerical order and location of the sutras, I have

Page #27

The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti 17
followed the text inherited by the śvetāmbara sect.) The Sūtra and the bhāsya quotations begin to appear in the Svetāmbara commentaries etc. from circa the last quarter of the sixth century. (In the Digambara as well as the available Yāpanīya sources, those from the Sūtra alone appear and these, too, at a somewhat later date. However, one of the end-kärikäs of the Tattvārthādhigama-bhāsya, the eighth one, has been oftener quoted, particularly in several Śvetāmbara commentarial works, in fact also in the Tattvārtha-vārtika of Akalanka-deva.) Likewise, the kārikās of the Praśamarati-prakaraņa also figure in good number in the Svetambara ägamic and other commentaries from at least the last quarter of the seventh century. From that source, it may be called out that the following two kārikās were oft-quoted; the earliest, for instance in the Uttarādhyayana-cūrņi, the Sūtrakstāngacūrņi, and the commentary on the Viseșāvaśyaka-bhāsya by Koārya gani (c. AD 700–725): (i) Naivāsti rājarājasya tat-sukham naiva devarājasya/
yat-sukham-ihaiva sādhor-loka-vyāpāra rahitasya//128// (ii) Nirjita-mada-madanặnăm vẫk-kaya-mano-vikāra-rahitặnăm/
vinivstta-parāśānām-ih-aiva mokşah suvihitānām//238// And Gandhahasti Siddhasena ganī as well as Haribhadra Sūri not only cited from the Praśamarati but also explicitly attributed its authorship to Umāsvāti in their respective commentaries on the Tattvārthādhigama. A few decades earlier to his Tattvārthādhigama commentary, Haribhadra Sūri cited a couple of kārikās (172, 175) also in his Nandi-vrtti (C. AD 750). Also, Jayasimha Sūri of Krsnarsigaccha in his Dharmopadeśamālā-vivarana (AD 859) cites one kārikā (119) in the name of Vācaka-mukhya'. Subsequent writers, till the end of the Middle Ages, continue to quote from it. Haribhadra Sūri of Brhad-gaccha even commented upon this prakarana in ad 1129 wherein he states to have consulted some earlier commentaries on
that work. 25. While I have worked out a separate paper on this subject, I would
here notice one significant fact deduced from two consecutive verses figuring there. These lead us to understand that Umāsvāti believed in the simultaneity (yugpat occurrence) of omnicognition (kevalajñana) and omni perception (kevala-darśana): Tasya hi tasmin samaye kevalaṁ utpadyate gata-tamaskam/ jñānam ca darśanam-cavarana-dvaya-samksaya-cchuddhař// Citram citrapaanibhaṁ trikāla-sahitam tatah salokam-imam/

Page #28

18
Studies in Umāsvāti
paśyati yugpat sarvam sālokaṁ sarva-bhāvinam//12// (Cf. H. R. Kapadia, Tattvārthādhigamasūtra, Pt. 2, Surat 1930, p. 275, Sūtrabhāsya 9.39.) The above-cited āryās undoubtedly reveal that Umāsvāti was yugpatvādi, the first on record to so believe. Whether he himself intellected that way, or it was according to the āgamic tradition of the Uccarnāgara-śākhā, is hard at present to decide. Incidentally, a part of the bhāsya on the sūtra 1.31 has also been interpreted to mean that Umāsvāti was believer in yugpatvāda. (Cf. Suzuko Olira, A Study of Tattvārthasūtra with Bhāsya, LDS 86, Ahmedabad, 1982, Chap. 3, pp.7, 79. Some years ago, during my discussion with Dr. Nagin Shah, I was given to understand that the passage in question does not yield the meaning Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi (as well as Suzuko Ohira ha deduced. The next luminary to believe in yugpatvāda was Siddhasena Divākara as evidenced by the undernoted two verses from his dvātrimśikās: Jagan-naika-āvasthaṁ yugpad-akhil-ānanta-visayam yad-etat-pratyaksam tava na ca bhavan kasyacid-api Anenaivācintya-prakrti-rasa-diddhes-tu vidusām samiksyaitad-dvāram tava-guna-kathotkā vayam-api//
-Prathama Dvātrimśikā, 32 ." Also from one of his lost Dvātrimśikās: Evam kalpita-bhedam-apratihataṁ sarvajñatā-lañchanam sarvesāṁ tamasāṁ nihants jagatām-ālokanaṁ śāsvatam nityam paśyati budhyate ca yugapan-nānā-vidhāni prabhau sthity-utpatti-vināśavanti vimalam dravyāni te kevalam//
(Quoted in the Koārya ganī's Țikā (c. AD 700-725) on the Višes-Avaśyaka-bhāsya (c. 585-595) of Jinabhadra gani: Cf. Višesāvasyakabhasya Pt. III, Eds Pt. Dalsukh Malvania and Pt. Becherdas J. Doshi, L.D. Series No. 21, Ahmedabad 1968, p. 741. It also figures in the commentary on the Visesa-Avaśyaka-bhāsya (AD 1119) by Hemacandra Sūri of Harsapurīya-gaccha, SYJG (35), V.N.S. 2439 (AD 1912), p. 1198). There it has been quoted in the name of 'stutikāra' (i.e. Siddhasena Divākara). Thus, these two non-Digambara authors believed, and indeed earlier in date than the Digambara authors and their works, in the yugpatvāda. And so did the dārśanic scholar Mallavādi (c. AD 550-600), a Svetāmbara epistemologist as reported by Abhayadeva Sūri in his Tikā (c. AD

Page #29

The Works of Vācaka Umāsvāti 19
975-1000) on the Sanmati-prakarana of Siddhasena Divākara. Siddhasena, in the next step of development, envisaged these two facets of omniscience as unitary and advocated the ekopayogavāda. (I forego citing the particulars on sources since not very directly
relevant to the present paper.) 26. Beginning from Agastyasimha's cūrni (late 6th century AD) to the late
medieval period, the scores of Svetāmbara commentaries of various descriptions—cūrnis, vrttis, and īkās (the last two in Sanskrit) etc. on the āgamas as well as those on the dārśanika prakaranas, continue quoting from Umāsvāti's Sabhāsya-Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra and next from the Praśamarati-prakarana, and to a lesser degree from his other compositions alluded to in this paper. The Digambara Church also quoted from its own version of the Tattvārthādhigama (the Tattvārtha-sūtra), and which it ascribes to an unknow' Nirgrantha ācārya (Devanandi, c. AD 635-680), or author unspecified (Akalankadeva, c. mid 8th cent. AD), or to Grddhapicchācārya (Vīrasena AD 816, Vidyānanda AD 900-950, Pampa AD 941, Vādirāja AD 1025, Koppal Inscription AD 1060, Hunasi Hadagali Ins. AD 1098, and Jayasena twelfth century); or to Aryyadeva (Humbaca Ins. AD 1075), or to Umāsvāti alias Gțddhapicchācārya (Śravana Belagola inscriptions beginning from ad 1115 or even to Umāsvāmī, early sixteenth century AD). The Praśamarati-prakarana is nowhere mentioned in the Digambara literature but a quotation therefrom (of its kārikā 25) appears in the Jayadhavalā (c. AD 817) according to Pt. Nathooram Premi (but the date there he gives for it is the Dhavalāīkā): (Vide his 'Umāsvāti-kā sabhāsya Tattvārtha', Jaina Itihāsa aur Sāhitya [Hindi], Bombay 1956, p. 526). The quotation under reference is as following: Krodhāt prīti-vināśam mānād-vinayopaghātam-āpnoti/ śāhyāt pratyaya-hānih sarva-guna-vināśanam lobhāt//25// (Virasena, in that context, simply prefixes the phrase 'Atropayogi ślokah', mentioning neither the source, nor citing the author's name.) It is not clear whether Virasena used the original work of Umāsvāti, or is requoting from some Yāpanīya commentary before him in
which it may have figured. 27. The greatest benefit of Umāsvāti's Tattvārtha-sūtra (Dig. version)
(along with the Sanmati-prakarana of Siddhasena) was taken by the pre-medieval and medieval learned writers of the Digambara sect who adroitly used the former's advancements and organizational

Page #30

20 Studies in Umāsvāti
modes and ideas in the formulation of their dārśanic and postdārśanic works. The Svetāmbara sect, though using these works for extracting quotations, could hardly get out of the archaic and outmoded styles and the laborious and relatively unorganized (since stratified) dogmatic and scholastic content of the āgamic category. (Examples illustrating these differing trends are much too numerous
to be illustrated here.) 28. Kondakundācārya is a post-classical Jaina philosopher who used
every advancement made in the classical and late classical age— by Umāsvāti, Siddhasena Divākara, Samantabhadra, and Pūjaya-pāda Devanandi—using as he did their paradigms and thoughts and went farther with the help of some of the tenets of the Sāňkhya and the revivalist Vedānta systems of philosophy. (Conversely, the influence of his enormous application of the niscayanaya and of the guņa-paryāya aspects of all dravyas (substances), etc. his new definitions of the known terms, his novel view of creating categories and viewing at the intrinsic nature of 'Self' is not discernible in any of the previous Jaina thinkers). No further progress had been done after his profound achievements. Unfortunately, in modern times, the essence of his metaphysics has been in part and in practice misunderstood and has largely led to and ended up in absolutist attitude (ekāntavāda), strongly tinged with hate and disrespect for other sects, and an air of superiority strongly reflecting the māna
kasāya loftier than any mānastambha ever erected or built. 29. While this can be clearly discerned, the detailed assessment and
adequate verbalization of this fact is yet to be done. 30. Let us hope and see if the sectarian steadfastness and fundamentalist
fanatical attitudes are given up, a condition that could allow us to work out the true and accurate history of Nirgranthism/Jainism. That can, then, permit its orderly phasewise unravelling instead of the current confused, and in some instances topsy-tervy situations with regard to the chronology of ths creeds' great pontiffs, their works, and their pervasive influences and consequences arising therefrom.
P.S. I am grateful to Shri Madhav N. Katti for reading through the transcription of the quoted Sanskrit verses into Roman script.

Page #31

English Translations of the
Tattvārthādhigamasūtra
COLETTE CAILLAT
Considering the importance of the value of the Tattvārthādhigamasūtra as proved by the impressive number of traditional commentaries, we might expect that many translations of this treatise into western languages might have been published. In fact the number of translations has been rather limited possibly for two main reasons: 1. Because of the difficulties inherited in the Sūtra literary
genre, all such texts presuppose a perfect knowledge of the whole context, And this is valid especially in the case of Tattvārthādhigamasūtra which is an 'exposition' (anuyoga) that synthesizes virtually the entire Jaina doctrinal system into a mere 350 sūtras' (P.S. Jaini, The Jaina Path of Purification, 82, 1-3). Because of the many technicalities (including the specialized vocabulary) which one encounters, and which constitute many stumbling blocks for those who are not familiar with Jainism. Even an eminent scholar like H. Jacobi considered the text impossible to understand thoroughly before the publication of a bhāsya; even then he relied on other

Page #32

22
Studies in Umāsvāti
commentaries and on several other treatises to prepare his German translation of the TS, quite a remarkable feat, published in two issues of the German Oriental Journal (ZDMG 60, 1906, 287–325 and 512–51). This is
particularly remarkable because: (a) It is both accurate and understandable (with the addition,
it is true, of a limited number of explanatory notes). (b) To a great extent, it succeeds in rendering the idiosyncra
sies of the Sūtra-style. But, whatever its considerable merits, there is little doubt that Jacobi's translation was not meant for the general public, but for relatively specialized readers, in particular for the Indologists. Let me now turn to the English translations of the TS. In 1920, the Central Jaina Publishing House, Arrah, published the English translation by J. L. Jaini, of what might be termed the 'Jaina Bible', as they wrote in the foreword, as the second volume of the 'Sacred Books of the Jainas Series'. It is very seriously planned, beginning with an historical introduction (pp. VII-XI), followed by (p. XII) by some lines on the ‘Plan and Scope', and an ‘Analysis of the contents of the TS' (pp. XIII-XIX). The translation of the 10 chapters of the treatise runs from p. 1 to 201. It is followed by an important ‘Tabular view of the differences between the Digambara and Śvetāmbara versions of Tattvārtha Sūtra' (pp. 204–10), an Index (XXI-XXV) and three pages of addenda and corrigenda (XXVI–XXVIII). This was, undoubtedly, a praiseworthy beginning, but at present, the whole book would seem as if it were meant as a primer. For each sūtra, the volume first prints the text in Nāgari followed by an-often approximate-transliteration in Roman script, an English literal translation, and an explanation of the Sanskrit lexemes used in the text in successive order. Further topics that are deemed to be

Page #33

English Translations of the Tattvärthādhigamasutra 23 of fundamental importance in the ancient Jaina sacred literature are detailed and commented upon (for example in chapter 1-20).
The recension here followed is the one that obtains among the Digambaras. But, having duly emphasized that the TS 'enjoys the distinction of being regarded as an authoritative work by all sections of the Jainas', the publishers have made no secret of the differences between the Digambara and the Śvetāmbara versions or even have made them easily accessible in the above mentioned tabular form.
As a matter of fact, such an ecumenical approach appears to have prevailed among all the editors and translators, who seem to have been keen to stress the fundamental unity of the Jaina doctrine, in spite of what Padmanabh S. Jaini called the 'predictable disagreement on such controversial matters as the nudity of the mendicants and the partaking of food by the Kevalin'. Having said this, P. S. Jaini continues - 'Even tradition has produced its own commentaries on the text; although these developed independently, they nevertheless present almost identical explications of the Jaina doctrine' (p. 82).
Among the commentaries, the Digambara Sarvārthasiddhi is generally regarded as elegant and praiseworthy. The English translation of the text, it will be remembered, by S. A. Jain, was published in 1960 under the title 'Reality'. It naturally includes the translation of the Tattvärthasūtra; but as this was not the main purpose of the book, it will not be considered here; useful as it may have been at that time. This S. A. Jain's translation was evidently regarded as imperfect by scholars especially by those who were committed to the teaching of 'Jaina philosophy' in the Pāthasālas, monasteries and colleges (that were daily growing in number among both the Svetambara and Digambara sects. At the same time 'the demand simultaneously arose for books on Jaina Philosophy written in vernacular languages following a modern style and such 'as are acceptable to both the sects', as

Page #34

24 Studies in Umāsvāti
Pt. Sukhlalji puts it in the author's foreword to his book, which is entitled in its English translation as 'Pt. Sukhlalji's Commentary on the Tattvārthasūtra of Vācaka Umāsvāti'. As we learn there, Pt. Sukhlalji in 1930, after various difficulties had been overcome, published his Gujarati commentary of the TS; the Hindi version followed in 1939, and a second edition of the later in 1951. This had been revised in collaboration with Pt. D. D. Malvania. This again, as stated by the author himself, at the initiative of Malvania has been translated into English by late K. K. Dixit and published in the L. D. Series 44 (1974).
As it stands, the Book, a volume of more than 550 pages, is an impressive piece of work, with an introduction of more than 100 pages (pp. 15–118), a section with hints for special study (pp. 119-24), an analytical table of contents (pp. 125-39), the Sanskrit text (following the Svetāmbara recension, but provided with systematic critical notes that quotes especially the Digambara variants and commentaries (pp. 1-26).Then comes the English translation of Pt. Sukhlalji's commentary on the Sūtra (pp. 1–373), followed by an index of proper names (pp. 375–88) and an index of technical terms (pp. 381–425). The author's foreword clearly states his aim: (a) Because he wished to supply the Tattvārtha text with a
good exposition, he was therefore keen, he writes (p. 5 ff.), to make an impartial use of all available material connected with Jaina Philosophy (independently of any
sectarian views); (b) To satisfy the curiosity of the students both of the
universities and of old style teaching, and so to retain the sectarian technical terminology but to analyse it by making
it simple; (c) To normally accept the reading of the aphorisms found in
the bhāsya; nevertheless, in case of important sectarian differences, to provide and translate the Digambara variant - in some very controversial cases, to try to decide what stands closer to the intention of the aphorist;

Page #35

English Translations of the Tattvārthādhigamasūtra 25 (d) To take into account the composition of the TS and
the meaning, therefore, either to consider the sūtras
individually or in a group; and (e) To compare the Jaina technical terminology with the non
Jaina Philsophy.
Sukhlalji's book, therefore, should be taken for what it is meant to be: On the one hand an elaborate commentary, based on the tradition and on the other hand, a commentary aimed at providing to the modern reader an accurate understanding of the TS text and of its, inevitably obscure, Gujarati, Hindi and English translations.
The mūla text is translated literally but the translation is to be taken as a portion—an important one, no doubt of the overall project, not as an end per se – in fact it might be concluded that, in the author's view no translation into a modern idiom is possible, for the necessary background is generally missing, except for the expert.
The technical terms have, therefore, been kept, alongwith the proposed English translations. The volume is not meant for cursory or easy reading, it is a sort of textbook, a tool for students and scholars, and incentive to try and understand the Tattvārtha meaning.
As such, and especially revised as it has been, thanks to Pt. Malvania and Dixit, it has prompted several new studies and publications, it has proved invaluable for the 'inquisitive readers'. To quote Sukhlalji's words 'let them make use of it—as suits their inclination, as suits their understanding’ (Foreword, p. 13).
In contradiction with the previously mentioned one, Professor Nathmal Tatia's English translation, that was planned to be published in the Sacred Literature Series of the International Sacred Literature Trust, is necessarily very different, as it is meant for readers most of whom have no knowledge of Jainism or even of Indian religions and philosophical schools. The reason being that the International Sacred Literature Trust

Page #36

26 Studies in Umāsvāti
'was established to promote understanding and open discussion between and within faiths and to give voice in to-day's world to the wisdom that speaks across time and traditions' (p. vii). The main problem therefore was how to render into English the specific meaning of the Jaina technical terms and of the Sanskrit phraseology.
Concerning the term sūtra style, Professor Tatia appears to have considered it a feature that did not have to be primarily taken into account as far as the International Sacred Literature Series is concerned.
As a matter of fact, if by choosing this specific literary genre as well as the Sanskrit language, the Jainas of old wished to signal that they were ready to dispute with proponents of Brahmani-cal darśanas, this is of no importance for the common reader of our times, nor does it matter if the sutra genre had a mnemonic function.
The main aim of the translator should be to make the Tattvārthādhigamasūtra—this brief synthesis of the entire Jaina doctrinal system-generally understood. Tatia accepts the challenge and succeeds. At the end of his introduction, he explains how he thought best to proceed (p. XXIII). It will be seen that the Sanskrit text of each sūtra, immediately followed by its English rendering, and further by a more or less synthetical commentary is printed sūtra after sūtra. Tatia explains that 'three main versions of The Tattvärtha Sūtra with commentaries have been used; Svopajña bhāṣya, Svopajña bhāṣya-īka and Sarvārthasidhhi. A single sūtra reading is given unless there is variation between the SB / SBT tradition and the SS tradition in which case the variant readings are given for the same sūtra.
As for the commentary this is a faithful representation of all the three commentaries with their differences properly noted. It will be observed that in this book, as well as in J. L. Jaini's and Pt. Sukhlal's the fundamental unity of the Jaina doctrine is underlined, though the differences opposing the two main sects are not concealed, but clearly mentioned and explained.

Page #37

English Translations of the Tattvārthādhigamasūtra
27
Concerning the Jaina technical terms, Professor Tatia writes, 'The English rendering of these terms was a difficult task, mainly because I had to find easy and simple equivalents for them without compromising their originality and depth. It was necessary to find a terminology that was unconventional but precise, simple but expressive.'
‘My purpose in giving a simplified unconventional English rendering has been to promote a pleasant intimacy between the reader and the unfamiliar, sometimes strange, concepts of Jainism, in the hope that readers may draw something of value for themselves from it.'
As a matter of fact, Professor Tatia very well managed and succeeded in using plain English to render this highly technical philosophical work, replete with unexpressed teachings, and allusions.
Except for Karman, no Indian term features in the translation, where, sometimes, picturesque English equivalents happen to occur, e.g. even when it comes to the proper names of the four classes of gods (TS 4.7. ff). Though they are not quoted in the Sūtra itself, they are mentioned in the translator's commentary, to which they add a pleasant touch. At the same time the reader gains a better idea of the Jaina conception of the divine beings, when he meets with the ten ‘mantrins' and eight 'forest - gods', viz. fiendish youths, serpentine youths, lighting youths, vulturine, fiery, stormy, thundering, oceanic, island youths, and guardians of the cardinal points (p. 98f).
The method of choice of the right English equivalent is undoubtedly a very difficult task. But the translator's work does not end there. He has to provide unobtrusive helps to the reader. In the present case, the latter is greatly helped by the clear and perfect lay-out of the whole work.
Each of the ten chapters is presented in a very detailed table of contents with references to the S B / SBT and SS. And some of the more important or tricky technicalities are further

Page #38

28 Studies in Umāsvāti explained in six appendices at the end of the book, e.g. on numbers in Jaina cosmology.
I have already mentioned the English glossary (with entries largely form the commentaries to the sūtras) and the index of substantial notes on the concepts.
May I add some personal after-thoughts. Professor Tatia's book is given as a translation and when I wrote a review, I treated it as such—The title page runs 'Tattvārthasūtra of Umāswātī/ Umāswāmī with the combined commentaries of SB/SBT and SS, translated with an introduction by Nathmal Tatia'.
But the meaning of the Sūtra has to be understood, by the foreign reader, to this effect: The actual translation introduces complements, borrowed from the commentaries themselves, and therefore quite legitimate. Had they not been added, only scholars, what is more, only Jaina Sanskrit scholars, might have understood the text.
So, I think we have to admit that there are many stumbling blocks which a translator has to manage. The difficulty is being solved differently by the different would-be translators, according to the audience that they have in mind, whether the general reader or the more or less specialized scholar. Strictly speaking the translation of a technical Indian text into a modern western language is an almost impossible task. We can be thankful that, in the case of Umāsvāti we have two different approaches. In fact here we rejoin the theory of translator's (one of our modern concerns) that we modestly say that the aims of the translator ought to be:
to understand the text thoroughly—in depth (not
only the literal meaning of the words), • to be understood by the reader.
Perhaps the ultimate goal would be that the reader is inspired to read the translated text in the original language.

Page #39

The Yoga of Umāsvāti
N. M. KANSARA
In his account of the fundamental vareity inflow (āsrava), in the beginning of the eighth chapter of his Tattvārthādhigamasūtra, Umāsvāti enumerates the causes of bondage: 'absence of right faith (mithyātva), absence of discipline (avirati), negligence (pramāda), passion (kasāya), activity (yoga)—these five are the causes of bondage'.' In his auto-commentary, Umāsvāti reminds us that he has already defined and elaborated about this yoga',2 and further adds that as regards these four causes of bondage, viz., absence of right faith, etc., the existence of the previous one in the series ensures the presence of the subsequent ones, but not vice versa.In accordance with his reminder in his auto-commentary referred to above, we find that Umāsvāti has defined yoga' in the course of his account of the nature of āsrava in the beginning of the sixth chapter of his TAS, thus: "The activity of body, speech and mind is yoga'.4 Explaining further this aphorism in his autocommentary, Umāsvāti adds that this yoga is of three types in accordance with the fact that activity itself is of three types, viz., physical, oral and mental. And, each of these three types are of two sub-types, viz., auspicious and inauspicious. Elaborating further, he adds that violence, theft, non-abstinence, etc., pertain to the physical aspect of activity which are inauspicious; censure, falsehood, rashness, wickedness, etc., pertain to the oral aspect of activity which are inauspicious; and, desire to betray or to

Page #40

30 Studies in Umāsvāti harm someone jealousy, indignation, etc., pertain to the mental activity which are inauspicious. Those that are contrary to these are auspicious. And, in the next aphorism, Umāsvāti, reveals that this yoga is ásrava, i.e. inflow, and consequently the cause of bondage? of the soul in the cycle of birth and death in various bodies in the course of transmigratory state. This yoga of three types is called āsrava since it causes the ingress of auspicious as well as inauspicious activity, much like a stream through which water of a lake flows in and out.
Pūjyapāda, in his Sarvārthasiddhi, alias Tattvārtha-vrtti, while elucidating the term yoga according to the definition given by Umāsvāti, explains the term to mean vibration in the region of the self.' Then, he classifies it in three types as physical activity (kāya-yoga), oral activity (vāg-yoga) and mental activity (manoyoga), following Umāsvāti. But he explains these three types in his peculiar style. Thus, physical activity is the vibration in the region of the self with reference to the dependence of any of the physical class of seven types, such as the gross body, etc., when the subsidence-cum-destruction (ksayopaśama) of the obstacles of exertion obtains.10
The oral or vocal activity is the vibration in the region of the Self directed towards the modifications of speech in the presence of the acquisition of inner speech brought about by the subsidence-cum-destruction of obstacles to exertion in the form of formation of ideas and syllables when the subsidence-cumdestruction of the obstacles of exertion obtains with dependence on the class of speech brought about by the emergence of the activity known by the name śarīra (body).11 Mental activity is the vibration in the region of the Self, directed towards the modifications of the mind, dependent on the class of the mental external stimuli in the presence of the acquisition of the mind in the form of the subsidence-cum-destruction of the obstacles of internal exertion without the sense-organs.12 Even when all the karmas are annihilated, there is yoga in the case of the omniscientwith-activity (sa-yoga-kevalī) in the form of the vibration in the

Page #41

The Yoga of Umāsvāti 31 region of the Self depending on the three types of classes, 13 viz., body, speech and mind. This elucidation is rather very abstruse since it goes very deep into the internal formative forces that manifest at the concerned levels of body, speech and mind, and which involve the removal of karmic obstacles to the exertive propensities, known in the Jainistic terminology as subsidencecum-destruction. This a highly accurate scientific description of the processes of the manifestation of activity at the concerned three levels.
Akalankadeva, in his Rājavārtika, alias Tattvārtha-vārtika, has discussed this definition the yoga of Umāsvāti in wordgreat details bringing out the intrinsic importance of each of the components in it. He points out to the many senses of the word karma in the definition, and asserts that it means activity in the present context, since other meanings do not fit in here.14 Then, he rules out a reference to merit and demerit in the case of activity here, since it is referred to in the succeeding aphorisms. 15 Further, he reveals that activity (karma) involves the consideration of the desire in so far as there are possibilities of the presence of many means, such as the doer or agent, etc., to determine the particular type of activity. 16
Thus, activity or karma consists of many aspects such as subsidence-cum-destruction of the obstacles of the exertion and knowledge, modification of the Self, modifications of matter, and dependence on the idea behind its inclination, such as definitive or generic standpoint.17 He justifies the threefold division of the types of activity on the basis of the modes, 18 since the modes and the corresponding Self are invariably concomitant. Then, he rules out the senses of meditation and collection of the term yoga in the present context, on the grounds that the topic of meditation is separately discussed later on by Umāsvāti in his work, and that the activity is of each individual type.20 By way of further justification of the meaning of the term yoga, Akalankadeva clarifies that since the intention of Umāsvāti here is to discuss

Page #42

32 Studies in Umāsvāti
the topic of ingress (asrava), he has referred to the three types of activity by this term.21 And, he has also propounded that while a sa-yoga-kevalin may have yoga, it is not possible in the case of a a-yoga-kevalin, since in the case of the latter the vibrations in the regions of the activity-modified Self which depend on the three classes of body, speech and mind, in the case of the former, do not depend on them in the case of the latter.22
Vidyānandi-svāmi has elaborated on the topic of the connection of activity with reference to sayoga-kevalin, ayogakevalin, and siddhas, in his Tattvārtha-śloka-vārtika on this aphorism defining the term yoga. Thus, since soul is endowed with activity, it is but consequent that physical activity should arise. The physical type of activity is due to the vibrations of the Self dependent on regions connected with bodily aspects. The oral type of activity is due to those dependent on regions connected with oral aspects. The mental type of activity is due to those dependent on regions concerned with mental aspects. None of these type of activity is possible in the case of an ayogakevalin as also a siddha; and one in whose case such an activity is found naturally proves to be a sayoga-kevalin.23
Following Akalankadeva, the author of the Tattvārthaśloka-vārtika, too, justifies the definition of the term yoga as activity on the three levels of body, speech and mind, on the ground of the context of the discussion being that of ingress (āsrava).24 Further this yoga is called ingress (asrava) since it is the cause of the inward flow of activity into the soul.25
Now, let us see how Pt. Sukhlalji has incorporated these gradual clarifications and elaborations of Umāsväti's of definition of yoga. The activity of the form of vibration of the constituentunits of a soul which results in a kṣayopaśama or kṣaya of the vīryāntarāya-karma and which proceeds on the basis of pudgalas is called yoga. That yoga which proceeds on the basis of the pudgalas belonging to the physical groupings that go to constitute a body of the audarika type or the like is the yoga pertaining to the body. The vibrations of the constituent-units

Page #43

The Yoga of Umāsvāti 33 of a soul that is on the point of undergoing a transformation of the form speech, and which occurs when the internal speech has been acquired as result of a kşayopaśama of the karmas like matijñānāvarana, akşara-śrutāvarana, etc., and which proceeds on the basis of the physical groupings that go to constitute speech, is the yoga pertaining to speech. The vibrations of the constituent-units of a soul that is on the points of undergoing a transformation of the form of manas and which occurs when there has been an acquisition of internal manas of the form of a kşayopaśama of the no-indriya matijñānāvaraṇa karma and which proceeds on the basis of the physical groupings that go to constitute a manas, is the yoga pertaining to manas. The reason why yoga is called āsrava or inflow is that it is through yoga( activity) that the physical groupings which go to constitute karma flow into a souls, i.e. the activity gets associated with it in the form of karma.26
Umāsvāti has further clarified that the auspicious(śubha) yoga is the ingress in the case of good karmas, while the inauspicious(aśubha) yoga is the ingress in the case of evil karmas, 27 Pt. Sukhlalji has explained that the auspicious or inauspicious character of yoga depends on the auspicious or inauspicious character of the accompanying mental feeling; it does not depend on the auspicious or inauspicious character of the effect concerned, i.e. the karmic bondage. The yoga occurring at the time when there is mildness of the mental purturbance or passion is called auspicious, while that occurring at the time when there is acuteness of mental perturbance is called inauspicious. The statement pertaining to the auspiciouness or inauspiciousness are cause of bondage depending on the occasion. And, this karmic bondage is in respect of flavour (anubhāga). Thus, at the time of the intensity of the auspicious yoga it so happens that the proportion of the flavour characterizing good karmas is relatively greater, while the proportion of the flavour characterizing the evil karmas is relatively lesser. On the contrary, at the time of the intensity of the inauspicious yoga the proportion of flavour characterising the evil karmas is relatively greater than that

Page #44

34 Studies in Umāsvāti characterizing the good karmas. Thus, keeping in view what is predominant in the two cases, it has been maintained that the auspicious yoga is the cause of bondage in the case of good karmas, and the inauspicious yoga is the cause of bondage in the case of the evil karmas.28
Umāsvāti has pointed out that while the auspicious yoga is the cause of bondage (āsrava) in the case of good actions (punya), the inauspicious yoga is the cause of bondage in the case of evil actions (pāpa).29 Further he states that the yoga on the part of a soul possessed of passion (kaņāya) is the cause of bondage in the case of actions which bring about the downfall (sāmparāyika) of the soul, while that of a soul devoid of passion (a-kasāya) is the cause of bondage in the case of actions which bring about immediate release (īryāpatha) of the soul.30 It seems thus that according to Umāsvāti both types of yoga is the cause of bondage, and the vital factor in both which differentiates them is the difference of mental attitude of the yogī, i.e. the doer of the actions.
It seems this yoga of Umāsvāti can be traced back to the Vedas and the Āgamas of both the Nāthayogins and the Jains. Thus, in the Ķgveda the yoga is said to be that entity in the absence of which no sacrifice of a wise can ever become successful; 31 it is used in the sense of a particular combination of circumstances, too, when the seer Ājigarti Sunaḥśepa declares that he invokes Indra for friendship during all calamities.32 Thus, the word yoga here generally conveys a sense connected with the act of combining or joining. With the Nāthayogins and Hahayogins, the term yoga denotes various physical, mantric and mental practices, directed towards joining the mind with the rhythm of nature, with the rhythm of respiration, with the inner subtle involuntary physical, and mental activities, with a view to bring them in harmony and one-pointedness; thus combining the mind with the Self.
Umāsvāti has again referred to this three-type of yoga in connection with the four types of śukla-dhyānas, viz., prthaktva

Page #45

The Yoga of Umāsvāti 35 vitarka, ekatvavitarka, sūkṣmakriyāpratipātin and vyuparatakriyānivṛtti. Thus, he says that these śukla-dhyānas are respectively performed by the one who possesses all the three yogas; by the one who possesses any of the three yogas; by the one who possesses the bodily yoga and by the one who possesses no yoga whatsoever.33 As Pt. Sukhlalji has pointed out, the statement as to the persons authorized to perform the śukla-dhyāna in question has been made here from two points of view, viz., from the standpoints of the guṇasthāna, i.e. graduated stage of spiritual progress, and from that of the yoga. From the point of view of yoga only the one who possesses all the three yogas is authorized to perform the first of the four subtypes of śukla-dhyāna; one who possesses any one of the three yogas, i.e. those pertaining to body, speech and mind, is authorized to perform the second subtype of śukla-dhyāna; only one who possesses the bodily yoga is authorized to perform the third sub-type of sukla-dhyāna while only the one who devoid of all yoga whatsoever is authorized to perform the fourth subtype of śukla-dhyāna.34
It should be noted that Umāsvāti has inherited this concept of yoga from the Jaina canonical works, like the Uttaradhyayanasūtra35 and the Samavāyāngasūtra. 36 The delusion, passion, and yoga stand out the most among them because non-control (avirati) and inadvertence (pramāda) emerge from passions (kaṣāyas). It may be noted here that the term 'āsrava' is synonymous with the state of mind imbued with yoga. Asrava emanates from these yogic activities of body, speech and mind, and their suppression begets samvara, which ultimately leads to salvation.37
A new turn to the traditional concept of Jaina yoga was given by the famous Haribhadrasūri alias Yākinīputra (eighth century AD) in that he brought it to the line of Patanjali's Yoga-sūtras, while at the same time retaining a part of its traditional aspect, particularly the auspicious one as an essential complimentary to it. And, he redefined yoga as the religious practice paving one's path to liberation.

Page #46

36
Studies in Umāsvāti
References
1. Umāsvāti's Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra with his Auto-commentary (
Sanskrit) ed.Osaval Motilal Ladhaji, Poona, Vir Sam. 2453, (TAS) 8.1:
Mithyā- darśanāviratipramādakasāyayogāḥ bandhahetavah. 2. ibid., Umāsvāti-bhāsya (U.Bh.): Yogas trividhaḥ pūrvoktah. 3. ibid., Esāṁ mithya-darśanādīnāṁ bandha-hetūnām pūrvasmin pūrvasmin
sati niyatam uttareșāṁ bhāvaḥ/ Uttarābhāve tu purveșām aniyamaḥ. 4. TAS, 6.1: Kāya-vāň-manaḥkarma yogah. 5. U.Bh. on TAS, 6.1: Kāyikam karma vācikaṁ karma mānasaṁ karma
ity- eșa trividho yogo bhavati sa ekaśo dvividhaḥ śubhāśubhasca. 6. ibid., Tatrāśubho himsāsteyābrahmādīni kāyikah/ sāvadyānsta
parusapaisunyādīni vācikah/ abhidhyāvyāpādersyāsāyādīni manasah/
ato viparītah śubha iti. 7. TAS, 6.2: Sa āsravah. 8. U.Bh. on TAS, 6.2: Sa eșa trividho’pi yoga āsrava-sañjno bhavati,
śubhāśubhayoḥ karmaṇorāsravaņādāsravaḥ. 9. Sarvārtha-siddhi (Sar. Si.) Tattvārthavrtti of Pujyapādācārya (Sanskrit),
Kallappa Bharamappa Nitave, Kolhapur, Sak. Sam. 1839, on TAS, 6.1:
Ātmapradeśa-parispando yogaḥ. 10. ibid., Viryāntarāya-ksayopaśama-sadbhāve sati audārikādi-saptavidha
vargānyatamālambanāpekṣayā ātmapradeśa-parispandaḥ kāya-yogah. 11. ibid., Śarīra-nāmakarmodayāpādita-vāg-vargaņālambane sati
vīryāntarāyamatyakşarādyāvaraṇa-kşayopašamāpāditā-bhyantaravāglabdhisānnidhye vāk-pariņāmābhimukhasyātmanaḥ pradeśa
parispando vāg-yogah. 12. ibid., Abhyantara-vīryāntarāyat mano indriyāvarana-ksayopaśamātmaka
manolabdhi-sannidhāne bāhyanimitta-mano-varganālambane ca sati
manahparināmābhimukhasyātmanah pradeśa-parispando mano-yogah. 13. ibid., Kșaye’pi trividha-vargaņāpekṣaḥ sayoga-kevalina ātma-pradeśa
parispando yogo veditavyaḥ. 14. Rājavārtika alias Tattvārtha-vārtika of Bhaa Akalankadeva, ed. Pt.
Mahendra Kumar Jain, Bhāratiya Jñānapītha, Kashi, 1957. Part II, (Raj. Var.) on TAS 6.1: Karma-sabdasyānekārthatve kriyāvācino grahanam,
ihānyasyāsambhavāt/3/. 15. ibid., Nāpi punyāpunyalaksanam, uttarasūtrasya samarthyāt/5/.

Page #47

The Yoga of Umāsvāti 37 16. ibid., Kartrādisādhānesvicchāto višesādhyavasāyah/7/. 17. Rājavārtika alias Tattvārtha-vārtika of Bhaa Akalankadeva, Viryāntarāya
Jñānāvarana-kşayaksayopaśamāpekṣeņa ātmānātma-pariņāmaḥ pudgalena ca svapariņāmaḥ vyatyayena ca niscayavyavahāranayāpeksayā
kriyata iti karma.6.1.7. 18. ibid., 6.1.9 Ātmanaḥ ekatve' pi paryāyabhedāt yogasya bhedo jñeyaḥ. 19. ibid., 6.1.12 Dhyānam yoga iti cet; nah, tasya vaksyamāṇatvāt. 20. ibid., 6.1.13 Samudāye yogavyapadeśa-prasanga iti cet; nah, pratyekam
vākyaparisamāpteủ. 21. ibid., 6.1.12 Ihāsravapratipādanārthatvāt trividhakriyā yoga ityucyate. 22. ibid., 1.1.10 Kriyāpariņāmina ātmanastrividha-vargaņālambanāpekṣah
pradeśaparispandaḥ sayogakevalino yogavidhirvidhīyate, tadālambanā
bhāvāt uttaresāṁ yogavidhirnāsti. 23. Tattvārtha-ślokavārtikam of Vidyānandasvāmi (T.Ślv.), ( Sanskrit) ed.
Pt. Manoharlal, Jaina Grantha Uddhāraka Kāryālaya, Mumbai, 1918, on 6.1: Kāyādi-vargaņā-'laṁba-pradeśa-spandanam hi yat/ Yuktam kāyādi-karmāsya sakriyatva-prasiddhitah//2// ... Na ca tasyāyogakevalini siddhesu ca prasaktis tesāṁ pradeśa-parispandā-bhāvāt/ ... Yasya tu
pradeśa-spandah syat sa tathā prasiddho yathā sayoga iti yuktih. 24. ibid., Athāsravaṁ vinirdeşukāmah prāgātmano'ñjasā/ Kāya-vārmanasām
karma yogo'stītyāha karmaņām//1/1. 25. ibid., on 6.2: Sa āsrava iha proktaḥ karmāgamana-kāraṇam/...//6.2.1/1. 26. Dixit, K.K., Pt. Sukhlālji's Commentary on Tattvārtha Sūtra of Vācaka
Umāsvāti, L.D. Series No.44, L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad,
1974, pp. 229–30. 27. TAS., 6.3-4: śubhaḥ punyasya//3// Aśubhaḥ pāpasya//4/7. 28. Dixit, K.K., op. cit., pp. 31-232. 29. TAS., 6.2–4: Sa āsravaḥ//2/7: see supra ft. nt. 27. 30. ibid., 6.5: Sakaṣāyākasāyayoḥ sāmparāyikaryyāpathayoḥ/. 31. R.V., 1.18.7: Yasmād rte na sidhyati yajño vipaścitas cana/ Sa dhīnām
yogam invati/l. 32. TAS., 9.42 (Auto-comm.): Tad etaccaturvidhaḥ śukla-dhyānań
tri-yogasya kāyayogasyāyogasya yathāsaṁkhyam bhavati/ Tatra triyogānām prthaktva-vitarkam, aikānyatama-yogānām ekatva-vitarkaṁ kāyayogānāṁ sūksma-kriyām, apratimātma-yogānāṁ vyuparatakriyanivettīti.

Page #48

38
Studies in Umāsvāti
33. ibid., 1.30.7: Yoge yoge tavastaraṁ vāje vāje havāmahe/ Sakhāya
indram ūtaye//. 34. Dixit, K.K., op. cit., pp. 353–54. 35. Sthānāngasūtra, 1.3.6: Tivihe joga paņņatte jam jahā-manajoge, vai-joge,
kaya-joge. 36. Samavāyāngasūtra, Samavāya 5: Pasca āsavadārā pannattā tam jahā
micchattam, avirai, pamāyā, kasāyā, jogā. 37. Shastri, Suvrata Muni, Jaina Yoga, Nirmal Publications, Delhi, 1995,
pp. 6–7, Dige, Dr. Arhaddas Bamdoba, Jaina Yoga kā Alocanātmaka Adhyayana, Sohanlal Jain Dharma Pracharaka Samiti, Amritsar, 1981,
p. 56.

Page #49

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha
PADMANABH S. JAINI
Umāsvāti begins and ends his Tattvārthādhigama-Bhāsya (also called Svopajña-Bhāsya by Svetāmbaras?)—henceforth called Bhāsya-on the Tattvārthasūtra with several verses, which emphasize the goal of mokṣa as the absence of karmas and klešas, which can be described as the end of suffering (duḥkha-ksaya). In his concluding verses, called samksepa-ślokas, there are as many as eleven verses that talk about spiritual bliss (sukha) (that is, complete happiness), present in the state of a liberated soul (siddha). There, he asserts that this sukha is called avyābādha by the sages. This seems to be a technical term, not found in Monier-Williams Dictionary. But the word vyābādha does appear and it means 'to hurt' or 'to injure', so avyābādha could be translated as a state free from injury [produced by karmic matter)'. When asked by a questioner as to how a being who has no body whatsoever and who has destroyed all eight karmas can have sukha at all. Umāsvāti explains, 'In the world, the word sukha is employed in four different meanings. When someone says, “Fire is happiness or wind is happiness”, he is talking about the quality of the objects (vişaya). When a person in the absence of a particular pain thinks he is happy, then he is using it in the sense of freedom from pain. When a person enjoys pleasures

Page #50

40 Studies in Umāsvāti as a result of meritorious actions of the past, then that is called the fruit (vipāka), to which the name sukha is given. But the best and the foremost of these is in the state of emancipation, where there is a unique sukha associated with the emancipation from all karmas and all passions. This sukha is incomparable as there is no object in this entire world with which it can be compared. Therefore, in the absence of ordinary perception and a viable inference that can be drawn from such perception, the presence of such sukha has to be taken on the authority of the words of the Arhats, who indeed have direct perception of such sukha. It cannot be known merely through examination by those who are less than omniscient.”2 Umāsvāti unfortunately does not cite even a single passage from the canons but concludes his bhāsya with the benediction that mokṣa can be attained by a person who follows the path laid down in his work and will undoubtedly attain that sukha which is avyābādha. However, this word indeed does occur several times in the canons.
The most informative discussion related to avyābādha is found in a conversation between Mahāvīra and the Brahmin Somila in Viyāhapaññatti (Bhagavatī) 18.10.4.3 He approaches Mahāvīra, having greeted him in the appropriate way by formally inquiring about whether he is ‘making spiritual progress' (jattā te bhamte) and whether he is ‘unpurturbed by his sense organs' (javanijjam), he makes a further query, whether there is avvābāha for him. Mahāvīra assents to all of them (jattā vi me, javaņijjam pi me, avvābāham pi me). But Somila inquires further about the sense in which there is avvābāham for him, to which Mahāvīra replies, 'O Somila, in the sense of the suppressing of corporeal deficiencies, viz. of various kinds of diseases caused by a complication in winds, bile, and phlegm'.4 This episode emphasizes the fact that at least here in the Agama the term avyābādha was not used for spiritual bliss of the siddha but for the (temporary) freedom from corporeal afflictions.

Page #51

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 41 Umāsvāti's use of the term avyābādha to describe sukha in the state of the siddha leaves many questions unanswered. Avyābādha is a negative term signifying merely the end of afflictions that the soul was subject to during the state of karmic bondage in samsāra. The title of another work of his called Praśmarati-prakarana (A Treatise on Delight in Spiritual Calm) might lead one to anticipate a more positive meaning for the word sukha. Even so, in his concluding verses on that treatise, he repeats the adjectives found in the Bhāsya, namely anupama and avyābādha, and adds that such a soul is characterized by kevalasamyaktva and infinite jñana and darśana, three qualities that are kṣāyika bhāvas, which were attained while the soul was still in the state of embodiment (i.e. a kevalin). The quality of sukha thus seems to manifest only when corporeal bondage has ended, as he says, 'Physical and mental suffering happens because of the activities of the body. In the absence of the body, etc., there is also the absence of such suffering and thus is established the bliss of the siddha'.5 Here again, sukha is explained in negative terms, as freedom from suffering, a paraphrase for the word avyābādha.
It should be noted that the samksepa-ślokas attributed to Umāsvāti seem to have been accepted by the Digambara author Akalanka in his Tattvārtha-Vārttika (known as Rājavārttika) as he quotes some of the above verses pertaining to sukha with the words ‘uktam ca’ without referring to his source. This is of great significance since it demonstrates that there was no dispute among Jains on the nature of the siddha and the quality of sukha in that stage. Umāsvāti's admonition that the presence of such an indescribable quality in the siddha should be accepted on the authority of the scriptures (āgama-pramāņa), cannot be lightly set aside. It might, therefore, be considered somewhat pre- sumptuous for anyone to probe into the nature of this quality called sukha and to determine if it is present in any form in the embodied kevalin (i.e. an Arhat) and if it were to exist in the

Page #52

42
Studies in Umāsvāti
kevalin, to ascertain which karma would be the adversary of that particular quality of the soul.
Given Umāsvāti's emphasis on avyābādha-sukha in the bhāsya as the goal of spiritual life, it is rather surprising that the word sukha is not used in this sense even once in the Tattvārthasūtra itself. There are three places where the word sukha appears in the Tattvārtha Sūtra. The first is at IV. 21, where certain gods are said to be more endowed with happiness (sukha) and lustre (dyuti), than other gods. The second is at V. 20, where the word sukha is mentioned together with duḥkha, jīvita, and marana, as functions of matter relative to the jīva. The third appears in VII. 32, where it is one of the aticāras of a person who takes sallekhanā. In the bhāsya, the word is used in connection with the statement on sūtra II. 45 (nirupabhogam antyam) that sukha and duḥkha are not experienced in the kārmaņa śarīra. As for the word avyābādha, it too does not appear anywhere in the Sūtra in this context but is the name of a heaven, as in IV. 26.
The other major Digambara commentary on the Tattvārthasūtra, namely the Sarvārthasiddhi of Pūjyapāda, which predates Akalanka's work, does not have any preliminary or concluding verses. But in the commentary on the very first sūtra, Pūjyapāda defines mokṣa as a state in which a soul is free from all embodiment and in which it has attained perfection of its innate qualities (namely, knowledge, etc.) and the highest form of sukha, which he also describes as avyābādha in almost the same words as found in the bhāsya.8 Yet there are several passages in Pūjyapāda's commentary as well as in Akalanka's vārttika that suggest that this particular sukha can be more positively characterized and can also be attributed to the kevalin (i.e., Arhat), who has destroyed the four main ghātiyā karmas and has thus become an omniscient being. He is still subject to the effects of the four remaining karmas, namely, nāma, gotra, and āyu, which together are responsible for his continued state of embodiment and longevity, as well as the effects of vedanīya

Page #53

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 43 karma, which would account for pleasant (sātā) and painful (asātā) feelings (vedanā), respectively.
Discussing the kṣāyika-bhāvas, or the innate qualities of the soul realized by the kevalin through the destruction of the four ghātiyā karmas, Pūjyapāda in his commentary on sūtra II. 4, enumerates the following nine gunas: kevala-jñāna and kevaladarśana with the destruction of the jñānāvaraña and darśanāvaraņa-karmas, ksāyika-samyaktva and kṣāyika-cāritra through the destruction of darśana-mohanīya and cāritra-mohanīya karmas (the two varieties of mohanīya karma). Then there are the five qualities of the soul that are attained by the destruction of the five varieties of the antarāya karmas.' The latter are of some relevance to our discussion of the sukha of the kevalin and hence may be described in some detail.
The first is called ksāyika-dāna, which gives infinite ability to give protection (abhaya) against the sorrows of samsāra to beings through his preaching. Through the destruction of lābhāntarāya karma (which occurs along with the attainment of kevalajñāna) the kevalin gains (lābha) the ability of not depending on food by morsel for his sustenance. Instead, his body is nourished by extremely auspicious, subtle, and infinite matter—a variety of nokarma-vargaņā—that cannot be absorbed by any human being prior to this state. This matter is automatically absorbed by the kevalin's entire body for the duration of that life. He is said to attain infinite satisfaction (bhoga) and comfort (upabhoga) by the destruction of the corresponding antarāya karmas, as witnessed by the heavenly shower of flowers as well as the royal majesty of the assembly hall (samavasaraņa), and so forth. And finally, with the destruction of vīryāntarāya karma, he attains infinite energy (vīrya), which is inseparable form omniscience (sarvajñatva).10
Given the general rule that the kṣāyika bhāvas, when once realized, are never lost, the question arises as to how to interpret the first four bhāvas, namely dāna, lābha, bhoga, and upabhoga

Page #54

44 Studies in Umāsvāti
in the state of the siddha, who does not have a body. Pūjyapāda's response to this problem is illustrative of the Digambara way of interpreting the term avyābādha. To quote, 'In the siddhas, there [dāna, lābha, bhoga, and upabhoga] abide in the form of avyābādha, literally, freedom from affliction, which is characterized (in this context] by extreme spiritual bliss (paramā-nanda)'.11
As if he were anticipating a question as to how this quality of sukha functions there, Pūjyapāda states that it functions in the same way as the quality of infinite energy (ananta-vīrya) functions for the soul's omniscience, that is, it energizes the other qualities of the soul such as infinite knowledge.12 The quality of energy that the Jainas talk about is not to be confused with the sort of infinite power (ananta-śakti) attributed to an omnipotent god in theistic schools. Rather, as I have observed elsewhere,13 this functions as a sort of metaquality (i.e. situated behind or above), an abstract force that energizes, as it were, the very operation of the knowledge and perception qualities. In the worldly state, the kevalin had beneficence, gain, satisfaction, and comfort—in their most exalted form—as a result of the destruction of the adversary antarāya karmas. Since these four things are seen as conducive to happiness in an embodied state. Pūjyapāda seems to suggest that there is a metaquality similar to vīrya that can be called sukha, that is happiness or spiritual bliss, which should not be confused with worldly happiness.
What is understood in the worldly state as happiness and unhappiness (sātā and asātā) are not actually expressive of the true nature of the soul. Worldly happiness is past deeds realized as the fruition (vipāka) of vedanīya karma in the present. Being an audayika-bhāva, it would not be seen as desirable, even when it is pleasurable feelings (sātā-vedanīya) that are generated. 14 Beneficence, gain, satisfaction, and comfort, however, are not audayika bhāvas, that is, they are not the result of the maturing of any karma, as is sātā and asātā vedanīya. Rather, they manifest

Page #55

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 45 as a quality of the soul by virtue of partial destruction and partial suppression (ksyopaśama) of the various antarāya karmas in the pre-kevalin state. But at the time of attaining omniscience, these antarāya karmas are totally annihilated (kṣaya), yielding thereby the kind of happiness that we would ordinarily associate with beneficence, gain, satisfaction, and comfort. In the absence of a body, that is, in the state of the siddha, these worldly forms of happiness are no longer applicable. Instead they seem to be transformed into a single quality of infinite spiritual bliss (paramānanda).
Pujyapāda's statements on the sukha of the siddha, terse as they are, shed a different light on the quality of sukha in the state of mokṣa. The infinite energy of the soul is here associated with not only the qualities of infinite knowledge and intuition (as is agreed by all Jaina schools) but also with infinite spiritual bliss (sukha). That this is a Digambara view is evident from the repetition of this very sentence in Akalanka's vārttika on this sūtra.15 It is even doubtful if such a connection between the destruction of the first four varieties of antarāya karma and the emergence of sukha is a commonly held view among the Digambaras. Kundakunda, who may be considered to have some authoritative opinion on this matter, does not explicitly make such a connection in his discourse on a kevalin's attainment of spiritual bliss.
Raising a question as to how there could be knowledge and bliss in the absence of the mediation of senses for a kevalin, he says, by virtue of the fact that he has destroyed the four ghātiyā karmas, he has obtained infinite energy as well as infinite purity (tejas). The soul, no longer having use of the sense organs, transforms itself as knowledge and spiritual bliss (ṇāṇam sokkham ca pariņamadi).16 Commenting on this, Amṛtacandra in his Tattvapradipikā-vṛtti says, 'Such a soul, which has destroyed the ghātiyā karmas by the strength of its pure transformation brought about by the total destruction of the antarāya karmas,

Page #56

46 Studies in Umāsvāti jñāna and darśanāvaraṇa karmas and the host of the mohanīyas, becomes itself pure consciousness, freed from all defilements and thus is transformed by itself into knowledge that reflects both itself and all other knowables as well as bliss (saukhyam), which is characterized by freedom from doubt, perplexity, anguish and so forth (anākulatā). Therefore these two, viz., knowledge and spiritual bliss (ānanda) are the soul's own nature’.17
It is interesting that the word ānanda employed here is related to the purity of the soul primarily resulting from the destruction of all forms of moha, which can be a synonym for ākulatā. These two characteristics, namely, knowledge and bliss, are so interrelated that Kundakunda is even able to apply the method of pure non-conventional view (śuddha niscayanaya), and proclaim further that the infinite knowledge of the kevalin is itself perfect bliss (ņāņam vimalam suham iti egamtiyam bhaniyam).18 Commenting on this, Amstacandra elaborates further that an ordinary person's knowledge suffers from the limited ability to know each and every object only partially and only in a sequential order, confined as it is to the limited scope of the senses and the mind. This itself produces curiosity which is not free from perplexity and other such forms of suffering (ākulatā). For this reason, Amrtacandra asserts that kevalajñāna itself, having gone beyond all curiosity, may be said to be identical with infinite bliss (ataḥ sarvathā kevalam sukham aikāntikam anumodanīyam).19 However, Jayasena, in keeping with his more moderate stance, points out that the bliss (sukha) of the kevalin, characterized as anākula as well as paramānanda, is no doubt distinct from jñāna since this quality has different name, a different characteristic, and a different purpose. Even so, from the niscaya viewpoint (in which differences are disregarded), perfect sukha may be said to be not distinct (abhinna) from infinite knowledge. 20

Page #57

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 47
It should be noted here that Kundakunda does not relate this infinite spiritual bliss with the body of the kevalin as Pūjyapāda does when the latter discusses the relationship between ananta-sukha and the destruction of lābha-antarāya, and so forth. Conversely, Pūjyapāda never mentions the bliss of the soul in the context of the kevalin but only bliss related to a body, for example, the automatic absorption of nourishment and so forth. He reserves the term paramānanda for the state of the siddha, albeit from the destruction of the antarāya karmas, and not necessarily only from the attainment of ananta-jñāna and ananta-darśana. Kundakunda perhaps does not regard this attribution of worldly happiness—allowing this to be the case in actuality-as of any consequence to the true nature of the sukha experienced by the kevalin even before attaining the siddha state. The perfection of bliss thus attained by the destruction of the ghātiyā karmas leads Kundakunda to the well-known Digambara position that the kevalin does not suffer from any bodily pain or pleasure.21 Such a conclusion regarding the nature of the kevalin brings us face-to-face with the celebrated controversy between the Digambaras and the Svetāmbaras over the nature of the kevalin. The Śvetāmbaras, as is well known, argue that because of the continued embodiment and the inevitable rise of the sātā and asātā-vedanīya karmas in the kevalin, the sukha described by the Digambaras as infinite bliss cannot become manifest until the kevalin becomes eternally free from embodiment and thus becomes a siddha.22
There is one more sūtra that specifies four qualities of the soul that are not destroyed at the final destruction of embodiment, i.e. at the attainment of siddhahood.23 One would expect Umāsvāti to list all eight gunas, which were respectively brought to perfection by the destruction of their corresponding adversary karmas. But only four are listed, namely kevalasamyaktva, kevala-jñāna, kevala-darśana, and siddhatva. The first, kevala-samyaktva—a term which appears only in this sūtra—is a

Page #58

48
Studies in Umāsvāti
synonym for kṣāyika samyaktva, the samyaktva that is attained when the soul destroys darśana-mohaniya karma in the fourth gunasthāna. However, this ksāyika samyaktva is still accompanied by the other variety of moha called cāritra-mohanīya, which encompasses the varieties of kasāyas and no-kaşāyas. Therefore, the samyaktva at this stage is defined by the qualities that become manifest with it, such as tranquility (praśama), compassion (anukampā), and so forth. At the kevalin stage, however, the same smayaktva, being accompanied by the purest conduct (ksāyika-cāritra), becomes kevala-samyaktva. This is evident from Pūjyapāda’s explanation of the term samyagdarśana in sūtra I, 2 where it is pointed out that in the vītarāgas (i.e., the kevalins), this samyaktva is ‘only total purity of the soul? (ātmavisuddhi- mātram).24 The fact that sūtra X. 4 does not mention kevala-cāritra should probably be understood in light of this statment of Pūjyapāda. In the case of the kevalin, the purity attained by samyaktva is indistinguishable from the purity gained by cāritra and hence there would be no need to mention them separately. Knowledge (jñāna) and intuition (darśana), are the two aspects of consciousness (caitanya) that were never totally absent even in the state of bondage. They are now brought to perfection and will remain so forever.
As for the state of being liberated (siddhatva), it is hard to imagine that it is a separate guna. It is a name given to a state achieved by the destruction of all eight karmas whereby the soul accomplishes everything that was to be accomplished, a literal meaning of the word 'siddha'. It is probably mentioned here as a separate guna as a device to eliminate any possibility of the pure soul's return to the state of bondage (samsāra). It can thus be compared to the Buddhist (sarvāstivādin) concept of the uncompounded (asamskrta) dharma called apratisamkhyānirodha, which forestalls the regrouping of the dharmas of the Arhat, once nirvāṇa is attained.25 What is conspicuously absent in this sūtra are vīrya and sukha, the two qualities that we have

Page #59

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 49 discussed earlier in connection with the kevalin. Pūjyapāda's comment on their apparent exclusion from this sūtra is rather brief: 'If only these four qualities survive, would that not result in the exclusion of infinite energy and so forth?” “That is not the case. There exists an invariable concommittance between ananta-jñāna/darśana and ananta-vīrya, and so forth. One who is deficient in energy will also have deficiency of knowledge. As for [infinite] sukha, it invariably accompanies [infinite] knowledge (jñānamayatvāt ca sukhasya)'. 26
There is no elaboration on this sūtra (X. 4) in the Bhāsya, nor is there any additional point made by Siddhasena in his Bhāsya-īkā on it. However, at the end of his long Bhāsya on X. 7, which deals with twelve varieties of approaches for discussing the nature of the siddhas in their previous state (for example, the time and place of their liberation and the gender of their body), Umāsvāti describes the attainment of siddhahood. “Then by the destruction of vedanīya, nāma, gotra, and āyu karmas ... the soul becomes pacified or at peace (śāntah) like fire that has no more fuel left to burn. The word śānta (at peace) in the Bhāsya is probably a description of the siddhatva quality appearing in sūtra X. 4. This expression is not to however, as any novel quality realized by the soul at this stage; it merely signifies the end of the spiritual journey. This is evident from the concluding line of Umāsvāti: ‘Such a soul, having gone beyond the happiness of samsāra attains the bliss of nirvāņa (śāntah), which is total, incomparable, eternal, and perfect'.27
Siddhasena glosses the word śānta (at X. 7) as paramāhlādam upagataḥ, that is ‘has arrived at supreme joy. The two expressions are probably not quite identical and this becomes clearer as one reads seven additional verses, which Siddhasena seems to be quoting from some unknown text. It is laid out in these verses that the soul that was an Arhat (satkārārhah) now, having shed his final body, is at peace, established in himself. He has gone beyond birth, death, old age, and disease (virug,

Page #60

50 Studies in Umāsvāti vigadah). These constitute vyābādha or extreme forms of afflictions. Due to the absence of these as well as because of his omniscience, he becomes now extremely happy (bhavati parama-sukhī).This is indeed the happiness free from afflictions (avyābādham sukham hyetat). Thus, such a soul is endowed with kṣāyika-smayaktva, jñāna, darśana, vīrya, and siddhatva, and also by the bliss that is beyond all dualities (yuktah... nirdvandvenāpi ca sukhena).28
These verses, which emphasize the presence of disease (roga) in the stage of the Arhat and the absence of them in the state of the siddha, are expressive of the Svetāmbara doctrine that total happiness (ananta-sukha) is not possible in the state of embodiment and hence even the kevalin cannot be equated with the siddha on this particular point. It is rather strange that in the passages quoted above, there is no mention of the destruction of vedanīya karma, the presence of which precludes the possibility of freedom from hunger, thirst, and the resulting diseases and so forth even to an omniscient being. But the expression ‘avyābādha-sukha' can be construed as pointing to the destruction of vedanīya karma. The same concept is probably to be seen in the expression ‘nirdvandva' applies to the sukha of the siddha. The sukha of samsāra is truly happiness mixed with unhappiness (sātā and asātā on account of vedanīya karma). However, when this karma is also destroyed together with those karmas (i.e., nāma, gotra and āyu) that sustain the body, the soul may be said to have gone beyond all dualities and variations forever, a state described by the term avyābādha.29
Yaśovijaya in his Adhyātma-mata-parīksā initiates a vigorous refutation of the Digambara position attributed to Kundakunda, specifically the three verses quoted above from the Pravacanasāra. There is no dispute, he says, if it is maintained that with the destruction of the jñānāvaranīya karma, there is the destruction of the suffering (duhkha) born of ignorance (ajñāna). But would it be proper to claim thereby that there is also the total destruction

Page #61

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 51 of all forms of suffering? The kevalin has surely gained omniscience, but that does not mean the quality of avyābādha has been realized as well. As long as the two varieties of the vedaniya karma are coming into fruition (vipakodaya), it cannot be said that the totality of duḥkha has been brought to an end. Yasovijaya presents his arguments in a syllogistic formula: it is not possible for the kevalin to have sukha of the kṣāyika nature because such sukha is attained only by the destruction of its adversary, vedanīya karma. In the kevalin, vedaniya karma, which is incompatible with kṣāyika sukha, is continuously coming to rise (udaya). Therefore, the sukha of the kevalin is not identical with that of the siddha.30
As for the Digambara, with the destruction (kṣaya) of mohaniya, the vedanīya itself is rendered powerless and hence the kevalin has realized kṣāyika sukha. Yaśovijaya contends that the scriptures enumerate eight (and not seven) karmas, which respectively obstruct eight qualities of the soul. He cites the following authority: 'With the destruction of moha, there is the realization of kṣāyika samyaktva and caritra, while with the destruction of vedaniya karma and antarāya karma, infinite sukha, are realized, respectively. '31 It is not proper therefore to declare the disappearance of one kind of duḥka (of vedaniya) on the ground that the other kind of duḥkha (born of mohaniya) has been eliminated!32
Yaśovijaya also takes note of those who seem to voice a similar view on the authority of such Svetambara texts as the Avasyaka Niryukti, verses 571 and 572, where it is said that for the Tirthankara, there is the rise of only the most exalted sātā-vedaniya karma and extremely slight rise of the painful (asātā) ones, similar to a mere drop of lemon juice in a large quantity of milk, and therefore it does not produce suffering.33 He argues that it is not proper on the basis of this scripture to deny altogether an asātā to the Jina. In support of his argument he quotes the well-known rule from the Tattvärthasūtra that the

Page #62

52 Studies in Umāsvāti
Jina is subject to eleven hardships (parīṣahas), which begin with hunger (ksut), thirst (pipāsā), cold (śīta), heat (uṣṇa), and so forth. He disagrees with Pujyapada's interpretation of this sūtra that the presence of the parīṣahas in the Jina should be taken figuratively (upacārataḥ) because of the continued presence of the physical karmic matter known as dravya vedaniya karma similar to the expression 'the kevalin meditates (dhyāna)' even though the function of stopping all thought, which is the essence of meditation, does not actually exist in an omniscient being. He also rejects Pujyapada's alternative suggestion to amend the sūtra by adding the words 'na santi' (they do not exist) because of the absence of feelings of hunger and so forth aided by mohaniya, on the grounds that each karma has its own distinct function and it is not proper to subsume one karma under another.34 He reaffirms his doctrine that vedaniya is the true adversary karma of kṣāyika-sukha. He even contends that avyābādha, which often has been employed as a synonym for sukha, is actually a distinct quality, one that manifests when all eight karmas are destroyed and not any one particular karma.35
This brings us back to the problem raised earlier concerning the nature of sukha (in mokṣa) described as avyābādha by Umāsvāti. Kundakunda is convinced that omniscience and infinite energy are not compatible with any form of suffering and thus he seems almost to be appropriating the function of vedaniya karma for mohaniya. He then claims that with the destruction of mohanīya-invariably followed soon thereafter by the annihilation of the three remaining ghātī karmas--the kevalin attains infinite sukha. The problems rising from the continued embodiment of the kevalin seem to be solved by recourse to the device of an extraordinary variety of a most auspicious (paramasubha) and subtle matter (no-karma) that automatically flows unhindered into the kevalin's body and thus sustains it to the end of his life. This operation, however, does not appear to be due to the end of the mohaniya. As was noted above, according to Pujyapāda (who seems to be the earliest to articulate such a view)

Page #63

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 53
this is the result of the destruction of lābhāntarāya karma. One would expect Kundakunda's commentators (Amstacandra and Jayasena) to raise questions concerning the difference between this sukha of the kevalin and that of the siddha. Presumably they would have denied the difference in the quality of sukha itself but might have maintained that there is avyābādha in addition to sukha in a siddha. For them, vyābādha of a kevalin is that kind of suffering which is inevitable in the presence of any feelings (vedanā) whatsoever, such as feelings of cold and heat (śīta/ usna)—which incidentally unlike hunger and thirst are not disputed—and other forms of feelings generated by sātā/asātā, albeit in a conventional or metaphorical way (upacāra). They seem to separate sukha from the feelings (vyābādha) produced by vedanīya and see the latter as the opposite of avyābādha. They thus seem to be suggesting that throughout the state of samsāra, that is, the state of embodiment, vedanīya produces feelings only. Freedom from feelings (i.e. avyābādha) is attained only at the end of the fourteenth guṇasthāna, which culminates in siddhahood, when all embodiment must end forever.
For Yaśovijaya, who goes strictly by the laws of karmic operation, vedanīya karma is the chief adversary of the sukhaguņa. Hence, sātā and asātā, the two modalities through which vedaniya is expressed, do not allow the full manifestation of sukha—total happiness—even in the case of the kevalin. The sight of an omniscient being free from all desires whatsoever, still wishing to obtain food—within the constraints of the mendicant rules—would appear to be an anomaly indeed. But the laws of karma are inscrutable, and Yaśovijaya, who speaks for the Svetāmbaras, rejects of Digambara solution of a supermun-dane body (parama-audārika-śarīra) of a kevalin, freed from the needs of food.36 In his quest for retaining the quality of sukha to be opposed solely by vedanīya karma, he is even willing to forego the adjective avyābādha ordinarily applied to that sukha as pointed out earlier. For him avyābādha-guna would simply be a synonym for the state of destruction of all karmas without having any specific content of its own.

Page #64

54 Studies in Umāsvāti
These two positions although apparently at variance are not truly incompatible. Vedanīya indeed could be seen as the presence of feelings, such as we ordinarily associate with worldly pain and pleasure, but the term does not necessarily imply opposition to what Kundakunda calls the bliss attained by the destruction of the ghāti karmas, if the latter is conceived as not yet being free from all feelings. However, this quality of the soul would appear to be radically different from the other innate qualities such as knowledge (jñāna), intuition (darśana), and energy (vīrya).
It is a universally accepted Jaina doctrine that from beginningless times these three qualities have been obstructed in the sense of being covered (āvsta) as it were, like a mirror is covered by a cloth or the moon is obscured by clouds. Just as the mirror or the moon has not lost the ability to reflect or shine by such obscuration, it is believed that the quality that we understand as knowledge or awareness (jñāna, and by extension its two concomitants, viz. darśana and vīrya), the chief characteristic of a sentient being, has never been totally obscured by its adversary matter called jñānāvaranīya karma. Even the tiniest being such as a nigoda-jīva—which has the least amount of this quality made manifest through only the sense of touch—is still believed to have a certain portion (maybe an nth part) of its infinite potential of knowledge, which must always remain free, unobscured by any karmic matter whatsoever, a portion aptly called 'nitya-udghāita-jñāna'. It is argued that if even this minimum portion of knowledge were to be obscured as well, that soul would be indistinguishable from non-soul, that is, matter.37
This ever-open' part may be said to guarantee that the soul has a certain built-in advantage over karmic matter to which it is bound: while the soul is never bound totally, karmic matter can be destroyed in its entirety. It provides a ray of discrimination (viveka/ bheda-vijñāna) for an aspiring soul to dispel the darkness of its obscurations (āvaraņas) in the course of its long travel in

Page #65

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 55 samsāra. But the soul is not able to totally destroy karmic matter as long as it remains under the power of the primary-karma called mohanīya.
The term mohanīya (lit., delusion-producing) itself is significant: it is not seen merely as an agent of covering, an āvarana, as in the term jñānāvaranīya. Obscuration itself does not produce delusion. Delusion takes palce even in the presence of knowledge, as in the case of persons who know from the scriptures, the true nature of the soul and may still remain deluded about it. Hence it is argued that there is a distinct variety of karmic matter by which the soul is deluded. What it probably means is that this karma serves as the efficient cause for the beginningless transformation (anādi pariņāma) of a certain innate quality of the soul into delusion (moha). This delusion takes two forms: one that produces false notions about the soul (darśana-mohanīya)—e.g., 'soul is body—and the other that produces passions (kaşāya), which affect the conduct of such a soul—e.g., attachment towards the body—(cāritra-mohanīya).
Unlike the jñāna guņa, which is never totally obscured as seen above, we are told time and again that the soul has since beginningless times been wholly infected by these two delusions, which manifest as mithyā-darśana and kaşāya and drive the soul into unwholesome behaviour patterns. The beginninglessness of mithyā-darśana and its totality point to the presence of some quality of the soul that has suffered not merely a simple and partial obscuration but a transformation so total and profound that it has resulted in a state contrary to its own nature. In the commentaries this is called defiled transformation (vibhāvapariņāma)—like a piece of gold rusting in ore—that can be set aright so that the state of purity (svabhāva-pariņāma, or the soul's own true nature) can be realized, a case similar to the same piece of gold purified of its rust. Thus unlike jñāna and darśana, which are continually present in greater or lesser degrees in all embodied souls, this purity (which we argue to be the same as

Page #66

56 Studies in Umāsvāti sukha) is never experienced prior to the destruction of mohanīya karma.
That this is the core part of the Jaina teaching becomes evident when we look at the spiritual progress delineated by the stages of the gunasthānas, the ladder of spiritual progress.38 The first gunasthāna, mithyādrsi, is where all bound souls have been at one time subject to darśana-mohanīya karma. The progress begins at the fourth gunasthāna, where the soul is able to transform the deluded view about reality (mithyā-darśana) into the right or enlightened view of reality (samyag-darśana). From the fourth gunasthāna to the twelfth gunasthāna, there is only a single-karma, namely, cāritra-mohanīya karma, that needs to be dealt with, step by step, by getting rid of passions (kasāyas) and gaining thereby total purity of the soul. Throughout the length of this process, it should be noted that there is no prescribed step, or regime, or discipline called for specifically to remove the obscuring (āvaranīya) karmas, which have obscured knowledge and intuition. Omniscience (kevalajñāna) would seem to result almost without any effort, as soon as mohanīya karma has been destroyed in the twelfth gunasthāna. As the sūtra itself says, ‘mohaksayāt ...', there is the invariable destruction of the other three ghātiyā karmas and thus the soul becomes a kevalin.
The spiritual progress at each gunasthāna is measured by the soul's ability to transform its defilements (vibhāva), into own-nature (svabhāva), described by such exalted terms as pure (viśuddha), peace (praśama or ānanda) and parama-sukha, for want of a better word. What were once called krodha, māna, māyā, lobha and the no-kaşāyas including the sex desires, should therefore be seen as perverted forms of their opposite, a quality of the soul, the identity of which remains to be established.
The Jaina scriptures do not precisely define the particular qualities of the soul that might be affected by the operation of the mohanīya karma. Samyaktva is the name given to that quality which manifests when its opposite, mithyātva (or mithyā-darśana) is overcome. This is pure insight and does not depend on any

Page #67

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 57 particular physical activity. The word normally employed for the opposite of the passions (kasāya) is of course pure conduct (samyak-cāritra), i.e. the observance of the mahāvratas of a mendicant. But such conduct is inseparable from certain activities (yoga) and may not by itself be termed as a quality (guna).
It should be noted in this context that Tattvārthasūtra X. 4 mentions only four kṣāyika qualities, namely, samyaktva, jñāna, darśana and siddhatva, that remain in the soul at the time of becoming a siddha. The two qualities that are conspicuously missing here, are cāritra and sukha. Could it be possible that at the time of becoming a kevalin and subsequently at the time of becoming a siddha the two qualities were considered two aspects of a single quality that became at the same time indistinguishable from ksāyika-samyaktva, and thus needed no specific enume- ration? At the kevalin stage, samyaktva sheds its worldly associations (e.g., śraddhā in deva, guru, śāstra, and so forth) and remains, in the words of Pūjyapāda ‘nothing other than purity of the soul (ātma-visuddhi-mātram)'.
The perfected caritra of the kevalin is also described as yathākhyāta (i.e., as described by the Arhats, i.e. one who remains as the nature of one's self: yathātmasvabhāvo'vasthitah tathaivākhyātatvāt). Siddhasena's Bhāsya-ikā on this word agrees with the above: One whose conduct or restraint (samyama) is as laid down by the Lord (yathākhyātaḥ samyamo bhagavatā tathaiva sah). Thus it becomes clear that caritra in its perfect form is the same as ātma-visuddhi, the definition of samyaktva in the kevalin, as observed above. Căritra need not be mentioned separately, as there is no further need for keeping vows, and so forth, in a formal way, beyond this stage.39 The classical terms used to describe the state of the soul attained by this freedom from passions are praśama, ānanda, āhlāda, viśuddhi, and so forth, which are synonyms of sukha, spiritual bliss, which reaches its perfection with the destruction of mohanīya karma. The purity of the kevalin is now independent of any conduct as such and hence it can be called sukha. This Bliss being total, integrated as it is with samyaktva and the other

Page #68

58 Studies in Umāsvāti
three kṣāyika gunas, namely, jñāna, darśana, and vīrya, would be the same as that experienced when siddhahood is attained. Although the karmas responsible for maintaining the body still remain, they do not affect that bliss (sukha) which is achieved by the destruction of mohaniya karma, for it is impervious to the vagaries of feelings, i.e. the results of vedaniya-karma. When together with the body the latter has also been terminated, the siddha soul may truly be said to have not only perfect bliss (sukha) but freedom forever from all association with feelings (avyābādha). It would not be far fetched to seek canonical support for such as conclusion as is found in Sīlānka's comment on the term vedantā: ‘siddhās tu vidani, nānubhavanti'.40
References
1. For a critical study on the identity of authorship of the Tattvārtha Sūtra and Bhāṣya, see Ohira 1982. Ohira dates Umāsvāti to the end of the 5th century, while Bronkhorst 1985, Zydenbos 1985, and Johnson 1995 favour an earlier date of 4th century. Johnson sums up the debate in the following words:
'The Tattvärtha Sūtra .... is the earliest extant Jaina work in Sanskrit, written between 150 C.E. and 350 C.E. . . . There is in fact considerable doubt whether the [Tattvärthādhigama Bhāṣya] 'auto-commentary' was written by Umäsvāti himself; indeed Bronkhorst 1985 has presented a convincing case for attributing it to a Śvetāmbara of the fourth century C.E. (at the earliest).... Furthermore, the Sarvārthasiddhi, although composed perhaps a century later than the Tattvärthadhigama Bhāṣya, may be using a version of the Tattvärtha Sūtra which is at times closer to the original than that used in the Bhāṣya. There is also some evidence (see Willimas 1963, pp. 2-3) that the Tattvärthasūtra itself was composed in a Digambara milieu, while Bhasya marked the Svetambara features.' (Johnson 1995, pp. 45-7).
2. samkṣepa-ślokāḥ—
tādātmyādupayuktāste, kevalajñānandarśanaiḥ/
samyaktvasiddhatāvasthāḥhetvabhāvācca niṣkriyāḥ//21/ samsäraviṣayātītam, muktānāmavyayam sukham/
avyābādhamiti proktam paramam paramarṣibhiḥ//23/ syadetadaśarīrasya jantornaṣāṣakarmaṇah/

Page #69

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 59 katham bhavati muktasya, sukham ityatra me śrnu//24// loke catursvihārthesu, sukhaśabdah prayujyate/ visaye vedanābhāve, vipake moksa eva ca/25/7 sukho vahnih sukho vāyur vişayeşviha kathyate/ duḥkhābhāve ca puruṣaḥ, sukhito'smīti manyate//26/1 punyakarmavipākācca, sukhamişendriyārthajam/ karmakleśavimoksācca, mokse sukhamanuttamam/27/1... loke tatsadrśohyarthaḥ kṣtsne'pyanyo na vidyate/ upagiyeta tadyena, tasmānnirupamam sukham//30// lingaprasiddheh prāmānyād anumānopamānayoh atyantam cāprasiddham tad yat tenānupamam smrtam//31// pratyakşam tad bhagavatāmarhatām taiśca bhāṣitam/
gshyate'stītyataḥ prājñairnacchadmasthaparīksayā//32// (iti) Bhāsyam
idam uccairnāgaravācakena sattvānukampayā drbdham/ Tattvārthādhigamākhyam spasam Umāsvātinā śāstram//5/ yas tattvādhigamākhyam jñāsyati ca karisyate ca tatroktam/
so vyābādhasukhākhyam prāpsyate acirena paramartham//6/. 3. Somile nāmammāhane...samaņam bhagavam Mahāvīram evam
vayāsī—jattā te bhamte! javaṇīyam te bhamte! phāsuyavihāram te bhamte! Somilā! jattāvi me, javanijjam pi me, phāsuyavihāram pi me/ kim te bhamte jattā? ... se kim te bhamte avvābāham? Somilā! jam me vāiyapittiya-simbhiyasannivāiyā vivihā rogāyam-kā sarīragayā dosā uvasamtā no udīresti settam avvābādam/Viyāhapannatti, xviii, uddeśa 10.
4. Deleu's translation: He assents avvābāha in the sense of the
suppressing of corporeal deficiencies caused by complications in winds, bile and phelgm'. (p. 246). It is obvious that in this passage the term avvābāha refers only to a temporary state of health of Mahāvīra, as confirmed by Abhayadeva Sūri's comment: 'avvābāham' ti śarīrabādhānām abhāvah. (p. 757) It may also be noted that the term avvābādha appears in this passage in Bhagavaī along with jattā and javanijjam, the two words that appear regularly in the vandanaka formula used by a layman in greeting a monk. See
Williams 1963, p. 200. 5. praśamitavedakasāyasya hāsyaratyaratiśokanibhrtasya/
bhayaskutsānirabhibhavasya yat Sukham taty kuto ‘nyeşām//126/1

Page #70

60 Studies in Umāsvāti
svargasukhāni paroksāny atyantaparokşam eva mokşaSukham/ pratyaksam praśamaSukham na paravasam na vyayaprāptam/237// mastakasūcivināśāt tālasya yathā dhruvo bhavati nāśah/ tadvat karmavināśo hi mohaniyaksaye nityam//266/1 sādikam anantam anupamam avyābādhaSukham uttamam prāpteh/ kevalasamyaktvajñānadarśanātmā bhavati muktah//289//
dehamanovrttibhyām bhavatah śārīramānase duhkhe/ tadabhāvas tadabhāve siddham siddhasya siddhiSukham//295/
Praśamaratiprakaranam
6. In Amrtacandra's Tattvarthasāra (viii, 45-54) these blokas appear
without even the words ‘uktam ca'. 7. 1) sthitiprabhāvasukhadyuti .../IV, 21;
2) sārasvātāditya ... tuşitāvyābādhamarutaḥ/IV, 26; 3) Sukhaduḥkhajīvitamaraṇopagrahāś ca/IV, 20;
4) jīvitamaraņāśamsā... sukhānubandhanidānakāraṇāni/VI, 32. 8. Cf. nirvašesa-nirākrtakarmamalakalarkasyāśarīrasyātmano' acintya
svābhāvika-jñānādigunamavyābādhasukhamātyantikamavasthānta
ram moksa iti/ Sarvārtasiddhi, I, 1. 9. jñānadarśanadānalābhabhogopabhogavīryāṇi ca/ ca śabdaḥ
samyaktva- cāritrānukarşaņārthaḥ/ Tattvārthasūtra(TS),ch. II/4. 10. ..dānāntarāyasyātyantaksayad anantaprāniganānugrahakaram
ksāyikam abhayadānam/ lābhāntarāyasyāśeşasya nirāsāt parityaktakavalāhāra- kriyāņām kevalinām yataḥ śarīrabalādhānahetavo'nyamanujāsādhāraņāḥ paramaśubhāḥ sükşmāḥ anantāḥ pratisamayam pudgalāḥ sambandham- upayānti sa ksāyiko lābhah/ ... vīryāntarāyasya karmano'tyantaksayādāvirbhūtamanantavīryam ksāyikam pūrvoktānām saptānam prakstīnām atyantaksayāt kṣāyikam samyaktavam/ caritramapi
tathā/ Sarvārthasiddhi, II.4, para 261. 11. yadi kṣāyikadānādibhāvakstam abhayadānādi, siddheșy'api prasangah/
naisa dosah, śārīranāmatirthakaranāmakarmodayādyapeksatvāt/ teşām tadabhāve tadaprasangaḥ/ katham tarhi teşām siddheșu vrttiḥ ? paramānandāvyābādharūpenaiva tesām tatra vrttih/ Ibid. II.4, para 261. This seems to be the only place where avyābādha is called paramānanda in the Sarvārthasiddhi, but the Hindi translator does not expound on the last section.

Page #71

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 61 12. kevalajñānarūpeṇānantavīryavrttivat / Ibid. II. 4, para 261. 13. See Jaini 1979, p. 105. 14. Sukhaduḥkhajivitamaranopagrahāśca/TS, V, 20.
Sadasadvedyodaye'ntarangahetau sati bāhyadravādiparipākanimittavaśādutpadyamānah prītiparitāpārūpaḥ pariņāmaḥ sukhaduhkham ityākhyāyate/.. etāni sukhādīni jīvasya pudgalaksta upakārah/ mūrtimaddhetusamnidhāne sati tadutpatteħ/ Sarvārthasiddhi, V, 20. para 565. cf. Siddhasena:—bāhyadravyasambandhāpeksasadvedyodayāt saņsāryātmanaḥ prasādapariņāmḥ sukham/. . . asadvedyodayād ātmapariņāmo bāhyadravyāpekṣaḥ samkleśaprāyo duḥkham. Bhāsya
īkā, V, 20. 15. Cf. aśeșalābhāntarāyanirāsāt parmaśubhapudgalānām ādānam
(parityaktakavalāhārariyāņām)... yad anantadānalabdhyādayaḥ uktāḥ abhayadānādihetavo dānāntarāyādisamksayād bhavanti siddhesv api tatprasangaḥ? naisa dosaḥ, śarīranāmatīrthakaranāmakaramodayā- dyapeksatvāt teşām tad abhāve tad aprasangaḥ, paramānandāvyābādha- rūpenaiva teşām (abhayadānādīnām) tatra vȚttiḥ/ kevalajñānarūpeṇa anantavīryavịttivat/
Tattvārthavārttika, II. 4. (I, p. 106.) 16. pakkhīnaghādikammo añamtavaravīrio adhikatejo/ jādo animdio so ņāņam sokkham ca pariņamadi//
Pravacanasāra, 1,19. 17. Amộtacandra:-ayam khalvātmā
śuddhopayogasamarthyāt prakṣīņa-ghātikarmā ... samastamohanīyābhāvādatyantanirvikāraśuddhacaitanyasvabhāvamātmānam āsādayan svayameva svaparaprakāśakatvalaksanam jñānamanākulatvalaksanam saukhyam ca bhūtvā pariņamate/ evamātmano jñānānadau svabhāva eva/ svabhāvasya tu parānapeksatvād indriyarvinā'pyātmano jñānānadau sambhavatah/
Ibid. I, 19. 18. athaitadeva pratyakşam pāramārthikasaukhyatvenopakṣipati
jādam sayam samattam nānamanamtatthavitthadam vimalam rahiyam tu oggahādihim suham ti egamtiyam bhaņiyam//
- Pravacanasāra, I, 59. 19. Amrtacandra:svayam jātatvāt, samantatvāt, anantārthaviststatvāt,
, vimalatvāt, avagrahādirahitatvācca pratyakşam jñānam sukham

Page #72

62 Studies in Umāsvāti
aikāntikam iti niścīyate/ anākulatvaikalakṣaṇatvātsaukhyasya, ... kramakrtārtha- grahanakhedena paroksam jñānam atyantam ākulam bhavati, tato na tat paramārthataḥ saukhyam/ I, 59.... yato hi kevalāvasthāyām sukhapratipattivipaksabhūtasya duhkhasyasādhanatā- mupagatam ajñānam akhilam eva pranaśyati, sukhasya sādhanībhūtam tu paripūrņam jñānam upajāyeta/ tataḥ kevalameva saukhyamityalam prapancena/ Pravacanasāra, I, 61. Jayasena:—svabhāvo hi kevalajñānadarśanadvayam, tayoh pratighāta āvaraṇadvayam tasyābhāvaḥ kevalinām. tataḥ kāra-ņāt ...akṣayānanta-Sukham bhavati/ ...tato jñāyate kevalinām jñānam eva Sukham ity abhiprāyah/ Ibid. I, 61. Kundakunda goes even a step further and declares that those who do not trust in the above statement must be abhavyas. ņo saddahanti sokkham suhesu paramam ti vigadaghādīnam/ sunidūna te abhavvā bhavvā vā tam padicchamti//
However, Jayasena deos not take the term abhavya literally: te hi jīvā vartamānakāle samyaktvarūpabhavyatvavyaktyabhāvād abhavyā bhanyante, ne punah sarvathā/ Ibid. I, 62.
20. Jayasena:-abhedanayena ...kevalajñānam eva Sukham iti par
tipādayati-...yad evam ksāyikjñānam tad anākulatvalaksaņaparamānandaikarūpa-pāramārthikasukhāt samjñā-laksanaprayojanādibhede'pi niscayanayenā- bhinnatvā. pāramārthika-Sukham
bhanyate/ Ibid. I, 59. 21. sokkham vā puņa dukkham kevalaņāņissa ņatthi dehagadam/
jamhā adimdiyattam jādam tamhā du tam ņeyam// Ibid. Ī, 20. 22. For a compilation of Yāpanīya and Śvetāmbara texts on kevali
bhukti, see Jambūvijaya Muni 1974. For a critical examination of this controversy over the nature of the kevalin, see Dundas 1985. See also Jaini 1993.
23. aupaśamikādibhavyatvābhāvāc cânyatra kevalasamyaktva-jñāna
daréna-siddhatvebhyah/ Tattvārthasūtra, X, 4. ete hyasya ksāyikā nityās tu muktasyāpi bhavanti/ Bhāsya, X, 4. darśana-sptakaksayāt ksāyikam kevalasamyaktvam, samastajñānāvar-anakṣayāt ksāyikam kevalajñānam aseșadarśanāvaraṇaksayāt ksāyikam kevaladarśanam, samasta-karmaksayāt siddhatvam ity ete ksāyikā bhāvā yasmān nityās
tasmān muktasyāpi bhavantīti/ Bhāşya-īkā, X, 4. 24. tattvārthasya śraddhānam samyagdarśanam ...tad dvividham, sarāga
vītarāga-visayabhedāt pašamasamvegānukampāstikyād-yabhivyaktila

Page #73

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 63 kṣaṇam prathamam/ ātmaviśuddhimātram itarat/ Srvārthasiddhi, I, 12.
25. utpādātyantavighno 'nyo nirodho' pratisamkhyayā/
...anāgatānām dharmāṇām utpādasyatyantam vighnabhūto visamyogad yo 'nyo nirodho so' pratisamkhyānirodhaḥ/na hy asau pratisamkhyaya labhyate, kim tarhi, pratyayavaikalyāt/ Abhidharmakośabhāṣya, I, 6.
Cf. Akalanka:-siddhatvam api kṣāyikam āgamopadiṣam asti tasyopasam-khyānam iha kartavyam? na kartavyam? ...siddhatvam hi sarveṣām kṣāyikāṇām bhāvānām sādhāraṇam iti/ Tattvārthavārttika, I, p. 106.
26. anyatrakevalajñānadarśanasiddhatvebhyaḥ/ Tattvärthasūtra, X,4. kevalasamyaktvajñāna-darśanasiddhatvebhyo 'nyatrānyasminn ayam vidhir iti/yadi catvāra evāvasiṣyante, anantavīryādīnām nivṛttiḥ präpnoti/naiṣa doṣaḥ, jñāna-darśanāvinābhāvatvād anantavīryādīnām aviseṣaḥ, anantasāmarthyahīnasyānantāvabodharṛttyabhavāj jñānamayatvāc ca sukhasyeti/ Sarvārthasiddhi, X. 4.
These comments may be contrasted with the following:
aupaśamikädibhavyatvābhāvāc canyatrakevalasamyaktvjñanadarśanasiddhatvebhyah/ Tattvärthasūtra, X, 4. ete hy asya kṣāyikā nityās tu muktasyāpi bhavanti/ Bhāṣya, X,4 ...samasta-karmakṣayāt siddhatvam ity ete kṣāyikā bhāvā yasmān nityās tasmān muktasyāpi bhavantīti. Bhāṣya-īkā, X, 4.
While Umāsvāti and Siddhasena are silent on the missing 'bhāvas', namely, Sukha and vīrya in X, 4, Jinabhadragani in his Viseṣāvasyakabhāṣya adds sukha to this list in the following verse, an addition which goes unnoticed in Koyāryavādigaṇi's Vivarana:tassodaiyātīya bhavvattam ca viņivattate samayam/ sammattanāṇadamsaṇasuhasiddhattāim mottūṇa//3685//
tassodaiyātīyā ityādi/tasyedānīm caramasamayakṣaye... muktvā svābhāvikāni samyaktva-jṇāna-daraśanāni yāvat siddhatvāni seṣabhāvānām sāpekṣapariņāmatvād vigama iti sthitam//3685// III, p. 734.
27. kṣetrakālagati...Tattvārtha Sūtra, X, 7 ...tataḥ samsārabīja
bandha- niruktaḥ phalabandhanamokṣāpekṣo yathākhyātasamyato jinaḥ kevalī sarvajñaḥ sarvadarsi śuddho buddhaḥ krtakṛtyaḥ

Page #74

64 Studies in Umāsväti
snātako bhavati/ tato vedaniya- nāmagotrāuṣkakṣayāt phalabandhananirmukto nirdagdh- pūrvo-pattendhano nirupādāna ivägniḥ pūrvopāttabhavaviyogad hetvabhāvācca uttarasyāprdu-bhāvād śāmtaḥ samsara Sukham atītya ātyantikam aikāntikam nirupamam niratiśayam nityam nirvāṇasukham / Bhāṣya, X, 7.
28. samsare punar aprādurbhāvāc chātaḥ paramahlādam upagataḥ/.. vyābādhābhāvācca sa sarvajñatvācca bhavati paramasukhi/ vyābādhābhāvo nu svasthasya jñasya nanu susukham//3//
anupamam ameyam avyayam anagham sivam ajaramarujam abhayatṛṣam/ekāntikam ātyantikam avyābādham sukham hyetat//4//
evam kṣāyikasamyaktavam vīryasiddhatvadarśanajñānaiḥ/ atyantikaiḥ sa yukto nirdvandvenāpi ca sukhena//7// — Bhāṣya-īkā, X, 7.
29. It is noteworthy that the most eloquent passage in the Acarangasūtra which speaks about the liberated soul makes no mention of any of the positive qualities that may be realised in that state:
acceī jāimaraṇassa vaamaggam vikkhāyarae, savve sarā niyaamti, takkā tattha na vijjai, mai tattha na gahiyā, oe, appaihāṇassa kheyanne, se na dihe na hasse-na itthī na purise na annahā, parinne sanne uvamā na vijjae, arūvī sattā, apayassa payam natthi/ Acārānga sūtra (sūtra 170).
Nevertheless Sīlānka introduces the terms sukha and avyābādha in his comments on the above passage:-aseṣakarmakṣayam vidhatte, tatkṣayāc ca kim guṇaḥ syād ityāha-vividhamaśeşakarmakṣayalakṣaṇa- visiṣtākāśapradeśākhyo va tatra rataḥ, ātyantikaikāntikānābādha- Sukhakṣyikajñānadarśanasampdupeto anantam api kālam samtiṣhate/...sopamā tulyatā sā muktāt-manas tajjñānasukhayor va na vidyate, lokātigatvāt teṣām/ (p. 154.) 30. 1) annāṇajam tu dukkham nāṇāvaraṇakkhayena khamei//91//
...svata eva sakalajñeyākārapariṇāmarūpam kevalajñāna-lakṣaṇam sukham ādadhātu, sakaladuḥkhakṣaye tu kim pramāṇam? na hi tasya dṛśijñaptisvabhāvāpratighāte'pya vyābādhasvābhāvāpratighāto nāma... siddhāvasthām eva tatsambhavat/ Adhyatmamtaparīkṣā, p. 246. 2)...caramaduḥkhadhvamsajanakasya vedaniyakarmakṣayasyaiva kṣāyikahetutvāt/ Ibid. p. 217.
31. Tattvārthasūtra, VIII. 5 lists the eight varieties of karma prakṛtis but

Page #75

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 65 does not specify the eight qualities of the soul that are respectively affected by them. Only the first two karmas name of the gunas (i.e. jñāna and darśana) that are obscured. The oft repeated eight siddhaguņas are conspicously absent in the group of eight of the sthānanga. It is remarkable that neither the Bhāsya, the Bhāsya-īkā nor the Sarvārthasiddhi raise a question about the manner in which the other gunas might be affected, let alone list them, as in the following passages quoted in the later texts: atha sa bhagavān salieśyām dhyānamahimnā sakalakarma-prakstīḥ ksayam nītvā siddho bhavati/...evam cāsya labdhasva-bhāvasya sataḥ svābhāvikam idam guṇāsakam āvirbhavatīty āha“anantm kevalajñānam jñānāvaranakṣayāt/ annantam darśanam cāpi darśanāvaraṇakṣayāt//1// kṣāyike śuddhasamyaktvacāritre mohanigrahāt/ anante Sukha-vīrye ca vedya-vighnaksayāt kramāt//2// āyuşaḥ kṣīņabhāvatvāt siddhānām akṣayā sthitih/ nāmagotraksayad eva amūrtānantāvagāhanā//3//”
Adhyātmamataparīksā, p. 350. Although ksāyika caritra is mentioned here Yaśovijaya himself does not seem to favour its inclusion (due to the absence of yoga in that state). See Ibid, p. 470. Compare this with a Digambara text where cāritra is missing in a similar list: moha khāiyasammas kevalaņāņam ca kevalāloyam/ hanadi hu āvaraṇadugam anamtvaririyam haņei āū haņei viggham tu//1// suhumam ca ņāņakammam hanei āū hanei avagahanam/ agurulahugam ca godam avvābāham hanei veyaniyam//2//
Quoted in Tattvārthaślokavārttikālamkāra, I. p. 6. 32. na khalu kevalinām ksāyikam sukham sambhavati, udayaprāptena
vedanīya-karmaṇā tadvirodhāt, kṣāyikasukham he vedanīyakarmaksayajanyam, na ca tadudaye tatkşayah sambhavatīti bhāvah/ Adhyātm amataparīksā., p. 216. ... na ca vedani-yodayajanya Sukha-duhkhayor
api mohaksayāt tirodhānam yuktam. Ibid. p. 219. 33. Āvaśyakaniryuktau hi tīrthankare'nuttaraḥ
praśastaprakstyudayabāhulyā- bhibhūtatayā mandaścāprasastaprakstyudayo vyāvarņitaḥ.... tad bhāvayatiTattatthasuttabhaniyā ekkārasa jam parīsahā ya jiņe/ tenavi chuhataṇhāī khaiassa suhassa padikūlam//78// Ibid. p. 227.

Page #76

66
Studies in Umāsvāti
34. ekādaśa jine/ Tattvārtha Sūtra, IX, 11. nirastaghātikarma-catus
aye jine vedanīyasadbhāvāt tadāśrayā ekādaśaparişahāḥ santi/ nanu ca mohanīyodaya-sahāyābhāvāt kşudādivedanā-bhāve parişahavyapadeśo na yuktah/satyam etat—vedanābhāve 'pi dravyakarmasadbhāvāpeksayā parişahopacāraḥ kriyate, ...dhyānopacāravat athavā-ekādaśa jine 'na santi' iti vākyase-sah kalpaniyah; sopaskāratvāt sātrānām/ Sarvārtha- siddhi, IX, 11. Cf. adhyātmikā hi svarasato Digambaraśāstram eva kiñcit pramanatvenopanayanti, Svetāmbaraśāstram tu samvedakatayeti tān praty ubhayopadeśo ‘pi yujyata iti, tān praty evam upadesa-vyam nanu ‘ekādaśa jine' iti ubhayesam Tattvārthasūtram .../ atha 'ekādaśa' ity anantaram 'na santi' ity adhyāhartavam iti cet ? na, svāmitvacintāvasare etasya viparītavyākhyānatvāt/ etena 'santi fekenādhikā daśa'ity apavyākhyānam āveditam/ittham ca ekādaśa jine santi vedanīyasattvāt, na santi vā, mohābhāvāt' ity
asamarthadurāgraho 'pi nirastaḥ/ Adhyātmamataprīkṣā, pp. 221-2. 35. etenaiva ca “sukham nohaksayajanya eva gunah” ity api nirastam,
evam saptāşasamkhyāparigañanabhangaprasangāt, vedanīyakşayasya nirarthakatva-prasangāc ca/avyābādhatvam vedanīyakşayasya phalam iti na dosa iti cet ? na, tadd hi duhkhā-nanuviddhaSukham eva na tv anyat, sakalakarmajanyākulatā-vilayasya tatve tu tasya krtsnakarmaksaya- janyatvam yuktam, na tv ekajanyatvam/ Ibid. p.
353 36. nokammakammahāro uvayāreņa tassa āgame bharido/
ņa hu ņicchayeņa so vi hu sa vīyarāo paro jamhā//Bhāvasangrah, 113. tadīyaudārikaśarīrasthiteh paramaudārikaśarīrasthitirūpatayā asmadādy audārikaśarīrasthitivilaksanatvāt/ tasyāś ca kevalyavasthāyām keśādivsddhy-abhāvavat tadbhuktyabhāvo viruddha eva/
Quoted in Nyāyakumudacandra, II, p. 857, n. 2. 37. savvajīvāņam pi ya ņam akkharassa anamtabhāgo niccugghā-țio ci
hai/ ...jai puņa so vi avarijjā, tā ņam jīvo ajīvattaņam pāvijjā//
- Namdi Suttam, p. 68. 38. For a parallel between the Jaina gunasthānas and the Buddhist
process of the destruction of anuśayas (e.g. satkāya-drsi, rāga, pratigha, avidyā) through darśana-mārga and bhāvanā-mārga
culminating in Arhatship: see Jaini 1977 and 1992. 39. jam kevalam ti ņāņam tam sokkham pariņamam ca so ceva/

Page #77

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 67
khedo tassa na bhaṇido jamhā ghādī khayam jādā//
Pravaccanasāra, I, 60.
...anākulatām saukhyalakṣaṇabhūtām ātmano'vyatiriktām bibhrāṇam kevalam eva saukhyam/ tataḥ kutaḥ kevala sukhayor vyatirekah/ ataḥ sarvathā kevalam sukham aikāntikam anumodaniyam//60// (Amṛtacandra)
-
samjñālakṣaṇaprayojanādibhede'pi niścayenābhedarūeņa pariṇamamānam kevalajñānam eva sukham bhanyate/ tataḥ sthitam etat kevalajñānād bhinnam sukham nāsti/ tata eva kevalajñāne khedo na sambhavatīti//60//(Jayasena).
40. Sūtrakṛtānga-2, (sūtra 16)-tahappagārā pāṇā vinnu veyaṇam veyamti/ Śīlānka's Vṛtti: prāņino vidvāmso vedanā-jñānam tad 'vedayanti' anubhavanti, yadi vā sātāsātarūpām vedanām anubhavantīti, atra catvāro bhangāḥ-tadyathā-(1) samjñino vedanām anubhavanti vidanti ca (2) siddhās tu vidanti nānu-bhavanti (3) asamjñino anubhavanti na punar vidanti (4) ajīvās tu na vidanti nänubhavanti (p. 204).
Nyāyakumudacandra of Prabhācandra, ed. Mahendra Kumar Nyāyācārya, (Manikchandra Digambara Jaina Granthamālā) Bombay, 1941.
1989.
Ohira, Suzuko: A Study of Tattvärthasūtra with Bhāṣya, L.D. Series 86, Ahmedabad. 1982.
Prasamaratiprakaraṇam of Umāsvāti, ed. Y. S. Shastri, Ahmedabad,
Pravacanasara of Kundakunda (with Amṛtacandra's Tattvapra-dīpikāvṛtti and Jayasena's Tatparya-vṛtti) ed. A. N. Upadhye, Rajachandra Jain Śāstramālā, Agas, 1964.
Sarvārthasiddhi. of Pujyapāda, Skt. text with Hindi tr. by PhoolChand Siddhantaśāstrī, Bhāratīaya Jñānapiha, Delhi, 1971.
Siddhasena Gani: Tattvārthādhigamasūtram, Svopajñabhāṣya śrī Siddhasenaganikṛtaikā samalankṛtam. (= Bhāṣya-ikä on Tattvärtha Sūtra and Bhāṣya).ed. H. R. Kapadia, 1926.
Sūtrakṛtānga: Acārāngasūtram and Sūtrakṛtāngasūtram with Bhadrabahu's Niryukti and Śīlānka's Vṛtti, 2nd ed. by Muni Jambūvijaya, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1978.
Tatia, N.: That Which Is: Translation of Tattvärthasūtra, Harper Collins, 1994.

Page #78

68 Studies in Umāsvāti
Tātparya-vrtti of Jayasena: see Pravacanasāra. Tattvapradīpikā-vrtti of Amrtacandra: see Pravacanasāra. Tattvārtha(Raja) vārttika of Akalanka, ed. Mahendra Kumar Nyāyācārya, Varanasi. Tattvārthasara of Amrtacandra: with Hindi tr. by Bamshidhara Shāstrī, Gandhi Haribhai Devakaran Jain Granthamālā, 1919. Tattvārtha Sūtra (=TS) of Umāsvāti: (1) The sūtra text as found in (2) Sabhāsya-Tattvārthādhigamasūtram (=Bhāsya) edited by Khubchandji Siddhāntaśāstrī, śrīmad Rāja-chandra Jain Šāstramālā, Agas, 1932. Tattvārthaílokavārttikāankāra of Vidyānandi: Skt. text with Hindi tr. Manikchandji Kaundeya Nyāyācārya, Vol I, Ācārya Kunthusāgara Granthamālā, Solapur, 1949. Višesāvasyakabhāsya of Jinabhadragani with Koyāryavādigani's Vivarana, Part III, eds. Malvania and Doshi, L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, 1968. Williams, R.: Jaina Yoga: A Survey of the Mediaeval Śrāvakācāras, Oxford University Press, 1963. Yaśovijaya, Upādhyāya: Adhyātamamataparīksā, ed. with Guajarati tr. by Bhuvanabhānusuri, Babu Amichand Panalal Jain Derasar Trust, Bombay. No date. Zydenbos, R.J.: Moksa in Jainism, According ot Umāsvāti, Wiesbaden, 1983.

Page #79

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 69 Bibliography
Abhidarmakośa-bhāsya of Vasubandhu, ed. Dvarikadas Shastri, Varanasi,
1970. Ācārānga Sūtra: See Sūtrakrtāngam. Adhyātamamataparīksā, Yaśovijaya, Upādhyāya: ed. with Guajarati tr. by
Bhuvanabhānusūri, Babu Amichand Panalal Jain Derasar Trust,
Bombay. No date. Bhagavai --Vyākhyāprajñaptiņ: Abhayadevīyā Vịttiḥ. Bronkhorst, J. “On the Chronology of the Tattvārtha and some Early Com
mentaries.' Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens, Band XXIX,
pp. 155–84, Vienna, 1985. Delue, Jozef: Viyāhapannatti Bhagavai, 2nd edition, Motilal Banarsidass,
Delhi, 1996. Dundas, Paul: 'Food and Freedom', In: Religion, (1985), 15, pp. 161–98. Jambūvijaya, Muni: (Sanskrit ed.) Strīnirvāņa-Kevalibhukti-Prakaraṇe of
Śākaāyana, Jaina ātmānanda Sabhā, Bhavanagar, 1974. Jaini, Padmanabh S.:
(1) Samskāraduḥkhatā and the Jaina concept of suffering, In: Revelation in Indian Philosophy (in honour of T.R.V. Murti), eds. H Coward and K. Sivaraman, Dharma Publishing, Emeryville, 1977. (2) The Jaina Path of Purification, University of California Press, 1979. (3) On the Ignorance of Arhat, In: Buddhist Soteriology: The Mārga: Approches to Liberation, eds. Buswell and Gimello, pp. 135–46, University of Hawaii press, 1992 (4) Fear of Food? Jaina Attitudes on Eating,In: Jaina Studies in Honour of Jozef Delue, eds. Smet and Watanabe, Hon-no-Tomosha, Tokyo, 1993.
Johnson, W.J., Harmless Souls: Karmic Bondage and Religious Change in
Early Jainism with Special Reference of Umāsvāti and Kundakunda,
Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi. 1995. Namdi Suttam, ed. Muni Punyavijaya, Prakrit Text Society. Vol. X.,
Ahmedabad, 1966. Nyāyakumudacandra of Prabhācandra, ed. Mahendra Kumar Nyāyācārya,
(Manikchandra Digambara Jaina Granthamālā) Bombay, 1941. Ohira, Suzuko: A Study of Tattvārthasūtra with Bhāsya, L. D. Series 86,
Ahmedabad, 1982.

Page #80

70 Studies in Umāsvāti
Praśamaratiprakaraṇam of Umāsvāti, ed. Y. S. Shastri, Ahmedabad, 1989. Pravacanasāra of Kundakunda (with Amrtacandra's Tattvapradīpikā-vrtti
and Jayasena's Tātparya-vrtti), ed. A.N. Upadhye, Rājachandra
Jain Sāstramālā, Agas, 1964. Sarvārthasiddhi of Pūjyapāda, Skt. text with Hindi tr. Phool Chand Sid
dhāntaśāstrī, Bhāratīaya Jñānapīha, Delhi, 1971. Sūtrakstānga: Ācārāngasūtram and Sūtrakstāngasūtram with Bhadrabāhu's
Niryukti and Śīlārka's Vitti, 2nd ed. by Muni Jambūvijaya, Motilal
Banarsidass, Delhi, 1978. Tatia, N.: That Which Is: Translation of Tattvārthasūtra, Harper Collins,
1994. Tātparya-vrtti of Jayasena: see Pravacanasāra. Tattvapradīpikā-vrtti of Amrtacandra: see Pravacanasāra. Tattvārtha(Rāja)vārttika of Akalanka, ed. Mahendra Kumar Nyāyācārya,
Varanasi. Tattvārthasara of Amrtacandra: with Hindi tr. by Bamshidhara Shāstrī,
Gandhi Haribhai Devakaran Jain Granthamālā, 1919. Tattvārthasūtra (=TS) of Umāsvāti: (1) The sūtra text as found in (2)
Sabhāsya-Tattvārthādhigamasūtram (=Bhāsya) edited by Khubchandji Siddhāntaśāstrī, śrīmad Rāja-chandra Jain Śāstramālā,
Agas, 1932. Tattvārthaílokavārttikāankāra of Vidyānandi: Skt. text with Hindi tr.
Manikchandji Kaundeya Nyāyācārya, Vol I, Ācārya Kunthusāgara
Granthamālā, Solapur, 1949. Tattvārthādhigamasūtram, Svopajñabhāsya śrī Siddhasenagaạikrtaīkā
samalankrtam. (=Bhāsya-ikā on Tattvārthasūtra and Bhāsya)
Siddhasena Gani, ed. H. R. Kapadia, 1926. Višesāvasyakabhāsya, Jinabhadragani with Koyāryavādigani's Vivarana,
Part III, eds. Malvania and Doshi, L. D. Institute of Indology,
Ahmedabad, 1968. Williams, R.: Jaina Yoga: A Survey of the Mediaeval Śrāvakācāras, Oxford
University Press, 1963. Zydenbos, R. J.: Moksa in Jainism, According ot Umāsvāti, Wiesbaden,
1983.

Page #81

Karmic Bondage and Kasāyas: A Re-examination of 'Umāsvāti's Jainism'
KRISTI L. WILEY
In surveying the various Jaina texts that have been written over the centuries, it is fitting to describe the Tattvārthasūtra— to quote Dr. L. M. Singhvi's Foreword to Dr. Nathmal Tatia's English translation of this text-as 'an ancient magnum opus .. . a compact cosmic essay on cognition and conduct, a synthesis of science and ethics in the framework of philosophy' which, along with its commentaries, is 'the most precious treasure of Jaina sacred literature'.' This corpus of literature has attracted the attention of numerous scholars and is the basis of many modern-day works on Jainism that explain in the vernaculars of India, and more recently of other countries as well, the ancient truths preserved here. Its continued appeal over the many centuries since its composition, I believe, is based on its masterful organization and elegant style, which render the complexities of the Jaina world-view into a form that is more easily accessible to a diverse audience than many of the other religious texts composed at this time. This becomes apparent when one reads the lucid and concise presentation in the Tattvārthasūtra of bondage (bandha) of the soul by karma, a subject that has been proclaimed to be the most complex, and sometimes reverberative, area of its scholarly literature'.?

Page #82

72 Studies in Umāsväti
However, according to William Johnson, in the area of karma theory, Umāsvāti/Umāsvāmī was not merely a masterful organizer but an innovator as well for in this work he introduced the kaṣāya doctrine, namely, that activity causes the influx (āsrava) of karmic matter to the soul while passion (kaṣāya) causes its bondage (bandha). The introduction of kaṣāya to the process of karmic bondage, in the opinion of Johnson, was undertaken in order to 'systematize, as far as possible Jaina doctrine for the whole Jaina community, and perhaps most of all for the growing lay audience'.3
In a book entitled Harmless Souls: Karmic Bondage and Religious Change in Early Jainism with Special Reference to Umāsvāti and Kundakunda, Johnson has discussed how the question of what is perceived to be the immediate cause of bondage of the soul in samsāra has changed over time. After comparing passages in the earliest portions of the Svetāmbara canonical texts with those found in the Tattvärthasūtra, he has concluded that 'in the earliest Jaina texts the influx of karmic particles and their bondage to the soul is seen as being the inevitable result of activity (yoga)... and that for early Jainism volition is not a relevant factor in bondage'. Before examining the question of whether it is realistic to construct a model of karmic bondage that does not include kaṣāyas, I will review briefly the process of karmic bondage as described in the Tattvärtha Sutra, or as Johnson has titled one of his chapters, in 'Umāsväti's Jainism'.
Matter is attracted to the soul by vibrations (parispanda) of its space-points (atmapradeśa). These vibrations occur when vīrya-antarāya karma obstructs the infinite and perfect energy (virya) of the soul and when there is activity expressed through mind (manas), speech (vacas), and body (kaya).5 This subtle matter is transformed into different varieties (prakṛtis) of karma, each named in accordance with its function or its effect on soul. It is bound with the soul for a certain period of time (sthiti)

Page #83

Karmic Bondage and Kaṣāyas 73 whenever the action is motivated by desires or passions (kaṣāyas), which are characterized by feelings of aversion or hatred (dvesa) in the form of anger (krodha), pride (māna) as well as attachment (rāga) in the form of deceitful manipulation (māyā) and greed (lobha). Kaṣāyas are generated through the rise (udaya) of caritra-mohanīya karma, which causes confusion (moha) about proper conduct (cāritra).
Each of these passions (kaṣāyas) may be experienced in four degrees of intensity. The strongest passions, those that 'pursue from the limitless past' (anantānubandhī), completely hinder a proper view of reality (samyagdarśana) and are extremely difficult to eliminate. Of lesser strength are those passions that prevent one from accepting the lay vows (aṇuvratas), those that prevent partial renunciation (apratyākhyānāvaraṇa kaṣāyas) and those that prevent total renunciation (pratyākhyānāvaraṇa). The latter do not prevent proper belief and partial restraint (deśa-virati) characteristic of those who have taken the lay vows, but they prevent one from assuming the mendicant vows (mahāvratas). The lowest grade of passions, those that are 'smoldering' (samjvalana), cause lapses or carelessness (pramāda) in mendicant practices and thus prevent perfect conduct (yathākhyāta cāritra). In addition to producing the various kaṣāyas, caritra-mohaniya karma is the cause of the nine subsidiary passions (no-kaṣāyas), namely, laughter (hāsya), pleasure (rati), displeasure (arati), sorrow (śoka), fear (bhaya), disgust (jugupsā), and the sexual cravings (strīveda, pumveda, and napumsakaveda). In the words of the Tattvärthsūtra, 'Because the soul has passions, it attracts and binds matter which is suitable for becoming karma. This is bondage'. Commenting on the words 'matter suitable for becoming karma' the bhāṣya (also called Svopajñabhāṣya) states, 'grasping matter of eight types means that it is suitable of being grasped by the karmic body (kārmanṇaśarīra)'. Sarvārthasiddhi adds, 'just like the fire of the stomach (gastic juices) absorbs food that is suitable for it, in the same manner the soul acquires karmas of a suitable duration (sthiti)

Page #84

74 Studies in Umāsvāti
and intensity (anubhava), which are dependent on strong, weak, or medium kaṣāyas'." In addition to kaṣāya, there are three other factors that are causes of karmic bondage in which kaṣāya is implicit, namely, false views of reality (mithyātva), lack of self-discipline (avirati), and carelessness (pramāda).8 These along with yoga are the five main causes (mūla-hetus) of bondage. According to Tattvārthasūtra 8.4 (=SS 8.3), there are four aspects of bondage: variety or type (prakṛti), duration (sthiti), intensity of fruition (anubhava/anubhāga) and quantity of karmic matter (pradeśa). 10 The bhāṣya is silent as to the causes of each of these, but according to Sarvārthasiddhi, prakṛti and pradeśa bandha have as their efficient cause (nimitta) activity (yoga) and sthiti and anubhāga bandha have as their efficient cause passions (kaṣāyas). Here, Pūjyapāda quotes a verse, which may be traced to the Mūlācāra of Vaakera, which continues, 'When there the suppression or destruction [of mohaniya karma] there is on cause for sthiti bandha'.11
Johnson's belief that kaṣāyas were introduced into the process of karmic bondage is based in part on the researches of K.K. Dixit and Suzuko Ohira. In comparing passages in the Tattvārtha-sūtra on bondage with those found in the Svetaāmbara canonical texts that, based on language and metre, scholars generally agree to be the earliest, namely, Acārāngasūtra I and Sūtrakṛtāngasūtra I,12 Dixit has observed that 'these texts are almost absolutely silent about the precise mechanism of rebirth and mokṣa, a mechanism which in a particular version is so marked a specialty of the latter-day Jain speculation. We are not here told how the karmic physical particles get attached to a soul and how they get loose from it'. 13 He states that in Sūtrakṛtānga I, 'the moral vices later known as kaṣāya are referred to several times though not under the common designation kaṣāya'. 14 "The term kaṣāya is here never employed, though there often jointly appear the four vices known as kaṣāya... [however] almost nothing is said by way of describing the vices in question. This

Page #85

Karmic Bondage and Kaṣāyas 75 does not amount to developing the doctrine of four kaṣāyas. 15 Likewise, in Acārānga I, krodha, māna, māyā, and lobha are mentioned but are never given the common designation kaṣāya, nor subjected to detailed description. 'No technical significance attaches to the performance'. 16 Here arambha and parigraha are like rāga and dveṣa of later Indian theoreticians.17
According to Dixit, the situation is much the same in the next oldest portions of the Svetambara canon, the Daśavaikālika Sūtra and certain sections of the Uttaradhyayana Sūtra. In the Daśavaikālika Sutra, the term kaṣāya is applied to the four vices. However, Dixit believes that a relatively late date may be ascribed to it (this passage) because of having the term kaṣāya in it.18 Likewise, in certain sections of the Uttarādhyayana Sutra, technical concepts for karma are found. 'But the very fact that hardly few of these concepts are employed elsewhere in our texts argues for the relative recentness of these concepts. It will not do to say that the early Jaina authors were familiar with these concepts but that they had no occasion to employ them, or to say that the early passages employing these concepts happened not to be transmitted to the later generations'.19
On the basis of evidence such as this, Johnson has concluded that 'before Umāsvāti there is no technically formulated conception of any kind of asrava which does not bind'.20 In these earliest Jaina texts the influx of karmic particles and their bondage to the soul is seen as being the inevitable result of activity'.21 "The instrumentality of passion (kaṣāya) is a relatively late addition to Jaina belief'.22 At the point that kaṣāya was incorporated into the formula for karmic bondage, there needed to be a distinction made between karmic bondage that is result of kaṣaya and karmic bondage that is the result of yoga alone. This is what Johnson believes Umāsvāti has done in sūtra 6.5 (=SS 6.4). After defining yoga as actions of body, speech, and mind and stating that this (threefold) activity is influx (āsrava) in sūtras 6.1 and 6.2,23 he states that sakaṣāya (yoga)

Page #86

76 Studies in Umāsvāti
has in influx that is samparāyika and akaṣāya (yoga) has an influx that is īryāpatha, which have been translated, respectively, as 'mundane inflow' and 'transient inflow', 'long-term inflow (bondage)' and 'instantaneous inflow (bondage)' and that 'which extends transmigration' and that 'which prevents or shortens it'.24 Or, as explained in the commentaries, īryāpatha bandha is that in which there is the binding of karma in the first moment, the experiencing of it in the second moment, and the disassociation of it from the soul in the third moment.25
One of the reasons that Johnson believes these terms were introduced by Umāsvāti here is the contradiction, as noted also by Ohira and K.K. Dixit, between iryāpatha bandha in the absence of kaṣāyas and the inclusion of the term iryāpatha kriyā in a list of twenty-five activities (kriyās), found in the bhāṣya that are associated with samparāyika, or long term bondage.26 Johnson raises a valid question, 'What then is its meaning (i.e. of īryā-patha kriyā) in Tattvārthasūtra 6.6 where it appears among the list of kriyas which give rise to samparāyika karma. If the meaning is the same, the two sūtras contradict each other'.27 In other words, 'how can this be included in a list of samparāyika karma/asrava, when it is apparently of the other type of asrava/ karma-iryāpatha?'28 "This incompatibility of Tattvärthasūtra 6.5 with 6.6 indicates that Umāsvāti is attempting to run together two different categories or list, one developed later than the other (i.e. one containing the term 'īryāpatha' at an earlier date and with a different meaning)'.29 Since the term 'īryā' is found also in Tattvärtha Sūtra 9.2 as one of the samitis in the sense of 'care in walking', which is one of the ways to stop the inflow of karmic matter (asrava nirodha), the original meaning of iryāpatha was 'care in walking' and only at a later date acquired the general meaning of 'short term karma'. 30
Thus, Johnson bases his theory of Umasvati's introduction of kaṣāya into the process of karmic bondage on two assumptions: that kaṣāya is rarely mentioned in the earliest Śvetambara texts,

Page #87

Karmic Bondage and Kaşāyas 77 and the incongruity between Tattvārthasūtra 6.5 and 6.6. He concludes that ‘iryāpatha and sāmparāyika are, strictly speaking, two different quantities of karma, one accrued by mendicants and the other by householders. But the distinction is considered to be so fundamental that they become in effect two different types: short-term, and that which leads to a further rebirth .... In this way īryāpatha acquires the general meaning of short-term karma’. At a late stage, it is given a specific technical definition by Umāsvāti, as that influx of karma which is short-term because it is free from passion; it is therefore no longer directly linked to the amount of (physical) himsā caused, but to internal states, motivation, etc.31 I do not intend to examine in any detail here the validity of Johnson's claims regarding Umāsvāti's motivations for his introduction of the kasāya doctrine nor Johnson's portrayal of the status of Jain householders, both of which have been critiqued by Paul Dundas in his review of Harmless Souls published in the Journal of Indian Philosophy. 32 Instead, I wish to concentrate on the question of whether it is feasible to construct a working model of a pre-Umāsvāti karma theory and exclude the role of kaşāyas from karmic bondage.
Let us first address the assumption regarding the status of kasāya in early canonical texts by examining several passages from the earlier portions of the Sūtrakstāngasūtra, verse 1.8.3 reads carelessness is called (the cause of) karman, carefulness that of the contrary (viz. absence of karma). According to Sūtra1.8.8, 'Sinners, subject to love and hate and doing wrong acquire karman arising from passions and commit many sins'. Sūtral.2.12 states ‘shaking off greed (savvappaga= sarvātmaka, lobha), pride(viukkassa=vyutkarsa, māna), deceit (nūma=māyā), and wrath (appattiya=krodha) one becomes free from karman'. 33 Finally, in 1.6.26 it is said, 'having conquered the passions (adyātmadosa) which defile the soul: wrath, pride, deceit and greed, the Arhat, the great sage, does not commit any wrong nor does he cause it to be committed'. In these passages,

Page #88

78
Studies in Umāsvāti
it would seem to be the case that pramāda and kasāyas are envisioned as inherent components of actions that bind one in samsāra and therefore something that should be gotten rid of. Scarce though they may be, passages such as these, I believe, indicate that kasāya cannot be summarily disregarded as an integral part of karmic bondage in these early canonical sources. However, it certainly would be correct to say that in the first sections of the Ācārānga and Sūtrakrtānga, which were composed primarily to instruct the mendicant community in appropriate modes of conduct and to refute the views of other groups of mendicants, there is no 'technically formulated conception' of bondage. Nor is there any extended discussion here of the myriad of other processes that in their totality comprise Jain karma theory.
However, is it proper to assume that texts such as these should be encyclopedic in nature, that the material found in them constitute the totality of knowledge about karma at this time, and that a reconstruction of an early version of Jain karma theory can be made on the basis of what is found and what is absent in these sources? How should one evaluate the claims made by both Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras that portions of the early canon were 'lost and that later texts containing detailed discussions on karma such as the Prajñāpanāsūtra and the Şakhandāgama are based on the material from the twelfth Anga, the Drşivāda, which was in turn based on portions of earlier sources, the Pūrvas. It would, I believe, be inappropriate to accept such claims of an ancient authority for all material found in later texts at face value and to conclude that karma theory never changed. However, I believe it is also problematic to attempt to construct a 'pre-Umāsvāti' theory of karmic bondage based on these limited resources and in so doing exclude kasāya from early theories of karmic bondage.
Let us now turn to the second part of the problem. One, the incongruity between Tattvārthasūtra 6.5 and 6.6. I must admit

Page #89

Karmic Bondage and Kasāyas 79 at the outset that I do not have any plausible explanation for why this term appears in the listing of sâmparāyika kriyās. In a valid critique of Umāsvāti, K.K. Dixit mentions in his preface to his English translation of Pandit Sukhlaji's commentary on the Tattvārthasūtra, that each of the four causes of sāmparāyika bandha: avrata, kasāya, indriya, and kriyā, are found in various canonical sources. 'Umāsvāti evinces on realization that each of these catalogues had a history of its own, e.g., the Sūtrakstānga, II. Two, discussion on kriyā must belong to a period when no pentad of his was yet formulated while three of his pentads must be so late that no earlier discussion mentioned them—they being only recorded in that catalogue-collection Sthānānga where they must be a recent addition. But in this Umāsvāti was erring in the company of all our old authors who all lacked a sense of history in almost equal measure.34 Thus, there is no way to know the context in which these lists were used in the texts available to Umāsvāti. However, Johnson seems to be right in observing that something is amiss with these two terms. 'Sukhlalji is aware of the problem, but is unable to resolve it,' as he mentions in his commentary that of the kriyās... there is only one—viz. īryāpathakriyā—that is not asrava for a sāmparāyīka karma ... And when all these kriyās are here called āsrava for a sāmparāyika-karma that is done simply because most of them (really, all of them except the īryapathikī) are in fact so'. 35
My first idea as to how this might have been included in this list was to speculate that the terms īryāpatha kriyā and sāmparāyika kriyā might not have been two mutually exclusive terms that resulted in two different types of bondage. A mendicant who was still under the influence of kaşāyas to some degree could still exercise care in walking and so forth and thus perform an īryāpatha kriyā, which would cause sāmparāyika bandha, or karmic bondage that lasted longer than a few moments, while a mendicant who had eliminated all kasāyas performing these same sorts of actions would have instantaneous bondage. However, in all available texts, īryāpatha kriyā is said

Page #90

80
Studies in Umāsvāti
to cause only īryāpatha bandha, which lasts for three moments, and the only type of karma that is bound in this manner is sātāvedanīya karma. There is absolutely no mention in any text of any other type of karmic matter being bound as a result of īryāpatha kriyā.
However, there may be a hint in Bhagavati Sūtra 1.10 (325) that at one time these two terms may not have been mutually exclusive. Followers of another faith (parautthiya) say at any one time, he performs two activities, which are activities due to movement (īryāpatha kriyā) and those due to inner passions (sāmparāyika kriyā). Now, they add, at the time he performs activity due to movement, he performs activity due to passions, and at the time he performs activity due to passions, he performs activity due to movement, and so forth. Mahāvīra rejects this with the words, 'a living person at one time performs one activity.'
Most sources maintain that īryāpatha kriyā can be performed only by those mendicants whose passions have been temporarily suppressed or have been permanently destroyed, in other words, by mendicants in advanced stages of spiritual purity equivalent to the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth gunasthānas. For example, in Uttarādhyayanasūtra, 'Exertion in Righteousness, the various stages of purification of the soul are discussed. Immediately following the discussion of the destruction of krodha, māna, māyā, and lobha, the destruction of the remaining ghāti karmas is described, following which the soul becomes a sayoga-kevalin. 'And while he still acts he acquires but such Karman as is inseparable from religious acts (airya-pathika); the pleasant feeling (produced by it) last but two moments; in the first moment it is acquired, in a second it is experienced, and in the third it is destroyed; this Karman is produced, comes into contact (with the soul) takes rise, is experienced, and is destroyed; for all time to come he is exempt from Karman'.36

Page #91

Karmic Bondage and Kaṣāyas 81 Likewise, Abhayadevasūri, in his commentary on the Sthānāngasūtra states that īryāpatha kriyā is associated with yoga only, with the three, starting with upaśānta-mohanīya (i.e. the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth guṇasthānas), and with sātā-vedaniya karma. According to Bhagavati 3.3 (182b). 'The karman bound by actions [especially movements] performed by a monk while discharging his religious duties (īriyāvahiyā kiriyā) is consumed within two samayas'. 37 Apparently this applies only to those mendicants in advanced states of spiritual purity for Bhagavati 7.1 (291a) states that a monk (aṇagāra) who moves and handles his equipment without attentiveness (aṇāuttam) performs a profane action (samparāiyā kiriyā) not an action in agreement with his mendicant duties (iriyāvahiyā kriyā) because the four passions are not extinguished in him (avocchinna) and because he acts against the precepts (ussuttam rīyai).38
Conversely, according to Bhagavatī 7.1 (309b) 'when a monk who is closed [against karmic influx] (samvuḍa aṇagāra) moves and handles his equipment in an attentive way (auttam) he commits an action in agreement with his religious duties (iriyāvahiyā kiriyā), not a profane action (samparāiyā kiriyā) because in him the four passions are extinguished (vocchinna) and he acts in agreement with the precepts (ahāsuttam eva rīyai)'.39 Likewise, it is stated here that the karma resulting from a religious action (īriyāvahiya-kamma) may be bound only by human beings (maņussa, maṇussi) who, though formerly women, men or 'neuters' (itthī-purisa and napumsaga-paccākaḍa) have got rid of the sexual feeling (avagaya-veya).40 This, of course, would exclude those mendicants who are still subjects to the three vedas, which in classical karma theory, are suppressed or eliminated in the ninth guṇasthāna.41
Schubring sees a contradiction here between this and the earlier statement about the four kaṣāyas. However, the status of those in the ninth and tenth gunasthānas is unclear, for elsewhere

Page #92

82 Studies in Umāsvāti
in the Bhagavatī it says that those who have eliminated sexual feeling may bind karma resulting from a profance action (samparāiya kamma). 42
While we need not discuss at length the karmic status of transitional stages of spiritual purity that last for a very brief time (i.e. the ninth and tenth, versus the eleventh guṇasthāna), it is worth noting here that not all the texts are in agreement about who performs such actions. There is another statement in the Bhagavatī that is indicative of a belief that this type of bondage may have alternated with sāmparāyika bandha. 'If a monk who is closed to karmic influx (samvuda aṇagāra) looks around at things (rūva) while being on his begging-tour (vīī-panthe hiccā), he commits a profane action (samparāiyā kiriyā) not an action that is in agreement with his mendicant duties (no-īriyāvahiyā kriryā), etc.43 Alone among the commentators on the Tattvārtha Sūtra, Siddhasenagani maintains that iryāpatha kriyā can be performed by those who have eliminated the three stronger grades of kaşāyas but who still have samjvalana kasāyas, that is, by mendicants in the sixth and seventh gunasthānas as well as those in more advanced states of spiritual purity. 44
In contrast, Pūjyapāda and Akalanka maintain that akaṣāya means upaśānta kasāya, or the eleventh gunasthāna, and Virasena agrees with this interpretation.45 It would seem that the issue that these texts are attempting to deal with is how to understand karmic bondage for mendicants and to clarify which mendicants are subject to īryāpatha bandha, not to distinguish between bondage in the context of the mendicant and the householder as Johnson has claimed.
But why have such a category of instantaneous bondage at all for this one type of karma, sātā-vedanīya karma, if it has no effect? Is the instantaneous bondage of sātā-vedanīya karma by yoga alone in the absence of kasāyas postulated, as Johnson claims, in order to accommodate the later addition of kasāyas to this process?46 Indeed, the kevalin does not bind any additional

Page #93

Karmic Bondage and Kaşāyas 83 nāma karmas and yet the kevalin's body is still maintained by the rise of the residual store of nāma karma that were bound prior to attaining omniscience. Could feelings of the body not be generated through the rise of the residual store of vedaniya karmas as well.
Indeed, in his commentary on Gommaasāra Karmakānda 257 in which the causes of the four types of bondage (praksti, pradeśa, sthiti, and anubhāga) are mentioned, J. L. Jaini understands karmic bondage in the absence of passions as producing an effect. He states that when passions are entirely absent or entirely inactive, 'the duration and fruition bondages which are due to passions do not arise. ... The duration is of the simplest and shortest kind, i.e. of one-instant only. The fruition also lasts only for one instant and is therefore necessarily very intense and concentrated. The nature (prakrti) is also only of the pleasure-feeling class (sātā-vedanīya). The normal duration bondage (sthiti-bandha) is for one antarmuhūrta. This does not take place. Therefore, it is said that there is no duration bondage here'.47
There is an extensive discussion in the Dhavalā regarding sātā-vedaniya karma bound in this manner. Vīrasena states that īryāpatha karma is called the highest form of sātā because it produces happiness (sukha) that is greater than that of the devas and (ordinary) humans.48 He describes karma bound under these circumstances in terms of opposites: it is grasped and it is ungrasped, it is bound and it is unbound, it is touched and it is untouched, it is experienced and it is inexperienced.
In the absence of kasāyas, sthiti bandha is not possible. Having been modified in the form of karmic matter, in the next moment it becomes non-karmic matter. There is no sthiti bandha because it remains bound for only one moment (samaya). Because the skandhas of karma come to the soul from only one cause (nimitta), namely yoga, it is said to be small or minute (alpa) ... It is 'bādara' (large or gross) because although there

Page #94

84 Studies in Umāsvāti are eight varieties of karmic matter, only sātā-vedanīya karma is bound by īryāpatha bandha. Therefore, the quantity of vedaniya karma that normally would be bound is multiplied again and again. [In comparison with sāmparāyika bandha) there is a large quantity of it; thus it is said to be sthūla or bādara. For this same reason it is bahula (abundant). Although it is grasped, it is not grasped because it is without the power to trap a person in the cycle of samsāra. 49
Virasena seems to be saying that when there is instantaneous bondage, technical terms associated with karmic bondage like sthiti, udaya, udīraņā, nirjarā and anubhāga cannot be employed in their ordinary meaning and that the effect of the karma bound under these circumstances is indescribable; it can only be understood by an omniscient being who personally has experienced it. Tatia who mentions this passage in his notes on Tattvārthasūtra 10.2, states that 'instantaneous bondage, as explained in the Dhavalā, is accompanied by massive elimination of karma and by transcendental bliss'.50
According to Virasena, the distinction between these two types of karmic bondage is reflected even in the composition of the aggregates (skandhas) of karmic matter that are bound. A skandha of karmic matter bound by īryāpatha bandha lack the qualities of harshness. Only that matter which has the quality of softness or gentleness (mrdu) is bound. A skandha of īryāpatha [bandha] karma has matter with only the quality of dryness (ruksa). Among pradeśas of matter, there are those that have the opposite quality, snigdha (sticky), which is the cause of its remaining for a long period of time (and these do not bind here).
This matter has only a pleasant smell and shining color. Only matter with a white color like that of a hamsa is bound, not matter with one of the other four colors; thus it is śukla. It has a taste (rasa) that is similar to sugar, therefore it has the quality of extreme sweetness. Even though it is gentle (manda), there is great mutability in this matter and it produces happiness or pleasure that is beyond ordinary happiness (atyadhika sātā).51

Page #95

Karmic Bondage and Kaşāyas 85 There are several references regarding the effects produced īryāpatha bandha karma in svetāmbara sources as well. Abhayadevasūri states that from the rise of this sātā-vedanīya karma there is a śubha anubhava that exceeds the sukha of the anuttaraupapātika devas, those heavenly beings dwelling the highest heavenly abodes who are destined to attain moksa soon.52 And this may be the purport of Āvasyaka Niryukti, verses 571 and 572, where it is stated that for the Tīrthankara, there is the rise (udaya)of only the most exalted vedanīya karma and extremely slight rise of the painful ones, which is like a drop of lemon juice in a large quantity of milk; therefore it does not result in suffering. Yaśovijaya has objected to the view expressed here, claiming that on the basis of scripture it is not proper to deny altogether any asātā to the Jina, which he supports by quoting Tattvārtha-sūtra 9.11 that the Jina is subject to eleven hardships (parīşahas), beginning with hunger, thirst, and so forth.53 On the basis of these passages, one need not conclude that this type of bondage has been postulated merely to integrate an old and a new theory of karmic bondage.
Before accepting a theory of karmic bondage based on activity or yoga alone without the accompanying element of kasāyas, one needs to consider certain issues that arise from such a construction. Would such as theory be incompatible with the belief that those who have attained omniscience (kevala-jñāna) and perfect conduct (yathākhyāta cāritra) remain embodied and perform actions (i.e. sayoga-kevalins) but no longer bind karma? If yoga were the sole cause of karmic bondage (albeit ‘short term bondage') then Arhats, living exemplars for those less spiritually advanced, and Tirthankaras, expounders of eternal truths expressed in the Jain religion, would continue to bind karma. Their state of permanent omniscience, which arises as a result of the permanent absence of all ghātiyā karmas, would exist only when all yoga has ceased, namely at the time of death. Prior to this, whenever they performed an action, they would bind new

Page #96

86 Studies in Umāsvāti karma. Omniscience would be a temporary state lasting only as long as there was no yoga to cause the binding of more karma. And it is clear that what is meant by action is not just gross actions like going, coming, standing, sitting, and so forth but also extremely subtle actions of the body as well. Indeed, the kevalin does not perform any mental actions because there is direct perception of all existents when the soul experiences its own perfect knowledge and, according to Digambaras, does not perform any actions that involve speech since the production of sound becomes automatic.
However, gross and subtle actions of the body (kāya yoga) may continue for many years until they are terminated by the kevalin by means of the third and fourth śukla-dhyānas, which are performed just prior to the exhaustion of all remaining āyu karma. The states of the sayoga and ayoga kevalin may not be explicitly discussed in the very earliest portions of the Jain scriptures, but they are referred to in the Bhagavati Sūtra 8.8.5, which, in the opinion of Dundas, predates Umāsvāti.54
And if it were activity alone that was the cause of karmic bondage, how would one prevent the binding of āyu karma for the next life (parabhava āyu) without eliminating all types of activity? Reducing the sthiti of ayu karma that is bound is not what is of concern. It is a question of how to prevent āyu karma for the next life from binding during the intervals of time in one's life when its binding is possible. As is commonly known, according to all available commentaries, unlike the other seven mūla prakrtis of karma, āyu karma is bound only once in each life and must come to fruition in the very next life. Once āyu karma has been bound, mokṣa in that very life is not possible because there is no way that āyu karma which has been bound for the next life can be brought to fruition prematurely or destroyed before producing its effects.55 Thus, for most human beings, this binding will take place sometime during the final third of life. Within this time frame, under what conditions is the binding of āyu karma not

Page #97

Karmic Bondage and Kaşāyas 87 possible? Here, we need to turn our attention to another concept, leśyā, or “colorings' of the soul.
As I have discussed in greater detail elsewhere, 56 the concept that mental activities produce colors (leśyās) that are associated with the mind (manas) or with the soul itself is found at an early date in several religious traditions of South Asia. Noting a similarity between the six moral classes of humans (abhijātis) ascribed to the Ājīvikas in Buddhist sources, the six colours of the soul (jīvavarnas) discussed in the Moksadharma section of the Mahābhārata, and the six leśyās described in Jain texts, 57 scholars have speculated that this idea may have originated with the Ājīvikas or that is was part of a body of knowledge shared by the mendicant communities. But most important for the discussion at hand, it is also listed at Tattvārtha- sūtra 2.6, as one of the audayika bhāvas, or states of the soul due to the rise (udaya) of karmas.
Both Śvetāmbara and Digambara sources agree that when the soul has the most intense grade of black (krsna) leśyā, which is associated with the most intense degree of passions, and when the soul has the most intense grade of white (śukla) leśyā, which is associated with either a minimum of passions or a temporary or permanent absence of passions, āyu karma cannot be bound. In discussing the binding of āyu in the context of the gunasthānas, it is beginning at the eighth gunasthāna that the soul has degrees of śukla leśyā that are of sufficient intensity to be incompatible with the binding of āyu karma. If the soul returns to one of the lower guṇasthānas, a descent which is associated with an increase in kaṣāyas, āyu karma appropriate to that gunasthāna can be bound. If, however, a soul has not yet bound āyu karma and destroys all ghātī karmas, thereby attaining the thirteenth gunasthāna, that of the sayoga-kevalin, āyu karma for the next life (parabhava āyu) will never be bound because the causes for its binding (namely, actions that are informed by passions generated by mohanīya karmas as reflected in all

Page #98

88 Studies in Umāsvāti but the purest grade of śukla-leśyā) have been permanently eliminated. In a sense, the duration (sthiti) of the mohanīya karma that is bound with the soul is of little relevance since this karma (and ultimately all other ghāti karmas) can be brought to fruition prematurely and thus destroyed without producing their effects through rigorous austerities and meditational processes. Likewise, except for āyu karma, the sthiti of all aghātiyā karmas is of little consequence since they are either removed from the soul or their sthiti is adjusted to correspond with that of the remaining āyu by the kevalin just to attaining moksa through the process of kevali-samudghāta, or the expansion of the space-points of the soul beyond the spatial limits of the body. Thus, what is most crucial here with respect to‘long term bondage' is how to prevent the binding of āyu karma for the next life (parabhava āyu) while activity of the body (kāya yoga) still continues.
For Johnson's speculations regarding a pre-Umāsvāti construction of karmic bondage to become a workable model, one must look at karma theory as a whole and provide an explanation other than kaşāyas and leśyās for the cause of binding of this unique karma and one must also justify the continued existence of bodily activity (kāya yoga) in the sayoga kevalin without compromising the state of purity and omniscience of such a soul.
References
1. Tatia 1994, pp. xi-xii. 2. Dundas 1985, p. 169. 3. Johnson 1995, p. 80. 4. Ibid, 1995, p. 15. 5. Sarvārthasiddhi (SS) 610 on Tattvārthasūtra (TS) 6.1-6.2 Tatia
(1994, p. 151) explains this process as follows: "The soul's beginningless karmic body channels the infinite power of the soul and in so doing causes itself and the soul to vibrate incessantly. The body-making karma creates further bodies (fiery, gross, conveyance,

Page #99

Karmic Bondage and Kasāyas 89
and protean), which also vibrate and intensify the soul's vibrations.' 6. TS 8.2 and 8.3 (=SS 8.2). 7. SS 734. 8. TS 8.10. 9. TS 8.1 The Karmagranthas include pramāda under avirati; thus here
there are four mūla-hetus. There are also sub-categories of these, for
a total of 57 uttara-hetus (Glasenapp 1942, p. 63). 10. As translated by Tatia 1994. 11. Mülācāra 244; jogā payadi-paesā hidianubhāgā kasāyado kunadi/
apariņaducchinnesu y bandhahidikāraṇā natthi// According to Phoolcandra Siddānta Šāstrī, this verse may also be found at Gommaasāra Karma-kānda 257 and the (Śvetāmbara) Pañcasamgraha 4.507. Note
that in the Hindi translation, anubhāga is added. 12. He also draws to a lesser extent from the Daśavaikālika-, Ut
tarā-dhyayana- and Bhagavati-sūtras. 13. Dixit 1978, p. 9. 14. Ibid, p. 19. 15. Ibid, p. 7. 16. Ibid, p. 15. 17. Ibid, p. 5. 18. Ibid, p. 29. 19. Ibid, p. 33. 20. Johnson 1995, p. 56. 21. Ibid, p. 15. 22. Ibid, p. 18. 23. Here Pūjyapāda has a lengthy discussion of the karmic processes
involved in these three types of activity. He also defines yoga as the
vibration of the space-points of the soul. 24. J. L. Jaini 1920, p. 125; Tatia 1994, p. 152; and S.A. Jain 1960, p.
169, respectively. 25. See, for example, śīlānka's commentary to Sūtrakrtānga 2.2.14. 26. ‘avrata-kasāya-indriya-kriyāḥ pañca-catuh-pañca-pañcavimśa
ti-samkhyāḥ pūrvasya (sāmparāyika) bhedāḥ'. 27. Johnson 1995, p. 59. 28. Ibid, p. 60. 29. Ibid, p. 61. 30. Ibid, p. 62.

Page #100

90 Studies in Umāsvāti
31. Ibid, pp. 62–4. 32. Dundas 1997. 33. Cf. Sūtrakrtānga-sūtra 2.2.29: A monk should not indulge in deceit
(khanna=māyā), greed (pasamsā, lobha), pride (ukkāsa= utkarsha,
māna), and wrath (pagāsa=prakāśa, krodha). 34. Dixit 1974, p. 8 Avrata includes violence, untruth, theft, inconti
nence, and acquisitiveness, as discussed in the context of vratas in
TS, Chapter 7. 35. Johnson 1995, p. 60 and Sanghvi 1974, p. 236. 36. Uttarādhyayana Sūtra 19.71 as translated by Jacobi 1895, p. 172. 37. Deleu 1970, p. 100. 38. Ibid,p. 132. 39. Ibid, p. 138. 40. Ibid, p. 152, translating Bhagavati Sūtra 8.8 (383b). 41. Glasenapp 1942, pp. 86–87. 42. Bhagavati Sūtra 8.8 (387b) as summarized in Deleu 1970, p. 152. 43. Ibid, 10.2 (495b), p. 168. 44. TS 6.5. 45. SS 616, Rājavārtika 6.4, lines 23-24, and Dhavalā 5.4.31 (vol. 13,
p. 92). 46. Johnson 1995, p. 51. 47. J.L. Jaini's commentary on GKK 257. 48. Dhavalā 5.4.24 (vol. 13, p. 51). 49. Ibid, 5.3.24 (vol. 13, pp. 47-51). 50. Tatia 1994, p. 254. 51. Dhavalā 5.3.24 (vol. 13, pp. 47–51). 52. Abhayadevasūri's īkā on Bhagavatī Sūtra 3.3.15 (pp. 457–58) as
quoted in Kriyā-kośa, pp. 89-90. 53. Adhyātmamataparīksa, p. 227 as translated in Jaini (this volume). 54. Dundas 1997, p. 505. 55. Glasenapp 1942, p. 74 56. Wiley 2000. 57. The term leśyā is found in some of the earliest Śvetāmbara sources
such as Sūtrakrtānga Sūtra 1.6.13 and 1.10.15.

Page #101

Karmic Bondage and Kaṣāyas 91
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Acārāngasūtram (with the Niryukti of Acārya Bhadrabāhu Svāmī and the Commentary of Śīlānkācārya). In Acārāngasūtram and Sutrakṛtāngasūtram. Lālā Sundarlal Jain Agama-granthamālā, vol. 1. (Originally published in the Agamo-daya Samiti Series.) Re-edited by Muni Jambūvijaya. Delhi: Motilal Bandarsidass, 1978.
Bhagavati-sūtra. See Vyakhyāprajñaptisūtra
Dhavala. See Sakhaṇdāgama of Puspadanta and Bhūtabali. Jainendra Siddhanta Kośa. See Jinendra, Varni.
Karmagrantha of Devendrasuri (Catvāraḥ Karmagranthaḥ with Svopajñavṛtti).
Kriya-kośa. See Banthia, Mohanlal, and Śrīcandra Coraḍiya, eds.
Mūlācāra of Vaakera (with Vasunandi-īkā). Vol. Edited by Kailāśachandra Siddhantaśāstrī. Hindi translation by Ariyakaratna Jñānamati. Jñānapītha Mūrtidevī Jaina Granthamālā, Prakrit Granths, no. 19. Delhi: Bhāratiya Jñānapitha.
Sarvārthasiddhi of Pujyapāda (with Tattvärtha-sūtra of Umāsvāti) Sanskrit text with Hindi translation by Phoolchandra Siddhāntaśāstrī. Jñānapiha Mūrtidevī Jaina Granthamālā, Sanskrit Grantha, no.13. Varanasi: Bharatiya Jñānapitha, 1934.
Sakhaṇdāgama of Puspadanta and Bhūtabali (with the Dhavalā-īkā of Virasena). 16 vols. Prakrit and Sanskrit texts with Hindi translation by Hiralal Jain. Amaravati: Jaina Sahityoddhāraka Fund, 1939-59. Rev. ed., Jaina Samskriti Samrakṣak Sangha, Solapur, 1985. Sūtrakṛtāngasūtram (with the Niryukti of Acārya Bhadrabāhu Svāmi and the Commentary of Ślānkācārya). In Acārāngasūtram and Sutrakṛtāngasūtram. Lālā Sundarlal Jain Āgamagranthamālā, vol.1 (Originally published in the Agamodaya Samiti Series.) Re-edited by Muni Jambū-vijaya. Delhi: Motilal Bandarsidass, 1978.
Tattvärthadhigamasutra of Umāsvāti (with Svopajña-bhāṣya), 1903. Bibliotheca Indica, vol. 159. Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal. Tattvārthādhigamasūtra of Umāsvāti (with Svopajña-bhāṣya and the īkā of Siddhasenagani). 2 vols. Devchand Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhār Fund (series nos. 67 and 76), 1926, 1930.
Tattvärthavārtika (Rājavārtikam) of Akalankadeva. 2 vols. Jñānapitha

Page #102

92 Studies in Umāsvāti
Mūrtidevi Jaina Granthamālā Sanskrit Grantha, nos. 10 and 20
Delhi: Bhāratīya Jñānapitha, 1953–57, 2nd ed. 1982. Vyākhyāprajñaptisūtra (with the vrtti of Abhayadevasūri), 3 vols. Bombay:
Agamodaya-Samiti, 1918-21. Secondary Sources and Translations Deleu, Jozef. 1970. Viyāhapannatti (Bhagavaī): The Fifth Anga of the Jaina
Canon. Brugge: De Tempel, Tempelhof. Dixit, K. K. 1974,Tattvārtha Sutra: A Historical Evaluation. In: Pt. Sukhlalji's
Commentary on Tattvārtha Sūtra of Vācaka Umāsvāti, Translated by K. K. Dixit. L. D. Series, no. 44. Ahmedabad: L. D. Institute of
Indology, pp. 1-12. -1978. Early Jainism, L. D. Series, no. 65, Ahmedabad: L. D. Institute of
Indology. Dundas, Paul, 1985, Food and Freedom: The Jaina Sectarian Debate on the
Nature of the Kevalin In: Religion 15: 161-98. -1997, The Laicisation of the Bondless Doctrine: A new Study of the
Development of Early Jainism, In: Journal of Indian Philosophy 25:
495-516. Glasenapp, Helmuth von. 1942, The Doctrine of Karma in Jain Philosoph,
Translation of 1915 text by G. Barry Gifford, revised by the author, and edited by Hiralal R. Kapadia, Bombay: Bai Vijibhai Jivanlal
Pannalal Charity Fund. Jacobi, Hermann, trans. 1884, Jaina Sūtras, pt. 1. (Translation of the
Ācārānga-sūtra and the Kalpa-sūtra.) Oxford: Oxford University
Press, Reprints Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 1989. -1895, Jaina Sūtras, pt. 2. (Translation of the Uttarādhyayana-sūtra and
Sūtrakrtānga-sūtra) Oxford: Oxford University Press, Reprint Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass 1989. Jain, S.A., 1960. Reality: English Translation of Prjyapāda's Sarvārthasiddhi.
Madras: Jwalamalini Turst, Reprint, 1992. Jaini, J. L., trans. 1920. Tattvārthādhigamana Sūtra. The Sacred Books of the
Jains, vol. 2. Arrah: The Central Jaina Publishing House. -1927, 1937. Gommatsara Karma-Kanda of Nemicandra. 2 vols., The
Sacred Books of the Jainas, vols. 6 and 10, Lucknow: The Central Jaina Publishing House. Reprint: New Delhi: Today & Tomorrow's
Printers & Publishers, 1990. Jaini, Padmanabh S, 2001, Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha. (See this
volume).

Page #103

Karmic Bondage and Kasāyas 93
Jinendra, Varnī, 1970–3. Jainendra Siddhānta Kośa, 4 vols. Delhi: Bhāratīya
Jñānapitha. Johnson, W. J. 1995, Harmless Souls: Karmic Bongage and Religious Change
in Early Jainism with Special Reference to Umāsvāti and Kundakunda.
Lala Sundarlal Jain Research Series, vol. 9. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Sanghvi, Sukhlal, 1974. Pt. Sukhlalji's Commentary on Tattvārathasūtra of
Vācaka Umāsvāti, tr. K.K. Dixit, L. D. Series. no. 44. Ahmedabad:
L. D. Institute of Indology. Schubring, Wather, 1962, The Doctrine of the Jainas. Translated from the
German by Wolfgang Beurlen, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Tatia, Nathmal, trans. 1994, Tattvārthasūtra: That Which Is. San Francisco
and London: Harper Collins. Wiley, Kristi L, 2000, Leśyās: By-Products of Activity or Passions. Philosophy
East and West, September 2000.

Page #104


Page #105

Some Observations on
Tattvārthasūtra
DAYANAND BHARGAVA
Ācārya Umāsvāti (or Umāsvāmi according to Digambara tradition) summarized the Jaina philosophy in sūtra style in his famous work Tattvārthasūtra. In this paper we propose to make some observations on the seventh sūtra of the first chapter of Tattvārthasūtra to illustrate how Ācārya Umāsvāti utilized the material available to him.
The Importance of the Sūtra
The sūtra under reference reads like this:
nirdeśa svāmitvasādhanādhikaranasthitividhānatah, (Farrah Teraftrauifeefafaela:) 1.7.This sūtra is preceded by the sūtra pramāṇanayairadhigamah (44147 Referra:) 1.6 and is followed by satsaṁkhyāksetrasparśanakālāntarabhāvalpa- bahutvaiśca ( CTT
Y Yeral) 1.8. This means that just as pramāņa and naya are the means to acquire the knowledge of any philosophical principle, similarly nirdeśa etc. which are known as anuyogadvāra also serve the same purpose. It is intriguing to note that while the philosophical works deal with pramāna and naya in detail, they overlook these anuyogadvāras completely, even though the Āgamic literature has dealt with them in detail. In fact one of the Jaina works has the title of

Page #106

96 Studies in Umāsvāti Anuyogadvāra but the writers of logical works in Sanskrit right from Samantabhadra-Siddhasena upto Acārya Yaśovijaya do not make any mention of these anuyogadvāras. Ācarya Umāsvāti, of course, mention these anuyogadvāras in two sūtras (1.7 and 1.8) and his commentators also deal with these at some length.
These anuyogadvāras are, in fact, points regarding which investigation should be made with reference to any philosophical matter. These points of investigation are very significant and helpful in clarifying a concept to a very large extent. Had the Jaina logicians discussed and utilised these in their discussion Jaina Philosophy would have been much more enriched. In fact, the non-Jaina systems could have also utilised these to their benifit. Unfortunately this was not done.
The Three Traditions Though these anuyogadvāras have been enumerated in two sūtras (1.7 and 1.8) of Tattvārthasūtra, we shall, however, deal with 1.7 only because of the reason that the list given in 1.8 is found identically similar in all the Digambara and Śvetāmbara sources. It is only with the list given in 1.7 that we find variations.
The chart given below shows these variations:
Tattvārthasūtra 1.7
Dhavalā 1/1.1.1/18/34
Anuyogadvāra 13.713 & Višesāvaśyakabhāsya 973-974 also 1484-5
1. nirdesa
1. kim
2. svāmi 3. sādhana 4. adhikarana 5. sthiti 6. vidhāna
2. kassa 3. keņa 4. kattha 5. kevaciram 6. kadividhau
1. uddese 2. niddese 3. niggame 4. khetta 5. kāla 6. purise 7. kāraņa

Page #107

Tattvārthasūtra 1.7
Some Observations on Tattvārthasūtra 97 Dhavalā
Anuyogadvāra 1/1.1.1/18/34 13.713 &
Višeşāvasyakabhāsya 973-974 also 1484-5
8. paccaya 9. lakkhana 10. nae 11. samoyarana 12. numae 13. kini 14. kaiviham 15. kassa 16. kahiń 17. kesu 18. kaham 19. kecciraṁ kālam 20. kai 21. sasta 22. avirhiyam 23. bhavā 24. garisa 25. phāsaņa 26. nirutti
A Comparison of the Three lists It is clear from this chart that the list of the Tattvārthasūtra and Dhavalā are identical with the only difference that what Dhavalā states in a common language, the Tattvārthasūtra states those very questions in a language which befits the sūtra style. Obviously a sūtra would have been very bizzarre, if it were to

Page #108

98
Studies in Umāsvāti
be framed like kimkassakenakatthakevacirekadvividhau (fot of the atout proces safer anfefquit), etc. Therefore Tattvārthasūtra followed a more sophisticated way.
As regards the third list we have twenty six questions in it which include all the questions of the first list but add twenty more questions. If we attempt a comparison of the Tattvārthasūtra with this list the result would be something like the following:
Anuyogadvāra & Višeşāvaśyakakbāsya
Inclusion of the contents of the longer list in the smaller list of the Tattvārthasūtra
nirdesa
1. uddese 2. niddese 3. niggame 4. khetta 5. kāla 6. purise 7. kārana 8. рассауа 9. lakkhana 10. nae 11. samoyarana 12. numae 13. kini 14. kaivihañ 15. kassa 16. kahim 17. kesu 18. kaham
vidhāna swami adhikarana adhikarana sādhana

Page #109

Some Observations on Tattvārthasūtra 99
sthiti
19. kecciraṁ kālam 20. kai 21. sasta 22. avirhiyam 23. bhavā 24. garisa 25. phāsaņa 26. nirutti
We have thus, for all practical purposes, two lists - one smaller, represented by the Tattvārthasūtra, Dhavalā and the other longer list given by the Anuyogadvāra and Viśesāva-syakabhāsya; the longer one being inclusive of the smaller one. Of these lists we may note the following characteristics: (i) The list of Anuyogadvāra is concerned purely with the
methodology. (ii) The same list is repeated in the Viseşāvaśyakabhāsya but
with its application to sāmāyika. (iii) The Dhavalā cuts short the list in a day-to-day language. (iv) The list of the Tattvārthasūtra is a technical version of the
list of Dhavalā.
The Question of Repitition The Tattvārthasūtra tries to avoid all repitition of the longer list such as kahim-kesu and kaivihaṁ, kai. Pujyapāda has, however, pointed out that Tattvārthasūtra 1.8 contains many repititions of Tattvārthasūtra 1.7 in the following manner:
Tattvārthasūtra, 1.7 Tattvārthasūtra, 1.8 nirdesa
sat vidhāna
samkhyā adhikarana
kşetra-sparśana sthiti
kāla

Page #110

100 Studies in Umāsvāti
The justification of this repitition is that a preceptor caters to the necessity of all those who like brevity or elaboration.' This answer is repeated by Vidyananda also in his Tattvārthaślokālankāra.2
The Characteristics of the Tattvärthasūtra List
There is one question, however, which remains to be answered. Is the list of the Tattvärthasūtra (and Dhavala) comprehensive enough to include all the queries of the longer list of Anuyogadvāra (and Viseṣāvasyakabhāṣya). If would be observed that if we go by the six cases of Sanskrit grammar, the list of Tattvārthasūtra includes all the cases, but the dative and ablative cases are not included as is shown below:
nirdeśa
sthiti
sādhana
swāmi
Agent
Accusative
Instrumental
Genetive
adhikaraṇa
Locative
The dative and ablative cases are represented in the longer list of Anuyogadvāra under niggame, kāraṇa and paccaya. It appears that the list of the Tattvärthasūtra has metaphysical entities like jiva and ajiva in view, the origin of which can not be traced and no purpose could be attributed to them either whereas the longer list of Anuyogadvāra has sāmāyika in view the origin and purpose of which can safely be described. What is important in this respect is the attempt of Viseṣāvasyakabhāṣya to show that since modes have a cause and since modes and substance are partly identical, even substance can be said to have a cause.3
The Anuyogadvāras and Realist systems of Philosophy Ācārya Vidyānanda in his commentary, Tattvārtha-slokavārtika has used these sutras for refuting the Buddhist and the Vedantic

Page #111

Some Observations on Tattvārthasūtra 101 positions. One thing, becomes clear form this that Ācārya Vidyānanda has impliedly suggested that these Anuyogadvāras are applicable to other realist systems also but are obviously not applicable to idealist systems like Buddhism and Vedānta which do not accept continuity or duality.
Conclusion In fine, we can conclude: 1. Anuyogadvāra evolved an extensive list of enquiries for
investigating into any philosophical matter. 2. Ācārya Umāsvati made contribution in two ways: (i) by
putting the day-to-day language into śāstrīya language and (ii) by reducing the number of enquiries from 26 to 6 as this number was sufficient, in his view, for explaining
metaphysical entities like jīva and ajīva. 3. Commentators on Tattvārthasūtra applied the methodology
first to samyagdarśana (by Pūjyapāda) and then to all the
seven predicaments jīva, ajīva etc. (by Akalanka). 4. Višeșāvśyakabhāsya, however, applied the methodology
to sāmāyika and reverted back to the original list of
Anuyogadvāra. 5. Dhavalā followed the list of the Tattvārthasūtra but in the
language of Anuyogadvāra. 6. These anuyogadvāras are also applicable to non-Jaina
realistic systems of philosophy like Nyāya or Sāṁkhya. 7. There is no hard and fast rule regarding the number of
anuyogadvāras. It may differ from subject to subject and
from individual to individual. 8. Ācārya Umāsvāti has the credit of retaining the spirit of
the Āgamas whereas the later Jaina logicians leave many subjects which are extensively dealt with in the Āgamas. Anuyogadvāra is one of them.

Page #112

102 Studies in Umāsvāti
References 1. केचित्संक्षिपरुचयः केचित् विस्तररुचयः। अपरेनातिसंक्षेपेण नातिविस्तरेण
प्रतिपाद्याः। सर्वसत्वानग्रहार्थो हि सतां प्रयास इति। 2. येहि शिष्याः संक्षेपरूचयस्तान् प्रति प्रमाणनयैरधिगमः इति सूत्रमाही येचमध्यम रूचयस्तान् प्रति निर्देशादिसूत्रम्। ये पुन विस्तररुचयस्तान् प्रति सदादिमिस्तत्त्वार्थाधि
गमं दर्शयितुमिदं सूत्रम्। 3. पर्याया हि सर्वेषामपि वस्तूनामनित्या इत्यतस्तेषां करणमपि संभवति। यदि नाम पर्यायाणां करणं संभवति, तर्हि द्रव्यस्य किमायातम्? इत्याह-पर्यायो येन द्रव्यादन. न्योऽभिन्नस्तेन पर्यायस्य करणं द्रव्यस्यापि करणं भवत्येवेति। -विशेषावश्यकभाष्य, भाग 2, पृ. 6381

Page #113

Reflection on the Implications of Some Ideas of Umāsvāti in
his Tattvārthasūtra
NATHMAL Tatia
Introduction In this paper I intend to discuss the implications of some of the aphorisms of the Tattvārthasūtra of Umāsvāti in the light of modern thought. These aphorisms are pregnant with ideas that modern philosophy and science have endorsed. Umāsvāti has very carefully explained the essential doctrines of the Jaina scriptures. While going through the works of Professor A. N. Whitehead, I found many discussions that are very similar to the ideas contained in the aphorisms of Umāsvāti. The book entitled Religion and Science by IAN g. Barbourl was also critically studied by me in order to understand the close relationship between religion and science which helped me to understand the deep implications of the ideas of Umāsvāti. I have selected only four topics for brief discussion. ---
Interservice of souls In the Tattvārthasūtra’, Parasparopagraho Jivānām, ‘souls render service to one another, it has been said that the souls create common environments. In the following passage of his Adventures of Ideas3 Professor Whitehead explains how coordination is

Page #114

104 Studies in Umāsvāti necessary for the proper functioning of societies of smaller physical entities such as protons, and so on. The universe achieves its values by reason of its coordination into societies of societies, and into societies of societies of societies. Thus an army is a society of regiments, and regiments are societies of men, and men are societies of cells, of blood, and of bones, together with the dominant society of personal human experience and cells are societies of smaller physical entities such as protons, and so on, and so on.
Also all of these societies presuppose the circumambient space of social and physical activity. According to Jainism every living organism has a soul, and as such the cells are societies of souls that render service to each other. The nigodas in Jainism are thus smallest living entities that form a society.
At another place in the Adventures of Ideas, we find a vivid description of how societus of insects are astoundingly successful so far as it concerns survival power. These societies have a past extending over tens of thousands of years, perhaps of millions of years. It is the greatest of mistakes to believe that it has required the high-grade intelligence of mankind to construct an elaborate social organization. This reminds us of the doctrine of Jainism that every soul, however, undeveloped, is possessed of both matijñāna and śrutajñāna. The instinct functioning in the insects is a kind of potential śrutajñāna.
The Nayas In the Tattvārtha Sūtra', the nayas, philosophical standpoints, have been explained. Each entity has a background, which is infinite. The naya stands for a finite aspect which is meaningful only if the background is infinite. This is very lucidly explained by Whitehead in his Essays in Science and Philosophy, 'There is finitude - unless this were true, infinity would have no meaning. The contrast of finitude and infinity arises from the fundamental metaphysical truth that every entity involves an indefinite array of perspectives, each perspective expressing a finite characteristic

Page #115

Reflection on the Implications... 105 of that entity. But any one finite perspective does not enable an entity to shake off its essential connection with totality. The infinite background always remains as the unanalysed reason why that finite perspective of that entity has the special character that it does have. Any analysis of the limited perspective always includes some additional factor of the background'.
The entity is then experienced in a wider finite perspective, still presupposing the inevitable background, which is the universe in its relation to that entity'. Again it is said that 'the notion of the complete self-sufficiency of any item of finite knowledge is the fundamental error of dogmatism there is no entity which enjoys an isolated self-sufficiency of existence'.? Again it is said "There is not a sentence which adequately states its own meaning. There is always a background of presupposition which defies analysis by reason of infinitude'.8
Anekanta
The doctrine of Anekānta, the union of opposites, is explained in the Tattvärthasūtra', Origination, cessation and persistence constitute existence. Whitehead in his Adventures of Ideas10, explains dualism of cessation and persistence as follows - "The universe is dual because in the fullest sense, it is both transient and eternal. The universe is dual because each final actuality is both physical and mental. The universe is dual because each actuality requires abstract character. The universe is dual because each occasion unites its formal immediacy with objective otherness. The universe is many because it is wholly and completely to be analysed into many final actualities. The universe is one, because of the universal immanence. There is thus a dualism in this contrast between unity and multiplicity. Throughout the universe there reigns the union of opposites which is the ground of dualism'.
...
According to Buddhism, reality is constituted by events and relationships rather than by separate substances or separate particles. To Whitehead, transition and activity are more

Page #116

106 Studies in Umāsvāti fundamental than permanence and substance. He pictures the basic components of reality as interrelated as dynamic events. He rejects the atomist view of reality as unchanging particles that are merely externally rearranged.11
Plato says that it is the definition of being that it exerts power and being subject to exertion of power, can we imagine being to be devoid of life and mind, and to remain in awful unmean-ingness an everlasting fixture ?12 Plato wrote in the Sophist, that not being is itself a form of being.13 Perishing is assumption of a new function in the creative advance of the universe. 14
The Mind: In the Tattvārthasūtra15, it is said that the worldly souls fall into two groups, souls that possess a mind and souls that do not. In the sūtrals, it is said that those that have a mind are intelligent beings. In the Jaina view, the psychic mind creates a physical mind which is made of very subtle matter.
The scientists are confident that genetics and biology will account for all aspects of human life. The mind will be precisely explained as an epiphenomenon of the normal machinery of the brain. According to Whitehead mind and consciousness are found only at higher level. Consciousness occurs only when there is a central nervous system. Consciousness and mind are radically new emergents in Cosmic history. Whitehead does not attribute mind and mentality to lower-level entities, but he does attribute at least rudimentary forms of experience to unified entity at all levels.1? This is exactly the view of Jaina philosophers.
References 1. IAN g. Barbour, Religion and Science, Harper, San Francisco 1997. 2. Tattvārthasūtra, 5.21. 3. Professor Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, p. 207. 4. Ibid, p. 97.

Page #117

Reflection on the Implications... 107
5. Tattvārthasūtra, 1.34-5.
6. Whitehead, Essays in Science and Philosophy, London, 1948, p. 60.
7. Ibid, p. 78.
8. Ibid, p. 73.
9. Tattvärthasūtra, 5.29.
10. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, pp. 192-3.
11. Whitehead, Religion and Science, pp. 284-5.
12. Whitehead, Adventures of Ideas, p. 124.
13. Ibid, p. 238.
14. Ibid, p. 205.
15. That which Is, 2.1.
16. Ibid, 2.5, p. 41.
17. IAN g. Barbour, Religion and Science, pp. 288-9.

Page #118


Page #119

Sources of Meditation in Tattvārthasūtra from Jaina Canons and Hindu Yoga-Šāstra
JAGAT RAM BHATTACHARYYA
Indian Philosophy is mainly based on spirituality and, therefore, leads to the path of emancipation. Jain scriptures also have its own identity and view in prescribing the philosophy of the path of emancipation. Ācārya Umāsvāti has delineated the principal objects of Jaina philosophy concisely and in the form of sūtra in the Tattvārthasūtra. So it is popularly known as the entrance of the study of Jain philosophy.
According to Umāsvāti meditation is one of the components of austerity-anaśanāvamaudaryavșttiparisamkhyānarasa parityāgaviviktaśayyāsanakāyakleśā bāhyam tapaḥ (9.19) (The six external austerities are—fasting, semi-fasting or reduced diet, voluntarily limiting the variety and the manner of seeking food, giving up delicacies or a stimulating diet, lonely habitation and mortification of the body); prāyaścittavinayavaiyāvsttyasvādhyāyavyutsargadhyānānyuttaram (9.20) [The six internal austerities are-penance, reverence (humility), service, scriptural study, renunciation and meditation).
Internal austerities have again been classified in different ways, such as, penance has nine divisions, those are, confessing transgression (ālocana), repenting past deeds (pratikramana), combined confession and repentance (tadubhaya), careful

Page #120

110 Studies in Umāsvāti inspection of articles received (viveka), abandoning unfit articles (vyutsarga), austerity (tapas), lowering of ascetic seniority (cheda), segregation from the order (parihāra) and reordination (upasthāpana). Reverence of four kinds are implemented for, learning (jñāna), the enlightened world-view (darśana), good conduct (cāritra) and senior ascetics (upacāra). Services are of ten kinds which are to be rendered to the preceptor (ācārya), teacher (upādhyāya), practitioner of austerities (tapasvī), learner (śaikṣa), sick (glāna), group (gana), union (kula), order (sangha), ascetics (sādhu) and fellow monastics (samanojña). Scriptural study has five stages, such as, teaching (vācanā), questioning (prcchanā), reflection (anupreksā), correct recitation (āmnāya) and preaching of the doctrine (dharmopadeśa). Renunciation means abandoning the external articles and the internal passions including the body.
While discussing the characteristic features of meditation, Umāsvāti has mentioned the qualities of the person engaged in meditation. One of the qualities of the person is that he should be with good bone-joints. The sūtra-uttamasamhananasyaikāgracintānirodho dhyānam (9-27). antarmuhūrtāt (9-28)[The concentration of thought on a single object by a person with good bone-joints is meditation and it lasts an intra-hour]. The bone-joints determine the potentiality of the body. These are of six kinds, such as, (1) interlocking of bones on both sides, strengthened with pin and plate, (2) interlocking of bones on one side with half pin and half plate or interlocking of bones with pin, (3) interlocking of bones on both sides, (4) interlocking bones on one side and pin on the other, (5) pin between two bones and (6) two bones bound by skin, sinews and flesh. Out of these the first one is most auspicious and next two are also fit for meditation.
Tattvārthasūtra admits meditation as four fold: mournful (ārta), wrathful (raudra), analytic (dharmya) and white pure (śukla) (ārta-raudra-dharmya-suklāni 9.29). Among these the

Page #121

Sources of Meditation in Tattvārthasūtra from Jaina ... 111 last two, analytic and white lead to the path of emancipation. Meditation meaning the concentration of thought or psyche does not always lead to emancipation because of their goal and motive. So mournful and wrathful meditations according to their nature come under negative category in respect of emancipation. Umāsvāti has classified the mournful meditation into four categories, (1) ārtamamanojñānām samprayoge tadviprayogāyasmrti- samanvāhāraḥ (9.30) [Dwelling on ridding oneself of contact with disagreeable objects or getting out of any unhappy situation is mournful meditation), (2) viparītam manojñānām (9.33) [Dwelling on recovering contact with an agreeable object or repeating pleasant feelings is also mournful meditation), 3. vedanāyāśca (9.32) [Dwelling on ridding oneself of unpleasant feelings is also mournful meditation), and 4. nidānam ca (9.34) [Intensive anxiety to fulfill unfulfilled desire in future lives is also mournful meditation].
Umāsvāti prescribes one sūtra for wrathful meditation, himsā'nstāsteyavişayasamraksaņebhyo raudramaviratadeśaviratayoḥ (9.36) [Dwelling on the perpetration of violence, falsehood, theft and the preservation of one's possessions is wrathful meditation. People who are at lower spiritual stages of non-abstinence and partial abstinence are subject to it).
The remaining two kinds of meditation- analytic and white, lead to the path of emancipation. For analytic meditation Umāsvāti has formulated the sūtra -ājñā pāyavipākasamsthāna vicayāya dharmyam (9.37) [Dwelling on investigating the essence of the scriptural commandments, the nature of physical and mental suffering, the effects of karma and the shape of the Universe and its contents is analytic meditation. The variant reading adds apramattasya which means that people who are at the spiritual stage of complete self-restraint, free of laxity are capable of it.
In case of white meditation, the sūtra is śukle cădye pūrvavidaḥ (9.39) [The first two varieties of white meditation are

Page #122

112 Studies in Umäsväti
also possible in a person at the stage of complete self-restraint with suppressed passion and at the stage of complete selfrestraint with eliminated passions. The first two varieties of white meditation belong to the one conversant with the early scriptures]. But the last two varieties of the white meditation belong to the one who is omniscient. The white meditation is again categorized into four, such as, multiple contemplation (pṛthaktva vitarka), unitary contemplation (ekatva vitarka), subtle infallible physical activity (sūkṣmakriyāpratipāti) and irreversible stillness of the soul (vyuparatakriyānivṛtti).
Reference to the meditation has been found in the Sthānāmgasūtra, specially and partly in the Samavāyāmgasūtra. In the fourth hāṇam of the Sthānāmgasūtra, meditation is defined in the following way:
Meditation is of four kinds: attejhāṇe, roddejhāne, dhammejhāne and sukkejhāne.
Attajhāṇa has again four categories, such as, employed with the contact of one which is not charming (amamunna sampaoga sampautte), employed with the contact of one which is charming (manunna sampaoga sampautte), employed with the contact of meditation upon disease (ātaṁka sampaoga sampautte) and employed with the contact of desire and enjoyment which are served (parijuṣitakāmabhoga sampaoga sampautte). The characteristic features of attajjhāṇa are lamenting (kamdanatā), feeling sorrow (soyaṇatā), weeping with tears (tippaṇatā) and to cry before every one (paridevanatā).
Roddajjhana is known of four types, such as, injurious thought activity (himsānubandhī), liar (mosānubandhi), thinking of stealing (teṇāṇubandhi) and eager for protecting worldly objects (sārakkhāṇubandhi). The characteristic features of roddajjhāṇa are of four types, those are-faint heart (osanna dose), sin due to false scripture (anṇāṇa dose), (bahu dose) and sin without repentance till death (amaramta dose).

Page #123

Sources of Meditation in Tattvārthasūtra from Jaina ... 113 Dhammajjhāņa is also of four types, such as, contemplation on scripture (ānāvijae), meditation upon faults arising upon passions (avāyavijae), meditation upon the intensity of karmas (vivāgavijae) and meditation upon the form of universe, continent, ocean, etc. (samhānavijae). The characteristic features of dhammajjhāņa are—liking produced by the order, teaching of the Omniscient (āņārui), natural faith or inclination (ạisaggarui), faith in scriptures (suttarui) and love for religion excited by a sermon or a study of scriptures (ogādharui). The four types of support or basis are-reading of holy scripture (vāyaṇā), doing work by the permission of Guru (padipucchaņā), to discuss or examine the meaning of the sutra (pariyaaņā) and contemplation (aņuppehā). Four types of anuppehā discussed in the canons are—contemplation upon the solitariness of the soul (egāņuppehā), contemplation upon impermanence of wealth etc. (aņiccāņuppehā), contemplation upon soul's helplessness in the world (asaraņāņuppehā) and contemplation that the world is endless, full of troubles, etc. (samsārāņuppehā).
The features of sukkajjhāņa are—free from affliction (avvahe), free from bewilderment (asammohe), abandoning a thing fit to be abandoned (vivege) and checking all the activities of the body (viussagge). The basis or support of sukkajjhāņa is patience (khamti), emancipation from karmic bondage (mutti), straight forwardness (ajjave) and politeness (maddave). Four types of contemplations are—deep meditation on emancipation (anamtavattīyāņuppeha), meditation that every object changes at different times (vippariņāmānuppehā), meditation upon the evils of worldly existence and meditation upon the influx of karman, etc. (avayāņuppehā)..
The source of meditation can be traced even in the PreVedic stage. The idols found in the excavation of Mohenjodoro has various meditative postures. In the Veda also meditation has been admitted by means of both yoga and austerity. Even then the rituals are believed to be the gate-way of emancipation

Page #124

114 Studies in Umāsvāti
(yasmat ṛte na sidhyati yajño vipaścitaścana sa dhiro yogamanvatiR.V. 1/18/7). In the period of Upanisad, the theories and ideas of meditation were being flourished. In the Svetasvatara Upanisad, meditation is depicted elaborately. There is a mention that the meditator being unattached to the worldly interests and completely self-restrained can achieve the state of the supreme soul. The same preaching can also be had to the context of the fourth contemplation of white meditation of Jainism, that is, avāyāṇuppehā. Meditation being related to spirituality has been regarded as the cause of salvation. The Upanisad admits that austerity leads to the absolute knowledge or brahmajñāna. The Upanisad admits that austerity leads to the absolute knowledge or brahmajñāna which again leads to salvation. Likewise Jainism admits the omniscient to be liberated.
The Hindu Yoga śāstra prescribes mainly two systems of yoga, those are sāmkhya and yoga. The propounder of samkhya is Maharṣi Kapila and yoga is propounded by Hiranyagarbha as the earliest. Samkhya and Yoga are again identified in the Bhagavad Gītā as karmayoga for yoga and jñānayoga for sāmkhya. The basis of sāmkhya is wisdom where as action and worship are the primary means of yoga. The causes behind the cycle of rebirth mentioned in the samkhya and yoga are spiritual ignorance, egotism, attachment, aversion, ignorance causing fear of death, suffering and desire where as the way of introversion is explained to be based on the eight systems of yoga, those are self-restraint (yama), subduing (niyama), yogic posture (āsana), restraining of breath (prāṇāyāma), restraining of organs (pratyāhāra), the act of holding (dhāraṇā), meditation (dhyāna) and perfect absorption in meditation (samadhi). Meditation has very important place in this eight systems of yoga. Out of these, the first five are mentioned as external agents where as the other three-dhāraṇā, dhyāna and samadhi are mentioned as internal agents for spiritual upliftment. The five external accomplishments are equally important in samkhya and yoga.

Page #125

Sources of Meditation in Tattvārthasūtra from Jaina ... 115 Only difference here is that yoga is dependent on dhāraṇā, dhyāna and samādhi for its being introvert but sāmkhya attains the same without the help of those means.
Different Philosophical schools have prescribed various ways and means for salvation. The theoretical aspect of meditation regarding its steps and methods are different in nature. But basically in certain stages some aspects are to be regarded as common. Yogaścittavrtti nirodhaḥ is applicable everywhere in all systems of meditation in all the schools of Indian Philosophy. Following the same the meditator dwelling in the white meditation ultimately stops the physical, vocal and mental activites and attains complete liberation. Jainism marked it through spritual stages called guṇasthāna.
References
1. That Which Is (Tattvārthasūtra), translated by Nathmal Tatia. 2. Tattvārthasūtra, ed. Siddhantacharya Pt. Phool Chand Sashtri. 3. Sthānāmgasūtra, Yuvacharya Mahaprajna. 4. Samavāyāmgasūtra, Yuvacharya Mahaprajna. 5. Jaina Meditation, Nathmal Tatia. 6. Jain Paramparā meñ Dhyāna kā Svarūpa, Seema Rani Sharma.

Page #126


Page #127

Umāsvāti on Omniscience
FUJINAGA SIN
All the students of Jainism must know that the Tattvārthasūtra is admitted as an authentic work by both the schools of Jainism, Śvetambara and Digambara. The importance of this work can be pointed out from two aspects: its having been influenced by the āgamic works, and its influence on the later Jaina works and philosophers. In his work, having collected materials from āgamas and having deeply thought over them, the author Umāsvāti arranged the Jaina views on many topics.
Very few topics in the work are originally from Umāsvāti. Later Jaina philosophers of both sects such as Pūjyapāda, Akalanka, Vidyānandin and Siddhasenagani developed the ideas of the author in the form of commentaries on it. Among the concepts dealt with in the Tattvārthasūtra, the topic of omni- science seems to be one of the most important. In this paper it
r it shall be argued how Umāsvāti discusses this matter. It is a well-known fact that there is a so called auto-commentary upon the Tattvārthasūtra. Its authorship is rather difficult to determine. The Svetambaras admit that it was written by the author of the Tattvārthasūtra, i.e. Umāsvāti, while the opposite sect of Digambaras denies it. Tentatively it shall be taken just as one of the commentaries.

Page #128

118 Studies in Umāsväti
Umāsvāti discusses the subject of ominscience in two portions of the Tattvārthasūtra: in the first chapter and in the chapters ninth and tenth. His way of dealing with the topic in these chapters is quite different. In the first chapter omniscience makes a part of epistemology; while in the remaining portion it can be categorized into the problem of karma. Thus to consider omniscience in the Tattvārthasūtra, these two aspects must be distinguished: an epistemological and a karmic.
First, let us begin with the epistemological treatment of the omniscience in the first chapter of the Tattvārthasūtra. In the ninth sutra of the first chapter omniscience is classified as one of the five kinds of knowledge along with perception, scripture, clairvoyance and telepathy.1 These five kinds of knowledge are again divided into two groups: indirect and direct. The omniscience is said to be direct knowledge.2 Here it must be noted that the author uses two words to denote the knowledge; jñāna and pramāṇa. The former usually means knowledge in general or the contents of knowledge while the latter is generally used in the sense of the method of knowing. However, the author employs these words without giving any definitions. This means that Umāsvāti does not have much interest in epistemology.
This classification of pramāņa into the two subdivisions is very common in the Jaina epistemology. In agama, for example, the reader comes across this classification in the Sthānāngasūtra.3 Later philosophers such as Akalanka also follow this method of classification. But so far as the classification of five kinds of jñāna is concerned, the situation is not the same. In āgamas this type of classification is very popular while in later periods the way of classification does not concern the five kinds of knowledge.5
The object of knowledge is explained by Umāsvāti to some extent. So far as omniscience is concerned, the objects of omniscience are all substances and modes." This statement about omniscience goes with the original and basic meaning of the word: the knowledge which has all things in the past,

Page #129

Umāsvāti on Omniscience 119
present and future as its object. To denote this sense generally the word sarvajña is used in Jainism and other schools of Indian philosophy. However, in the Tattvärthasūtra the word sarvajña is never employed while the author uses the term kevalajñāna." The reason of this particular usage shall be discussed later.
Besides these explicit arguments, Umāsvāti also describes the unique nature of omniscience in an implicit manner. He says that among the five kinds of knowledge, the first three types, i.e. perception, scripture and clairvoyance, may contain wrong or false ones. This means that the remaining two types of knowledge, in which omniscience is included, are always right. The author mentions that the four types of knowledge can occur simultaneously in one and the same person. This again means that only the omniscience cannot take place with other kinds of knowledge in one and the same person because the omniscience recognizes, as we have seen above, all the substances and modes. From these facts it can be said that Umāsvāti realizes the epistemological speciality of omniscience.
Almost all Jaina philosophers admit that a soul (jīva) has a defining character called upayoga or consciousness. Though Umāsvāti refers to the fact that there are two sub-divisions of upayoga, i.e. the fundamental character of jīva, 10 he does not explain the details of them. Traditionally the Jaina philosophers maintain that in kevalin as well as in an ordinary person the upayoga has two aspects; jñāna and darśana. On the order of occurrence of these two in an omniscient person, the two sects, the Svetambara and the Digambara, have different opinions. The former maintains that the two take place one after another while the latter is of the opinion that the two occur simultaneously.11 Umāsvāti never exhibits his idea on this topic. He must have noticed the divergence between the two sects. Because of being a Digambara author, he and his predecessor Kundakunda clearly mentioned the simultaneous occurrence of the two while in the agamas the opposite theory is mentioned.12 We cannot

Page #130

120 Studies in Umāsvāti understand the exact reason of his silence. However it seems to be likely that he does so to avoid unnecessary quarrels on the doctrine. This may be one of the reasons why the Tattvārthasūtra is admitted as authentic by both sects of Jainism.
As mentioned above, Umāsvāti argues the topic of the omniscience from another point of view, that is to say, from the viewpoint concerning the karma. Actually the second half of the Tattvārthasūtra mainly deals with karma. Here what is meant by the word karma is relation between jīva and ajīva, especially matter (pudgala). A soul allows the inflow of matter through its three kinds of actions. The matter covers the inherit character of the soul. The complete separation of the soul from the pudgala is called liberation (moksa). In the tenth chapter of the Tattvārtha sūtra, Umāsvāti discusses the mokṣa. The first sūtra of this chapter declares that the omniscience occurs through annihilation of delusion and that of obstruction of knowledge, intuition and that of the antarāya.13 Here, by explaining the occurrence of the omniscience, the author clearly combines the omniscience with the karma or annihilation of the karma. This explanation is quite common in the Jaina traditon. In āgama literature as well as in later philosophers' works, the omniscience is explained as a result of annihilation of the main varieties of karmas.14
According to the Jaina tradition, the annihilation and stoppage of the karma are done through penances or austerity (tapas). So the omniscience is again related to tapas . The last part of the ninth chapter of the Tattvārthasūtra deals with meditation as a kind of austerity. The author points out and explains the various kinds of meditation. The two of the highest meditations called śukla dhyānas are said to be performed by the omniscient.15 So it can be ascertained that these meditations are the practical cause of the final beatitude or liberation.
Moreover in his other work called Praśamarati, Umāsvāti refers to a notion of kevali-samudghāta which is peculiar to the Jaina tradition. An omniscient person extends his soul to fill the whole universe and shrinks to the original size. The whole process

Page #131

Umāsvāti on Omniscience 121
of the samudghāta takes eight moments and this is performed for the purpose of shortening the duration of the remaining karma.16 In this case also the omniscience or the omniscient person is related to the idea of karma. It should be noted that the topic of kevalisamudghāta was never mentioned in earlier agamas while it became popular in the later agama literature.
Now let us examine the Umāsvāti's attitude and usage of words concerning the idea of omniscience or an omniscient person. In agama literature, especially in the early texts, we come across the praise of Tirithamkaras as omniscient. Mahāvīra, for example, is praised in Acarangasūtra when he acquired the perfect knowledge.17 Actually attainment of omniscience in the life of a Tīrthamkara is celebrated as one of the five auspicious events. However, Umāsvāti doesn't write any sūtra to describe any particular person as an omniscient. In a sense he deals with the topic of omniscience theoretically. But he never tries to prove that the Jaina Tirthamkaras are the only omniscient persons. All he does in the Tattvārthasūtra is to explain what the omniscience or omniscient person is. The first philosopher in Jainism that tried to establish the omniscience of the Tirthamkaras by means of inference is Samantabhadra who belongs to a period later than that of Umāsvāti.18
Furthermore, in his Tattvārthasūtra as well as in Prasamarati, Umāsvāti does not use the word sarvajña to denote the concept of omniscience. Instead, he exclusively employs the words kevalajñāna for omniscience and kevalin for an omniscient person. In Indian philosophy in general, to denote omniscience the word sarvajña is popular, while in Jaina philosophy both sarvajña and kevala are used. So we can say that the word kevalin or kevala in the sense of an omniscient person or omniscience is peculiar to Jainism. But the usage of these words has changed along with the history. In agams the word kevala seems to be commonly used beside the word sarvajña. On the contrary, later philosophers like Samantabhadra and Akalanka prefer the word

Page #132

122 Studies in Umāsvāti sarvajña to kevala. By these philosophers the word sarvajña is used in epistemological context because it originally means knowledge which has every substance and mode as its object. Samantabhadra and the other Jaina logicians had to use this word in debate on the omniscience with other schools. Judging from the usage of the words, it can be said that Umāsvāti has much more interest in the epistemological side of omniscience than in its karmic aspect.
Conclusions
From these discussions it can be safely said that: 1. Umāsvāti, the author of the Tattvārthasūtra and
Praśama-rati, places emphasis upon the karmic aspect of omniscience rather than the epistemological. Though he does explain the epistemology of the omniscience, he puts
greater emphasis on the karmic aspect. 2. In his works as a whole he remains in the Jaina tradition
itself and never tries to debate with other schools of Indian philosophies. The same is true when he refers to the omniscience. He must have had some knowledge on inference. However Umāsvāti does not use it to prove the existence of the omniscience. The exclusive usage of the
word kevala or kevalin also shows this fact. 3. Thus he must belong to the early part of Jaina philosophical
tradition, that is to say, the period after the āgamic age and before the age of logic to which Samantabhadra and Akalanka belong. In other words, Umāsvāti stands at a turning point in the history of Jaina philosophy.
References
1. Matišrutāvadhimanahparyaya-kevalāni jñānam. -Tattvārthasūtra
(along with the Sarvārthasiddhi ed. Phūlcandra Siddhāntat Sāstrī, Delhi: Bhāratiya Jñānpīh Mürtidevi Jaina Granthamālā Skt.8, n.d.) 1-9.

Page #133

Umāsvāti on Omniscience 123 2. pratyakşamanyat-Tattvārthasūtra, I 12: 3. Sthānāngasūtra, ed. Sāgarānanda Sūri and re-ed. Jambuvijaya, Delhi,
Motilal Benarasidass, 1985, II-I-71. 4. Laghīyastraya, In: Akalankagranthatraya, ed. Mahendra Kumar Jain,
Ahmedabad and Calcutta, Simghi Jain Granthamālā 1939. 5. For the development of the classification of jñāna in āgama litera
ture, vide. Āgama-yuga kā Jain Darśana, D. Malvania, Jaipur 1990. A good reference book for the epistemology in late ages is Jaina Ontol
ogy by K.K.Dixit, Ahmedabad, L. D. Series 1971. 6. sarvadravyaparyāyeșu kevalasya. -Tattvārthasūtra, I-29. 7. It may be argued that there is the word sarvajña in the auto-commentary.
However, as mentioned above, in this paper the discussion is limited to the original sūtra which both sects regard as authentic and written
by Umāsvāti.In the sūtras the word sarvajña never occurs. 8. matiśrutāvadhayo viparyayaś ca. -Tattvārthasūtra, 1-31. 9. ekādīni bhājyāni yugapad ekasminn ācaturbhyaḥ. -Tattvārthasūtra,
I-30. 10. upayogo lakṣaṇam sa dvividho șacaturbhedaḥ. -Tattvārthasūtra, II
8-9. 11. It should be noted that there are exceptions on the topics. Mallavā
din, for example, belongs to the Svetambara sect and maintains the simultaneous occurence of the jñāna and darśana. This fact was
pointed out by Samani Mangala Prajna at the seminar. 12. Kundakunda shows his opinion on this topic in his Niyamasāra. For
the view shown in the āgama literature see Jain Epistemology by
Indra C. Shastri, Vanarasi, P.V. Research Series, 1990. 13. mohaksayāt jñānadarśanāvaraṇāntarāya-ksayāc ca kevalam.--Tat
tvārtha sūtra X-1. 14. Jaina āgama literature are, in a sense, full of the discription of the
moksa acqired through annihilation of karma. Needless to say that commentators on the Tattvārthasūtra have the same opinion with
Umāsvāti on the attainment of moksa. 15. ārttaraudradharmyaśuklāni. Again sūtra 37 and 28 read: śukle cădye
pūrvavidah, pare kevalinah. -Tattvārthasūtra, IX. 29. 16. See chapter 20 of Praśamaratiprakarana by Y. S. Shastri, Ahmed
abad: L.D. Series 1989. 17. Ācārangasūtra, ed. Sāgarānanda Sūri and re-ed Jambuvijaya, Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass 1978, II-15-25, p. 281.

Page #134


Page #135

10
Contribution of Acārya Umāsvāti to the Concept of Existence
SAMANI MANGAL PRAJNA
The contribution of Acarya Umāsvāti regarding the concept of existence is twofold: (i) he is the first to give the definition of existence as possessed of origination, cessation and persistence. Though this concept is already available in the canonical literature of the Jain as, yet this specific definition of existence was given by Acārya Umāsvāti for the first time. This definition has been accepted later by all the Jain thinkers unanimously. (ii) In his auto-commentary on Tattvärthasūtra, 5/31 Acārya Umāsvāti has classified existence into four categories. This classification is his contribution which has later been explained in his commentary on that by Acarya Siddhsenagani.
Two Aspects of Existence
While describing the nature of existence we find its two dimensions: (1) Being, and (2) Becoming. The idealistic systems accept the reality of either of the two, condemning the other as only a fiction of mind. For example the Vedāntins would accept the reality of Being, condemning the phenomenon of Becoming only as an illusion. The Buddhists, on the other hand, accept the reality of Becoming, condemning Being only as an imagination. The Vaiseṣikās found out a third way. According to them both

Page #136

126 Studies in Umāsvāti
the permanent and the transitory are real but whatever is permanent is totally different from whatever is transitory. Thus according to the Vaiseṣikās one and the same thing is not both permanent and transitory or being and becoming. The Jainas, on the other hand, accept identity-cum-difference between both of them. According to the Jain philosophy a substance is the co-existence of both Being and Becoming, the unwavering and wavering, the stable and unstable. It is immutable and mutable both. The soul is immutable and as such it never changes into non-soul. It is also mutable and as such it passes through various modes. This is true not only of the soul but of all other substances which are neither absolutely permanent nor absolutely impermanent, but both permanent and impermanent simultaneously.
All that originates, vanishes and persists is real. This triple criterion of truth is as validly applicable to the material atom as to the spiritual self. Each and every existent comes under this criterion. According to Jain philosophy existence is a combination of both, absolute and relative, stable and unstable. We find this truth in Bhagavati sūtra in these words:
'It is true, O lord!' asked Gautama, 'that the unstable changes while the stable does not change, the unstable breaks whereas the stable does not break?' yes, Gautama! "This is exactly so'.1
This statement of Bhagavati indicates the nature of existence. The stable is permanent and unstable is origination and cessation. It means that existence has dual nature, which, though opposite to each other, coexist as complimentary to each.
Resolving the Contradiction
The question before the Jains was as to how they can attribute two contradictory characteristics to existence simultaneously. The Jains resolve the problem by pointing out that we attribute certain characteristics to any object because we give prominence to those characteristics; it does not mean that the

Page #137

Contribution of Ācārya Umāsvāti to the Concept of Existence 127 opposite characteristics are being denied. The fact is that when we predicate some attributes to some objects, we also imply the possibility of the opposite characteristic as well.
Four aspects of existence Having stated this in the aphorism of Tattvārthsūtra, 5/31 Umāsvāti proceeds to apply this to the nature of existence in his auto-commentary. He finds that both being and becoming can be bifurcated into two. Being has two dimensions: one unspecified existence and the other the existence of different substances. Similarly becoming has two aspects - production and destruction. As a propounder of thoroughly realistic system Umāsāvati accepts the reality of all four afore-said categories. Being as one undifferentiated existence is called as dravyāstika; whereas when being is categorized as medium of motion, medium of rest, time, space, matter and soul it is known as mātņkāpadāstika. Because these categories give birth to the universe. Becoming when implying production is called utpannāstika and when implying destruction is called paryāyāstika.
This description makes it clear that Jainism is thoroughly a realistic system which accepts the reality of all the four: (1) undifferentiated being, (2) different category of being, (3) production and (4) destruction.
Agamic Concept of Existence Lord Mahāvīra is said to have pronounced three attributes of existence, viz. production, destruction and continuity. On being asked by Indrabhūti, his foremost disciple what is the nature of reality? (kim tattam) Mahāvīra is reported to have first answered: 'origination' (uppannei vā) and then when same question was successively, repeated, 'destruction' (vigamei vā) and 'peristence' (dhuvei vā). Ācārya Umāsvāti has faithfully represented this in his aphorism [Utpadavyayadhrauvyayuktam sat, 5/29]. In his auto-commentary however he has given four types of existence as we have already stated.

Page #138

128 Studies in Umāsvāti Objection to the Jaina view of existence If we look at four types of existence we would find that by implication Ācārya Umāsvāti has tried to incorporate different views regarding existence. This has also covered the question of relative and absolute existence to some extent. The term absolute has two implications: (i) That which is true for all times and all places, (ii) That which is pure or independent. Thinkers like Dr. Radhakrishnan have criticized Jainism in the following words'Yet in our opinion the Jaina logic leads us to a monistic idealism and so far as the Jainas shrink from it they are untrue to their own logic ... The theory of relativity cannot be logically sustained without the hypothesis of an absolute. ... If Jainism stops short with plurality, which is at best a relative and partial truth, and does not ask whether there is any higher truth pointing to a One which particularises itself in the objects of the world, connected with one another vitally, essentially and immanently, it throws overboard its own logic and exalts a relative truth into an absolute one'.3
Objections Answered This is a criticism of Jainism from an absolutistic point of view. This criticism means that relative existence necessarily presupposes an absolute existence. Ācārya Umāsvāti accepts this absolute existence under the category of dravyāstika existence, which is one all pervading and without beginning and end. Ācārya Umāsvāti has described dravyāstika existence under the synthetic point of view. In perfect knowledge (kevalajñāna), omniscient (kevalī) knows all objects simultaneously. This state of knowledge cannot be comprehended through logic because it surpasses all discursive knowledges which are always successive.
The Jain scriptures clearly state that this type of existence is beyond words, logic and mind:

Page #139

Contribution of Ācārya Umāsvāti to the Concept of Existence 129 ‘All voices get reflected (i.e. fail to reach there). It is impossible to express the nature of the immaculate soul in words'.5 There is no reason there i.e. it is beyond the grasp of logic'.6 'The intellect fails to grasp it.
Ācārya Amộtcandrasūri in his commentary on Samayasāra transcreates this very idea in the following words — When one experiences the all embracing lustre of the self, lustre of the partial view-point does not arise and the organs of knowledge cease to work; one does not know where the circle of symbolic representation withers away; what more can be said even the duality ceases to be felt.8
Thus the Jaina scriptures right from the Ācārāṇgasūtra were conscious of absolute aspect of existence. Both the Śvetāmbara and Digambara scriptures describe this aspect of existence in negative terms also. He is neither long, nor short, nor a circle nor a triangle, nor a quadrilateral nor a sphere. He is neither black nor blue nor red nor yellow nor white. There exists no simile (to comprehend him).10
This may be compared to the following gāthā of the Samayasāra: In the (pure) soul there is no colour, no smell, no taste, no touch, no visible form, no body, no bodily shape and no skeletal structure. 11
This is comparable to the following description of the Upanişads: The self is without sound, without touch and without form, undecaying is likewise, without taste, eternal, without smell, without beginning, without end, beyond this great universe. Discerning that one becomes free from the mouth (jaws) of death.12
Thus we see that the Jainas do not stop at a relative truth but go beyond it and conceive of an absolute truth also. True to

Page #140

130
Studies in Umāsvāti
its own logic it maintains that just as relativity cannot be logically sustained without the hypothesis of an absolute, similarly an absolute cannot be logically sustained without the hypothesis of a relative truth. The non-absolutism, therefore, does not lead to a monistic idealism but to a dualistic pluralism. That the objects of the world are connected with one another is accepted by the Ācārānga when it declares that one who knows one, knows all and one who knows all knows one.13 This inter-connectedness does not mean obliteration of difference between on object and the other. It only establishes identity-cum-difference between two objects.
Pluralistic Concept of Existence Inspite of this Umāsvāti is quite conscious that he is dealing with a pluralistic system, therefore he mentions mātņkāpadāstika existence as the second type of existence. Under this type of existence we describe all the five types of eternal substances, viz., Medium of motion, medium of rest, space, matter and soul.
Five homogeneous aggregates (astikāyas) have been accepted as basic existence in Jain Philosophy. There is no existence except these five homogeneous aggregates (astikāyas). A concept of astikāya gives the specific understanding of existence. Astikāya is a technical word. It is a combination of two words asti and kāya. Generally asti means point= pradeśa and kāya means aggregate. An aggregate of homogeneous points is called astikāya. There is also a very significant expression of astikāya given by Ācārya Siddhasenagani in his commentary on Tattvārthasūtra. All existent are possessed of three characteristics viz. origination, extinction and persistence. The particle asti indicates persistent characteristic of existence whereas kāya typifies the first two characteristics viz. origination and destruction.14 So we may say that astikāya and existence are synoymous in this sense. These astikāyas are also absolute in the sense that they exist independent of each other from time immemorial. Ācārya Mahāprajña says:

Page #141

Contribution of Ācārya Umāsvāti to the Concept of Existence 131 'five astikāyas are absolute truth because their existence is neither created by our consciousness nor do they depend on each other for their existence, but they exist independently.15 ... The soul in its bounded form represents relative truth whereas in its liberated form its existence is absolute ... (Similarly). An insentient being is a relative truth in its dependent form whereas in its independent form it represents absolute truth'.16
Comprehensive View of the Jainas As we have already said, Ācārya Umāsvāti deals with the transitory aspect of existence under two heads: (i) origination (ii) destruction, respectively, calling them utpannāstika and paryāyāstika. There is a famous philosophical doctrine called ‘ajātivāda' which holds that all origination is just as illusion; nothing originates in reality. Ācārya Umāsvāti refutes this by accepting the existence of origination. Destruction and origination being two sides of the same coin, destruction is as real as origination. This is accepted by Ācārya Umāsvāti under the fourth category of existence that is paryāyāstika.17
It may be noted that here change is bifurcated into two; origination and destruction. In the 'Brahmasūtra' also change is bifurcated into the same two categories under the name of birth (janma) and destruction (pralaya). Sankarācārya points out that these two along with continuity include the six modifications enumerated in the ‘Nirukta’: jāyate, asti, vardhate, vipariņamate, apakṣīyate and vinaśyati.18
Conclusion To conclude, treatment of existence by Ācārya Umāsvāti in his works is quite illuminating in the following sense: 1. Ācārya Umāsvāti is the first to give the definition of
existence according to Jain view. 2. Existence in its undifferentiated form is one.

Page #142

132 Studies in Umāsvāti
3. The categories of existence are real and are not the
manifestations of one reality. This lays the foundation of
a pluralistic system. 4. Relativity and absolutism are supplementary to each other.
The Jain works right from the Ācārānga up to Ācārya Amrtacandrasūri are conscious of absolute aspect of reality. Ācārya Umāsvāti in his classification of existence takes full note of this fact. The classification of existence into four by Ācārya Umāsvāti is his own and is elaborated by the Svetāmbara commentators of the Tattvārthasūtra like Siddhasenagani and Haribhadra. Other Jain Ācāryas appear to have
overlooked this classification. 6. The treatment of existence by Umāsvāti is so comprehensive
that it includes all the aspects of the Jain view of existence.
References
1. Se nunam bhante! athire paloai, no thire paloai ? Athire bhajjai, no
thire bhajjai? hanta Goyamā! athire paloai no thire paloai, athire
bhajjai no thire bhajjai. -Bhagavatī, 1/440. 2. The word mātrkā occurs in Thānam, 10/46 also, but in a different
context. There it means origination, destruction and continuity. The tradition has that Lord Mahāvīra started his sermon with the three terms; uppannei vā, vigamei vā and dhuvei vā. These three terms being the source of all the teaching of Lord Mahāvīra, are called mātrkā. Similarly, the five astikāyas being the source of all existence
are also called mātrkā. 3. Indian Philosophy, Dr. Radhakrishnan, pp. 305-6. 4. Samgrahābhiprāyānusārī dravyāstikam.
-Tattvārtha Bhasyānusarini, p. 400. 5. Savve sarā niyaanti. —Āyāro, 5/123. 6. Takka jattha na vijjai. - Ibid, 5/124. 7. Mai tattha no gāhiya—Ibid, 5/125; Se na dīhe, na hasse, na vae, na
tanse, na cauranse, na parimandale. -Ibid, 5/127.

Page #143

Contribution of Ācārya Umāsvāti to the Concept of Existence 133 8. Na kinhe, na nile, na lohie, na halidde, na sukkille. -Ibid, 5/128. 9. Uvama nā vijjae. -Ibid, 5/137. 10. Udayati na nayaśrīr astameti pramānam, kvacidapi nahi vidmo yāti
niksepa cakram/Kimaparam abhidadhmo dhāmni sarvankaśesminn anubhavam upayāte bhāti na dvaitam eva.Samayasāra, Ātmakhyāti,
gāthā 9, p. 75. 11. Jīvassa natthi vanno navi gandho navi raso navi ya phāso navi rūvam
na sarīram navi samhānam na samhananam. -Samayasara, gāthā
50. 12. Asabdam asparsam arūpam avyayam tathā arasam nityam agand
havac ca yat/ anadi anantam mahataḥ param dhruvam nicāyya tan
mệtyu-mukhāt pramucyatel/-Kahopanişad, 1/3/15. 13. Je egam jānai se savvam jānai, je savvam jānai, se egam jānai.
-Ācārānga, 3/74. 14. dhrauvyārtha-pratipattaye'stiśabdapraksepaḥ/—Tattvārthabhāsya
nusāriņi īkā (VI), pp. 317-8. 15. Nirapeksa satya panca astikāya haim. inakā, astitva na to hamāri
cetanā mem hai aur na eka dūsare ki tulanā mem udbhūta hai kintu
svatantra hai. Jain Darsan aur Anekānta, p. 29. 16. Baddhajīva kā astitva sāpekṣa satya hai aur mukta jīva kā astitva
nirapeksa hai: ... paratantra acetana padārtha sāpeksa satya hai aur
svatantra acetana padārtha nirpeksa satya hai. -Ibid, p. 3. 17. Even though origination and destruction, both are paryāya yet
Ācārya Umāsvāti includes only destruction under paryāyāstika, perhaps he has the concept that all changes involve destruction of the earlier mode and therefore he has included only destruction under
paryāyāstika. 18. Brahmasūtra, 1/2.

Page #144


Page #145

11
Parallelism between Tattvārthasūtra and Yogasūtra
KUSUM PATORIA
From available sources it can be assumed that yoga was in practice in India from Pre-historic-ages. It was a well-established philosophical system, and also a practical discipline accepted by other philosophical systems. Jaina tradition extols the first Tirthankara Rsabha as a Mahāyogi. The Mahābhārata and Srimad Bhāgavata refer to Rsabha as a practitioner of different yogas.1 According to Mahābhārata Hirnyagarbha is an ancient and the first knower of yoga. Hirnyagarbha is one of the several names of Lord Rsabha.
Pātañjala Yogasūtra and Tattvārthasūtra both have many similarities. Many conceptions are similar. A number of technical terms are the same, e.g. savitarka, avitarka, savicāra, nirvicāra, mahāvrata, krta-kārita-anumodita, vajra-samhanana, kevala, kevali, kaivalya, kşīņakleśa, mohāvaraṇa, jñānāvaraṇa, etc.
This paper points out and explains some of these similarities.
A. Acceptance of Variable Constancy (Pariņāmī-Nityatā) (a) TS: The unique theory of Anekānta means the negation of the absolutism of extistence, non-existence, permanence and momentariness. The substance is such as absorbs both

Page #146

136
Studies in Umāsvāti
permanence and impermanence in its identity.
TS defines a substance to be that, which has attributes and modes. Modes and attributes are not numerically distinct members in the constitution of a substance. A substance cannot stand independently of its modes and attributes. Devanandi says that substance (dravya) flows towards its modes. The substance, its attributes and modes are not totally different elements in a substance, nor is substance totally different from its attributes and modes.
An attribute is that, which never leaves the substance. Devanandi states, “those which found inhering permanently in substance, are the attributes'. 5 An attribute changes, but can never disappear from its substance. According to Umāsvāti, the attributes inhere in a substance, but in themselves, cannot be supposed to have attributes. He emphasises two facts. First, the attributes presuppose a substance for their inherence, and secondly, attributes do not form a substratum for other attributes. A substance is a collection of attributes. Umāsvāti means that the attributes are not mental constructions but have Ontological Validity. The attributes are mutually distinct, but each of these inheres the whole of the substance.
The modes are the forms of existence of a substance with regard to its various attributes. The variations of an attribute are the modes, says Devasena in Ālāpapaddhati.? Modes depend upon attributes, being the forms of existence of a substance.
TS mentions sat or existence as the differentia of a substance. This sat does not mean absolute permanence. A substance by its nature undergoes changes, still it maintains its identity. So, sat has been defined as the co-presence of origination, decay and permanence. The substance undergoes variations by negating old forms of existence and assuming new ones and thereby safeguarding its persistence. So, according to the Jaina philosophy, continuity and change are coexistent in the substance. There is no temporal distinction among the states of

Page #147

Parallelism between Tattvārthasūtra and Yogasūtra 137 origination, decay and permanence. It is one existence which implies origination, decay and permanence simultaneously. Hence a substance would mean origination, decay and permanence in one. (b) YS: YS also describes threefold changes in mind, atoms and senses. These are change of quality (dharma-pariņāma), laksaņa pariņāma and avasthā-pariņāma.10 Changes like clay particles undergoing change in form and becoming a pitcher, is called dharma-pariņāma. As Bhoja remarks in his commentary ‘mệtlakṣaṇasya dharmiņah pindarūpa-dharma-parityāgena ghaarūpa-dharmāntara svīkāro dharmapariņāmah'.11 It means change of quality in a substance, or in other words the substance undergoes a change. The change in dharma itself due to time is lakṣaṇa-pariņāma. Future, present and past are only the three different moments of the same thing.
The appearance of a thing is constantly changing owing to the continuous change of atoms that compose it. Yet the changes are so fine and infinitesimal that they cannot be noticed by anyone except the Yogis. One substance undergoes endless changes of qualities in order of succession. The qualities only are manifested in time by virtue of which the substance also is spoken of as varying and changing temporally.
The substance is that, which remains common to the latent (śānta) the rising (udita) and the unpredictable (avyapdesya) characteristic qualities. 12 (c) Comparision: So, this theory of threefold change brings it near the Anekānta theory.
The difference between them is that TS accepts every substance including soul as variable constant (pariņāmī-nitya) Umāsvāti states that, nitya means persistence of its identity.13 Soul also has origination, decay and permanence in it. According to TS, a substance must mean co-presence of position and negation, permanence and impermanence, and diversity and unity without involving any contradiction therein, but YS accepts the absolute

Page #148

138 Studies in Umāsvāti
permanency of the purusa and the pariņāmi-nityatā, of the qualities.14
B. Dualism: TS and YS The soul has been variously conceived by philosophers. The yoga and the Jain systems of philosophy believe in the distinct existence of soul and matter, so they are dualists.
(a) TS: TS accepts the soul (jīva) and matter (ajīva or pudgala) are only partially different.15 The non-dualist and other systems don't assign a common origin of soul and the matter, so the only alternative is to accept two distinct substrata to account for the soul and the matter. But absolute distinction and opposition can find meaning, only when one entity is existent and other is nonexistent. Jaina view of the relation of the soul and the matter is partial difference and partial agreement between them. This view is as distinction-cum-non-distinction or ‘kathañcit bhedābheda'.
Jaina dualism admits the contribution of both soul and matter in the world process. If the dualism of the soul and the matter is admitted, a relationship between them must also be accepted.
According to the Jaina system, a substance cannot transform its attributes to those of another substance. All substances manifest by themselves. 16 TS formulates the theory of auxiliary causation (nimitta) to explain the relation between the soul and the matter. Different substances work in coordination with each other (thereby maintaining their individuality) and also helping each other's functions. According to this theory, there is no mutual transformation of two substances or their attributes. The one by accepting the virtual action (upakāra) of the other undergoes transformation in its own constitution. This theory presupposes a capacity in both the soul and the matter by virtue of which the mutual upakāra becomes possible.17
Interaction and parallelism are two main theories of soul and the matter relation. Above mentioned causation (nimitta)

Page #149

Parallelism between Tattvārthasūtra and Yogasūtra 139 theory of soul-non-soul relation is neither interaction, as there is no mutual transformation of the two substances, nor parallelism, as the two series cannot be held to be absolutely independent of each other. 18
(b) YS: YS also starts with dualism of the soul (puruşa) and the non-soul (prakrti). It admits numberless souls and one primeval matter called prakrti constituted of qualities. Prakrti is that ultimate substance which is the source of all physical and psychical phenomena. Its primordial state is conceived as an equilibrium of qualities where there is no visible change. All action and interaction of the qualities at this state are only in a potential state. So, praksti is a real, eternal, non-intelligent and independent principle. Qualities are also real and substantive. Souls are isolated, neutral, intelligent and inactive. 19
Patañjali says that the puruşa is a seer (drașā) or observer whereas the prakrti is an illusory reality which exists only for the the puruşa.20 Their nature of unity is avibhāgaprāptau iv a, as if there is no difference. Bhāsya remarks this realtion as 'bhoktr-bhogyatā' relation.
According to YS, something like unity takes place between the buddhi and the purusa. There is a seeming reflection of purusa in the buddhi, and as a result of this reflection, it appears as if the self becomes united with the conceptual determination of the buddhi. The nature of this reflection is a transcendent one. Thus phenomenal intelligent self is partially a material reality arising out of the seeming interaction of the soul and the mind. So, the YS accepts interaction of soul and non-soul. It states that interaction is the only way by which matter releases the soul from its seeming bondage. Patañjali states that, the pure nature of sattva has great resemblance with pure nature of puruṣa. (c) Comparison: The reflection of purusa in the buddhi creates many problems. Absolutely passive puruşa cannot be assumed

Page #150

140 Studies in Umāsvāti as related in any way to the world process. Tattvārthasūtra has solved these difficulties by conceiving nimitta theory of causation.
C. Relation of Mind and Matter (a) TS: Ts describes mind and matter as distinct entities and one cannot be reduced to or derived from the other. Mind or soul is characterized by consciousness, while matter is unconscious.
Umāsvāti gives consciousness (upayoga) as the defining characteristic of the jīva.21 It is a function (vrtti) of soul. Knowledge is grouped as direct(pratyakşa) and indirect (apratyakşa). Direct means that which is determined by soul itself, hence it is independent of non-soul.22
(b) YS: Patañjali states the praksti as a primeval cause of matter on the one hand, and mind, the senses and ego on the other. So matter and mind are nothing more than two different kinds of modifications of praksti . He distinguishes from them a self intelligent principle, which he calls puruşa or drașā. Matter considered only of three primeval qualities or substantive entities, which are called sattva, rajas and tamas. These are the only three elements, regarded as forming the composition of all phenomena, mental and physical.
The purusa is neither quite similar to the mind not altogether different from it. The mind is constantly undergoing modifications accordingly as it grasps its objects one by one. The act of having a perception is nothing, but its own undergoing of different modifications and thus an object sometimes comes within the grasp of buddhi and again disappears as a patency (samskāra), yet again comes into the field of the understanding as memory (smrti). Therefore, it is changing (parināmin). But the puruşa is constant seer of buddhi. The buddhi is unconscious, while the puruşa is pure light of intelligence. Buddhi is nothing but a modification of the three guras, which are non intelligent. So mind is a modification of matter, but in its active aspect, buddhi

Page #151

Parallelism between Tattvārthasūtra and Yogasūtra
141
feels itself one with the spirit. (c) Comparison: Therefore, the main difference between the two is that the YS conceives mind as born of prakrti, whereas TS accepts minds as conscious mainifestation.
D. Concept of Iśvara (a) Iśvara in YS is that special purusa, distinct from all others by the fact of his being untouched by the afflictions or vehicles of the fruitions of action. He is omniscient to the highest degree. The praṇava or Omkāra is His name.
This Isvara, defined in two sūtras (1/24/5) is just like the liberated soul of TS. He is also untouched by afflictions and obtains omniscience. He is vītarāga and sarvajña. Umāsvāti describes mokṣa as the total expulsion of the karmas from the soul. Yoga's Iśvara is neither the superintending element (adhishātā) of prakrti, nor the creator of the world. He is not active and cannot cause any motion in praksti.23 So this Iśvara is similar to kevalin of Jain.24
But Vyāsa explains it differently. He remarks that though Iśvara is a purusa he does not suffer any sort of bondage in any way: He is always free and the over-lord. He never had, nor will have any relations with these bounds. This explaination differs from that of TS.
E. Yoga' of YS and Samvara, Samyama and Gupti of TS and other terms: The term yoga in YS is used for restraining the mental states. These mental states are similar to the term yoga and äsrava (influx) of TS. Yoga and asrava are defined in TS as ‘Kāyavānmanaḥkarma yogah/sa āsravaḥ', that is the activity of the body, speech and mind is yoga and that is āsrava.25 Therefore yoga and āsrava of TS come to mean the activities of the body, speech and mind and samvara comes to mean the restraint of āsrava.26 Thus both the terms yoga of YS and samvara of TS signify restraint.

Page #152

142 Studies in Umāsvāti
The activity of the body and speech necessarily presuppose mental activity. In Vyāsa bhāṣya, vṛttis are called mānasa-karma. Tattvārtha bhāṣya also describes manoyoga as a mānasakarma. So this is an additional point of similarity in YS and TS.
The use of samvara is exclusive to the Jaina philosophical texts and it has been in vogue from Pre-Mahavira-times.27 The term samvara and yoga have similar meaning and connotation.
Yoga can also be compared to samyama because TB defines samyama as restraint of yoga.28 Not only samvara and samyama but the gupti and meditation may also be compared with yoga. Gupti is rightly restraint of yoga.29 Manogupti is explained as 'savadya-saṁkalpa-nirodhah, kuśalah-saṁkalpa-nirodha, kuśalākuśala- samkalpanirodaha eva va manoguptiriti'.30
Yoga that is āsrava in TS is two fold: sakaṣāya yoga and akaṣāya yoga. YS mentioned two types of cittavṛttis namely klişa and akliṣa. The two terms kaṣāya and klesa have precisely the same connotation.
Avidyā, asmitā, rāga, dveṣa and abhiniveśa are the five afflictions in YS. Avidya or false knowledge is the root of all the five afflictions. These five afflictions are only the different aspects of avidya and cannot be conceived separately from the avidyā. These always lead us into the meshes of the world, far away from our final goal, the realisation of our own self.31
TS says that mithya-darśana, avirati, pramāda, kaṣāya and yoga are the causes of bondage.32 Avidyā and asmită are mithyādarśana,false knowledge. Raga-deveṣas are the kaṣāyas, abhiniveṣa which is the fear of death, is called 'no-kaṣāya' in TS.
F. Yama & Mahavratas
Ahimsā, satya, asteya, brahmacarya and aparigraha are called yamas in YS.Ahimisā is regarded as the root of the other yamas. Niyamas also make the ahimsa perfect. Maitri, karuṇā, muditā and upekṣā serve to strengthen ahimsā. The restricted ahimsā

Page #153

Parallelism between Tattvārthasūtra and Yogasūtra 143 is only for ordinary men and universal law of ahimsā for a yogi is called mahāvrata.33
This discription and the accompaying view point are totally similar to TS. It is notable that in Jaina tradition also. The mahāvratas were called yama or yāma. The historicity of cāturyāma principle of Pārsvanāth, the twenty third Tīrtharkara has been proved. Hence, scholars like Jacobi are inclined to believe that Patanjali might have borrowed these from Jainism.34
Three types of karmas: sukla, krsņa and aśukla-krsna of YS can be compared to the three types of conscious manifestation as śubha bhāva, aśubha bhāva and suddha bhāva of TS. sarvabhutarutjanana, jāti jñāna and pracitta jñāna resemble avadhi jñāna and manaḥparyaya jñāna of TS.
This uniformity of description and thoughts suggests uniformity of experience as well as mutual influence. It is also notable that any statement about yajña or Veda is totally absent in the YS.
References
1. (A) Rşabhaḥ pavitrāņām yoginām nişkalaḥ—Mahābhārata,
14/18 - shivah. (B) Yogacaryācaraño Bhagavān Kaivalyapatih Rşabhaḥ.
Śrimad-bhāgavata, 5/6/64. 2. Hirnyagarbho yogasya vettā nānyah Purātanah.-Mahābhārata,
349/65. 3. Tattvārthasūtra, 5/37. 4. Sarvārthasiddhi, p. 153. 5. Ibid, p. 95. 6. Dravyāśryanirgunah guṇaḥ —TS 5/40. 7. Gunavikāraḥ paryāyaḥ—Alūpapaddhati, p. 37. 8. Utpādavyayadhrauvyayuktam sat. —Tattvārthasūtra, 5/29. 9. YS, 3/13. 10. Vyāsa-bhāsya on Yogasūtra, 3/13.

Page #154

144 Studies in Umāsvāti
11. Rājamārtaṇḍavṛtti of Bhojadeva, 3/13.
12. Yogasūtra, 3/14.
13. Tattvārthasūtra, 5/30.
14. द्वयी चेयं नित्यता, कूटस्थनित्यता परिणामिनित्यता चा
तत्र कूटस्थनित्यता पुरुषस्य परिणामिनित्यता गुणानाम् । – Vyāsa bhāsya on Yogasūtra, 4/33.
15. Tattvārthasūtra, 5/44 and its bhāṣya.
16. Ibid, 5/41.
17. Ibid, 5/17-22.
18. Jain, Dr. S. C., Structure and functions of soul in Jainism, p. 75.
19. Yogasūtra, 4/31, 18; 2/6, 17-23.
20. Ibid, 2/21.
21. Ibid. 2/8.
22. Ibid, 1/9-12.
23. Ibid, 1/24-7 and its bhāshya.
24. Tattvārthasūtra, 10/1-3.
25. Ibid, 6/1-2.
26. Ibid, 9/1-Asravanirodhah Samvarah.
27. Jhaveri, Dr. Indukala, Yogaśataka-Introduction, p. 11.
28. Sabhāṣya-Tattvārthādhigamasutra, p. 390.
29. Ibid, 9/6.
30. Ibid, 9/4.
31. Yogasūtra, 1/5 and 2/3-9.
32. TS 8/1.
33. YS 2/30-31.
34. H. Jacobi, On the Original System of Yoga, Eng. tr. Prof. R. D.Vadekar.

Page #155

12
The Jaina Universe in a Profile of
Cosmic Man
SUZUKO OHIRA
I have already written enough about Umāsvāti, his Tattvārthādhigamasūtra (T.S.), its auto-commentary, and some T.S. problems relevant to Jaina canonical texts in my two works, i.e. 'A Study of the Tattvārthasūtra with Bhāsya, (L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, 1982)' and 'A Study of the Bhagavatīsūtra—A Chronological Analysis' (Prakrit Text Society, Ahmedabad, 1994). There is not much I want to add here, particularly under the present situation when I am somewhat away from the Jaina studies proper. Such being the case, I would like to be allowed to contribute a brief paper to this Umāsvāti Seminar, by posing upon the Cosmic Man-shaped Jaina loka, and try to speculate when and why such a strange idea of the universe arose to the Jaina theoreticians, and if Umāsvāti himself knew about its significance.
Umāsvāti's T.S. was composed sometime in the late middle of the fifth century AD, is a compendium of the theoretical contents of massive Jaina canonical works. He organized it in terms of seven tattvas in some 350 sūtras, and wrote its commentary or bhāsya himself. Since then, it has become a common practice for the students of Jainology, to be introduced to the outline of Jainism through his Sabhāsya T.S. However, this prakarana,

Page #156

146 Studies in Umāsvāti written in terse Sanskrit is extremely difficult to comprehend, even with the help of his own bhāsya and naturally numerous commentaries have been continuously written on it up to this day. Students of Jainism today have to thus take up the Sabhāsya T.S., as a rule, along with some modern commentaries on it at the very beginning of their Jainological studies.
PINTUITII
Figure 1
Loka portion alone from The Jainendra Siddhānta Kośa, vol. 3, p. 455
It is in these modern commentaries on the T.S. that we find an exposition of the Jaina loka built in the form of World-Man or Cosmic Man, standing with his legs apart and resting his hand on his waist. The same exposition is, however, not found in the earlier ones. Umāsvāti describes the shape of loka in his bhāsya on sūtra III. 6 in the following way. The lower world stands in ākāśa like an upturned earthen bowl, the middle world is in the

Page #157

The Jaina Universe in a Profile of Cosmic Man 147 shape of a cymbal (hānjh or mañjīrā), and the upper world is also like a drum (mrdanga). The whole universe is, then, said to resemble a vajra, which means, according to Monier-William's Sanskrit Dictionary (p. 913), the form of two transverse bolts crossing each other like the letter 'X'.
His description of the loka above as well as that of its structure and dimension made in the T.S. and its bhāsya, chs. III-IV, do not contradict those made in the modern works, except the unit of ‘rajju' in measuring the loka, which is the post-Umāsvāti usage
An illustration of this Jaina loka, for instance, shown in figure 1, may naturally arouse our imagination that it resembles a human being, having his head on top and his hands at the part of waist that falls in the position of the middle world. But Umāsvāti does not compare it to Cosmic Man as modern commentators on the T.S. do. Neither do so the early commentators of the T.S., both Śvetāmbara and Digambara, including Haribhadra, Pūjyapāda and Akalanka, whose works I hold. I shall be most happy if any scholar would be kind enough to inform me, of the earlier works on the T.S. or otherwise that refer to the Jaina loka expressed in human appearance.
Schubring mentions in The Doctrine of the Jainas (p. 206), 'A third non-canonical conception refers to a world of human appearance (as loka purusa)'.1 He, then, makes a note that an expressly female figure appearing in Grünwedel's Alt-Kutscha, 1.47, etc. is quite doubtful. True, an idea of the loka in the profile of Cosmic Woman can never be accepted in the context of Jainism.
However, an illustration of a female-figured Jaina loka, dated the 18th century, Rajasthan, has been widely circulated in Japan also, as shown below.2

Page #158

148
Studies in Umāsvāti
11!
12
Figure 2
Schubring also mentions that the name of the regions called neck (Graiveyaka) in the loka and the expression of head of the universe (loka-mastaka) made in the Daśavaikālikasūtra, IV. 25 make it clear that the Jaina loka is shaped in human appearance. The Daśavaikālikasūtra is one of the earliest canonical works, however, this part is obviously a later interpolation. Be that as it may, the loka was one of the earliest topics that the canonical authors had to work on, because without firmly establishing its shape, size and structure, etc., they could not advance and develop their theories of jīvas and ajīvas that abide therein. The Jainas are the natural philosophers, and they postulate that a non-universe (aloka) exists by which the loka is supported. Arguments on this matter appear in quite early canonical stages.4
The Bhagavatīsūtra (Bh.) VI. 5, 240–241, refers to the black body (tamaskāya) which envelops the four lower kalpas rising

Page #159

The Jaina Universe in a Profile of Cosmic Man 149 from the arunopapāta ocean, and from its end begins the black body (krsnarāji) at Brahmaloka. Since these regions are always bright due to the natural brightness of vimānas, and since the Jyotiskas brighten the middle worlds, it is difficult to fathom why the canonical authors had to postulate these dark regions in the Jaina cosmography. But a solution to this problem can be arrived at, only if we take the Jaina loka in a profile of Cosmic Man. For, then, we can suppose that tamaskāya is situated in the position of the womb with krsnarāji on top, which assumes a symbolic form of the svastika. These dark regions, then, will signify the cosmic garbha, the innermost shrine of the Jainas, in which located is Mt. Meru in the form of lingam. A plausible explanation of all this is that the then canonical authors adopted the popular lingam worship of Saiva school in order to represent Mt. Merú as a symbol of the eternal potency of Jainism. These regions are thus placed above the profane lower world.5
These texts in the Bh. above belong to the final canonical stage,when the Jaina central world view was thoroughly established. Their description of tamaskāya and krsnarāji presupposes that the Jaina loka was assumed in a profile of Cosmic Man. Then, the tunnel running (trasanādī) vertically through the center of the loka, must be suggesting itself to be the cosmic axis of the Jainas.
The structures of the three worlds and the four types of beings residing therein are described in the T.S., III-IV. Umāsvāti must have used the so called Pannatti texts for his source materials in composing these chapters. From the date offered so far above, it is very clear that the shape, size and structure of the Jaina loka had been already established by Umāsvāti's time. Therefore, the Jaina theoreticians in the later canonical stages including Umāsvāti were fully aware that the shape of their universe was made to resemble Cosmic Man. But curiously enough, they didn't dare to refer to this fact. It is likewise strange that the post-Umāsvāti authors like Haribhadra, Pūjyapāda and Akalanka

Page #160

150
Studies in Umāsvāti
maintained the same attitude of keeping silence about this matter. It just went on, as if handing down a secret inside to the succeeding Jaina theoreticians, until the modern authors broke with its taboo. But, why?
The Bh. (xiii.4. 478-9) refers to the directions starting from the central point in the middle world, situated in the middle of two thin layers at the top of Ratnaprabhā. This theory of directions must have evolved in the final canonical stage, in connection with locating the central point of the loka, against which a kevali must fix the central point of his physical body, in order to perform kevali samudghāta at his final moment of life.6 The T.S. ch.10 which is relevant to mokṣa, is silent about this method of kevali samudghāta. Now, the T.S. V.15 and its bhāsya states that a jīva can occupy space that is one asankhyāt a part of lokākāśa up to the whole of it. The entire lokākāśa has to be occupied by a kevali by spreading his soul in order to cut off his total karmas at the time of liberation. This process is known as kevali samudghāta. This is the only time when a jīva can occupy the entire lokākāśa. Umāsvāti, who keeps silence about kevali samudghāta, is thus definitely well acquainted with its concept.
You can attain liberation by way of ahimsā,' said Mahāvīra. But as time went on Jainas developed their own doctrinal system, and their method of salvation had to be, then, theorized in view of their advanced dogmatical scheme. Jainism advocates dualism of the jīva (ātman) and the matter (ajīva), and karma belongs to the category of matter. Since Jainas do not postulate Creators or God, they assume that jīvas and matter have existed since times eternal, and that world phenomena have also been occurring by the mutual bondage of jīvas and karmas since the beginning of eternal time. The Jaina theoreticians in the canonical age, had to solve the problem as to how to enable a kevali to eradicate his total karmas at the time of liberation, in the purview of their karma doctrine. Jivas and karmas, say the Jainas, have been inseparably bound since the beginningless time. Then, how can

Page #161

The Jaina Universe in a Profile of Cosmic Man 151 they ever be separated? It must have been a grave and pressing issue to be solved by the then canonical authors.
Here, Jaina canonical authors got help from the traditional Brahmanical concept of‘aham brahmāsmi' in the Brhadāranyaka upanişad and 'tattvam asi' in the Chāndogya upanişad. In other words, the unification of Ātman with Brahman is the wellknown established method of freedom from samsāra in the Brahmanical tradition. The Jaina authors resorted to the same method, and established ‘kevali samudghāta', the Jaina method of annihilating a kevali's entire karmas and attaining liberation, by allowing him to be unified or to become one with Cosmic Man, the Jaina loka.
In order to deny one's total self and become free from it, there is no other way for him, but to transcend the level of his own self and become one with the absolute one, Brahman or God, or with whatever name you may wish to call him. Likewise, if a kevali wants to be absolutely free from his entire karmas that have been inseparably bound with his transmigrating self since the beginningless time, there is just no other way for him, but to transcend the level of such self and become one with the absolute one, who stands outside the phenomena of samsāra. The Jaina theoreticians had to thus build their loka in the profile of Cosmic Man.
Buddha who was a historical person in Hinayāna Buddhism, came also to be considered as pervading throughout the universe in Mahāyāna Buddhism. This idea was soon followed by the corollary that Buddha is no other than the cosmic world itself. This cosmic world is called Buddha's ‘dharma kāya', that is often expressed by cosmic vairocana. This idea, of course, goes back to that of puruṣa in the ‘Puruşa-sūkta hymn' in the Ķgveda X.90. Puruśa or original man is here depicted as God of sacrifice as well as the object of sacrifice, by whose immolation the present world including all things, human beings, deities and all others

Page #162

152 Studies in Umāsvāti including social systems are derived. The Jainas thus followed in the wake of Mahāyānists.
The adoption of the idea of Brahman to the Jaina system must have occurred at some canonical stage, much earlier than the time of Umāsvāti. However, the Jaina loka which resembles cosmic man, is ajīva or matter, thereby kevali samudghāta is difficult to allow a kevali to attain his final perfection. Then, if the Jaina loka were assumed to be Cosmic jina or God who enables a kevali's unification with Him, in as much as the case of Brahman and Mahāyānists' Cosmic Buddha, it would be contradicted by their dual system of jīva-ajīva that excludes the existence of the absolute one. A kevali thus falls into a dilemma in performing kevali samudghāta, this being a method and a mechanical process of eradicating his entire karmic matter particles, that have been bound inseparably with his soul since times eternal, by way of spreading his entire soul space throughout the lokākāśa in a profile of Cosmic Man, and exploding them, just as a fully blown baloon brusts at its maximum expansion to exclude its air inside.
Due to some dissatisfactory factors hidden in this method of karmic destruction, Jaina theoreticians in the canonical age including Umāsvāti, could not openly say that the Jaina loka resembles cosmic man. Post canonical theoreticians, then, followed the same practice of their predecessors. However, as time went on, its grave significance came to be gradually forgotten, and the modern commentators of the T.S. must have started to elucidate that their loka is built in the appearance of cosmic man. Then, there also appeared an idea of the Jaina loka in a profile of Cosmic Woman, as mentioned already. This Jaina loka expressed in a figure of cosmic woman belongs, most probably, to a tantric line.

Page #163

153
The Jaina Universe in a Profile of Cosmic Man
References
1. Schubring, W: The Doctrine of the Jainas. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi,
1962, p. 206, note 1. He also makes a reference to Kirfel's Bilderatlas. 2. Figure 2, from Akira Sadakata's Indo Uchūshi (Indian Cosmography),
p. 233. The same illustration is also found in Heibonsha's Sekai Daihyakka Jiten (World Encyclopaedia), v. 3 (1988), illus.
p. 63, under 'uchū (universe)'. 3. Schubring, op. cit., p. 206. 4. Refer to my Study of the Bhagavatīsūtra, $ 1450–146. 5. Ibid, § 157–60. 6. Ibid, § 163 & 165.

Page #164


Page #165

13
Tattvārthasūtra Commentaries
of Karnataka
KAMALA HAMPANA
It is often said, and rightly so, that all the Tirthankaras are born in the north and most of the ācāryas are born in the south of India. This meaningful statement has more relevance in the context of Umāsvāti and his Tattvārthasūtra. This primordial canonical text gathered more momentum, wide currency and greater commentaries in Karnataka; some of the major and early commentaries are from Karnataka; the significant and exhaustive commentaries of Karnataka belong to Digambara sect. Paradoxically, the problems involved in the issue of the author-ship also come from the documents of Karnataka. Most of the inscriptional references on Tattvārthasūtra are also from Karnataka. Thus it is obvious that Karnataka has added more fuel to the ongoing debate on Umāsvāti and his magnum opus Tattvārthasūtra. It is with this in background that the present paper attempts to introduce some of the commentaries from Karnataka with special reference to the commentaries in Kannada language.
The early commentaries of Samantabhadra (not extant), Pūjyapada, Akalankadeva and Śrutamuni are in Sanskrit. Much has been said and discussed on the overall significance of the

Page #166

156
Studies in Umāsvāti
Sanskrit commentaries. Therefore, this paper has focussed more on the Kannada works in their chronological order.
Two or three of the earliest commentaries of Karnataka are not traceable even to this day. An inscription of Hombuja, while recording the chronology of succession of Jaina monks mentions the name of Āryadeva who succeeded Sivakoi ācārya and Varadattācārya, the two disciples of Samantabhadrasvāmi [E.C.VIII-i (BLR). Nr. 35. 1077. line: 713. The charter states that Aryadeva authored a work Tattvārthasūtra and the adept Simhanandi ācārya who promoted the Ganga kingdom succeeded Āryadeva. It is well known that the nestor preceptor Simhanandi lived in the mid fourth century and blessed the Ksatriya brothers Dadiga and Mādhava, who founded Gangavādi - kingdom [EC. VII-i (old) sh-4.1121-22]. Therefore the date of Āryadeva who preceeded Simhanandi may be fixed at the beginning of fourth century C.E.
But fixing the date is not that simple, because Śivakoi-ācārya and Varadatta Ācārya who preceded Āryadeva, were disciples of Samantabhadra svāmi (c. 550). Therefore Āryadeva will be a later author of seventh century in which case it corroborates the probable date of Cūdāmaại the earliest of Karnataka commentaries.
1. Āryadeva may be the contemporary of Pūjyapāda. 2. Āryadeva may be the author of Cūdāmaņi. 3. Āryadeva has an access to Samantabhadradeva's
commentary and Pūjyapāda's commentary.
But again the identity of Aryadeva poses some problems, whether Aryadeva is one of the aliases of Umāsvāmi or altogether a different name, is to be decided. If he turns out to be not identical with Umāsvāmi, then according to the statement of Hombuja charter, Āryadeva has authored a work also called Tattvārthasūtra, totally a seperate text though the title is one and the same. Whether Āryadeva was the first name of the great apostle Umāsvāmi is to be examined.

Page #167

Tattvārthasūtra Commentaries of Karnataka 157
It is an established fact that there is one and only one Tattvārthasūtra. If there were to be another Tattvārthasūtra, it would not have escaped the notice of Nirgranthologists for a thousand years. The fact is that Āryadeva's Tattvārthasūtra is not an original work; instead, it is a commentary on Tattvārthasūtra. Cūḍāmaṇi, a Kannada commentary on Tattvārthasūtra, mention-ed by Bhaakalankadeva (1604) in his Śabdānuśāsana [ed. Narasimhacar, R.:1923:10] is the same commentary of Āryadeva. Bhaākalankadeva has mentioned the name of the commentary and not the name of the author.
At this juncture a suggestion of Pt. Jugal Kishor Mukhtar deserves special consideration. He is of the opinion that the Sanskrit verse, quoted in an inscription of Śravanabelagola [EC. II(R) 360 (254) AD 1398 p 216 lines: 33-5] praising Śivakoi who ornamented Tattvärthasūtra by his penance, is a quotation taken from Cūḍāmani, the Kannada commentary on Tattvārthasūtra.In this case this is the only verse that has survived till now [Mukhtar J. K., Jain Sahitya Aura Itihas par Visada Prakāśa: Calcutta: 1956: 78]. If it is proved that Aryadeva is the author of Cūḍāmani, a Kannada commentary, then he will be the earliest Kannada commentator who pioneered writing in Kannada.
In the absence of any corroborative evidences, either inscriptional or literary, everything is nebulous; but, it is curious enough to note the name of Aryadeva as an author of Tattvārtha-sūtra for the first time, from an inscription of eleventh century, which records the name of the author and the work in unmistakable terms. M. A. Dhaky has very appropriately summed up the issue involved with reference to Aryadeva: "Incidentally, the Mallisena-prasasti of 1129 AD on Chandragiri at Śravaṇabelagola refers to Aryadeva and qualifies him as Rāddhā-ntakartā, an implied allusion to his authorship of the Tattvärthasūtra [EC. II (R) 77(67); p. 51]. The inscription at the same time does not anywhere mention Umāsvāti or Gṛddhra-picchācārya either in it's otherwise long list of the southern Nirgrantha holymen.

Page #168

158 Studies in Umāsvāti Āryadeva, however is apparently a totally unknown entity in the entire corpus of knowledge on the patriarchs and pontiffs, friars and monks, of all known sects of the Nirgrantha religion in Karnataka as well as in the northern India. Though he may perhaps have flourished in southern India, we virtually know nothing about him: (A Nirgrantha ascetic Āriyadeva figures in the inscriptions of Tamilnadu; but he is a medieval person). 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 [Dhaky: Umāsvāti in Epigraphical and literary tradition: Jain Journal: xxx 1-2: Octo 1996: 52].
There are three works in Kannada language bearing the same name of Cūdāmaņi: 1. Cūdāmaņi, the head - jewel, alias Tattvārtha-mahāśāstra
Vyākhyāna, was the earliest Kannada commentary on Tattvārthasūtra. Bha Akalanka (1604), an erudite scholar and grammarian, has authored Šabdānuśāsana, a Kannada grammar written in Sanskrit langauge; speaking of the potentiality of the Kannada language, Bha-Akalanka says: Nor is Karnataka a language unused for scientific purposes. For, in it was written the great work called Cūdāmaņi, 96000 verse-measures in extent, a commentary on the Tattvārtha-mahāsūtra. Bhaākalanka has mentioned the name of the commentary as Cūdāmaņi. But he has not mentioned the name of the author. Indra-nandi (c. 930) has mentioned a Cūdāmaņi of Tumbulūr-ācārya, but that is a work of different nature; it will be discussed in the
coming paras. 2. There is another work with the name of Cūdāmani. An
inscription of AD 1129 states that Śrīvardhadeva, a crestjewel of authors, had composed Cūļāmaņi, a poem of eminence. Dandi [c. 660), the famous author of Daśa

Page #169

Tattvārthasūtra Commentaries of Karnataka 159
kumāracarite and Kāvyādarśa, has praised Śrīvardhadeva in a couplet: 'Śiva bore the Ganga on the tip of his matted hair. O Śrīvardhadeva ! you bear Sarasvati on the tip of your tongue!' [EC. II (R) 67.1129] Appreciation of Dandi establishes that Śrīvardhadeva was a great poet of reputation and that he lived in the beginning of the seventh century.
An inscription of AD 1163 [EC. V (R) TN. 38(III TN 105), AD 1189 Joḍi-Basavanapura, pp. 432-36] has referred to Cūḍāmaṇi as a wise author of a poem called Cūḍāmaṇi, an exhibitor of all the ornaments of composition; and the names of Akalankadeva and Indranandi follow the name of Cūḍāmani, which suggests that Cūḍāmaṇi is an earlier work. Cūḍāmaṇi-sevya kāvya, mentioned in Śravaṇabelagola inscription and Cūḍāmaṇi-kāvya mentioned in Jodi-Basavanapura inscription are one and the same; evidently this Cūḍāmaṇi is a kāvya, a poem and not a commentary.
Jayakīrthi (c.1000) a Jaina author of Chando'nuśāsana, a Sanskrit work on prosody, dealing mainly with meters used in Kannada poems, has suggested that the work Cūḍāmaṇi consisted of some caupadis, quartets; 'Catuspadika Viditāsau Cūḍāmaṇau' (7.15); Therefore, Cūḍāmaṇi mentioned by Jayakīrti is the same Cūḍāmaṇi-kāvya of Śrīvardhadeva alias Cūḍāmaņi. It is the usual practice that the author getting the nomen of the work he has authored or viceversa. It has been suggested that the Cūḍāmani poem may be the same Cūḍāmaṇi, a classical Jaina poem in Tamil attributed to Tolamolideva alias Śrīvardhadevar who lived during the period of Vijaya, a Pallava (Kaḍvei) king (c. seventh century). Some have on the similarity of the name of the work Cūḍāmaṇi, tried to identify Tumbulūrācārya with Śrīvardhadeva, by mistake.

Page #170

160 Studies in Umāsvāti 3. Indranandi-ācārya while referring to the commentaries on
Şakhandāgama and Kasāyaprābhrta, after mentioning the names of Kunda (Konda) ācārya and Śhyāmu-kunda, says “Tumbulūrācārya, cf the village Tumbulūr, wrote Cūdāmņi, a commentary on Ubhaya-siddhānta, except the sixth part of it (the Mahābandha), of 84,000 granthāgras, in Kannada language and later he wrote a pañcikā of another 7000 granthāgras on the sixth khanda (Mahā-bandha) also'. The earliest and first to mention the name of Cūdāmani and it's author Tumbulūrācārya is Indranandi (c. 930). Though the name Cūdāmani is the same and both are commentaries in Kannada the work referred by Indranandi and Bhaākalanka (1604) are different, the former is a commentary on Ubhaya-siddhānta and the latter is a commentary on Tattvārthasūtra.
Thus there are three works bearing the name of Cūdāmaņi, all of the extent of 96,000 granthāgras, all of almost the same period of mid seventh century and written in Karnataka. It is a rare coincidence. The obvious similarities have led the scholars to think of works and authors being one and the same; B. L. Rice (1890) concluded that Śrīvardhadeva also called Tumbulūrācārya was the author of Cūdāmani which Bhaākalanka in his Sabdānuśāsana praises as if he considered it the greatest work in Kannada language. But a careful scrutiny will make it clear that all the three works are different; Cāmundarāya (978) has mentioned the names of Śrīvardhadeva and Tumbulūrācārya separately.
It is probable that the number 96,000 synchronised with the numerically designated Gangavādi-96,000, because the above works were composed (perhaps patronised) during the reign of the Gangas, particularly, during the period of Śrīvikrama, Bhūvikrama and sisapriya Śivamāra.

Page #171

Tattvārthasūtra Commentaries of Karnataka 161 Cāmundarāya says that none can equal Samantabhadradeva (c. 550. AD) who wrote famous Tattvārtha-bhāșya and a treatise on logic(verse no. 5). Cāmundarāya has clearly attributed a bhāsya on Tattvārthasūtra to Samantabhadradeva. Some other Sanskrit and Kannada authors also attribute a bhāsya to Samantabhadradeva by specifically mentioning it as Gandha-hasti-mahābhāsya and it's extent is said to be of 96,000 granthagras or verses. Hastimalla (1290), a Kannada author has expressed in his play Vikrānta-Kaurava that Samantabhadra was the promoter of Gandhahasti commentary; Dharmabhūṣaṇa's (1385) Nyāyadīpika also echoes the same opinion. LaghuSamantabhadra (fifteenth century) says that Svami Samantabhadra Ācārya, the chief of the doctrine of qualified assertion, wrote Gandha-hasti-mahābhāsya on the Mokşaśāstra olim Tattvārthādhigama of Bhagavad Umāsvāmi. A commentary of Siddhasena (eighth century), a śvetāmbara author is also called Gandhahastin.
Pt. Sukhlal and others are of the opinion that a commentary like Gandhahasti-mahābhāsya of Samantabhadradeva did not exist at all. But the available facts and internal evidences confirm the existence of Gandhahasti-mahābhāsya. Apart from the statements quoted above of different later authors, which can be considered as external evidences let me quote three examples in defence of Gandha-hasti-mahābhāsya as internal evidences: 1. Pūjyapāda (Sarvārthasiddhi) and Akalańkadeva (Rāja
vārtika) mention an earlier commentary: 'tathā coktam, sakalādeśah pramāṇādhīno, vikalādeśo nayāļhīnah' (-Rājavārtika); the reference here is to Samanta-bhadradeva's Gandha-hasti-mahābhāsya. Bhāskaranandi ācārya (c. 13–14th century) in his gloss Tattvārthasukha-vrtti, while commenting on the 42nd sūtra in the fourth chapter quotes-aparaḥ prapañcah sarvasya bhāsye drașavyah; and again in the fifth chapter

Page #172

162 Studies in Umāsvāti
at the second sūtra, he quotes—anyastu višeso bhāsye drașavyah. Thus both the references are to Gandha-hasti
mahābhāsya. 3. Dharmabhūsana also in his Nyāyadīpikā quotes from
Gandha-hasti-mahābhāsya; a. tadbhāsyam-tatrātmabhūtam agnerausnyam anātma
bhūtaṁ devadattasya dandah. b. bhāsyaṁ ca-samsayo hi nirnaya virodhī na tvavagrahah. c. tаduktaṁ svāmibhirmahābhāsye mīmāṁsā prastāve
sūksmāntarita dūrārthāh pratyaksāh kasyacid'ayathā
anumeyatvatojgnyādiriti sarvajña saṁsthitih.
The works so far discussed, Cūdāmaņi and Gandha-hastimahābhāsya are irretrievably lost. Of the extant commentaries the earliest is that of the adept Pūjyapāda alias Devanandi's Sarvārthasiddhih. Pūjyapāda is a prolific author so well known to Nirgranthologists with his works on logic, grammar, prosody and philosophy. He had the cognomen of Jinendrabuddhi. Later inscriptions and authors have praised Pūjyapāda (c. 580–635). He is said to have visited videha kşetra blessed by SīmandharaTirtharkara; while on his retreat from Videha he lost the eyesight but got back the eyesight by composing śāntyasaka at the śānti Tirthankara temple at Bankāpura, now in Haveri district of Karnataka. Sarvārthasiddhi is an exhaustive commentary on Tattvārthasūtra and a trend setter of southern tradition of Digambara affiliation.
It is really astonishing that Pūjyapada does not mention the name of the author and ascribing the work to oneNirgranthācāryavaryam, ‘some nirgrantha pontiff, has caused doubts in the minds of serious readers. No doubt it is a glaring omission, but the question is whether Pūjyapāda has purposely done it; M. A. Dhaky is of the opinion that Pūjyapāda professed complete ignorance of Umāsvāti [1996:53]. Though I very much like to differ from this opinion, I do not have another convincing alternative to agree. However, without probing deep into this

Page #173

Tattvārthasūtra Commentaries of Karnataka
163
and other problems, I must make it clear that all the commentaries of Karnataka are very much the blue-prints or abridged versions of Sarvārthasiddhi, except the works of Akalanka and Vidyānandi. Sarvārthasiddhi has been edited and translated into Kannada by D. Padmanābha Sharma (1988). The methodology of Kannada text is as follows: Original sūtras of Tattvārthasūtra, a bhāvārtha a paraphrase for each sūtra of Umāsvāti, Sanskrit commentary of Pūjyapāda (transliteration), a bhāvārtha free rendering into Kannada language of Pūjyapāda's commentary along with an extra explanation given to supplement the opinion of Pūjyapāda. The Hindi edition of Phoolchand Shastry's translation of Sarvārthasiddhi (1971) has helped the Kannada editor.
The Akalanka ācārya's [c. 730–50] Tattvārtha-rājavārtika is a master-piece which abounds in quotations from Buddhist works, especially from the texts of Dinnāga (c. fifth century). It is this that has created some legends woven around the life of the brilliant Akalankadeva. Though he has been influenced by Pūjyapāda, Akalankadeva's originality and genius is crystalised in the commentary. Albeit, Akalanka also does not mention the name of Umāsvāti. The same may be said of ācārya Vidyānandi (A.D. 900-50) who in his Tattvārtha-ślokavārtika has comprised the basic textual material used by the advanced students in Digambara monasteries.
Sukhabodhā commentary in Sanskrit of Bhāskaranandin (c.13–14th century), abounds in quotations from Akalanka's Rājavārtika. Bhāskaranandi's clarity and simplicity of style is appreciable. Not much is known about the life and time of the learned commentator except that he is believed to be a pupil of Jina-candra-bhaāraka who is referred to in the Śravanabelagola charter (EC. II (R) 79 (69)] of the twelfth century. At the very beginning, Bhāskaranandi, the commentator makes his

Page #174

164 Studies in Umāsväti
methodology and aim of his approach - 'Tattvārtha-sūtrapadavivaraṇam kriyate' and this he has achieved.
Coming to the Kannada commentaries, there are about thirty in number out of which only two are earlier and the rest are twentieth century works. Of the Kannada glosses the earliest was authored by Divākaraṇandi-Bhaāraka-Munindra alias Divakarandi-Siddhanthadeva [c. 1020-85]. He completed the work Tattvärtha-sūtrānugata-karṇāa-laghu-vṛtti, a Kannada concise gloss on the Tattvārthasūtra in the year C.E. 1060 at Hombuja, a holy piligrimage centre in Shimoga district.
The Kannada commentator, Divakarananandi-vrathinātha was one of the greatest of preceptors of Karnataka in the eleventh century. Eight inscriptions from different places and two poems of different authors have extensively praised the adept Divakaranandi with which a hagiography of the ācārya can be reconstructed [EC. II (R) 135 (117) AD 1123. ibid, 485 (351) EC.V (R) KR Nagara 22 (iv ye 23). c. 11th century; ibid. 23 (iv ye 24) AD 1100; ibid. 26 (iv ye 27). c. 11-12th century; EC. VI (R) KR pete. 3 (iv kp 3) AD1118; EC. VII (R) SK.136. AD 1062; EC.VIII (OLD) Nagara 58. AD 1062; ibid, Nagara] an abode of śāstras, a crest-jewel of philosophy, bearer of splendid virtues; he had proficiency in grammar, logic and philosophy. He was possessed of the five mahākalyāņas, the eight mahā-prātihāryas, the thirty four atisayas and was well versed in both siddhāntas. His vṛtti in Kannada in ten chapters to the Tattvarthasūtra, (AD 1060) opens with the following śloka:
natvā jineśvaram vīram vakṣye karṇāa-bhāṣayā tattvārtha-sūtra sūtrārtham mandabudhyanurodh/
and explains that the Gṛddhapicchācārya has at the outset saluted the Arhatparameśvara-paramabhaāraka, as a benediction to his Mokṣaśāstra and commences the gloss with the usual well-known sloka of mokṣa-margasya netāram bhettāram karma-bhūbhṛtām. Divākaranandin has quoted

Page #175

Tattvārthasūtra Commentaries of Karnataka
165
hundreds of gāthās and only eleven Sanskrit ślokas, which suggests that early commentators had also used more Prakrit verses. Divākaranandi is not the first commentator in temporal terms, because Cūdāmaņi of mid-seventh century of an unknown commentator was the first work. Since that work is not extant, ivākaranandi is credited as the first known commentator in Kannada. His Karņāalaghu-vítti, composed in a prose style of later old Kannada of eleventh century has popularised Tattvārthasūtra in Karnataka. His prose is simple but effective; only occasionally there are flashes of poetic excellence. For centuries this has served as a standard text, an authentic primer for the students of Jainalogy.
Divākaranandi has followed the model of Pūjyapāda; but I am not in a position to say how far he has been influenced by Bha and refers to it's author as Grdhrapiccha-ācārya and not as Umāsvāti. Divākaranandi quotes from Gommaasāra-Jivakānda [gāthā No. 614; this gāthā is from Sakhandāgama, Trilokasāra (gāthā No. 332), Jambūdvīpa Prajñapti (13.21), Mūlācāra and other works]. He authored this work to facilitate the sluggish, young scholars to learn Tattvārthasūtra and to acquire correct view of reality.
Tattvaratna-pradīpike of Bālcandradeva (AD 1170) is the second Kannada gloss in temporal terms but in quality the best. Bālacandradeva alias Adhyātmi-Bālacandra, also a monk, and a pupil of samasta-saiddhāntika-cakravarti Nayakīrti siddhānta deva, composed Tattvārtha-tātparya-vrtti olim Tattva-ratnapradīpike, a Kannada gloss to enlighten his disciple Kumudacandra-bhaāraka. Adhyātmi-Bālacandra belonged to the line of monks of the original congregation (mūla-sangha), Desi-gana Pustaka-gaccha Kondakunda-anvaya. He is a prolific author with the following works to his credit: 1. Jinastuti: containing only twenty verses in praise of the
virtues of jina.

Page #176

166 Studies in Umäsvāti
2. Prabhṛataka-traya: Kannada commentary on Samayasāra Pañcāstikāya and Pravacanasāra-prābhṛta-tātparya-vṛtti; based on the model of Jayasena's Sanskrit commentary: 3. Paramātma-prakāsike: a Kannada commentary on the Sanskrit work; but the authorship of this work is doubtful; Maladhāri Bālacandra, different from Adhyātmi Bālacandra, seems to be the real author.
4. Tattva-ratna-pradipike.
It should be said to the credit of Balacandradeva that the wellknown Gommaa-jina-stuti of Boppana-pandita was composed at the instance of him. Dāmanandi was the senior confriar of Adhyātmi Bālacandradeva [EC. (R) No. 73 (66). AD 1176, p. 76; ibid, No. 571 (v cp 150) AD 1181. p. 356; EC. VII (R) Nāgamangala No. 118 (IV Ng 70) AD 1178. pp. 120-21].
Bālacandradeva in Tattvaratna-pradipike has followed Pujyapāda's Sarvārthasiddhi more closely than Divakaranandi, but in the Kannada narrative style and in epitomization he has imitated the pattern of Divākaraṇandi. Bālacandradeva is more elaborate than Divākaraṇandi. Both Bālacandradeva and Divakaranandi quote more Prakrit gāthās than Sanskrit verses; there are some common gāthās and slokas between these two Kannada glosses but such common verses are very few. e.g.; 1. The following Sanskrit sloka is found in both the works - pramāṇa-naya-nikṣepairyorthān nābhisamikṣate/
yuktam cayuktavad bhāti tasyāyuktam ca yuktavat// 2. The following Prakrit gāthā is common
lāntava-kappe terasa accudakappe ya honti bāvīsā/ uvarima ekkattīsam evaṁ savvāṇi chāvahī//
Bālacandradeva does not blindly follow his predecessors. He profusely quotes from Gommaasāra, Trilokasāra of Nemicandra Siddhantacandra (AD 983) and from Dravya-sangraha.
-

Page #177

Tattvārthasūtra Commentaries of Karnataka 167 There are more Sanskrit verses in Bālacandradeva than in Divākaranandi. Bālacandradeva's Tattvārtha-pradīpike opens with a Sanskrit śloka which is the same as in Divākarañandi's work.
A comparative study of the Kannada commentaries of Karnataka, particularly with Pujyapāda's Sarvārthasiddhi is a desideratum. While preparing this paper I made a humble attempt to take up the work myself, but in the course I found that my knowledge of philosophy pertaining to the subject is not sufficient to do proper justice to the thesis. Hence after knowing my limitations I did not proceed further; but, some competent person should take up this work.
After twelfth century, it is suprising that not even a single commentary has been written on Tattvārthasūtra; the sole exception is that of an unknown author's Tattvārthasūtravyākhyā the date of which is not known. A microfilm copy (No. N. 1150] is well preserved in the Institute of Kannada Studies of Mysore University; I have not seen this microfilm.
But from the beginning of this century, nearly thirty different editions have appeared, but the heartening numerical figure is deceptive! Except four or five of the above Kannada works, the rest are popular bazar editions of no consequence; either they are reprints or just ordinary reproductions.
It is Padmarāja Šāstry, son of Brahmasūripandita of Chāmarājanagara, a district headquarters in Karnataka, who edited the original text with a commentary in modern Kannada language, for the first time in this century, in 1914. He made a sincere attempt to give the gist of each sūtra in simple spoken Kannada; it contains adhikarana, avataraņika, pratipadārtha and tātparya.
Padmarāja Šāstry, in his introduction of two pages to Mokşaśāstra as he names Tattvārthasūtra, has this traditional appeal to the reader— 'this is a sacred text to which should be bestowed the same respect extended to deva, god, guru, ascetic and śāstra; should be recited everyday only after taking bath;

Page #178

168 Studies in Umāsvāti the book should not be kept at an impure and unholy place; should not be touched in an impurity of child-birth or death or menses; he who recites the ten chapters with devotion will be blessed with the effect of Upavāsaphala, successfully completing the fast.
Though the later editions are mostly true copies of this commentary there are exceptions. Sri 108 Sambhavanandi, a Digambara ācārya has authored an exhaustive paraphrased Kannada commentary (1992), perhaps the only voluminous and valuable work after Bālacandradeva:
The title - Digambara Jainācārya Grddhapinccha SrimadUmasvāmi Viracita Mokşaśāstra olim Tattvārthasūtra, - suggests that the approach of this commentary is sectarian and Digambara oriented; a careful and comparative study will reveal the predictable disagreements on the matters of the nudity of the medicant and the partaking of food by the kevalin.
Bibliography
Dhaky, M.A.
1996 Umāsvāti in Epigraphical and literary tradition, In: Jain
Journal, vol, xxxi. no. 2, october 1996, pp. 47–65. 1991 The date of Kundakunda Acarya, (eds) M. A. Dhaky and
Sagarmal Jain,In: Aspects of Jainology, vol. II, Pt. Dalsukh
Malvania Felicitation Volume I, Varanasi, pp. 187-206. Kamala Hampana:
1982 2. Anekantavāda 1982 3. Jaina Sāhitya Parisara.
1983 1. (ed) Cāmundarāya Purāņam Mukhtar, Jugal Kishore: 1956 Jaina Sahitya aur itihasa par viśada prakāśa (Hindi),
Calcutta, pp. 106–8. Nagarajaiah, Hampa: 1994 1. (ed) Tattvärtha-sūtrānugata-karnāa-laghuvrtti,
Hombuja Jaina Matha.

Page #179

1997 2. Santararu-ondu Adhyayana, Hombuja.
Padmanabha Sharma, D:
1988 (ed) Devanandi Pūjyapādācārya kṛta Sarvārtha-siddhi (ed). Ratnamma, Dharmasthala, pp. 646, crown 1/4 size.
Premi, Nathuram:
1956 Jaina Sahitya aur itihasa (Hindi) Bombay.
Shantharaja Sastry, A:
Tattvärthasūtra Commentaries of Karnataka 169
1955 2. (ed) Tattvarathna pradipike of Balacandradeva, Mysore. 1. (ed) Tattvārthasūtra of Sri Umāsvāmi with the Sukhabodhā (A gloss) of Sri Bhaskaranandi, Mysore.
1994
Subayya (Suvrta) Sastry:
1967
Sakhaṇḍāgamah (tasya prathama khanda-Jīvasthāne), a Kannada translation, Bangalore.
Sri 108 Sambhavanandi ācārya:
Taranath, T.S.:
1978
1992 (ed) Mokṣasāstra, Digambara Jaina Śrāvaka-Śrāvikas, Belluru (Mandya District), pp. 548.
Sodhanāloka: pp. 89-99.
Upadhye papers:
1983 Mysore University, Mysore.

Page #180


Page #181

14
Apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada Literature
HAMPA NAGARAJAIAH
Preamble 1.1. Nirgrantha authors of Karnataka have, over centuries,
great regard for Umāsvāti and his magnum opus Tat
tvārtha- sūtra 1.2. Without touching the vexed issue of religious nuances
of the white-clad and sky-clad differences involved in the debate of the authorship, I would carefully confine to record the available material apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada language, both from literary and epigraphical
sources. 1.3 The methodology followed is purely an historical docu
mentation of facts. 1.4. Occasionaly I have ventured to analyse and assess the
facts without sacrificing objectivity or scope of the paper. Confusion of authorship 2.1 Umāsvāti is known with the name of Grddhrapicchācārya
(GP) in Karnataka; northern tradition is not familiar with
this cognomenic appellation. 2.1.1. The credit of mentioning the name of GP for the first
time in Karnataka goes to Virasena-āiriya who says in his Dhavalā - Tīkā: taha Giddha Picchariyappayasidata-ccatha sutthevi (C.E. 816].

Page #182

172 Studies in Umāsvāti
2.2 Among the extant Kannada works, allusion to the name
of GP (Grddhra Pinchācārya) as the author of TS, Ādipurā-ņam (canto1/verse12) of the Pampa (AD 941) is the
earliest. 2.2.1. After Pampa many Kannada authors like Cāmundaraya
(AD 968), śāntinātha (1060), Divākaranandi (1060), Karna-paryāya (1145), Nemicandra (1170), Brahmaśiva (1170), Acanna (1195), Janna (1230) and others have
repeated the name of GP as the author of TS. 2.3.1. Only Pārśva Pandita (AD1205), Kumudendu (1275), Sal
va (1485) and Payanavarņi (1669) have mentioned the
nomen US. 2.3.2. Out of the inscriptions, K. 60 (AD 1009), K. 52 (1050)
and Hombuja (1077) have mentiond only TS and not the author; but inscriptions of SB. 156 (AD 1115), 135 (1123), 173 ( 1145), 71 (1163), 73 (1176), 360 ( 1398) and 364 ( 1432) mention the names of both Umāsvāti and GP. Even though SB epigraph No. 360 (AD 1398) makes it very clear that US is the author of TS, somehow it tries to suggest that US who had GP as his second name is an
alias of KK. 2.3.3. The only inscription to mention that US is the author
of TS, without any ambiguity is that of Hombuja (EC. VIII(old) nagara. 46. A.P. 1526]. SB 360 (AD 1398) also clearly mentions that US is the author but it tries to equate
US with KKA. 2.3.4. As already stated in para no. 2.1.1., It is the Svāmi
Virasenācārya, in his Dhavalā-Tīkā (C.E. 816), comm. on Şakhaņdāgama, C. AD 500), who first initiated the nomen of GP. Set to motion by the adept Virasena it soon gathered momentum to roll over the green lawns of the Karnataka Nirgrantha monastery. Thereafter Jaina authors considered it a sacred duty of gratefully remembering the name of GP in the beginning of the work. As

Page #183

Apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada Literature 173 a result, Jain writers of Kannada language have over a thousand years revolved round the pivot of GP and have
complimented him with various encomiums. 2.3.5. But in course of time Kannada authors lost track of both
US and TS and landed in a mess which was their own creation. In the process US, TS, KKA, GP - all got mixed up creating a wrong impression that KKA and US are one and the same with the nomen GP being another alias, who authored TS. It is also believed that GP was the disciple of US and in turn Balaka pi(n)cchcārya, a disciple of GP, authored a work called Sūktiratna, considered as lovely ornament of the lady of final liberation (muktyangana), but nothing is known about
this work. Inscriptional Evidence 3.1. An exact date and lineage (anvaya) of KKA continues to
be a dilemma even to this day. Entering into the controversy of the proper place, date, etc., is like opening the pandora box. I am not eager either to delve deep into the unfathomable depth and get lost or discuss it in a parochial spirit. I confine to deal briefly only the relevant points. Among the aliases of KKA, caturangula carana has fascinated some Kannada authors like Vsttavilāsa (Dharmaparīkse, i-ii) and Doddaiah (Candraprabhacarite, 1-17). A monk who can fly up in the air by means of supernatural (legendary) powers is called janghā-carana. But the Jaina ascetics were forbidden to make use of supernatural powers or to indulge in such practices, even when they had mastered it [Sūtrakṛtānga, 2, 2, 27; Uttarādhyayana, 8.13 and 15, 7–8]. KKA and PP Devanandi are attributed with this occult power; it has been said that they went from Karnataka to Pūrva-Videha-kşetra by employing this supernatural occult power and had the darśana of Simandhara Svāmi. Some Kannada authors

Page #184

174 Studies in Umāsväti
3.2.
have gone to an extent of projecting KKA as a misogynist and that he would not touch the earth by his foot because this earth is personified as a woman.
3.3.
The following vṛtta, composed in śārdūla-vikrīḍita metre, employing more Sanskrit and less Kannada words, figure in some Kannada charters [K.16. undated (c. eleventh Century.), p. 54; K. 62. AD 1031, pp.150-1; K. 52, AD 1050, p. 133; Citapur No. 38. AD 1099. Hunasihadagali (Gogi, H:1996: p. 230];
Sri-caritra-samṛddhi mikka vijayasri karmma-vicchitti pur vacaryoktame raja-niti yenisuttirdi tapo-rajyadim/ bhucakram besakayye sanda muni-brinda-dhisvarar Kondakun
dacaryar dhrta dhiryar aryateyin en acaryarol varyaro// 'KKA is equated to an emperor; his virtue is bounteous treasure, he is victorious vanquishing the enemies of karma, his royal conduct in following the path traversed by the early ascetics; thus the chief of the friars and nuns, the KKA is ruling the kingdom of penance (tapo-rajya) and the fourfold congregation is obeying his commandements. With this undaunted courage and venerable character, KKA has been supreme in the group of monks'. 3.2.1. Immediately after these lines, the name of GP is mentioned as the follower in the line (anvaya) of KKA. Though the above verse is not found in the SB inscriptions, the name of US follows after the name of KKA is SB inscriptions of No.156 (127) and 135 (117) etc. M.A. Dhaky has discussed in detail the material from inscriptions [Dhaky: 1996:50-3]
There is no uniformity in equating the nomen US and GP with KKA.
3.3.1. Some consider GP was a follower of KKA.

Page #185

Apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada Literature 175 3.3.2. Those who have identified KKA with GP also are not uniform in proposing a proper date. One of the inscriptions has placed GP after SB Svami and Akalankadeva [EC. VII (R) NG. 64 (IV Ng 76). 1145. p. 47 lines 41-4].
4.1.
The importance of an epigraphical reference from Hombuja needs no exaggeration, in the context of this discussion. Though a later charter of post medieval period (ED. VIII (old) Nagara 46. AD 1526. Hombuja) the epigraphist seems to possess a fair knowledge of the chronology of the Nirgrantha monks. What is more important, is that the inscription is free from the usual confusion. The fairly long charter is a prasasti of the illustrious Vādi-Vidyananda Svāmi [1480-1536], a towering intellect, celebrated author, who was honured in the court of Kṛṣṇadevaraya of Vijayanagara, and many more kings of minor prinicipalities [Aaletore: 1938: 3778]. After introducing him, the charter starts recording the usual list of the continuum of the Jaina ascetics with the invocatory verse of Akalanka-ācārya; 'śrimat-puramagambhira-syādvāda' from his Pramāṇa-sangraha and obeisance to Vardhamāna - Jina. Immediately after the names of Yasobhadra and Bhadrabahu, the caturdaśapūrvadhāris and Viśākhācārya, the prominent daśa pūrvadhara, the name of Umāsvāti and his work TS is mentioned. I quote only the two relevant lines:
Tattvärthasūtra-kartāram Umāsvāti-muniśvaram Śrutakevali-desiyam vande aham guṇa-mandiram//
'I salute the chief of monks, Umāsvāti, who authored the TS, who is a śrutakevali, the adept, who belongs to the desiya cohort of friars and who is an abode of virtues'. After this salutation to US the name of KKA follows.

Page #186

176 Studies in Umāsvāti 4.2. Among the several references to TS and its author, the
statement of Hombuja inscription stands unique for the following salient features: i. The fact that US was the author of TS was known to
the southern Nigrantha church. ii. Other aliases of GP and Umāsvāmi are not mentioned. iii. US was chief of the monks-munīśvaram. iv. He was considered as Śrutakevalin; this term seems
to be analogous with the adjective aśesa-padārthavedi used elswhere in SB inscription, both suggesting
the authorship of TS. v. He belonged o the desīya cohort of friars, a filiate
branch of the original congregation (Müla-sangha)
vi. He was an abode of virtues. 4.3. The significance of this inscription is enhanced by the
fact that it was authored by the friar Vardhamāna muni, a disciple of Devendra Kirti, head of the monks of Digambara sect. The statement made here is similar to that of SB inscription [EC. II (R) 360 (354). Ad 1398]
but differs in placing KK as a successor of US. 4.4. Some of the Sanskrit and Kannada inscriptions of
Karnataka trace the genealogy of Jain ācāryas either from Ganadharas, the first mendicant disciples of Mahāvīra, or from Śrutakevalin Bhadrabāhu, the apostle who possessed the traditional knowledge of Jaina scriptures. One of such inscriptions states that in the line of the illustrious pontiffs, after Bhadrabāhu, arose Kondakunda ācārva who had the other names of Padmānandi, Umāsvāti and Gpdh-rapinchācārya, who had the disciple Balakapincha followed by SB and PP [E C>11(r) 71 (64) AD 1163, p. 27]; it can also be iterpreted that US belonged to the spiritual lineage (anvaya) of KKA [Dhaky : 51] and this seems to be more appropriate.

Page #187

Apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada Literature 177 4.5. An inscription of a later period contains an additional
information that the adept Kondakunda wrote the TS and Śivakoisūri, disciple of S B deva, ornamented TS, which is a boat for crossing the ocean of worldly existence [EC. 11(R)No. 360 (254) AD 1398, p. 216]. While interpreting the meaning of this portion of the charter, some have expressed that Śivakoisūri also wrote a comm. on TS. [Saletore; 1938:225, & n-4]; but, a careful examination of the concerned text makes it clear that Śivakoi had mastered the TS and thus the complete knowledge of TS
was his ornament. 4.6. An inscription from Hombuja has an additional infor
mation. It states that Āryadeva had authored TS. [EC. V111 (BLR) Nagara. 35. AD 1077]; Śivakoi-ācārya was a disciple of SB Syami's śisya-santānam. After Sivakoi-ācārya came Varadatta-ācārya and then appeared Aryadeva who was known as the composer of TS. (ibid, lines 70–1]; and the text of the epigraph continues to state that Simhanandi-ācārya, promoter of the Ganga
kingdom followed Aryadeva. 4.7.1. It is interesting to note that the information of Hombuja
inscription is identical with the SB. epigraph No. 360 (254) of 1398 in one point; i.e., so far as the statement that Śivakoisūri, the disciple of SBD, was an ornament to TS (proficient in TS.). SB epigraph of No. 360 is later
than Hombuja inscription No. 35 by three hundred years. 4.7.2. The name of Āryadeva appears again in an inscription of
SB. [EC.11(R)77 (67) 1129, p. 45, lines 78–81]; though the names are one and the same, Aryadeva of Hombuja charter is far ealier to the Aryadeva of SB, epigraph. Aryadeva, mentioned in SB inscription, belongs to the period of mid tenth century AD, and corresponds to the reign of Krsna-III (935–65), the Rastrakuta king.

Page #188

178 Studies in Umäsvāti
4.7.3. The Aryadeva, who figures in Hombuja inscriprtion (No. 35 of AD 1077), seems to be one of the earliest authors of Karnataka. There are some problems in his identification. The inscription states that Āryadeva is later than SBD, Śivakoi and Varadatta (?) and earlier to Simhanandi ācārya. It is established that Simhanandi lived in the early decades of fourth century AD, in which case Aryadeva is to be assigned to the beginning of fourth cent. AD. 4.7.4. The statement that Āryadeva authored TS cannot be accepted, unless it is supported by further convincing evidences. It may be suggested that Aryadeva may be the author of Cuḍāmani, one of the earliest of commentaries on TS in Kannada; though the work Cūḍāmaṇi is not extant, it has been referred by other Kannada authors. Bhaa-Akalanka (AD1604), a grammarian, has stated that the Kannada language is capable of being a medium to science subjects also, becasue Cūḍāmani, a great work and a comm.on TS, 96,000 verse-measures in extent, has been written in Kannada [Śabdānuśasana] and the work is assigned to early seventh cent. AD. Therefore Āryadeva stands as a challenge for further investigation [Dhaky:52]
Piccha-Pinccha
5.1.
Kannada (Jain) authors have generally followed a regular tradition and pattern of respectfully mentioning the names of early ācāryas and authors. Accordingly the name of US also figures; but mostly he is referred to with his nomen of GP; this has been noted in para number 2.1 to 2.3.1.
5.1.1. Pampa (941) has just mentioned the name of GP without referring to his work; it is Camuṇḍarāya who has made the unanimous statement that GP wrote the TS which became famous and achieved all round renown and established the greatness of the doctrine of Jina.

Page #189

Apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada Literature 179 5.1.2. Gṛdhrapinchācārya and Gṛddhapicchācārya-are the two variants used by Kannada writers. The word piccha has taken the form of pinccha; a phonetic tendency of nasalising the non-nasalised is a peculiarity of Kannada, and the result is a variant form. Similarly in the word medial position, Sanskrit letter -l- changing to -l- is very common to the phonetic structure of Kannada language; Balaka has the variant of Balaka in Kannada.
5.2.
An explanation is also given to the usage of the nomen GP instead of US. For keeping a piccha (pinccha) consisting of a bunch of vulture feathers, US is called GP. Digambara monks barely possess anything except a piccha, a bunch of plumes, considered as the only requisite of a Digambara, along with a kamandala, the waterpot. Generally the piccha, the feather broom is made of peacock feathers, hence the nomen mayūrapiccha. Inscriptional evidences support the view that the Jain ascetics are mentioned after their brooms, seem to be peculiar to the Digambaras: a. A monk using peacock feather broom is called a Mayura-picchācārya' Mayurapincchācārya [EC. 11(R). No. 364 (258). AD1432, p. 230]
b. A friar carrying crane feather broom is called Balākāpi-(n)cchācārya [ibid, No. 156(127) C.E. 1115. p.93; K.68. C. tenth to eleventh cent., p. 161]
An ascetic using vulture feather bunch is called Gṛddhrapi(n) cchācārya [EC.11(R) 73 (66) AD 1176, P. 34]
d. A monach using the owl feather broom is called Ulūka-bhaācārya [vṛttavilāsa:Dharmaparīkṣe: AD
C.
1360]
The epithetic appellation of GP is to confirm that the author is a Digambara monk.

Page #190

180 Studies in Umāsvāti
Digambara Author
6.1
Following is the quintessence of the argument advanced by the advocates of GP as a Digambara seer:
i. KKA, the illustrious Digambara monk was the teacher; the kernel of his works echo in TS.
ii. Eminent Digambara ācāryas like SB svāmi, PP Devanandi, Bhaa Akalankadeva, Vidyānanda have written the commentaries of TS.
iii. Celebrated Kannada authors of Digambara sect like Pampa, Camundaraya, Parsvapandita, Bhaa Akalanka have remembered GP with reference.
iv. Vidyānanda, a Digambara pontiff in his auto-comm. of Aptaparīkṣā refers to GP with great respect and goes to an extent of using the adjcetive of bhagavad. v. In the TS, chapter-IX, sūtra 9, nudity(nagnya) is also included in the list of twenty-two pariṣahas, visiting afflictions, variety of Samvaratatta which is the requisite of only a Digambara friar.
vi. Pujyapada (c. sixth to seventh century) and Śrutasāgaravarṇi in Sanskrit commentaries, and Balachandradeva (AD1150) in his Kannada comm., have referred to US as a 'Nirgrantha-ācāryavaram', the superior adept of Digambara monks, and an agamakuśalam.
6.2 Without a single exception all the Jain authors of Kannada literature, who have mentioned GP or US, have held the same belief.
Kannada Author's Tribute
7.1
TS is considered as embodying the essence of Jaina philosophy and symbolising the whole gamut of traditional knowledge. Vardhamānasvāmi, a friar who had mastered TS, is described in an inscription, as the moon causing to swell the ocean to Tattavartha [EC.11(R)380 (274) AD 1372, p. 244]; therefore the suffix - svāmi is also added to the monk.

Page #191

Apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada Literature 181 7.2. Jinasenādesa-vrati (1600), author of Vardhamāna
purāņa, is of the opinion that KKA wrote TS, had the gift of moving about wihout touching the earth (personified as woman) (chapt. 1. verse. No. 42]; this point has been discussed in para No. 3.1. Kannada poems like Sukumāracarite (1-15) of śāntinātha (1060), Kallinātha-purāņam (1–15) and Rāmacandracarita-purāņam (1-12) of Nagacandra (1046–11–) and Candraprabhapurāņam (1-14) of Aggala are the early poets to prominently mention this aspect; further it is said that KKA brought the āgama texts from Pūrva -Videhaksetra (Brahmaśiva, AD 1170: Samayaparīkse, 1-10]. It is this highest regard to KKA that has made
some authors to equate him with US, GP and TS. 7.3.1. Except Payanavarņi's statement of sectarian approach, all
the other literary and epigraphical references, are free from making any derogatory statements; there is not even a single instance of any slightest suggestion of wounding the sentiments of others, even when emphatically
confirming US alias GP as a Digambara monk. 7.4. Kannada authors, whether a preceptor or a householder,
have unilaterally considered that it is GP alias US who initiated a set pattern of ecclesiastical style, of crystallizing the knowledge of the holy scripture in Sanskrit language which served as an illustrious model for the later śāstra
or sūtra authors. 7.4.1. Even the inscriptions subscribe to the same regard; K.
62, of 1031 says that GP, a connoisseur in philosophy, grammar, the six tarkas, was renowned in Deśiga-gara,
a cohort of friars and nuns, in the lineage of KKA. 7.4.2. Mangarasa(1505) states, in his poem Nemijinesa -
Sangati, that "Gțdhrapincchācārya had the glory of writing an auto-commentary on Tattvārtha and I fold my hands and bow down to his feet' [Sandhi-1, verse-12],

Page #192

182 Studies in Umāsvāti
Mangarasa is the second author who has clearly
mentioned the auto-comm. of US. 7.5. GP was āryanuta, was praised by the ācāryas [-Pampa
(941), Adipurāņam 1-12]; venerable, and courageous, indulged in austerity for the purification of the self and knew the core of Jainism, [Sāntinātha 91060], Sukumāra carite, 1-13); he had crushed the pseudo-philosophies and capable of showing the easy path to cross the wood of the profane life [Karnaparyāya(1145) Nemināthapurāṇam, 1-10); he can dispel the darkness of ignorance [Aggala(1189) Candraprabha-purāṇam, 1-18]; there are a number of excellent philosophies in the world and the differences between them are more; but it is GP who narrated it in such a way that one can understand it in a
facile manner [Brahmasiva (1170) Samaya Parīkse, 1–3]. 7.6 Medieval Kannada poets also excell the early writers in
gratefully remembering the greatness of GP; 'how can I describes the superiority of GP; whatever he says is Tattvārtha, whatever he touches is good for the living being, whatever he does is the ideal life for others to emulate [Gunavarma-11 (1235), Puspadanta-purāņa, 1-18], his restraint was only worthy of a ācārya (Janna (1230), Anantanāthapurāņam, 1-13]; our duty is to praise his lotus-feet [kamalabhava (AD.1235), śāntīśvarapurāņam, 1-19]; and Kumudendu(1270), Rāmāyaṇa, 1-14); the lotus feet of GP, whose lustre has enveloped the sky of Jainism' is surrounded by the lay votaries (Bāhubali
Pandita(1352), Dharmanāthapurāņam, 1-16): 7.7. Of the other references worth considering only three are
to be discussed here: i.e. Nemicandra (AD1170) is the only author in Kannada literature who has mentioned about the glosses of TS. Nemicandra says GP, the earliest (ācārya) of Jina dharma authored TS, a marvel for

Page #193

Apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada Literature 183 the learned [Nemicandra (c. 1170) Nemināthapurāṇam, 1-13]. ii. Pārsvapandita (1205) has mentioned TS and its author as Umāsvāti (and not as GP) [Pārsvanātha purāņam, 1-13] and Pārsvapandita is the first writer to mention that US has written an auto-commentary to his TS – 'Umāsvāti, a milky ocean of clemency has removed the dirt of the fake (religions) by Tattvārthavrtti [ibid, 1-18]. iii. Salva (1485) has mentioned boththe aliases of US and GP, a traividya, an ācārya praised by the monks, as one who is as bold as the mount Meru (Salva-bhārata olim Neminātha-carite, 1-13 and 15]. The rest of the praśastis of US are the usual benedictory verses.
Conclusion: 8.1. Thus the influence of US can unmistakably be seen on
the Jina authors of Karnataka who had considered US as the author of TS (and an auto-commentary) and as a celebrated ācārya; TS was a widely read āgama work, they were aware of the commentaries also. Jain authors of Kannada literature have held US with his alias GP in highest regard at par with KKA, SB Svāmi, PP, Kaviparameshi, Jaāsimhanandi and other eminent ācāryas; though some authors have confused KKA & US (GP) as one and the same, the mix up in identification and properly fixing the date, does not alter the unilateral respect that US enjoys. In brief, for the Kannada authors US is nothing short of a śrutakevalin (EC.VIII (BLR) Nr. 46. 1526]; tattvārthasūtra Karttāram-Umāsvāti munīšvaram śrutakevali-desīyam vande'ham guna- mandiram/ The authors, their works and the insciptions which allude the name of Umāsvāti, his aliases and his work are tabulated below according to their chronological order:

Page #194

Date
TS
Author/ Place
Work/ Source
Umā- Umā- Grdhra- svāti svāmi piccha
Mokşa- Ārya Language/ Sāstra deva Metre
AD
X
x
x
x
X
x
184 Studies in Umāsvāti
x
Pūjayapāda Bhaa-Aklanka Svāmi-Virasena Vidyānanda
x
x ے ے ے
Sanskrit Comm. Sanskrit Comm. Agama work Kannada Campū
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
X
x
Kannada Campū Kannada Prose Sanskrit work Not traceable
ے ے ے
Pampa Cāmundaraya Indranandi SvāmiSamantabhadra K.60
x
x
X
2
x
635-80 Sarvārthasiddhi 730-50 Tattvārthvārtika 816
Dhavalāīka 900-50 Tattvārtha
ślokavartika 941 Ādi-Pūrāņam 1-12 978
Trișași-Laksana 900-40 Nītisāra 550-600 Gandhahasti
Mahābhāsya 1009 Koppala
Inscription 1025
Pārśva carite 1031
Koppala Inscription 1050
Koppala Inscription mid 11th cent. Koppala Inscription 1062
Sukumāra-carite X 1020-85 Tattvārtha sūtrānu- x
x
X
ے
x
x
Kannada prose
x
ے
Vādirāja K.62 K.52 K.68 śāntinātha Bhaāraka
Sanskrit poem Kannada prose Kannada prose Kannada prose Kannada Campū Kannada prose
ے ے
✓
*

Page #195

Divakaranandi
Kannada prose
X x
Hombuja Hombuja Hunasi Hadagali SB
* * ے
1077 1077 1099 1115 1123 1145 1145
ے ے
Kannada prose Kannada prose Kannada prose Sanskrit and Kannada Sanskrit and Kannada Sanskrit and Kannada Kannada campu
SB
>
x
x
SB Karnaparyāya
ے ے
X
x
x
X
Yelladahalli
1145
x
x
ے
x
gata karnaalaghuvrtti EC.viii (old)Nr.35 X ibid, Nr.57 x KJS: Citapur 38 EC. 11(R) 156(12) V ibid 135(117) v ibid 173(14) Neminātha Purānam EC. Vii (R) Ng. 64 (IV Ng 76) Tattvaratna Pradīpike EC. Vii.(R) Ng. x 64 (IV Ng 76) (Ardha) Neminātha x Purānam Samaya parīkse No.73 (66) Candra Prabha X Purānam
x
Kannada prose
Bālcandra
1150
ے
Kanada prose
SB
1163
V
ے
x
x
Kannada prose
Apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada Literature 185
Nemicandra
1170
ے
x
Brahmasiva
se
x
x
1170 1176 1189
ے ے
SB
Kannada campū Kāvya Kannada Kāvya Sanskrit and Kannada a Kannada campū kāvya
x
x
Aggala
X
ے
x
x

Page #196

Date
Work/
TS
Author/ Place
Umā- Umā- Grdhra- svāti svāmi piccha
Mokşa- Arya Sāstra deva
Language/ Metre
186
AD
Source
Acanna
1195
x
x
>
x
x
x
x
Pārsvapandita
1205
Studies in Umāsvāti
x
>
x
x
Janna
1230
x
>
x
x
Gunavarma-II
1235
>
x
x
x
x
Kamalabhava
1235
x
x
>
Kannada campū kāvya Kannada campū kāvya Kannada campū kāvya Kannada campū kāvya Kannada campū kāvya Kannada campū kāvya Kannada Satpadī Kannada campū Kannada campū Sanskrit Sanskrit Kannada Satpadī kāvya
Vardhamāna purānam Pārsvanātha purānam Aananthanātha x purāņam Puspadanta purānam Santīśvara purānam Neminātha purānam 1-14 Rāmāyana Punyāsrava Dharmaparīkse1-12 x EC.11(R) 360(254) V EC.11(R) 364(258) V Neminātha carite v olim salva-bhārata 1-13, 15
x
x
Mahābala
1254
x
x
>
x
*
x
x x x
x
Kumudendu Nāgarāja Vrttavilāsa SB SB Salvakavi
x
1275 1131 1360 1398 1432 1485
x x x x
> ے ے ے ے ے
x
x

Page #197

Mangarasa-III
1509
*
V
*
x
Kannada Sangatya
Hombuja
1526
x
x
Sanskrit and Kannada
Payanavarnī
1669
x
x
Nemi-Jineśa Sangati x okim Harivamsa1-12 EC.VIII (old) Nagara. 46 Jñānacandra carite v 1-18 Anantanātha carite x 1-18 Vardhamāna purāņa 1-42
Kannada Sangatya
x
x
Kannada Sangatya
Cikka-Padmanna- 1581 Setty Jinasena Desa 1600 Vrati
x
*
*
*
Kannada Sangatya
Apropos Umāsvāti in Kannada Literature
187

Page #198

188
Studies in Umāsvāti
References
1. Bhujabali Sastry, Pt. K. Ācārya : Umāsvāmi athavā Umāsvāti-In: The
anthology- 'Samskrta Vāngmaya ke Jaina Kavigala Kanike' -1971. 2. Dhaky, M.A.: Umāsvāti in Epigraphical and Literary Tradition, In: Jain
Journal, Vol. XXXI-2, October 1996, pp. 47–65. 3. Gogi, Hanumakshi, (ed): Kalburgi Jilleya Sasanagalu, 1996. 4. Hampana, Kamala, Kannada Kavyagalalli Tattvārthasūtra
Ullekhegalu, in her anthology—Jaina Sahitya Paisara' 1982, pp.
155-69. 5. Jain, Jyoti Prasad , Date and Place of Birth of Sri Kundakunda-Acārya,
In: Jain Journal, Vol. XXII-4, April 1988. 6. Mukhtar, Pt. Jugal Kishore, Svami Samantabhadra, Bombay, 1925. 7. Mukhtar, Jaina Sāhitya aura Itihāsa para Visada Prakāsa 1956
(Hindi). 8. Nagarajaiah, Hampa: (i) Bhattaraka Divakaranandi(Kannada)-in Kannada Sahitya
Parishat Patrike, Vol.70–1, 1985. (ii) Candrakode(Kannada), 1997-BPP. 181–94. (iii) Tattvārtha-sūtranugata-karnata-laghu-vrtti (Kannada)(ed.),
1994. (iv) Santaraus-ondu Adhyana(Kannada), 1997-A.
(v) Koppala-Sasanagalu (Kannada)(ed.), 1998. 9. Narasimha Murti, A.V.: Epigraphical References to Umāsvāti, In: Svasti
Sri, 1984. 10. Premi, Nathuram; Jaina Sāhitya aur Itihāsa(Hindi), 1956. 11. Sastry, A. Shantiraja;
(ed) 1. Sukhobodha-výtti of Bhāskaranandi, Mysore, 1944.
(ed) 2. Tattvaratna-pradīpika of Bālacandradeva, Mysore, 1995. 12. Upadhye, A. N., Upadhye Papers, Mysore, 1983.
and Epigraphia Carnatika, Vol. II (Revised), 1973. Epigraphia Carnatika, Vol. VIII (BLR), 1902. Epigrahpia Carnatika, Vol. VII (Revised), 1979. South Indian Inscriptions, Vol. IX, XI, XV and XVIII.

Page #199

15
The Epistemological Concepts of Umāsvāti: As interpreted by Yasovijaya
G. L. SUTHAR
Ācārya Umāsvāti is renowned as the exponent of Jaina philosophy who has pioneered in authoring the aphoristic treatise in Sanskrit language. The prominent logicians of both the sects have tested their philosophical acumen and scholarship by writing learned commentaries and glosses on the Tattvārthasūtra. All the later Jaina philosophers have held it in high esteem as is evident from the statement of the aphorist Acārya Hemacandrasūri in his Pramāṇa-mīmāmsā1— ‘yadi vā prekṣasva vācakamukhya-viracitāni sakalaśāstracūḍāmaṇibhūtāni Tattvārthasūtrāni (यदि वा प्रेक्षस्व वाचकमुख्यविरचितानि सकलशास्त्र - चूडामणिभूतानि तत्त्वार्थसूत्राणि) । '
It is this treatise which established the aphoristic style of Sanskrit in Jaina tradition and inspired the later Jaina philosophers for writing their works in Sanskrit. It is worth mentioning that the Tattvärthasutra has the trinity of jñāna, jñeya and caritra for its subject-matter. Apart from Umāsvāti himself, the other commentators, Vrttikāras and Vārtikakāras of this treatise are-Pujyapāda, Haribhadra, Akalankadeva, Vidyānanda, Malayagiri, Abhayadevasūri, Gandhahasti, Śrutasagara, Vibudhasena, Yogīndradeva, Lakṣmīdeva, Yogadeva, Cirantanamuni, Yasovijaya etc. Thus evidently there

Page #200

190 Studies in Umāsvāti
is an abundance of commentaries on the Tattvārthasūtra serving as the ample proof for its profound popularity. With reference to commentaries, the late Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi, the great savant of Jaina philosophy, has attempted a very interesting comparison and contrast of the Tattvārthasūtra with the Brahmasūtra which I would like to quote verbatim here? —
“साम्प्रदायिक व्याख्याओं के विषय में 'तत्त्वार्थाधिगम' सूत्र की तुलना 'ब्रह्मसूत्र' के साथ की जा सकती है। जिस प्रकार बहुत से विषयों में परस्पर नितान्त भिन्न मत रखने वाले अनेक आचार्यों ने 'ब्रह्मसूत्र' पर व्याख्याएँ लिखी हैं
और उसी से अपने वक्तव्य को उपनिषदों के आधार पर सिद्ध करने का प्रयत्न किया है, उसी प्रकार दिगम्बर और श्वेताम्बर दोनों सम्प्रदायों के विद्वानों ने तत्त्वार्थ पर व्याख्याएँ लिखी हैं और उसी से परस्पर विरोधी मन्तव्यों को भी आगम के आधार पर सिद्ध करने का प्रयत्न किया है। इससे सामान्य बात इतनी ही सिद्ध होती है कि जैसे वेदान्त साहित्य में प्रतिष्ठा होने के कारण भिन्न-भिन्न मत रखने वाले प्रतिभाशाली आचार्यों ने 'ब्रह्मसूत्र' का आश्रय लेकर उसी के द्वारा अपने विशिष्ट वक्तव्य को दर्शाने की आवश्यकता अनुभव की, वैसे ही जैन वाङ्मय में स्थापित तत्त्वार्थाधिगम की प्रतिष्ठा के कारण उसका आश्रय लेकर दोनों सम्प्रदायों के विद्वानों को अपने-अपने मन्तव्यों को प्रकट करने की आवश्यकता हुई।
___ इतना स्थूल साम्य होते हुए भी 'ब्रह्मसूत्र' और 'तत्त्वार्थसूत्र' की साम्प्रदायिक व्याख्याओं में एक विशेष महत्त्व का भेद है कि तत्त्वज्ञान के जगत्, जीव, ईश्वर आदि मौलिक विषयों में 'ब्रह्मसूत्र' के प्रसिद्ध व्याख्याकार एक-दूसरे से बहुत ही भिन्न पड़ते हैं और बहुत बार तो उनके विचारों में पूर्व-पश्चिम जितना अन्तर दिखाई देता है; जबकि तत्त्वार्थ के दिगम्बर या श्वेताम्बर किसी भी सम्प्रदाय के व्याख्याकारों में वैसी बात नहीं हैं उनमें तत्त्वज्ञान के मौलिक विषयों में कोई अन्तर नहीं है और जो थोड़ा-बहुत अन्तर है वह भी बिल्कुल साधारण बातों में है और ऐसा नहीं कि जिसमें समन्वय को अवकाश ही न हो अथवा वह पूर्व-पश्चिम जितना हो। वस्तुतः जैन तत्त्वज्ञान के मूल सिद्धान्तों के सम्बन्ध में दिगम्बर व श्वेताम्बर सम्प्रदायों में खास मतभेद पड़ा ही नहीं, इससे उनकी तत्त्वार्थ-व्याख्याओं में दिखाई देने वाला मतभेद बहुत गम्भीर नहीं माना जाता।"
Having made this relevant introductory observation, now I come to the main theme of the paper. The Tattvārthasūtra, consisting of ten chapters, deals with the theory of knowledge in its first chapter alone. Unlike the Nyāyasūtra of Gautama,

Page #201

The Epistemological Concepts of Umāsvāti: 191 Umāsvāti does not adopt the threefold procedure of a śāstra in his Tattvārthasūtra. Trayī hi śāstrasya pravṛttih―uddeso laksanam pariksā ca 3 (त्रयी हि शास्त्रस्य प्रवृत्तिः- उद्देशो लक्षणं परीक्षा
1) It represents the canons adopting twofold procedure-i.e., enumeration and definition. Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi has rightly remarked about the theory of knowledge of the Tattvārthasūtra in comparative observation
'ज्ञानमीमांसा की ज्ञानचर्चा 'प्रवचनसार' के ज्ञानाधिकार जैसी तर्क- पुरस्सर और दार्शनिक शैली की नहीं, बल्कि नन्दीसूत्र की ज्ञानचर्चा जैसी आगमिक शैली की होकर ज्ञान के सम्पूर्ण भेद-प्रभेदों तथा उनके विषयों का मात्र वर्णन करने वाली और ज्ञान - अज्ञान के बीच का मतभेद बताने वाली है। '4
The celebrated Jaina neo-logician Mahopadhyāya Yaso-vijaya of seventeenth century, too, has composed an authoritative commentary entitled 'Tattvārtha-vivarana's on the Tattvārthasūtra along with its auto-scholium. From the points of view of availability and unavailability, Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi has put the works of Yasovijaya under three categories:
1. Available in complete
2. Incompletely available
3. Unavailable
The Tattvārthavivaraṇa comes under the second category. It deals with the first chapter alone. The theory of knowledge propounded by Acārya Umāsvāti has been subjected to detailed investigation in it.
Acārya Umāsvāti in the sūtra- 1:6 (1/6) has indicated the instrumentality of pramāņas and nayas to knowledge. Mahopadhyāya' in his vivarana on the sūtra has reaffirmed the same as follow — ' अत्र करणे तृतीया, न कर्तरि । 'कर्तृकर्मणोः कृतीत्यनेन षष्ठीसङ्गात् । '. While discussing the ascertainment of the twofold classification-perceptual and non-perceptual cognitions, his statement' — 'तत्र प्रसिद्धे नन्द्यादौ सिद्धान्ते द्विविधं 'establishes the Nandisūtra etc. as the basis for the twofold classification of organ of valid cognition (pramāṇa)

Page #202

192
Studies in Umāsvāti
found in the Tattvārthasūtra. He further stated in no equivocal words that the twofold classification of pramāṇa is not like the one accepted by the Buddhists and Vaiseșikas. It is interesting to note that he uses the word 'Māyāsūnavīya') for the Buddhist philosophers. Ācārya Umāsvāti in his bhāsya on the sūtra has also referred to the fourfold classification of some Ācāryas, but without mentioning the names of those pramāṇas and their upholders. It becomes clear from the vivarana that the fourfold classification of pramāņa owing to the distinction of perception, inference, analogy and verbal testimony is found in the canon entitled 'Anuyogadvārasūtra'.
Having raised a question about the distinction between pramāṇa and naya, he has cited two views upheld by some philosophers and critically assessed them with the precision tools of a neo-logician. Quoting the duo of slokas -
अयं न संशयः कोटेरैक्यान्न च समुच्चयः। न विभ्रमो यथार्थत्वादपूर्णत्वाच्च न प्रमा।। न समुद्रोऽसमुद्रो वा समुद्रांशो यथोच्यते।
नाप्रमाणं प्रमाणं वा प्रमाणांशस्तथा नयः।। He has supported the view upholding the standpoint (naya) as a part of pramāņa. Owing to the state of naya-jñāna being excluded from erroneous cognition, valid cognition (pramā) and as doubt also from their aggregation, and there arises an objection as to how its presence and absence will correspond to those of the verbal testimony. Refuting this objection with the acumen of a neo-logician, Yaśovijaya resolves as follows:
'न, तथात्वेऽपि तत्त्वमस्यादिवाक्यजन्यज्ञाने वेदान्तिनामिव व्यञ्जनावृत्तिजन्यज्ञाने चालङ्कारिकाणामिव तात्पर्यवैचित्र्येण वैचित्र्यस्याप्रत्यूहत्वात्, शाब्दत्वजात्यनतिक्रमेऽपि च श्रुतचिन्ताभावनाज्ञानानां शब्दस्य दीर्घदीर्घतरव्यापारेणावान्तरजातिवैचित्र्यं शास्त्रसिद्धमेव, शब्दजप्रत्यक्ष इव वा शब्दजन्यज्ञाने वैचित्र्यं भावनीयम्।'
Pointing out the defect in the definition- 'अनन्तधर्मात्कत्वप्रतिपत्तिविशिष्टे वस्तुज्येकधर्मविधारणं नयः', he puts forth a precise

Page #203

The Epistemological Concepts of Umāsvāti: 193 definition of naya as follows — 3748 EsfeRUTH'-Finally, resorting to the verdict of experience in the form ‘pramiņomi' and ‘nayāmi', he directs that the characteristic objectness distinguishing ‘pramāņa' and 'naya' must be accepted. (ufwulf नयामीत्यनुभवसाक्षिको विषयताविशेषः प्रमाणनयभेदकोऽवश्यमभ्युपगन्तव्य इति दिक्।'
While explaining the sūtra pertaining to the classification of jnanati (मतिश्रुतावधिमनःपर्यायकेवलानि ज्ञानम्), Yasovijaya brings about the compatibility of the usage of ‘kevalāni' and 'jñānam' in plural number and singular number respectively as follows— '7 पञ्चभिः सम्भूयैकं ज्ञानमवग्रहादिचतुर्भिरिव भवतीति सूचनाय केवलानीति बहुवचनं, ज्ञानमित्यत्रैकवचनं तु प्रतिज्ञानुरूपत्वात् प्रतिवचनस्य।'11
The learned author of the sub-commentary entitled 'Gūdhārthadīpikā'on the 'vivarana' of Yaśovijaya has presented an elaborate explanation of this portion taking recourse to the terse technical terms of navya-nyāya. Removing the lacuna in the bhāsya on the sūtra in question, he has put forth specific definitions of the five cognitions precisely as follows:
1. gfselfis42114RURİ FIR Hfag11741 2. POSTURI FIR SC516741 3. hafa haftan41 4. भावमनःपर्यायमात्रसाक्षात्कारि मनःपर्यायज्ञानम्। 5. THIRheafa hafaqej at analar |
Explaining the sūtra —*764410*12 he has rightly observed in support of the scholiast Umāsvāti that the state of organ of valid cognition (pramāṇatva) and the number two both are enjoined in the sūtra. According to him, all other pramāṇas accepted by the opponents are included under these two provided they are really organs of valid cognition. He further opines that of both the direct and indirect cognitions, the ‘sākāra' cognition (i.e., devoid of doubt, error etc.) alone deserves to be designated as pramāņa. It is worthmentioning here that in the exposition of the sūtra (1/10) he has also discussed the view of the Jaina

Page #204

194 Studies in Umāsvāti
philosophers who uphold all the cognitions as direct knowledge (pratyaksa) because the word 'aksa' (अक्ष) is commonly used for the mind, sense-organs and soul. Herein the views regarding the conception of directness (pratykşatā) and indirectness (paroksatā), too, have been discussed in detail.
Now comes the turn of discussing Yaśovijaya's interpretation of the duo of sutras13_ 'आद्ये परोक्षम्' एवं 'प्रत्यक्षमन्यत्' which pose a great challenge to the commentators accepting the modified classification of pramāṇas introduced by the systematiser of Jaina epistemology-Ācārya Akalankadeva meeting the challenge of and refuting the charges leveled against Jaina epistemology by Naiyāyikas and other non-Jaina logicians. There is no explicit indication of the twofold perceptual cognitions-empirical and transcendental. Yaśovijaya opines that the statement regarding the indirectness of mati and śruta is from the point of view of niścaya. From the practical point of view, their directness is certainly desirable. To substantiate his view he quotes from the Nandisutra_ 'यतोऽभिहितं नन्द्यां- तं समासओ दुविहं पण्णत्तं-इंदियपच्चक्खं च नोइंदियपच्चक्खं च'14 He further clarifies that empirical perceptuality is stated by इन्द्रियप्रत्यक्षम्' (इंदियपच्चक्ख). Witha view to reconciling his opinion with the bhāsyakāra, he resorts to the method of yogavibhāga' i.e. separation of the words of a sūtra or splitting of one rule into two or more. It has been frequently used by Patañjali in his Mahābhāsya. Mahopādhyāya Yaśovijaya at the end of his vivarana on the sutra (1/11) says:
___ 'भाष्यकारस्यापि योगविभागादिन्द्रियजन्यज्ञानस्य सिद्धा प्रत्यक्षता, स चैवं योगो विभजनीयः, आद्ये परोक्षं निश्चयतः, प्रत्यक्षं चाद्ये व्यवहारत इति।'15 Vijayadarśanasūri in his gūdharthadīpikā on the vivarana has clarified the yogavibhāga as follows-'. . . प्रत्यक्षमन्यदित्यत्र प्रत्यक्षं प्रथमसूत्रोपात्तेन आद्ये इत्यनेनापि सम्बध्यते, अन्यदित्यनेनापि, उक्तप्रकारेण योगविभागे आद्ये परोक्षं निश्चयतः, आद्ये प्रत्यक्षं व्यवहारतः, अन्यदित्यनेन सह प्रत्यक्षमेव सम्बध्यते, न परोक्ष तथा च ततोऽन्यत् अवध्यादित्रयमेकान्तेन प्रत्यक्षमेवेति योगविभागतो लभ्यत इति तदर्थः'16

Page #205

The Epistemological Concepts of Umāsvāti: 195
References
1. Pramāna-mīmāmsā, Hemacandra, Eng. tr. Nagin J Shah, Gujarat
Vidyapith, Ahmedabad 2002, kārikā 1. 2. Tattvārthasūtra, HindiComm., Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi, Parshvanath
Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, 4th Ed. 1993, Introduction, p. 59. 3. Pramāna-mīmāmsā, Hemacandra, Eng. tr. Nagin J Shah, Gujarat
Vidyapith, Ahmedabad 2002, kārikā 5. 4. Tattvārthasūtra, op.chit, intro. p. 48. 5. Tattvārtha-vivarana. 6. Tattvārthasūtra. 7. Tattvārthavivarana, 1/60. 8. Ibid. 1/6. 9. Ibid. 10. Tattvārthasutra, 1/9. 11. Tattvārthavivarana, 1/9. 12. Tattvārthavivarana, 1/10. 13. Ibid. 1/11-2. 14. Nandīsūtra, p. 198. 15. Tattvārthavivarana, 1/11. 16. Gūdhārthadīpikā, Vijayadarśanasūri, pp. 200-1.

Page #206


Page #207

16
आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द और गृद्धपिच्छ उमास्वामी : एक विमर्श
प्रेम सुमन जैन
श्रमणपरम्परा और सिद्धान्त के जो संरक्षक और प्रभावक आचार्य हुए हैं, उनमें आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द और आचार्य गृद्धपिच्छ उमास्वामी प्रमुख हैं। कुन्दकुन्द के जीवन, व्यक्तित्व, योगदान आदि पर विद्वानों ने जो अध्ययन प्रस्तुत किये हैं, उनसे स्पष्ट हुआ है कि ईसा की प्रथम शताब्दी के आस-पास के दार्शनिक और साधनायुक्त जगत् को कुन्दकुन्द ने अपने साहित्य एवं संयमपूर्ण जीवन से पर्याप्त प्रभावित किया था। उनका यह प्रभाव तात्कालिक ही नहीं रहा, अपितु जैनदर्शन और साहित्य की परम्परा में होने वाले परवर्ती आचार्यों के जीवन और लेखन को भी उन्होंने प्रभावित किया है। परवर्ती दार्शनिकों के चिन्तन को भी उन्होंने गति प्रदान की है।
आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द को परवर्ती साहित्य और आचार्यों ने कितना और किस रूप में स्मरण किया है, उसको रेखांकित करने के विभिन्न आयाम हो सकते हैं। कुन्दकुन्द के तत्त्व - चिन्तन एवं दार्शनिक मतों का भारतीय दर्शन के विकास में क्या स्थान है?, जैन दार्शनिकों ने कुन्दकुन्द के दर्शन व चिन्तन को क्या महत्त्व दिया है? एवं कुन्दकुन्द के साहित्य की गाथाएं, पंक्तियाँ, सूक्तियाँ एवं विचार शैली आचार्य उमास्वामी के साहित्य में कहां और किस रूप में अंकित हैं, इत्यादि बिन्दुओं में से यहाँ इसी अन्तिम आयाम पर ही कुछ दिग्दर्शन उपस्थित करने का प्रयत्न है।
आचार्य वीरसेन ने षट्खण्डागम की धवलाटीका में तत्त्वार्थसूत्र और उसके लेखक गृद्धपिच्छाचार्य के नाम उल्लेख के साथ तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का भी

Page #208

198 Studies in Umāsvāti उद्धरण दिया है
- "तह गिद्धपिंछाइरियप्पयासिद तच्चत्थसुत्ते वि वर्तनापरिणामक्रियाः परत्वापरत्वे च कालस्य" इदि दव्वकालो परूविदो।"
आचार्य विद्यानन्द ने अपने तत्त्वार्थश्लोकवार्तिक और वादिराज ने पार्श्वनाथचरित' में गृद्धपिच्छ मुनीश्वर का स्मरण किया है। तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के एक टीकाकार ने गृद्धपिच्छाचार्य नाम के साथ उमास्वामी मुनीश्वर नाम का उल्लेख भी तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के लेखक के रूप में किया है -
तत्त्वार्थसूत्रकर्तारं गृद्धपिच्छोपलक्षितम्।
वन्दे गणीन्द्रसंजातमुमास्वामिमुनीश्वरम्।। श्रवणबेलगोला के अभिलेखों में गृद्धपिच्छ नाम के साथ उमास्वाति नाम भी दिया गया है और उन्हें आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द के वंश में उत्पन्न बताया गया है
अभूदुमास्वातिमुनिः पवित्रे वंशे तदीये सकलार्थवेदी। सूत्रीकृतं येन जिनप्रणीतं शास्त्रार्थजातं मुनिपुंगवेन।। स प्राणिसंरक्षणसावधानो बभार योगी किल गृद्धपक्षान्।
तदा प्रभृत्येव बुधा यमाहुराचार्यशब्दोत्तर गृद्धपिच्छम्।। नन्दिसंघ की पट्टावली में भी जो आचार्य परम्परा दी गयी है, उसमें कुन्दकुन्दाचार्य के पट्टधर शिष्य के रूप में गृद्धपिच्छ (उमास्वामि) का नाम है। डॉ. ए. एन. उपाध्ये ने पर्याप्त विचारविमर्श के अनन्तर आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द का समय ईसा की प्रथम शताब्दी के लगभग माना है।' अतः कुन्दकुन्द के बाद उनके अन्वय में प्रतिष्ठित आचार्य गृद्धपिच्छ का समय ई. सन् की द्वितीय शताब्दी विद्वानों ने निश्चित किया है।
पण्डित सुखलाल जी संघवी ने तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का कर्ता वाचक उमास्वाति को माना है और यह भी कहा है कि उन्होंने स्वयं इस ग्रन्थ पर भाष्य भी लिखा था, जो 'तत्त्वार्थाधिगम' के नाम से जाना जाता है। पं. संघवी जी गृद्धपिच्छ उमास्वाति को वाचक उमास्वाति से भिन्न मानते हैं। पण्डित फूलचन्द्र सिद्धान्तशास्त्री ने भी चार सूत्रों के विश्लेषण के आधार पर तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के कर्ता और तत्त्वार्थाधिगम-भाष्य के रचयिता को भिन्न-भिन्न व्यक्ति सिद्ध किया है। तत्त्वार्थसूत्र पर उपलब्ध टीकाओं में सर्वार्थसिद्धि नामक टीका को प्राचीन माना गया है। विद्वानों ने सर्वार्थसिद्धि टीका के बाद तत्त्वार्थाधिगमभाष्य की रचना किया जाना सिद्ध किया है। सभी टीकाकारों ने मूल गृद्धपिच्छकृत तत्त्वार्थसूत्र से ही ग्रहण किये हैं और उन पर अपनी टीकाएं लिखी है। जैसे आचार्य देवनन्दि पूज्यपाद ने मूलसूत्रकार का नाम अपनी टीका में नहीं लिया, उसी प्रकार वाचक

Page #209

आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द और गृद्धपिच्छ उमास्वामी : एक विमर्श 199 उमास्वाति ने भी मूलसूत्रकार गृद्धपिच्छ का नाम अंकित किये बिना ही भाष्यकार के रूप में मात्र अपना नाम दिया है। बाद में मूलसूत्र और भाष्य दोनों के लेखक वाचक उमास्वाति को मान लिया गया होगा।
___ दिगम्बर परम्परा में आचार्य वीरसेन ने धवलाटीका में तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के कर्ता के रूप में गृद्धपिच्छ का नामोल्लेख किया है। किन्तु बाद की दिगम्बर परम्परा में गृद्धपिच्छ के साथ उमास्वाति का नाम भी अभिलेखों आदि में अंकित है। इससे प्रतीत होता है कि जब सर्वार्थसिद्धि टीका के बाद और आचार्य वीरसेन के अनन्तर वाचक उमास्वाति ने अपना भाष्य लिख दिया होगा, तब दिगम्बर परम्परा में भी गृद्धपिच्छ के साथ उमास्वाति नाम प्रचलित हो गया होगा, जो श्रवणबेलगोला के अभिलेखों में अंकित है। तत्त्वार्थसूत्र जैनदर्शन का सारभूत ग्रन्थ है। दिगम्बर और श्वेताम्बर परम्परा दोनों में यह मान्य है। अतः ग्रन्थ की गरिमा और महत्ता तथा जैन संस्कृति की अनेकान्तमयी छवि की सुरक्षा की दृष्टि से तत्वार्थसूत्र के कर्त्ता ओर भाष्यकार का दो अलग-अलग लेखक स्वीकार किया जाना चाहिए। इससे दोनों परम्परा के प्राचीन आचार्यों के क्रम, काल-समय आदि यथास्थान बने रहेंगे। इससे तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के विषय के विकास-क्रम को सही ढंग से समझने में मदद मिलेगी।
आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द एवं उमास्वामी के बीच घनिष्ठ सम्बन्ध माना जाता है। प्राचीन परम्परा के अतिरिक्त कुन्दकुन्द साहित्य को दृष्टि में रखकर उमास्वामी ने तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का प्रणयन किया है। परिणामस्वरूप कुछ सूत्र शब्दशः और कुछ अर्थशः कुन्दकुन्दाचार्य के ग्रन्थों से अपना सम्बन्ध रखते हैं। विद्वानों ने इस विषय में तुलनात्मक अध्ययन के लिए कुछ संकेत दिये हैं।12
__कुन्दकुन्द साहित्य के वाक्यों के साथ तत्वार्थसूत्र के सूत्रों को सामने रखकर कुछ समानता इस प्रकार देखी जा सकती हैकुन्दकुन्दाचार्य
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र 1. दंसण णाणचरित्ताणिमोक्खमग्गो, सम्यग्दर्शनज्ञानचारित्राणि मोक्षमार्गः -1.1
पञ्चास्तिकाय. 164 2. दव्वं सल्लक्खणियं, वही. 10 - सद्रव्यलक्षणम् -5, 29 3. फासो रसो य गन्धो वण्णो स्पर्शरसगंधवर्णवन्तः पुद्गलाः -2.21 . सद्दो य पुग्गला, -प्रवचन. 156 4. आगासस्सावगाहो, -प्रवचन. 2/41 आकाशस्यावगाहः -5, 12 5. आसवणिरोहो संवरो, -समयसार, 166 आश्रवनिरोधः संवरः –9.1 6. देवा चउण्णिकाया, पंचा० 2/118 देवाश्चतुर्निकाया, 4.1

Page #210

200 Studies in Umāsvāti
आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द ने अपने पंचास्तिकाय में द्रव्य के लक्षण में यह गाथा लिखी है - दव्वं सल्लक्खणियं उप्पादव्वयधुवत्तसंजुत्त।
गुणपज्जयासयं वा जं तं भण्णंति सव्वण्हू।। - गाथा 10 गृद्धपिच्छ ने तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में इस गाथा के आशय को इन तीन सूत्रों में प्रस्तुत किया है
1. सद्रव्यलक्षणम्-(5/29) 2. उत्पादव्ययधौव्ययुक्तं सत्-(5/30) 3. गुणपर्यायवद् द्रव्यम्-(5/38)
कुन्दकुन्द आचार्य ने दर्शन, ज्ञान और चारित्र को नियम कहा है और उन्हें मोक्ष का उपाय/मार्ग कहा है। नियमसार की इस विषयक गाथाओं के आधार पर गृद्धपिच्छ ने तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का प्रथम सूत्र बनाया है- 'सम्यग्दर्शनज्ञानचारित्राणि मोक्षमार्गः'। कुन्दकुन्दाचार्य के 'सार' पद और तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के इस सूत्र में 'सम्यक्' पद का प्रतिपाद्य एक ही है - मिथ्यादर्शन आदि का परिहार करना। आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द ने सम्यग्दर्शन की परिभाषा दी है
अत्तागमतच्चाणं सद्दहणादो हवेइ सम्मत्तं। -नियमसार, 5 तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में प्राप्त 'तत्त्वार्थश्रद्धानं सम्यग्दर्शनम्' सूत्र उक्त प्राकृत गाथांश का संस्कृत अनुवाद प्रतीत होता है। आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द ने प्रवचनसार में परोक्ष और प्रत्यक्ष ज्ञान की परिभाषा दी है
जं परदो विण्णाणं तं तु परोक्ख त्ति भणिदमत्थेसु। जदि केवलेण णादं हवदि हि जीवेण पच्चक्ख।। -ज्ञानाधिकार, 58
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में पांच ज्ञानों को प्रमाण मानकर उनके प्रत्यक्ष और परोक्ष भेद बताने के लिए ये सूत्र प्राप्त होते हैं
1. मति श्रुतावधिमन:पर्ययकेवलानि ज्ञानम्। 1/9 2. तत्प्रमाणे 1/10 3. आद्ये परोक्षम् 1/11 4. प्रत्यक्षमन्यत 1/12
आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द ने पंचास्तिकाय (गा. 56) में जीव के पांच भावों का निरूपण किया है
उदयेण उवसमेण य खयेण दुहिं मिस्सदेहिं परिणामे। जुत्ता ते जीवगुणा बहुसु अत्थेसु विच्छिण्णा।।

Page #211

आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द और गृद्धपिच्छ उमास्वामी : एक विमर्श 201 तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में इस गाथा के भाव को एक सूत्र में व्यक्त किया गया है
औपशमिकक्षायिकौ-भावौ-मिश्रश्च
जीवस्य स्वतत्त्वमौदयिकपारिणामिकौ च। - 2/1 इसी प्रकार प्रवचनसार में ज्ञेयाधिकार की गाथा संख्या 73, 74 एवं 75 की विषयवस्तु तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के पंचम अध्याय के सूत्र संख्या 33, 34, 35, 36 के निर्माण का आधार बनी है। इन सूत्रों में स्निग्ध और रूक्ष गुण वाले परमाणुओं के बन्ध की व्यवस्था बतायी गयी है।
उमास्वामी ने इस प्रकार अपने कई सूत्रों का निर्माण आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द प्रणीत ग्रन्थों की शब्दावली के आधार पर किया है। किन्तु कुछ सूत्रों में उन्होंने अपनी ओर से कई शब्द जोड़े भी हैं और विषय को अधिक स्पष्ट किया है। कुछ स्थानों पर नये सूत्र भी बनाये हैं। पं. दलसुख भाई मालवणिया का यह कथन सत्य है कि कुन्दकुन्द की ज्ञान के भेद, स्वरूप एवं उनके विषय आदि सम्बन्धी अनेक सूत्रों की रचना की है।
जैनदर्शन के वैज्ञानिक मनीषी डॉ. नन्दलाल जैन ने अपने एक आलेख में कहा है कि कुन्दकुन्द के द्वारा प्रतिपादित जीव की परिभाषा उमास्वामी के युग में परिवर्धित और अधिक पूर्ण हुई है। कुन्दकुन्द ने गाथाओं में 'उपयोग' की केवलज्ञान-दर्शनात्मकता ही बताई है (पंचास्तिकाय, गा. 40), चेतना का विशेष विवेचन नहीं है। अतः स्पष्ट है कि आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द आचार्य उमास्वामी से पूर्ववर्ती हैं।
डॉ. सुषमा गांग ने अपने शोधप्रबन्ध में कहा है कि कुन्दकुन्दाचार्य के उत्तरवर्ती आचार्यों में उमास्वाति (ईसा की तृतीय शती) कुन्दकुन्दाचार्य से प्रभावित हुए प्रतीत होते हैं। वे सत्ता की परणामिनित्यता का समर्थन करते हैं (सूत्र 5/29, 30, 31)। आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द ने बन्ध के चार हेतु गिनाये हैं (समयसार गाथा 109), जबकि उमास्वामी ने इसमें 'प्रमाद' को जोड़कर पाँच हेतु माने हैं - मिथ्यात्व, अविरति, प्रमाद, कषाय और योग - मिथ्यादर्शनाविरति-प्रमादकषाय-योगा बन्धहेतवः। -8/1
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में जो बारह अनुप्रेक्षाओं के नाम प्राप्त होते है, वे भी आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द की बारस अणुवेक्खा के अनुसार हैं। प्रथम अनुप्रेक्षा के नाम में मात्र अन्तर है। कुन्दकुन्द ने जिसे 'अणिच्च' कहा है – उसे तत्त्वार्थसूत्रकार ने अध्रुव अनुप्रेक्षा कहा है।

Page #212

202 Studies in Umāsvāti
आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द के प्राकृत ग्रन्थों और तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के संस्कृत सूत्रों में उक्त प्रकार से अन्य समानताएं एवं विषय की एकरूपता को खोजा जा सकता है। कुन्दकुन्द के अतिरिक्त भी गृद्धपिच्छ ने षट्खण्डागम एवं आगम ग्रन्थों के विषय को भी अपने ग्रन्थ में सूत्र रूप में संजोया है।” किन्तु इससे ग्रन्थ या ग्रन्थकार की महत्ता कम नहीं होती ।
जैन साहित्य के इतिहास की दृष्टि से यह स्पष्ट है कि जैन साहित्य में संस्कृत भाषा का सर्वप्रथम जैन सूत्रग्रन्थ तत्त्वार्थसूत्र है और संस्कृत के प्रथम जैन रचनाकार गृद्धपिच्छ हैं, जो कालान्तर में उमास्वामि या उमास्वाति नाम से भी प्रसिद्ध हुए । तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में दस अध्यायों में 357 सूत्रों में समस्त जिनागम के सार को भर दिया गया है। यह ग्रन्थ करणानुयोग, द्रव्यानुयोग और चरणानुयोग का प्रतिनिधि ग्रन्थ बन गया है। इसके दस अध्यायों में सात तत्त्व विवेचित हुए हैं। नय-विवेचन इस ग्रन्थ की अनुपम शैली है। आधुनिक विषयों की दृष्टि से तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में भूगोल, खगोल, आचार, अध्यात्म, द्रव्य एवं तत्त्वव्यवस्था, सृष्टिविद्या, ज्ञानमीमांसा, कर्मविज्ञान आदि का प्रामाणिक विवेचन उपलब्ध है। जैन तत्त्वदर्शन को तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के अध्ययन के बिना नहीं समझा जा सकता है। देश - विदेश में इस ग्रन्थ की पर्याप्त ख्याति है।
संक्षेप में कहा जाय तो आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द के ग्रन्थों का मुख्य विषय अध्यात्म है, अपर विषय प्रासंगिक हैं, जबकि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का मुख्य विषय मोक्षमार्ग का निरूपण है, अन्य विषय उसके आधाररूप में कहे गये हैं। इन दोनों आचार्यों के ग्रन्थों के अध्ययन/स्वाध्याय से जैनधर्म का मर्म समझ में आता है । तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में वर्णित विषयों के मूल आधार को खोजने का प्रयत्न ग्रन्थकार की बहुश्रुतता, अनेकान्तमयी दृष्टि को रेखांकित करना होना चाहिए, सम्प्रदायभेद को प्रखर करना नहीं।
सन्दर्भ
1. षट्खण्डागम, धवलाटीका, जीवस्थान, काल अनुयोगद्वार, पृ. 316। 2. तत्त्वार्थश्लोकवार्तिक, पृ. 61
3. पार्श्वनाथचरितम्, 1/16 ।
4. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की पाण्डुलिपियों के अन्त में उपलब्ध पद्य।
5. जैनशिलालेख संग्रह, प्रथम भाग, अभिलेख संख्या 108, पृ. 210-11।
6. जैनसिद्धान्त भास्कर, भाग 1, किरण 4, पृ. 78।

Page #213

आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द और गृद्धपिच्छ उमास्वामी : एक विमर्श 203 7. प्रवचनसार की भूमिका, पृ. 10-251 8. तीर्थंकर महावीर और उनकी आचार्य परम्परा, खण्ड 2, पृ. 153 । 9. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र (विवेचनसहित), विवेचक – पण्डित सुखलाल संघवी, पृ. 15 10. सर्वार्थसिद्धि, प्रस्तावना, पृ. 65-8। 11. तीर्थंकर महावीर और उनकी आचार्य परम्परा, खण्ड 2, पृ. 149-50। 12. जैन, शीतलचन्द्र, 'आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द का तत्त्वार्थसूत्र पर प्रभाव', महावीर
जयन्ती स्मारिका, 1988, पृ. 1/105 । 13. मग्गो मग्गफलं ति य दुविहं जिणसासणे समक्खादं।
मग्गो मोक्ख उवायो तस्स फलं होइ णिव्वाणं।। णियमेण य जं कज्ज तण्णियमं णाणदसणचरित्तं।
विवरीयपरिहरत्थं भणिदं खलु सारमिदि वयणं।। – नियमसार, गाथा 2-3 । 14. न्यायावतार वार्तिक की प्रस्तावना। 15. पंचास्तिकाय : एक समीक्षात्मक अध्ययन, नामक लेख, आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द
राष्ट्रीय संगोष्ठी (सरधना, 1990) के प्रकाशित आलेख। 16. गांग, सुषमा, आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द की दार्शनिक दृष्टि, दिल्ली, पृ. 45।। 17. आत्माराम, तत्त्वार्थसूत्र-जैनागम समन्वय।

Page #214


Page #215

17
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का व्याख्या साहित्य
फूलचन्द जैन प्रेमी
जैन आगमों की मूल भाषा प्राकृत है क्योंकि सभी तीर्थंकरों ने इसी जनभाषा प्राकृत में उपदेश दिया। आरम्भ में आचार्य परम्परा ने भी प्राकृत भाषा को ही शास्त्र-लेखन का माध्यम बनाया। किन्तु द्रव्य, क्षेत्र, काल और भाव के आधार पर समयानुसार आचार्य अन्य प्राचीन भारतीय भाषाओं में भी शास्त्र-रचना करने में अग्रणी रहे। जब देखा कि संस्कृत भाषा में शास्त्र-लेखन समाज में प्रतिष्ठा का मुद्दा बनने लगा है, तब जैनाचार्य भी इस भाषा में लेखन की ओर उन्मुख हुए। सर्वप्रथम जैन सूत्र परम्परा में संस्कृत भाषा में 'तत्त्वार्थसूत्र अपरनाम मोक्षशास्त्र' जैसा अति उत्कृष्ट ग्रन्थ लिखने का गौरव आचार्य उमास्वामी को प्राप्त हुआ। आचार्य उमास्वामी के अपरनाम उमास्वाति या गृद्धपिच्छाचार्य भी प्रचलित हैं। ईसा की प्रथम शती के आस-पास इन्होंने प्राचीन जैनागमों के आधार पर इस तत्त्वार्थसूत्र जैसे महनीय ग्रन्थरत्न की रचना की।
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के अध्ययन से स्पष्ट होता है कि आचार्य उमास्वामी ने अर्धमागधी आगमों के साथ-साथ आचार्य पुष्पदन्त-भूतबलि प्रणीत षट्खण्डागम तथा आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द जैसे प्राचीन पूर्वाचार्यों द्वारा रचित शास्त्रों एवं मूल आगमिक परम्परा के विशिष्ट आगमों के बीज लेकर जैनधर्म की सभी परम्पराओं द्वारा सर्वमान्य तत्त्वार्थसूत्र जैसे महनीय ग्रन्थ की रचना की और शाश्वत जैन-धर्मदर्शन के विशाल वृक्ष को पल्लवित और पुष्पित करने में महान् योगदान किया।
___ यह एक आधारभूत ऐसा सूत्रग्रन्थ सिद्ध हुआ कि दस अध्यायों एवं 357 सूत्रों से युक्त इस ग्रन्थ के आधार पर अनेक प्राचीन और अर्वाचीन आचार्यों और विद्वानों ने व्याख्या ग्रन्थ लिखकर अपने को गौरवशाली अनुभव किया। वस्तुतः इस ग्रन्थ में चारों अनुयोगों का सार समाहित है।

Page #216

206 Studies in Umāsvāti तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का व्याख्या साहित्य जैसा कि पहले ही कहा जा चुका है कि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र पर विपुल मात्रा में व्याख्या ग्रंथ उपलब्ध हैं। इनमें से कुछ प्रमुख टीका ग्रंथ इस प्रकार हैं - 1. आचार्य समन्तभद्र (तृतीय सदी) प्रणीत 84000 श्लोक प्रमाण गन्ध
हस्तिमहाभाष्य। इसके उल्लेख तो मिलते हैं, किन्तु सम्प्रति यह अनुपलब्ध
2. श्वेताम्बर जैन परम्परा मान्य वाचक उमास्वातिकृत तत्त्वार्थाधिगमभाष्य नामक
2200 श्लोक प्रमाण स्वोपज्ञ टीका। 3. आचार्य देवनन्दि पूज्यपाद(पंचम शती) प्रणीत सर्वार्थसिद्धि नामक 5500
श्लोक प्रमाण टीका ग्रंथ। 4. आचार्य भट्ट अकलंकदेव (सप्तम शती) प्रणीत 16000 श्लोक प्रमाण __तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक, अपरनाम तत्त्वार्थराजवार्तिक। 5. सिद्धसेनगणि कृत तत्त्वार्थाधिगमभाष्य-अनुसारी 18282 श्लोक प्रमाण
बृहद्वृत्ति। 6. आचार्य विद्यानन्द (नवीं शती) विरचित 18000 श्लोक प्रमाण बृहद् टीका
तत्त्वार्थश्लोकवार्तिका 7. हरिभद्रसूरि प्रणीत भाष्यानुसारी 11000 श्लोक प्रमाण टीका। 8. तत्त्वार्थभाष्यलघुवृत्ति (डुपडुपिका वृत्ति)। 9. अभयनन्दिसूरि (दसवीं शती) कृत तात्पर्य-तत्त्वार्थवृत्ति। 10. आचार्य भास्करनन्दि (12वीं शती) कृत सुखबोधाटीका अथवा तत्त्वार्थवृत्ति। 11. आचार्य योगीन्द्रदेव विरचित तत्त्वप्रकाशिका। 12. बालचन्द्र (13वीं शती) कृत कन्नड़ टीका। 13. विबुधसेनाचार्यकृत 3250 श्लोक प्रमाण तत्त्वार्थ टीका। 14. श्री योगदेव गृहस्थाचार्य (16वीं शती) विरचित तत्त्वार्थवृत्ति। 15. लक्ष्मीदेव गृहस्थाचार्य विरचित तत्त्वार्थ टीका। 16. आचार्य प्रभाचन्द्रकृत तत्त्वार्थवृत्ति पद विवरण। 17. प्रभाचंद्र (ई. 1432) कृत, तत्त्वार्थ-रत्नप्रभाकर।

Page #217

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का व्याख्या साहित्य 207 18. आचार्य श्रुतसागरकृत (16वीं शती) 8000 श्लोक प्रमाण श्रुतसागरीय
तत्त्वार्थवृत्ति । 19. आचार्य श्रुतसागरकृत द्वितीय तत्त्वार्थसुबोधिनी 20. उपाध्याय यशोविजय विरचित भाष्यतर्कानुसारिणी टीका। 21. चिरन्तनमुनिवर्य प्रणीत तत्त्वार्थ-टिप्पणक। 22. पं. सदासुखदास (ई. 1783-1863) कृत अर्थप्रकाशिका एवं लघुभाषा
वचनिका टीका।
इनके साथ ही और भी टीकायें होंगी, जो मेरी जानकारी में नहीं आ सकीं। किन्तु विशेष ध्यातव्य है कि श्वेताम्बर परम्परा में भी इस ग्रन्थ का बहुमान होने से इस परम्परा के आचार्यों ने भी अनेक बृहद् टीकायें लिखीं। इनमें से आचार्य सिद्धसेनगणिकृत तत्त्वार्थभाष्यवृत्ति एवं आचार्य हरिभद्रसूरि प्रणीत तत्त्वार्थभाष्यवृत्ति नामक संस्कृत टीकायें काफी लोकप्रिय हैं। इसी परम्परा में बीसवीं सदी के महान् चिन्तक एवं विद्वान् प्रज्ञाचक्षु विद्वान् स्व. पं. सुखलाल संघवी की हिन्दी-गुजराती टीका एवं विवेचना बहुत प्रसिद्ध है। यहाँ प्रस्तुत है प्रमुख टीका साहित्य ग्रन्थों का परिचयसर्वार्थसिद्धिः पाँचवीं सदी के उत्कृष्ट दार्शनिक, वैयाकरण, वैद्य, मन्त्रद्रष्टा एवं तत्त्ववेत्ता सुविख्यात आचार्य पूज्यपाद देवनन्दि ऐसे महान् सारस्वताचार्य हैं, जिनका भारतीय संस्कृति को विविध रूपों में महनीय योगदान है। कर्नाटक में मैसूर के समीप स्थित कनकगिरि श्रीक्षेत्र इनकी साधना स्थली रहा है। पूज्यपाद के देवनन्दि, जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि, यश:कीर्ति, गुणनन्दि जैसे नामों का उल्लेख शिलालेखों में मिलता है, यथा -
यशः कीर्ति यशोनन्दी देवनन्दि महामतिः। श्री पूज्यपादापराख्यो यः गुणनन्दि गुणाकरः।।
पूज्यपाद ने सर्वार्थसिद्धि के अतिरिक्त अनेकविध साहित्य का सृजन किया है। इनमें से जैनेन्द्रव्याकरण, इष्टोपदेश, समाधितंत्र, दशभक्ति, शान्त्यष्टक, सारसंग्रह, चिकित्साशास्त्र, जिनाभिषेक, सिद्धिप्रियस्तोत्र, जैनेन्द्रन्यास एवं शब्दावतार न्यास। इनमें से सारसंग्रह, जैनेन्द्रन्यास एवं चिकित्साशास्त्र - इन ग्रन्थों का उल्लेख तो इनकी रचनाओं के रूप में मिलता है, किन्तु ये ग्रन्थ वर्तमान में

Page #218

208 Studies in Umāsvāti अभी तक उपलब्ध नहीं हैं। अन्य उपलब्ध ग्रन्थ बड़े ही लोकप्रिय और बहुविध उपयोगी हैं।
सर्वार्थसिद्धि आ० पूज्यपाद की सर्वाधिक लोकप्रिय एवं अपने नाम को सार्थक करने वाली उत्कृष्ट टीका है। तत्त्वार्थसूत्र पर उपलब्ध टीका साहित्य में सर्वार्थसिद्धि (संस्कृत) गद्य में मध्यम परिमाण में लिखित सर्वाधिक प्राचीन प्रथम टीका है, जो कि चार हजार श्लोक प्रमाण है। यह टीका सम्पूर्ण जैन परम्परा में इतनी लोकप्रिय हुई कि इसे मूल ग्रंथ की तरह प्रसिद्धि प्राप्त है। पूज्यपाद ने अन्त्यप्रशस्ति में इसकी प्रशंसा करते हुए लिखा है -
स्वर्गापवर्गसुखमाप्तुमनोभिरायः जैनेन्द्रशासनवरामृतसारभूता। सर्वार्थसिद्धिरिति सद्भिरुपात्तनामा, तत्त्वार्थवृत्तिरनिशं मनसा प्रधार्या।।
अर्थात् जो आर्य स्वर्ग और मोक्ष के इच्छुक हैं, वे जैनेन्द्रशासन रूपी उत्कृष्ट अमृत में सारभूत और सज्जन पुरुषों द्वारा रखे गये सर्वार्थसिद्धि - इस नाम से प्रख्यात इस तत्त्वार्थवृत्ति को निरन्तर मनःपूर्वक धारण करें।
सर्वार्थसिद्धि इस नाम से ही इस ग्रंथ की सार्थकता स्पष्ट है, क्योंकि इसके गहन स्वाध्याय-मनन से सभी प्रकार के अर्थों (मुख्य प्रयोजनों अथवा सर्वश्रेष्ठ प्रयोजन मोक्षसुख की प्राप्ति होती है। इसका निरन्तर स्वाध्याय करने वाले विद्वानों की यह मान्यता है कि इसका जितनी बार गहनता के साथ स्वाध्याय करें उतने ही नये-नये तत्त्व, उनका गहन चिन्तन दृष्टिगोचर होता है। वस्तुतः उमास्वामी द्वारा मूलग्रंथ तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में जिस प्रमेय का व्याख्यान किया गया है, वह सब पुरुषार्थों में प्रधानभूत मोक्ष पुरुषार्थ का साधक है। जिसका विस्तृत और सटीक विवेचन सर्वार्थसिद्धि में देखने को मिलता है। इसीलिए पूज्यपाद कहते हैं -
तत्त्वार्थवृत्तिमुदितां विदितार्थतत्त्वाः शृण्वन्ति ये परिपठन्ति च धर्मभक्त्या। हस्ते कृतं वरमसिद्धि सुखामृतं तैः मामरेश्वरसुखेषु किमस्ति वाच्यम्।।
अर्थात् जो मनुष्य धर्मभक्ति से इस तत्त्वार्थवृत्ति को पढ़ते और सुनते हैं, मानो उन्होंने परम सिद्धि सुख रूपी अमृत अपने हाथ में ही कर लिया है। फिर उन्हें चक्रवर्ती और इन्द्र के सुखों के विषय का कहना ही क्या है?
सर्वार्थसिद्धि एक दीपस्तम्भ जैसा ग्रंथ सिद्ध हुआ, जिसका अनुकरण परवर्ती प्रायः सभी भाष्यकारों, वार्तिककारों, अन्यान्य ग्रंथकारों, टीकाकारों, यहाँ तक कि

Page #219

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का व्याख्या साहित्य 209 श्वेताम्बर टीकाकारों तक ने नि:संकोच यथायोग्य उपयोग करके अपने-अपने टीका ग्रंथों को गौरवपूर्ण एवं प्रामाणिक बनाया। सर्वार्थसिद्धि की प्रसन्नशैली और विषयस्पर्शी है। हम इस टीका की भाव-भाषा और विषय-प्रतिपादन की सूक्ष्म पद्धति की शैली को समतल नदी के गतिशील प्रवाह की उपमा दे सकते हैं, जो स्थिर एवं प्रशान्त भाव से एक रूप में सदा आगे बढ़ती ही रहती है, रुकने का नाम ही नहीं लेती।
आ० पूज्यपाद स्वयं में एक सहज और उत्कृष्ट वैयाकरण हैं, उनकी इस विशेषज्ञता का ज्ञान पाठक को सहज ही इसका स्वाध्याय करते समय होता रहता है। यही कारण है कि उन्होंने तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के सूत्रपदों का आश्रय लेकर पदघटना के साथ ही प्रत्येक पद का इस प्रकार विवेचन किया है कि व्याकरण जैसे कठिन और जटिल विषयों का ज्ञान सरल, सहज और सरलता से समझने में आने लगता है।
इस तरह पूज्यपाद ने न केवल भाषा-सौष्ठव का ही ध्यान रखा, अपितु जैनधर्म-दर्शन के सैद्धान्तिक विषय-विवेचन में आगमिक एवं पूर्वाचार्यों द्वारा प्रणीत ग्रंथों के प्रमाणों को प्रस्तुत करने की परम्परा का पूरा ध्यान रखा है। यथावसर उन्होंने आगम शास्त्रों के उद्धरण भी दिये हैं।
प्रत्येक सूत्र की विवेचना करते समय उन्होंने पूर्वापर सम्बन्ध, तत्सम्बन्धी पूर्वपक्ष-उत्तरपक्ष के रूप में प्रश्नों का निर्देश और उनका सटीक समाधान इस तरह प्रस्तुत किया है कि उसके बाद कुछ कहने को रह नहीं जाता।
प्रथम अध्याय के प्रथम सूत्र की व्याख्या प्रस्तुत करने के पूर्व उत्थानिका में किसी निकट-भव्य द्वारा वन के मध्य आश्रम में मुनि परिषद् के मध्य विशाल संघ के साथ स्थित निर्ग्रन्थाचार्य से आत्महित सम्बन्धी प्रश्न पूछने आदि का जो सजीव चित्रण किया है, वह अपने आप में अद्भुत् मनोवैज्ञानिक और असाधारण है। इस प्रश्न के समाधान से ही आत्मा का हित मोक्ष, इसका स्वरूप और इसकी प्राप्ति का उपाय बताने से ही 'सम्यग्दर्शनज्ञानचारित्राणि मोक्षमार्गः' यह प्रथम सूत्र प्रस्फुटित हुआ।
पूज्यपाद ने अपने व्याकरण विषयक विशेषज्ञता का परिचय सम्पूर्ण ग्रंथ में बड़ी ही सहजता और सरलता से दिया है। इसीलिए वे शब्दों की सटीक व्युत्पत्तियाँ एवं परिभाषायें प्रस्तुत करने के अवसर कहीं चूके नहीं। वे तो इन सबके श्रेष्ठ शिल्पी हैं। इसमें इन्होंने विषयों और तत्सम्बद्ध शब्दों की जो परिभाषायें स्थिर की,

Page #220

210 Studies in Umāsvāti वे परवर्ती आचार्यों के लिए दीपक के समान सिद्ध हुईं और इन आचार्यों ने इनके आधार पर अपने-अपने टीका ग्रंथों में इनका पर्याप्त विकास किया। इस प्रकार पूज्यपाद ने तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में आये सभी शब्दों और विषयों का सयुक्तिक स्पष्टीकरण तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के सूत्रों का हार्द इस प्रकार प्रस्तुत किया मानो वे उमास्वामी के हृदय में प्रविष्ट हो इन सूत्रों का विस्तार लिख रहे हों। . - __वस्तुतः शब्दों के अनेक अर्थ होते हैं। आचार्य उमास्वामी शब्दों का जो भी अर्थ बतलाना चाहते थे ऐसा लगता है कि पूज्यपाद विचारपूर्वक वही कह रहे हैं। इस प्रकार यह टीका एक दीपस्तम्भ की तरह है। यही कारण है कि अनेक परवर्ती दार्शनिक, सैद्धान्तिक, पौराणिक आदि चारों अनुयोगों के ग्रंथ प्रायः किसी न किसी रूप में सर्वार्थसिद्धि से उपकृत दिखलाई देते हैं। तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक सर्वार्थसिद्धि के बाद यदि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र पर प्रौढ़ रचना शैली में कोई विस्तृत टीका लिखी गयी है तो वह है सातवीं सदी के आचार्य अकलंकदेव कृत तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक।
जैनेतर दार्शनिक परम्पराओं में जब प्रमाणवार्तिक जैसे वार्तिक ग्रंथ सामने आये, तब जैनाचार्य कैसे पीछे रहते फलतः आचार्य अकलंकदेव ने तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक जैसा उत्कृष्ट ग्रंथ वार्तिक विधा में लिखकर जैनेतर ग्रंथकारों को चुनौती दी। विशेषता यह है कि बौद्ध दार्शनिक धर्मकीर्ति का प्रमाणवार्तिक पद्य में लिखा गया, जबकि आचार्य अकलंकदेव ने इस वार्तिक ग्रंथ को प्रौढ़ गद्यविधा में लिखकर जैन दार्शनिक साहित्य के विकास में महनीय योगदान दिया है।
पूज्यपाद की सर्वार्थसिद्धि इस तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक का मूल आधार मात्र ही नहीं अपितु अकलंकदेव ने इसमें सर्वार्थसिद्धि को इस तरह समाहित कर लिया है, जिस तरह वृक्ष में बीज समाविष्ट हो जाता है। विशेषता यह कि तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक का स्वाध्याय करने वाले को यह प्रतीत ही नहीं होता कि प्रकारान्तर से वह सर्वार्थसिद्धि का भी स्वाध्याय कर ले रहा है। वस्तुतः सर्वार्थसिद्धि में अपनी सीमा के कारण जिन दार्शनिक विषयों के विवेचन को स्थान नहीं मिल सका था, आचार्य अकलंकदेव ने तत्त्वार्थराजवार्तिक में उन विषयों की खुलकर विवेचना प्रस्तुत की है। सर्वार्थसिद्धि की वाक्यरचना सूत्रशैली सदृश है। इसीलिए आ० अकलंकदेव ने तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक में उनके प्रमुख-प्रमुख वाक्यों को भी वार्तिक बनाकर प्रस्तुत किया। साथ ही आवश्यकतानुसार नये-नये वार्तिकों की भी रचना करते गये।

Page #221

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का व्याख्या साहित्य 211 तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक का तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की विशेष व्याख्या होने के कारण अध्यायों में तो विभक्त होना स्वाभाविक है साथ ही यह आह्निक और वार्तिक में भी विभक्त है। इसका अध्ययन करते समय दार्शनिक मन्तव्यों की विवेचना के प्रसंग में अकलंकदेव ‘अनेकान्तात्' इस पद का अनेक स्थलों पर उल्लेख करते हैं। इस माध्यम से वे वहाँ यह स्पष्ट करते हैं कि इस मन्तव्य का समाधान हम अनेकान्त पद्धति से करेंगे। इस प्रकार वे इस पद्धति से आगमिक आधार पर स्पष्ट समाधान के साथ अनेकान्तवाद की प्रतिष्ठा भी करते चलते हैं।
__ वस्तुतः आचार्य अकलंकदेव षड्दर्शनों के मर्मज्ञ थे। उनकी कृतियों में प्रसंगानुसार विशिष्ट दर्शनों के मतों को उनके मूल ग्रंथों के आधार से प्रस्तुत किया गया है, न कि प्रचलित अवधारणाओं के आधार पर। अकलंकदेव ने भी तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक में शब्दों की सिद्धि पूज्यपाद कृत 'जैनेन्द्र व्याकरण' के सूत्रोल्लेख पूर्वक की है।
भारतीय ज्ञानपीठ से प्रकाशित प्रो. महेन्द्रकुमार जैन न्यायाचार्य द्वारा सम्पादित एवं सारभूत अनूदित तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक के प्रधान सम्पादकीय वक्तव्य में सिद्धान्ताचार्य पं. कैलाशचंद्र जी शास्त्री का यह वक्तव्य बिलकुल सटीक है कि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र
और तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक – इन दोनों का विषय समान है, किन्तु अकलंकदेव तो प्रखर दार्शनिक थे, अतः प्रथम और पंचम अध्याय उनकी दार्शनिक समीक्षा और मन्तव्यों से ओत-प्रोत हैं। प्रथम सूत्र की व्याख्या में ही नैयायिक, वैशेषिक, सांख्य और बौद्धदर्शन के मोक्ष और संसार के कारणों की समीक्षा की है। जहाँ भी दार्शनिक चर्चा का प्रसंग आया है, वहाँ अकलंकदेव की तार्किक सरणि के दर्शन होते हैं।
इस तरह यह सैद्धान्तिक ग्रंथ दर्शनशास्त्र का एक अपूर्व ग्रंथ बन गया है। जैन सिद्धान्त के जिज्ञासु भी इस एक ही ग्रंथ के स्वाध्याय से अनेक शास्त्रों का रहस्य-हृदयंगम कर सकते हैं। उन्हें इसमें ऐसी भी चर्चायें मिलेंगी, जो अन्यत्र नहीं हैं।
जैसा कि पहले भी कहा गया है कि अकलंकदेव अनेकान्तवाद के महापण्डित ही थे। इसी से प्रायः सूत्रस्थ विवादों का निराकरण अनेकान्त के आधार पर किया गया है। इतना ही नहीं प्रथम अध्याय के प्रमाणनयैरधिगमः सूत्र की व्याख्या में सप्तभंगी और चतुर्थ अध्याय के अन्तर्गत अनेकान्तवाद का बहुत विस्तार से विवेचन है।

Page #222

212 Studies in Umāsvāti
तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक पर पं० सदासुखदास, जयपुर के शिष्य पं० पन्नालाल जी संघी, (दूनीवालों की) वि. सं. 1820 में लिखी भाषा वचनिका मिलती है। सन् 1915 में पं० गजाधरलाल के सम्पादकत्व में सनातन जैन ग्रंथमाला, बनारस से तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक (मूल संस्कृत) प्रकाशित हुआ था। पं० गजाधरलाल ने इसका विस्तृत हिन्दी अनुवाद भी किया था। बाद में इन्हीं के अनुवाद को पं. मक्खनलाल जी न्यायालंकार, मुरैना ने संशोधन एवं परिवर्धन के साथ भारतीय जैन सिद्धान्त प्रकाशिनी संस्था, कलकत्ता से हरीभाई देवकरण ग्रंथमाला के क्रमांक 8वें पुष्प के रूप में सन् 1928 ई. में प्रकाशित किया। इस टीका के विशालकाय होने तथा वार्तिक के साथ टीका नहीं होने से स्वाध्यायियों को कठिनाई का सामना करना पड़ता था। अतः पं० महेन्द्रकुमार जी ने अनेक शास्त्र भंडारों से प्राप्त मूल प्रतियों के आधार पर मूल ग्रंथ का प्रामाणिक सम्पादन कर मूल के साथ अलग से हिन्दी सार लिखकर भारतीय ज्ञानपीठ से प्रकाशित कर इसे लोकप्रिय बनाया। तत्त्वार्थश्लोकवार्तिक
नवीं शती के युग प्रभावक आचार्य विद्यानन्द द्वारा लिखित आप्तपरीक्षा, सत्यशासन. परीक्षा, अष्टसहस्री, प्रमाणपरीक्षा, पत्रपरीक्षा आदि ग्रंथों में तत्त्वार्थ- श्लोकवार्तिक का विषय प्रमेय सिद्धान्त होने पर भी उनकी यह वृत्ति जैन न्याय शास्त्र में एक महत्त्वपूर्ण स्थान रखती है। तत्त्वार्थ- श्लोकवार्तिक के तत्त्वार्थवार्तिकालंकार, तत्त्वार्थश्लोक-वार्तिकभाष्य, श्लोकवार्तिकभाष्य एवं तत्त्वार्थश्लोकवार्तिक- व्याख्यान - ये नाम भी प्रसिद्ध हैं। यह ग्रन्थ प्रसिद्ध मीमांसक कुमारिल भट्ट के मीमांसाश्लोकवार्तिक एवं धर्मकीर्ति के प्रमाणवार्तिक की तरह पद्यशैली में लिखा गया है। साथ ही पद्यवार्तिकों पर गद्यात्मकभाष्य भी आचार्य विद्यानंद ने स्वयं लिखा है। इस तरह अनुपम गद्य-पद्यात्मक उभय चम्पू शैली में लिखा गया यह विशिष्ट महनीय ग्रंथ है।
उदाहरणार्थ प्रथमाध्याय के सम्यग्दर्शनज्ञानचारित्राणि मोक्षमार्ग: इस प्रथम सूत्र के आरम्भ में वे सम्यग्दर्शन की परिभाषा करते हुए यह पद्यमय वार्तिक प्रस्तुत करते हैं- प्रणिधानविशेषोत्थद्वैविध्यं रूपमात्मनः ।
यथास्थितार्थ श्रद्धानं सम्यग्दर्शनमुद्दिशेत्।।1।।
अर्थात् प्रणिधान (स्वच्छ चित्त की एकाग्रता के ) विशेष से उत्पन्न द्वैविध्य रूप आत्मा के स्वरूप का यथार्थ श्रद्धान करना सम्यग्दर्शन है।
इस पद्यमय वार्तिक का गद्यमय भाष्य करते हुए वे लिखते हैं

Page #223

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का व्याख्या साहित्य 213 प्रणिधानं विशुद्धमध्यवसानं, तस्य विशेषः परोपदेशानपेक्षत्वं तदपेक्षत्वं च, तस्मादुत्था यस्य तत्प्रणिधानविशेषोत्थ। ...... प्रणिधानविशेषोत्थं द्वैविध्यमस्येति प्रणिधान- विशेषोत्थद्वैविध्यं, तच्चात्मनोरूपं -अर्थात् प्रणिधान, उपयोग, विशुद्ध अध्यवसान-ये एकार्थवाची हैं। प्रणिधान विशेष यानी परोपदेश अपेक्षा वा परोपदेश की अपेक्षा बिना उत्पत्ति है जिसकी, उसको प्रणिधान विशेष से उत्पन्न कहते हैं। ... प्रणिधान विशेष से उत्पन्न निसर्गज और अधिगमज भाव आत्मा का स्वरूप है।
वार्तिक एवं भाष्य इन उदाहरणों से ही हम इस ग्रंथ की प्रतिपादन शैली समझ सकते हैं। वस्तुतः आचार्य विद्यानंद ने इस ग्रंथ के माध्यम से प्रशस्त तर्कवितर्क व विचारणा के द्वारा सिद्धान्त समन्वित तत्त्वों की प्रतिष्ठापना की है।
तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक और तत्त्वार्थश्लोकवार्तिक इन दोनों ग्रंथों की महत्ता प्रतिपादित करते हुए पं० सुखलाल जी संघवी ने लिखा है – राजवार्तिक और श्लोकवार्तिक के इतिहासज्ञ अभ्यासी को मालूम पड़ेगा कि दक्षिण हिन्दुस्तान में जो दार्शनिक विधा और स्पर्धा का समय आया और अनेकमुख पाण्डित्य विकसित हुआ, उसी का प्रतिबिम्ब इन दोनों ग्रंथों में है। प्रस्तुत दोनों वार्तिक जैनदर्शन का प्रामाणिक अभ्यास करने में पर्याप्त साधन हैं। इनमें राजवार्तिक का गद्य सरल और विस्तृत होने से तत्त्वार्थ के सम्पूर्ण टीकाग्रंथों की गरज अकेला ही पूर्ण करता है। ये दो वार्तिक नहीं होते तो दसवीं शताब्दी तक के दिगम्बर साहित्य में जो विशिष्टता आयी और उसकी जो प्रतिष्ठा बंधी, वह निश्चय से अधूरी ही रहती।
पं० संघवी जी जैसे मर्मज्ञ मनीषी का उक्त कथन दोनों वार्तिकों के तुलनात्मक अध्ययन की दृष्टि से काफी महत्त्वपूर्ण है। वे अपने द्वारा सम्पादित
और विवेचित तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की प्रस्तावना (पृ. 66-7) में इसी संबंध में आगे लिखते हैं -
_ 'यदि आचार्य अकलंकदेव को सर्वार्थसिद्धि न मिली होती तो उनके राजवार्तिक का वर्तमान स्वरूप इतना विशिष्ट नहीं होता और यदि राजवार्तिक का आश्रय न मिला होता तो आचार्य विद्यानन्द के श्लोकवार्तिक की विशिष्टता भी दिखाई न देती। इस तरह राजवार्तिक और श्लोकवार्तिक-ये दोनों साक्षात् या परम्परा से सर्वार्थसिद्धि के ऋणी होने पर भी दोनों में सर्वार्थसिद्धि की अपेक्षा विशेष विकास हुआ है। सर्वार्थसिद्धि में जो दार्शनिक अभ्यास दिखाई देता है, उसकी अपेक्षा राजवार्तिक का दार्शनिक अभ्यास बहुत ही ऊँचा चढ़ जाता है।
पं० संघवी जी आगे लिखते हैं, 'राजवार्तिक का एक ध्रुव मन्त्र यह है कि उन्हें जिस बात पर जो कुछ कहना होता है, उसे वे अनेकान्त का आश्रय

Page #224

214 Studies in Umāsvāti लेकर ही कहते हैं। अनेकान्त राजवार्तिक की प्रत्येक चर्चा की चाबी है। अपने समय तक भिन्न-भिन्न सम्प्रदायों के विद्वानों ने अनेकान्त पर जो आक्षेप किए और अनेकान्तवाद की जो त्रुटियाँ बतलाई, उन सबका निरसन (खण्डन) करने और अनेकान्त का वास्तविक स्वरूप बतलाने के लिए ही अकलंक ने प्रतिष्ठित तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के आधार पर सिद्ध लक्षण वाली सर्वार्थसिद्धि का आश्रय लेकर अपने राजवार्तिक की भव्य इमारत खड़ी की है। सर्वार्थसिद्धि में जो आगमिक विषयों का अति विस्तार है, उसे राजवार्तिककार ने कम कर दिया है और दार्शनिक विषयों को ही प्राधान्य दिया है।'
पं० संघवी जी तत्त्वार्थश्लोकवार्तिक के विषय में स्वविवेचित तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की इसी प्रस्तावना में आगे लिखते हैं, 'दक्षिण भारत में निवास करते हुए आचार्य विद्यानन्द ने देखा कि पूर्वकालीन और समकालीन अनेक जैनेतर विद्वानों ने जैनदर्शन पर जो आक्रमण किए हैं, उनका उत्तर देना बहुत कुछ शेष है और विशेषकर मीमांसक कुमारिल भट्ट आदि द्वारा किये गए जैनदर्शन के खण्डन का उत्तर दिये बिना उनसे रहा नहीं गया, तभी उन्होंने श्लोकवार्तिक की रचना की और उन्होंने अपना यह उद्देश्य सिद्ध किया है।
तत्त्वार्थश्लोकवार्तिक में मीमांसा दर्शन का जितना और जैसा सबल खण्डन है, वैसा तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की किसी अन्य टीका में नहीं है। सर्वार्थसिद्धि तथा राजवार्तिक में चर्चित कोई भी मुख्य विषय तत्त्वार्थश्लोकवार्तिककार ने छोड़ा नहीं है। बल्कि बहुत से स्थानों पर तो सर्वार्थसिद्धि और राजवार्तिक की अपेक्षा श्लोकवार्तिक की चर्चा बढ़ जाती है। कितनी ही बातों की चर्चा तो श्लोकवार्तिक में अपूर्व ही है।
राजवार्तिक में दार्शनिक अभ्यास की विशालता है तो श्लोकवार्तिक में इस विशालता के साथ सूक्ष्मता का तत्त्व भरा हुआ दृष्टिगोचर होता है। समग्र जैन वाङ्मय में जो कृतियाँ बहुत महत्त्व रखती हैं उनमें राजवार्तिक और श्लोकवार्तिक भी हैं। आगे तो पं. संघवी जी एक चुनौती देते हुए लिखते हैं कि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र पर उपलब्ध श्वेताम्बर साहित्य में एक भी ग्रंथ ऐसा नहीं है, जो राजवार्तिक या श्लोकवार्तिक की तुलना में बैठ सके। ये दोनों वार्तिक ग्रंथ अनेक दृष्टियों से भारतीय दार्शनिक साहित्य में विशिष्ट स्थान प्राप्त करने की योग्यता रखते हैं। इनका अवलोकन बौद्ध एवं वैदिक परम्परा के अनेक विषयों पर तथा अनेक ग्रंथों पर ऐतिहासिक प्रकाश डालता है।

Page #225

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का व्याख्या साहित्य 215 इस तरह इन दोनों की दार्शनिक और तात्त्विक चर्चा में सम्पूर्ण भारतीय दर्शनों के तत्कालीन चिंतन एवं इसके प्रभावों को समझने की दृष्टि से इनका अध्ययन सभी के लिए उपयोगी और आवश्यक है।
तत्त्वार्थाधिगमभाष्य
वाचक उमास्वाति प्रणीत इस भाष्य को तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की स्वोपज्ञ टीका श्वेताम्बर जैन परम्परा मानती है। इसीलिए इस परम्परा में जितने भी टीकाग्रंथ तत्त्वार्थसूत्र पर लिखे गये वे सब प्रायः इसी भाष्य के आधार पर लिखे गये हैं। यह परम्परा इन्हीं वाचक उमास्वाति की एक अन्य रचना ' प्रशमरति प्रकरण' भी मानती है। मुख्यतः इसी के आधार पर दिगम्बर और श्वेताम्बर इन दोनों द्वारा मान्य तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के सूत्रों में भी कुछ अन्तर है। ये भी प्रायः अपनी-अपनी सैद्धान्तिक मान्यताओं के आधार पर।
दिगम्बर परम्परा के दसों अध्यायों में जहाँ क्रमश: 33+53+39+42+42+27+ 39+26+47+9=357 सूत्र हैं। वहीं श्वेताम्बर परम्परा मान्य तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में क्रमशः 35+52+18+53+44+26+34+26+49+7=344 1
तत्त्वार्थ सूत्रभाष्यवृत्ति
सिद्धसेन गणि विरचित (सातवीं से आठवीं शती के मध्य ) श्वेताम्बर परम्परा मान्य अठारह हजार श्लोकप्रमाण यह भाष्यवृत्ति अत्यन्त विस्तृत है । ये सिद्धसेन दिन्नगणि के शिष्य सिंहसूरि के प्रशिष्य भास्वामी के शिष्य थे। पं. सुखलाल संघवी इन्हें ‘गन्धहस्ती' नाम से भी प्रसिद्ध मानते हैं । इनके अनुसार ये सिद्धसेन सैद्धान्तिक थे और आगमशास्त्रों का विशाल ज्ञान धारण करने वाले तथा आगम विरुद्ध प्रतीत होने वाली बातों का आवेशपूर्वक खंडन करने वाले थे। इसमें इन्होंने वसुबन्धु, धर्मकीर्ति आदि अनेक बौद्ध विद्वानों के मतों का भी खंडन किया है।
इस भाष्यवृत्ति में अकलंकदेव के सिद्धिविनिश्चय ग्रंथ का उल्लेख है। अतः इन्होंने अकलंक के ही तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक को अपनी इस भाष्यवृत्ति का आधार बनाया हो तो कोई अतिशयोक्ति नहीं। हाँ, सम्प्रदायगत मन्तव्य इन्होंने अपने ही माने हैं। सिद्धसेन नाम के अनेक आचार्यों का उल्लेख मिलता है। किन्तु ये सन्मतितर्कप्रकरण के कर्त्ता से भिन्न सिद्धसेन हैं। इस वृत्ति के प्रत्येक अध्याय के अन्त में आपने इस प्रकार उल्लेख किया है -
इति श्री तत्त्वार्थाधिगमेऽर्हत्प्रवचनसङ्ग्रहे भाष्यानुसारिण्यां तत्त्वार्थटीकायां प्रथमोऽध्यायः ।

Page #226

216 Studies in Umāsvāti
आपने इस टीका में अपनी गुरु परम्परा का उल्लेख करते हुए लिखा है
आसीद् दिन्नगणिः क्षमाश्रमणतां प्रापत् क्रमेणैव यो विद्वत्सु प्रतिभागुणेन जयिना प्रख्यातकीर्तिभृशम्। वोढा शीलभरस्य सच्छुत निधिर्मोक्षार्थिनामग्रणी। जज्वालामलमुच्चकैर्निजतपस्तेजोभिख्याहतम्।।1।।
....तत्त्वार्थशास्त्रटीकामिमां व्यधात् सिद्धसेनगणिः।।7।। तत्त्वार्थभाष्य लघुवृत्ति-(डुपडुपिका वृत्ति) यह वृत्ति तीन आचार्यों द्वारा लिखी गयी टीका है। किन्तु यह मुख्यतया आचार्य हरिभद्र प्रणीत मानी जाती है। क्योंकि आरम्भ के साढ़े पाँच अध्यायों की वृत्ति हरिभद्र ने लिखी। शेष भाग की वृत्ति यशोभद्र नाम के आचार्य ने लिखी। इन्हीं यशोभद्र के अज्ञातनामा शिष्य ने दसम अध्याय के अन्तिम सूत्र के भाष्य पर वृत्ति लिखी। इस तरह टुकड़े-टुकड़े में एक के बाद एक, इस तरह तीन आचार्यों द्वारा पूरी होने के कारण इस वृत्ति को इसमें उल्लेखों के आधार पर कुछ विद्वान् ‘डुपडुपिका' (दुपदुपिका) भी कहते हैं। एक तो यह छोटी वृत्ति है, वह भी थोड़ी-थोड़ी क्रमशः तीन आचार्यों ने लिखी। अतः एक कथा सी बनने से यह 'डुपडुपिका' ही कहलायी। उक्त तीनों टीकाओं के अतिरिक्त आचार्य मलयगिरि (अनुपलब्ध), चिरंतनमुनि, वाचक यशोविजय, गणि यशोविजय प्रणीत वृत्तियाँ भी तत्त्वार्थभाष्य पर उपलब्ध हैं।
इस तरह तत्त्वार्थसूत्र इतना सारभूत ग्रंथ है कि इसका प्रभाव मात्र टीकाओं तक ही सीमित नहीं रहा, अपितु दिगम्बर और श्वेताम्बर परम्परा के परवर्ती साहित्य पर भी विशेष रूप से स्पष्ट दिखलाई पड़ता है। यही कारण है कि प्राचीन आचार्यों ने इस ग्रंथ पर विविध प्रकार की प्रौढ़ एवं सरल दोनों तरह की टीकायें लिखकर अपने को गौरवान्वित किया।
इतना ही नहीं बीसवीं सदी के अनेक विद्वानों ने भी हिन्दी, अंग्रेजी, मराठी, गुजराती, राजस्थानी, कन्नड़, तमिल आदि अनेक भाषाओं में शताधिक टीकायें लिखकर तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के व्याख्या साहित्य को समृद्ध करने में महनीय योगदान किया।

Page #227

18
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में आत्मा सम्बन्धी तत्त्व
लता बोथरा, कलकत्ता
अति प्राचीन काल से हमारे ऋषियों, मुनियों, विद्वानों और विचारकों की गवेषणा व चिन्तन का मूल विषय आत्मा रहा है। आत्मा रूपी तत्त्व को जानने की जिज्ञासा से ही दर्शन की उत्पत्ति हुई है। जैन दर्शन का मूलतत्त्व आत्मा ही है। इस दर्शन में बिना वैज्ञानिक साधनों के प्रकृति के रहस्यों का जिस प्रज्ञा द्वारा प्रतिपादन किया गया वह आत्मज्ञान ही था। जैनदर्शन में तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का विशिष्ट स्थान है। यह सूत्र शैली में जैनधर्म और दर्शन से सम्बन्धित सभी पहलुओं को प्रतिपादित करने वाला अद्वितीय ग्रन्थ है, जो संस्कृत में लिखा गया।
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के रचनाकार आचार्य उमास्वाति ने सात तत्त्वों का प्रतिपादन किया है, जिसमें जीव प्रथम तत्त्व बताया गया है। यहाँ जीव का अस्तित्व जीव शब्द से ही सिद्ध है। जैनदर्शन में जीव का अर्थ चेतन द्रव्य या आत्मा माना गया है। भगवतीसूत्र में गौतम स्वामी ने भगवान् महावीर से आत्मा सम्बन्धी दो प्रश्न किये थे। आत्मा क्या है? और उसका साध्य क्या है? भगवान् ने इन प्रश्नों का उत्तर देते हुए कहा आत्मा समत्व रूप है और समत्व की उपलब्धि कर लेना यही आत्मा का साध्य है। आचारांगसूत्र में भी समता को धर्म कहा गया हैं। क्योंकि वस्तु स्वभाव ही धर्म है। जैनधर्म में साधक, साध्य और साधना मार्ग तीनों ही आत्मा से अभिन्न माने जाते हैं। आत्मा स्व को ही पूर्ण बनाती है, इस प्रकार आत्मा का साध्य आत्मा ही है। हमारी चेतना के ज्ञान भाव और संकल्प के पक्ष सम्यक् दिशा में नियोजित होकर साधना मार्ग बन जाते हैं या यह भी कह सकते हैं कि चेतना के ज्ञानात्मक, भावात्मक और संकल्पात्मक पक्ष ही क्रमशः सम्यक् ज्ञान, सम्यक् दर्शन, सम्यक् चारित्र बन जाते है। जैनदर्शन के इसी तत्त्व को वाचक

Page #228

218 Studies in Umāsvāti उमास्वाति ने तत्त्वार्थ सूत्र के प्रथम सूत्र में प्रतिपादित किया है -
'सम्यग्दर्शनज्ञानचारित्राणिमोक्षमार्गः
अर्थात् सम्यक् दर्शन, सम्यक् ज्ञान, सम्यक् चारित्र - ये तीनों मिल कर मोक्ष के मार्ग होते हैं।
उपयोगो लक्षणम् तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में जीव का लक्षण उपयोग अर्थात् चेतना युक्त बोध शक्ति है।' जीव जिसको आत्मा कहते हैं वह अनादिसिद्ध व स्वतन्त्र द्रव्य है। तात्त्विक दृष्टि से अरूपी होने के कारण उसका ज्ञान इन्द्रियों द्वारा नहीं हो सकता, पर स्वसंवेदन प्रत्यक्ष या अनुमान आदि से किया जा सकता है। संसार अनेक जड़ चेतन पदार्थों का मिश्रण है तथा इन पदार्थों का विवेकपूर्ण निश्चय उपयोग द्वारा ही हो सकता है। उपयोग दो प्रकार का होता है- ज्ञानोपयोग और दर्शनोपयोग। बाह्य वस्तु की चेतना को ज्ञान व आत्म चेतना को दर्शन कहा जाता
अतः जीव में बाह्य और आन्तरिक दोनों चेतना विद्यमान रहती है। चेतना जीव द्रव्य का सारभूत गुण है, जो प्रत्येक अवस्था में जीव में विद्यमान रहता है। एकेन्द्रिय, द्वीन्द्रिय, त्रीन्द्रिय, चतुरिन्द्रिय तथा पंचेन्द्रिय जीवों का वर्णन हमें तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में मिलता है। पृथ्वीकाय से वनस्पतिकाय तक के जीवों में एक इन्द्रिय चेतना है। कृमि, पिपीलिका, भ्रमर और मनुष्य में क्रमशः एक-एक इन्द्रिय की चेतना की वृद्धि हो जाती है। तीर्थंकरों में इन्द्रिय चेतना के अलावा मति, श्रुत, अवधि, मनःपर्याय तथा केवलज्ञान रहता है। अतः वे सर्वज्ञ कहलाते हैं। आत्मा में केवलज्ञान प्रकट होता है मोह के क्षय से ज्ञानावरण, दर्शनावरण और अन्तराय कर्मों के क्षय से। इस प्रकार चेतना की मात्रा के अनुसार जीव शृंखलाबद्ध है। ___तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के द्वितीय अध्याय के दसवें सूत्र में आत्मा के दो भेद बताएँ गये हैं - 1 संसारी और 2 मुक्त। जो आत्मा सम्पूर्ण कर्म क्षय कर मुक्ति लाभ करती है, वही मुक्त आत्मा कहलाती है। जैन दर्शन में आत्मा की मुक्ति के लिये मनुष्य जन्म आवश्यक बताया गया है। सांसारिक जीव मनवाले तथा मन रहित दो प्रकार के हैं। इनके भी दो भेद हैं- त्रस और स्थावर।2 तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में पृथ्वीकाय, जलकाय, वनस्पतिकाय आदि ये एकेन्द्रिय जीव स्थावर माने गये हैं। अन्य द्वीन्द्रिय, त्रीन्द्रिय, चतुरिन्द्रिय तथा पंचेन्द्रिय जीव त्रस जीवों की श्रेणी में आते हैं। सांसारिक आत्मा चार प्रकार की योनियों में जन्म लेती है- देव, मनुष्य,

Page #229

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में आत्मा सम्बन्धी तत्त्व 219 तिर्यंच और नारक ।'' आत्मा अपने शुभ अशुभ कर्मों के अनुसार इन योनियों में जन्म लेती है। शुभ कार्य करता है तो देव या मनुष्य योनियों में और अशुभ कर्म करता है तो तिर्यंच या नारकीय योनि में जन्म लेता है। प्राणी का भविष्य वर्तमान के आचरण पर निर्भर करता है।
आधुनिक जीववैज्ञानिक समानताओं के सिद्धान्त को उमास्वाति ने तत्त्वार्थ सूत्र के परस्परोपग्रहो जीवानाम्" में स्पष्ट किया है? प्रत्येक सांसारिक जीवद्रव्य का कार्य एक दूसरे की सहायता करना है। कोई भी जीव अकेला स्वतन्त्रता पूर्वक सत्ता में नहीं रह सकता । प्रत्येक जीव एक दूसरे पर आश्रित हैं। एक दूसरे का सहयोग अत्यावश्क है।
आत्मा स्वदेहपरिमाण वाला है और उसके प्रदेश असंख्यात हैं। 17 एक परमाणु जितने आकाश को घेरता है उसे एक प्रदेश कहते हैं। इन्हीं असंख्यात प्रदेशों से युक्त आत्मा अखण्ड द्रव्य है। आत्मा अणु भी है और विभु भी। सूक्ष्म इतना है कि एक आकाश प्रदेश के अनन्तवें भाग में समा सकता है और विभु इतनी कि समग्र लोक में व्याप्त है। संकोच व विस्तार गुण के कारण एक हाथी में रहने वाला आत्मा, जब चीटी के शरीर में प्रवेश करता है तब संकुचित हो जाता है जैसे दीपक का प्रकाश छोटे कमरे में भी व्याप्त रहता है और बड़े कमरे में भी। ठीक उसी प्रकार आत्मा शरीर के परिमाण के साथ घटता-बढ़ता है। ज्यों-ज्यों शरीर की वृद्धि होती है, आत्मा का परिमाण भी बढ़ता है।
शरीर रहित आत्मा आकाशमें किस भाग में रहता है ? तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के अन्तिम दसवें अध्याय में उमास्वाति कहते हैं ' तदनन्तरमूर्ध्वं गच्छत्या लोकान्तात् " सम्पूर्ण कर्मों के क्षय होने के बाद आत्मा सीधी ऊर्ध्वगति करता है और लोक के अग्र भाग में जाकर ठहर जाता है। जैसे कि तुम्बी अगर अपनी वस्तुओं से भारी नहीं कर दी गयी हो तो सीधी पानी की ऊपरी सतह पर आ जाती है। इसी प्रकार कर्म-बन्धन के दूर होते ही जीव भी ऊर्ध्वगामी बन लोक के अग्र भाग में स्थिर हो जाता है। यही आत्मा की श्रेष्ठतम अवस्था है । उमास्वाति तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में जिसको प्राप्त करने का मार्ग प्रशस्त करते हैं।
सन्दर्भ
1. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, विवेचक पं. सुखलाल संघवी, पार्श्वनाथविद्यापीठ, वाराणसी, तृ. सं. 1993, अध्याय 1 / सूत्र 5 |
2. भगवतीसूत्र, 1/9।

Page #230

220 Studies in Umāsvāti 3. आचारांगसूत्र, 8/31। 4. णाणसार, पृ. 46। 5. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 1/1। 6. वही, 2/8। 7. प्रश्नोत्तर जैन धर्म (बंगला), डॉ. एम. आर. बनर्जी। 8. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 1/23, 24, 25। 9. वही, 1/23, 24, 25। 10. वही। 11. वही। 12. वही। 13. वही, 1/13, 14, 15। 14. वही, 1/13, 14, 15। 15. जैन, लालचन्द, जैन दर्शन में आत्मविचार, पार्श्वनाथविद्यापीठ, वाराणसी। 16. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5/21। 17. वही, 5/6, 8। 18. वही, 10/51

Page #231

19
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में निर्जरा की तरतमता के स्थान : एक समीक्षा
समणी कुसुमप्रज्ञा
जैन आचार्य परम्परा में उमास्वाति का महत्त्वपूर्ण स्थान है। उमास्वाति की लोकप्रियता को इस बात से जाना जा सकता है कि दिगम्बर और श्वेताम्बर - दोनों परम्पराओं ने उनके कर्तृत्व को स्वीकार किया है। जैन तत्त्व, दर्शन और सिद्धान्त के जो तथ्य आगमों में विकीर्ण रूप से मिलते थे, उनको उमास्वाति ने व्यवस्थित रूप से सूत्रबद्ध शैली में प्रस्तुत किया। तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में उन्होंने संकलन का कार्य ही नहीं किया, अपितु अनेक नए रहस्यों का उद्घाटन भी किया है। आगम - साहित्य के अलावा अपने पूर्ववर्ती आचार्यों की रचना से भी वे प्रभावित रहे हैं। निःसन्देह कहा जा सकता है कि प्राचीन जैन ग्रन्थों में इतना सुव्यवस्थित, सुसम्बद्ध और सूत्रात्मक शैली में लिखा गया कोई अन्य ग्रन्थ देखने को नहीं मिलता।
आचार्य उमास्वाति ने निर्जरा के प्रसंग में नवें अध्याय के सैंतालीसवें सूत्र में सम्यग्दृष्टि आदि गुणश्रेणी विकास की दस अवस्थाओं का वर्णन किया है। इन अवस्थाओं में पूर्ववर्ती अवस्था की अपेक्षा उत्तरवर्ती अवस्था में असंख्यात गुनी अधिक निर्जरा होती है। गुणश्रेणी विकास की दस अवस्थाओं के नाम इस प्रकार हैं।
1. सम्यग्दृष्टि - उपशम या क्षयोपशम सम्यक्त्व की प्राप्ति ।
2. श्रावक - अप्रत्याख्यानावरण कषाय के क्षयोपशम से आंशिक विरति का उदय ।

Page #232

222 Studies in Umāsvāti 3. विरत-प्रत्याख्यानावरण कषाय के क्षयोपशम से सर्वविरति का उदय। 4. अनन्तवियोजक-अनन्तानुबन्धी कषाय-चतुष्क का क्षय। 5. दर्शनमोहक्षपक-दर्शनमोह की सम्यक्त्व मोहनीय आदि तीन प्रकृतियों का
क्षय। 6. उपशमक-चारित्र मोह की प्रकृतियों के उपशम का प्रारम्भ। 7. उपशान्त मोह-मोह का पूर्णतः उपशम। 8. क्षपक-चारित्र मोह की प्रकृतियों के क्षय का प्रारम्भ। 9. क्षीणमोह-चारित्रमोह का सम्पूर्ण क्षय। 10. जिन-कैवल्य-प्राप्ति।
भगवतीसूत्र तथा पण्णवणासूत्र जैसे सैद्धान्तिक आगम ग्रन्थों में इन अवस्थाओं का उल्लेख न मिलने से यह स्पष्ट है कि इन दस अवस्थाओं की अवधारणा बाद में विकसित हुई। दस अवस्थाओं का सबसे प्राचीन उल्लेख आचारांग नियुक्ति में मिलता है। अतः उमास्वाति ने आचारांग नियुक्ति से इन अवस्थाओं को लिया, यह स्पष्ट रूप से कहा जा सकता है, क्योंकि वे भद्रबाहु प्रथम के परवर्ती हैं। कुछ विद्वान् भद्रबाहु द्वितीय को नियुक्तियों का कर्ता स्वीकार करते हैं, अतः तत्त्वार्थसूत्र को नियुक्तियों से पूर्व की रचना मानते हैं, किन्तु चतुर्दशपूर्वी आचार्य भद्रबाहु नियुक्तियों के कर्ता थे, इस बात को हमने अनेक तर्कों से अन्यत्र सिद्ध करने का प्रयत्न किया है।
गुणश्रेणी विकास की दस अवस्थाओं का सर्वप्रथम उल्लेख आचार्य भद्रबाहु ने किया। इस कथन की पुष्टि इस बात से की जा सकती है कि आत्मा की निर्मलता या निर्जरा की तरतमता का ज्ञान या तो तीर्थंकर अपने अतिशायी ज्ञान से जान सकते हैं अथवा चतुर्दशपूर्वी अपने श्रुतज्ञान के वैशिष्ट्य से। निर्जरा की तरतमता सामान्यज्ञानी के लिए जानना असम्भव है। अतः कहा जा सकता है कि गुणश्रेणी विकास की ये दस अवस्थाएं आचार्य भद्रबाहु की मौलिक देन हैं।
सम्यक्त्व की उपलब्धि अनन्त निर्जरा का कारण है। अतः आचारांग के सम्यक्त्व अध्ययन की नियुक्ति में इन अवस्थाओं का वर्णन प्रासंगिक लगता है किन्तु तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में विषय को महत्त्वपूर्ण समझकर सूत्रकार ने संवर के अन्तर्गत तप के प्रसंग में निर्जरा का तारतम्य बताने वाली इन अवस्थाओं का समाहार कर दिया है। वहां यह वर्णन प्रासंगिक जैसा नहीं लगता।

Page #233

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में निर्जरा की तरतमता के स्थान : एक समीक्षा 223 नियुक्तिकार ने प्रथम सम्यग्दृष्टि के स्थान पर सम्यक्त्व-उत्पत्ति तथा चौथी अनन्तवियोजक के स्थान पर अनन्त-कर्मांश नाम का उल्लेख किया है। उमास्वाति ने इन दोनों नामों को अधिक स्पष्टता के साथ प्रस्तुत किया है। श्वेताम्बर और दिगम्बर परम्परा के साहित्य में कुछ अन्तर के साथ ये अवस्थाएं मिलती हैं। उन नामों के सूक्ष्म अन्तर को इस सारिणी के माध्यम से जाना जा सकता है
श्वेताम्बर परम्परा शिवशर्मकृत कर्मग्रन्थ' चन्द्रर्षि कृत पंचसंग्रह' देवेन्द्रसूरि कृत तक कर्मग्रन्थं
ई. सन् पांचवीं शती ई. सन् आठवीं शती विक्रम की पांचवीं शती 1. सम्यक्त्व उत्पत्ति सम्यक्त्व
सम्यक् 2. श्रावक देशविरति
देशविरति 3. विरत
सम्पूर्ण विरति सर्वविरति 4. संयोजना विनाश अनन्तानुबन्धी विसंयोग अनन्त विसंयोग 5. दर्शनमोहक्षपक दर्शनमोहक्षपक दर्शनक्षपक 6. उपशमक उपशमक
शम 7. उपशान्त उपशान्त
शान्त 8. क्षपक क्षपक
क्षपक 9. क्षीणमोह क्षीणमोह
क्षीण 10. द्विविध जिन सयोगी केवली सयोगी (केवली) (सयोगी एवं अयोगी) अयोगी केवली अयोगी (केवली)
दिगम्बर परम्परा कार्तिकेयानुप्रेक्षा षट्खण्डागम, गोम्मटसार (जीवकाण्ड) 1. मिथ्यादृष्टि
___- 1. सम्यक्त्व उत्पत्ति 2. सदृष्टि
2. श्रावक 3. अणुव्रतधारी
3. विरत 4. ज्ञानी महाव्रती
4. अनन्तकर्मांश 5. प्रथमकषाय चतुष्क वियोजक 5. दर्शनमोहक्षपक

Page #234

224 Studies in Umāsvāti 6. दर्शनमोहत्रिक क्षपक 6. कषाय उपशमक 7. उपशमक
7. उपशान्त 8. क्षपक
8. क्षपक 9. क्षीणमोह
9. क्षीणमोह 10. सयोगी (नाथ)
10. जिन 11. अयोगी (नाथ)
उमास्वाति के बाद लगभग सभी आचार्यों ने जिन के सयोगी और अयोगीये दो भेद करके ग्यारह अवस्थाओं का उल्लेख किया है। स्वामीकुमार कृत कार्तिकेयानुप्रेक्षा में उपशान्त अवस्था का उल्लेख नहीं है। उन्होंने सम्यग्दृष्टि से पूर्व की अवस्था मिथ्यादृष्टि को माना है तथा जिन के स्थान पर नाथ का प्रयोग करके उसके सयोगी और अयोगी ये दो भेद किए हैं। कार्तिकेयानुप्रेक्षा के टीकाकार शुभचन्द्र ने उपशान्त अवस्था की व्याख्या की है।
गुणश्रेणी विकास की दस अवस्थाओं में नौ की, तो पूर्ववर्ती और उत्तरवर्ती अवस्थाएं हैं, जिनमें पूर्ववर्ती अवस्था की अपेक्षा उत्तरवर्ती में असंख्यात गुणा अधिक निर्जरा होती है लेकिन सम्यग्दृष्टि की पूर्ववर्ती अवस्था का उल्लेख नहीं हुआ है। स्वामीकुमार ने कार्तिकेयानुप्रेक्षा में मिथ्यात्वी की अपेक्षा सम्यग्दृष्टि की असंख्यात गुणा अधिक निर्जरा स्वीकार की है। उनके अनुसार यह सम्भावना की जा सकती है कि सम्यग्दृष्टि की पूर्ववर्ती अवस्था मिथ्यादृष्टि है क्योंकि उन्होंने मिथ्यादृष्टि की अपेक्षा सम्यग्दृष्टि की असंख्यात गुणा अधिक निर्जरा स्वीकार की है।
यहां एक प्रश्न उपस्थित किया जा सकता है कि क्या मिथ्यादृष्टि के भी निर्जरा सम्भव है? इस प्रश्न के समाधान में यह कहा जा सकता है कि सैद्धान्तिक दृष्टि से मिथ्यात्वी का मिथ्यादृष्टि क्षयोपशम भाव है, अतः वह जो कुछ सही जानता या देखता है, वह निर्जरा का कारण है। आचार्य भिक्षु और जयाचार्य ने इस मत की पुष्टि में अनेक हेतु दिए हैं। लेकिन कुछ परम्पराएं मिथ्यादृष्टि को निर्जरा का हेतु नहीं मानतीं। यदि यह आत्मिक उज्ज्वलता या निर्जरा का हेतु नहीं होती तो गुणस्थान सिद्धान्त में प्रथम तीन भेदों को स्थान नहीं मिलता।
___ आचारांगसूत्र के टीकाकार आचार्य शीलांक ने सम्यक्त्व उत्पत्ति से पूर्व की भी कुछ अवस्थाओं का वर्णन किया है। उनके अनुसार मिथ्यादृष्टि जीव जिनके देशोन कोटाकोटि कर्म शेष रहे हैं तथा जो ग्रन्थिभेद के समीप पहुंच गए हैं, वे निर्जरा की दृष्टि से तुल्य होते हैं। मिथ्यादृष्टि के बाद की ये पांच अवस्थाएं

Page #235

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में निर्जरा की तरतमता के स्थान : एक समीक्षा 225 टीकाकार ने बताई हैं, जिनमें क्रमशः पूर्ववर्ती की अपेक्षा उत्तरवर्ती अवस्था में असंख्यात गुणा अधिक निर्जरा होती है - 1. धर्मपृच्छा के इच्छुक 2. धर्मपृच्छा में संलग्न 3. धर्म को स्वीकार करने के इच्छुक 4. धर्मक्रिया में संलग्न 5. पूर्वप्रतिपन्न धार्मिक
नियुक्तिकार ने काल की दृष्टि से भी निर्जरा की तरतमता का संकेत दिया है। किन्तु काल की दृष्टि से इसमें क्रम विपरीत हो जाता है। शीलांक इसे स्पष्ट करते हुए कहते हैं कि एक अयोगी केवली जितने काल में जितने कर्म क्षय करता है, उतने कर्म एक सयोगी केवली उससे संख्येय गुणा अधिक काल में क्षय करता है। इसी प्रकार सयोगी केवली जितने काल में जितना कर्म क्षय करता है, उतना कर्म क्षीणमोह उससे संख्येय गुण अधिक काल में क्षय करता है। काल की संख्येय गुणा वृद्धि प्रतिलोम क्रम से चलती है।
इन दस अवस्थाओं को देखने से स्पष्ट प्रतीत होता है कि ग्रन्थकार का मुख्य उद्देश्य निर्जरा की तरतमता बताने वाली तथा मोक्ष के सम्मुख ले जाने वाली अवस्थाओं का वर्णन करना था, न कि विकास की भूमिका पर क्रमिक आरोहण करने वाली भूमिकाओं का वर्णन करना। यह सत्य है कि हर पूर्ण अवस्था की अपेक्षा उत्तर अवस्था में असंख्यात गुणा अधिक निर्जरा है, पर ये अवस्थाएं क्रमिक ही आएं, यह आवश्यक नहीं है। फिर भी यह कहा जा सकता है कि सम्यक्त्व की प्राप्ति मोक्ष का प्रथम सोपान है और जिन-सर्वज्ञ होने के बाद व्यक्ति कृतार्थ हो जाता है फिर उसके लिए कुछ भी करणीय शेष नहीं रहता।
विद्वानों ने इन दस अवस्थाओं को गुणस्थान विकास की पूर्वभूमिका के रूप में स्वीकार किया है। डा. सागरमल जैन ने विस्तार से इस सन्दर्भ में चिन्तन किया है। लेकिन सैद्धान्तिक दृष्टि से यदि गुणस्थानों के साथ इन अवस्थाओं की तुलना करें तो संगति नहीं बैठती है। प्रथम तीन गुणस्थानों का इन दस अवस्थाओं में कहीं भी समाहार नहीं है। गुणस्थान विकास की दृष्टि से विरत के बाद अनन्तवियोजक की स्थिति आए, यह आवश्यक नहीं है। गुणस्थान सिद्धान्त की दृष्टि से यह स्थिति अविरतसम्यग्दृष्टि अर्थात् चौथे गुणस्थान में भी प्राप्त हो सकती है। चौथे गुणस्थान में गुणश्रेणी विकास की प्रथम, चतुर्थ और पंचम इन तीन अवस्थाओं का समावेश हो सकता है क्योंकि चौथे गुणस्थान में भी व्यक्ति

Page #236

226 Studies in Umāsvāti अनन्तानुबन्धी चतुष्क और दर्शनमोह की तीन प्रकृतियों का क्षय कर क्षायिक सम्यक्त्व प्राप्त कर सकता है। जबकि गुणश्रेणी विकास की अवस्थाओं में विरत के बाद अनन्तवियोजक और दर्शनमोहक्षपक की स्थिति है।
दूसरी बात इन दस अवस्थाओं के आधार पर यह मानना पड़ेगा कि व्यक्ति उपशमश्रेणी लेने के बाद क्षपक श्रेणी लेता है अर्थात् छठी, सातवीं अवस्था में पहले चारित्रमोह का उपशमन करता है, फिर आठवीं, नवी अवस्था में चारित्र मोह की प्रकृतियों का क्षय करता है, पर गुणस्थान सिद्धान्त के अनुसार यह बात संगत नहीं बैठती। गुणस्थान क्रमारोह के अनुसार यह आवश्यक नहीं कि व्यक्ति उपशम श्रेणी लेने के बाद क्षायिकश्रेणी ले। वहां दोनों विकल्प सम्भव हैं। व्यक्ति पहले कषायों का उपशमन करता हुआ उपशम श्रेणी भी ले सकता है और क्षय करता हुआ क्षपक श्रेणी भी प्राप्त कर सकता है।
गुणश्रेणी विकास की ये अवस्थाएं गुणस्थान सिद्धान्त की पूर्व भूमिकाएं नहीं हैं इस मत की पुष्टि इस बात से की जा सकती है कि इन अवस्थाओं के नामों के साथ गुणस्थान के नामों का विशेष साम्य नहीं है।
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का अध्ययन करने के बाद यह स्पष्ट अवधारणा बन जाती है कि गुणस्थान एवं गुणश्रेणी विकास की अवस्थाओं-इन दोनों का स्वतंत्र अस्तित्व था। उमास्वाति ने गुणस्थानों के अनेक नामों का उल्लेख तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में किया है। उदाहरण के लिए कुछ नामों को प्रस्तुत किया जा सकता है
नाम तत्त्वार्थसूत्र 1. अविरत (चौथा गुणस्थान)-तदविरतदेशविरतप्रमत्तसंयतानाम् (9/35) 2. देशविरत (पांचवां गुणस्थान)-(9/35) 3. प्रमत्तसंयत (छठा गुणस्थान)-(9/35) 4. अप्रमत्तसंयत (सातवां गुणस्थान)-आज्ञापायविपाकसंस्थानविचयाय धर्मम
प्रमत्तसंयतस्य (9/37) 5. बादरसम्पराय (आठवां, नवां गुणस्थान)-बादरसम्पराये सर्वे 6. सूक्ष्मसम्पराय (दसवां गुणस्थान)-सूक्ष्मसम्परायछद्मस्थवीतरागयोश्चतुर्दश
(9/10) 7. उपशान्तकषाय (ग्यारहवां गुणस्थान)-उपशान्तक्षीणकषाययोश्च (9/38) 8. क्षीणकषाय (बारहवां गुणस्थान)-(9/38) 9. केवली (तेरहवां, चौदहवां गुणस्थान)-परे केवलिनः (9/40)

Page #237

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में निर्जरा की तरतमता के स्थान : एक समीक्षा 227 उमास्वाति ने इन नामों का उल्लेख संयत के विशेषण के रूप में किया है। अतः इन नामों को देखकर यह कहा जा सकता है कि उमास्वाति के समय तक गुणस्थान सिद्धान्त पूर्ण रूप से विकसित नहीं था, पर उसकी मान्यता बीज रूप में प्रचलित हो रही थी।
निष्कर्ष की भाषा में कहा जा सकता है कि सैद्धान्तिक दृष्टि से गुणश्रेणी विकास की अवस्थाएं एवं गुणस्थान-इन दोनों का अपना स्वतंत्र अस्तित्व है। गुणश्रेणी विकास की अवस्थाएं निर्जरा की तरतमता बताने वाले स्थानों की
ओर हमारा ध्यान आकृष्ट करती हैं पर वे अवस्थाएं क्रमिक ही हों, यह आवश्यक नहीं है, पर गुणस्थानों में आत्मा की क्रमिक उज्ज्वलता का दिग्दर्शन है। अतः वहाँ उत्तरोत्तर क्रमिक अवस्थाओं का वर्णन है।
सन्दर्भ 1. सम्यग्दृष्टि श्रावकविरतानन्तवियोजकदर्शनमोहक्षपकोपशमकोपशान्तमोह
-क्षपकक्षीण- मोहजिनाः क्रमशोऽसंख्येयगुणनिर्जराः - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 9/47। 2. भद्रबाहु प्रथम को नियुक्तिकार न मानने का एक प्रबल तर्क यह उठाया
जाता है कि यदि चतुर्दशपूर्वी भद्रबाहु नियुक्तिकार होते तो दशाश्रुतस्कन्ध नियुक्ति की प्रथम मंगलाचरण की गाथा में स्वयं को वन्दना कैसे करते इस तर्क का समाधान यह है कि दशाश्रुतस्कन्धनियुक्ति में मंगलाचरण की गाथा पंचकल्पभाष्य से बाद में प्रक्षिप्त हुई है, क्योंकि वहां इस गाथा की विस्तृत व्याख्या मिलती है। प्राचीन काल में मंगलाचरण की परम्परा नहीं थी। जिस प्रकार उमास्वाति ने 'सम्यग्दर्शन-ज्ञानचारित्राणि-मोक्षमार्गः' से तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का प्रारम्भ किया, वैसे ही नियुक्तिकार भद्रबाहु ने पंचज्ञान के वर्णन को ही मंगल के रूप में प्रस्तुत किया है। दशवैकालिक और आचारांग नियुक्ति में जो मंगलाचरण की गाथाएं हैं, वे चूर्णि में व्याख्यात एवं उल्लिखित नहीं है। इससे स्पष्ट है चूर्णिकार के समय तक इन नियुक्तियों में मंगलाचरण की गाथाएं नहीं थीं, बाद में ये किसी आचार्य या व्याख्याकारों द्वारा प्रक्षिप्त हुई हैं। भद्रबाहु द्वितीय या दूसरे आचार्यों द्वारा नियुक्तियों में परिवर्धन किया गया-इस तथ्य को भी अस्वीकार नहीं किया जा सकता क्योंकि ऐतिहासिक
दृष्टि से अनेक प्रसंग भद्रबाहु प्रथम के बाद के हैं। 3. सम्मत्तुप्पत्ती सावए य विरए अणंतकम्मसे। दसणमोहक्खवगे, उवसामंते य उवसंते।। खवगे य खीणमोहे, जिणे य सेढी भवे असंखेज्जा। तव्विवरीतो काले, संखेज्जगुणाए सेढीए।। -आचारांग नियुक्ति, गा. 223-41

Page #238

228 Studies in Umāsvāti 4. सम्मत्तुप्पा सावय, विरए संयोजणाविणासे य।
दंसणमोहक्खवगे, कसाय उवसामगुवसंते।। खवगे य खीणमोहे, जिणे य दुविहे हवे असंखगुणा। उदयो तव्विवरीओ, कालो संखेज्जगुणसेढी।। - कर्मप्रकृति (उदयकरण),
गा. 394-51 5. सम्मत्तदेससंपुनविरइउप्पत्ति अणविसंजोगे।
दसणखव मोहस्स, समणे उवसंत खवगे य॥ खीणाइतिगे अस्संखगुणियसेढिदलिय जहकमसो
सम्मत्ताईणेक्कारसण्ह कालो उ संखंसे।। -पंचसंग्रह, बन्धद्वार, गा. 114-15। 6. सम्मदरसव्वविरई अणविसंजोयदंसखवगे या
मोहसमसंतखवगे, खीण सजो गुणसेढी।। - कर्मग्रन्थ, शतक पंचम, गा. 82। 7. मिच्छादो सद्दिट्ठी, असंखगणकम्मणिज्जरा होदि।
तत्तो अणुवयधारी तत्तो य महव्वई णाणी। पढमकसायचउण्ह, विजोजओ तह य खवणसीलो य। दंसणमोहतियस्स य तत्तो उवसमग चत्तारि।। खवगो य खीणमोहो, सजोइ णाहो तहा अजोईया।
एदे उवरिं, असंखगुणकम्मणिज्जरया।। - कार्तिकेयानुप्रेक्षा, 9/106-8। 8. (क) सम्मत्तुप्पत्ती वि य सावय विरदे अणंतकम्मसे।
दसणमोहक्खवए, कसाय उवसामए य उवसंते।। खवए य खीणमोहे, जिणे य णियमा भवे असंखेज्जा। तव्विवरीदो कालो, असंखेज्जगुणा य सेढीओ।। - षट्खण्डागम,
वेदनाखण्ड, गा. 7-8, पृ. 627। (ख) गोम्मटसार, जीवकाण्ड, गा. 66-7। 9. कार्तिकेयानुप्रेक्षा, पृ. 521 10. वही, 9/1061 11. आचारांग टीका, पृ. 118। 12. तव्विवरीतो काले, संखेज्जगुणाए सेढीए।। - आवश्यक नियुक्ति, 223 । 13. आचारांग टीका, पृ. 118। 14. जैन, सागरमल, गुणस्थान सिद्धान्त का उद्भव और विकास, वाराणसी। 15. यहां मोह के स्थान पर कषाय शब्द का प्रयोग हुआ है।

Page #239

20
उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन
धर्मचन्द जैन
संस्कृत की 313 कारिकाओं में निबद्ध प्रशमरतिप्रकरण जैन अध्यात्मविद्या का उत्कृष्ट ग्रन्थ है। इसमें कषाय-कलुषित जीव के निर्मल एवं मुक्त होने का मार्ग सम्यक् रीति से निरूपित है। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण निर्विवाद रूप से तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के रचयिता वाचक उमास्वाति की रचना मानी जाती है। पं. सुखलाल संघवी तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की प्रस्तावना में प्रशमरति को उमास्वाति की कृति मानने में सन्देह का अवकाश नहीं मानते।' पं. कैलाशचन्द्र शास्त्री ने भी जैन साहित्य का इतिहास लिखते हुए प्रशमरति को उमास्वाति की ही कृति माना है। डॉ. मोहनलाल मेहता एवं प्रो. हीरालाल कापड़िया ने भी वाचक उमास्वाति को ही प्रशमरति का रचयिता स्वीकार किया है।
इस प्रकार श्वेताम्बर एवं दिगम्बर दोनों जैन परम्पराएँ एकमत से तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के रचयिता वाचक उमास्वाति को ही प्रशमरतिप्रकरण का कर्ता अङ्गीकार करती हैं, किन्तु इस मन्तव्य की पुष्टि में पं. सुखलाल संघवी के अतिरिक्त किसी ने कोई प्रमाण उपस्थापित नहीं किया है। पं. सुखलाल संघवी ने उल्लेख किया है कि हरिभद्रसूरि ने तत्त्वार्थभाष्य टीका में "यथोक्तमनेनैव सूरिणा प्रकरणान्तरे" वाक्य लिखकर प्रशमरतिप्रकरण की 210वीं एवं 211वीं कारिकाएं उद्धृत की हैं। इससे तत्त्वार्थभाष्यकार एवं प्रशमरतिकार के एक ही होने की पुष्टि होती है।
प्रशमरतिप्रकरण वाचक उमास्वाति की ही रचना है, इस सम्बन्ध में एक अन्य प्रमाण अज्ञातकर्तृक अवचूरि में प्राप्त होता है, जिसमें पाँच सौ प्रकरणों के

Page #240

230 Studies in Umāsvāti प्रणेता वाचक उमास्वाति को ही प्रशमरति-प्रकरण का कर्ता स्वीकार किया गया है, यथा- 'श्री उमास्वातिवाचकः पञ्चशतप्रकरणप्रणेता प्रशमरतिप्रकरणं प्ररूपयन्नादौ मंगलमाह।'– इस कथन से भी प्रशमरतिप्रकरण वाचक उमास्वाति की ही कृति सिद्ध होती है। टीकाकार हरिभद्र ने प्रशमरतिप्रकरण के कर्ता के लिए 'वाचक. मुख्य' शब्द का प्रयोग किया है- 'तस्मै वाचकमुख्याय नमो भूतार्थभाषिणे' जो उमास्वाति का ही संसूचन करता है। अभी तक ऐसा कोई लेख देखने में नहीं आया जिसमें प्रशमरतिप्रकरण के उमास्वातिकृत होने का खण्डन किया गया हो। अतः इसका उमास्वातिकृत होना निर्विवाद है। इस सन्दर्भ में यह कहना उपयुक्त होगा कि प्रशमरति एवं तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की आन्तरिक विषयवस्तु एवं प्रयुक्त शब्दावली में जो साम्य एवं एकरूपत्व प्राप्त होता है उससे तत्त्वार्थसूत्र एवं प्रशमरति के एक कर्तृत्व की सिद्धि को बल मिलता है। इन दोनों ग्रन्थों में कितना साम्य है, इसकी चर्चा आगे की जायेगी।
प्रशमरतिप्रकरण की अभी दो टीकाएँ उपलब्ध हैं, जिनमें एक टीका आचार्य हरिभद्र द्वारा रचित है। ये हरिभद्र 'षड्दर्शनसमुच्चय' आदि के रचयिता आठवीं शती के प्रसिद्ध हरिभद्रसरि (700-770 ई.) से पृथक् हैं। टीका के अन्त में प्राप्त प्रशस्ति के अनुसार यह टीका अणहिलपाटक नगर में हरिभद्राचार्य के द्वारा जयसिंहदेव के राज्य में विक्रम संवत् 1185 (ई. 1128) में रची गई थी (श्री हरिभद्राचार्यैः रचितं प्रशमरतिप्रकरणं किञ्चित्। अणहिलपाटकनगरे श्रीमज्जय- सिंहदेवनृपराज्ये। बाणवसुरुद्रसंख्ये विक्रमतो वत्सरे व्रजति।)। टीका अपने आप में सुस्पष्ट, संक्षिप्त, सरल तथा आगमानुसारिणी है। प्रशस्ति में इन हरिभद्र के पूर्व अनेक टीकाएँ हुईं, ऐसा संकेत मिलता है। (परिभाव्य वृद्धटीकाः सुखबोधार्थं समासेन)।
दूसरी टीका अवचूरि के रूप में है, जिसका कर्ता अज्ञात है। किन्तु अवचूरि के अन्त में प्रदत्त 'धनमिव जयमनुभवति' वाक्यांश से ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि इस अवचूरि के कर्ता धनञ्जय (धनम् जय) हैं। ये धनञ्जय कौन से हैं, इस सम्बन्ध में कुछ नहीं कहा जा सकता। अवचूरि में यथावश्यक शब्दों का व्याख्यान किया गया है।
अब विचार यह करना है कि प्रशमरति प्रकरण की रचना वाचक उमास्वाति ने किस उद्देश्य से की। ग्रन्थकार ने इसका उद्देश्य प्रशमरति में स्थैर्य स्थापित करना बताया है-'प्रशमरतिस्थैर्यार्थं वक्ष्ये जिनशासनात् किञ्चित्।" वाचक उमास्वाति के इस कथन से ग्रन्थ के अनुबन्ध का तो बोध होता ही है, किन्तु इसके साथ ही दो अन्य तथ्य भी स्पष्ट होते हैं -

Page #241

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 231 1. इस ग्रन्थ का आधार जिनशासन अर्थात् जिनोपदिष्ट आगम वचन हैं। यह
कोई काल्पनिक कृति नहीं है। 2. प्रशम अर्थात् वैराग्य के प्रति रुचि में उमास्वाति को उस समय शिथिलता
दृष्टिगोचर हुई होगी।
अतः उसके प्रति साधु-साध्वियों एवं जनमानस को दृढ़ बनाने के लिए उमास्वाति ने यह ग्रन्थ रचा होगा। इन दोनों तथ्यों में से प्रथम के द्वारा इस ग्रन्थ की प्रामाणिकता सिद्ध होती है तथा दूसरे तथ्य के द्वारा ग्रन्थ की उपयोगिता विदित होती है। ग्रन्थ का नाम 'प्रशमरति' है। 'प्रशम' का अर्थ टीकाकार हरिभद्र ने राग-द्वेष से रहित होना अथवा वैराग्य किया है। रति का अर्थ उन्होंने शक्ति अथवा प्रीति किया है (तत्र वैराग्यलक्षणे प्रशमे रतिः शक्तिः प्रीतिः तस्यां स्थैर्य निश्चलता)।
इस ग्रन्थ में उमास्वाति ने वैराग्य या कषाय-विजय रूप प्रशम के प्रति रुचि उत्पन्न करने एवं उस रुचि को निश्चल बनाने का प्रयास किया है। वैराग्य के पर्यायवचनों में उमास्वाति ने माध्यस्थ्य, विरागता, शान्ति, उपशम, प्रशम, दोषक्षय
और कषायविजय की गणना की है (माध्यस्थ्यं वैराग्यं विरागता शान्तिरुपशमः प्रशमः। दोषक्षयः कषायविजयश्च वैराग्यपर्यायाः।' – जो वैराग्य या प्रशम के विभिन्न रूपों को प्रकट करते हैं। टीकाकार हरिभद्र ने तो मंगलाचरण में प्रशमरति को वैराग्य पद्धति का ही ग्रन्थ बताया है। प्रशम या वैराग्य रूप एक विषय पर ही केन्द्रित होने के कारण यह प्रकरण ग्रन्थ की कोटि में आता है (शास्त्रैकदेशसम्बद्धं शास्त्रकार्यान्तरे स्थितम्। आहुः प्रकरणं नाम ग्रन्थभेदं विपश्चितः।।)।
ग्रन्थ में बाईस अधिकार एवं 313 कारिकाएँ हैं। बाईस अधिकार इस प्रकार
1. पीठबन्ध, 2. कषाय, 3. रागादि, 4. अष्टकर्म, 5. पंचेन्द्रिय विषय, 6. अष्टमद, 7. आचार, 8. भावना, 9. धर्म, 10. धर्मकथा, 11. जीवादि नव तत्त्व, 12. उपयोग, 13. भाव, 14. षड्द्रव्य, 15. चारित्र, 16. शीलाङ्ग, 17. ध्यान, 18. क्षपक श्रेणी, 19. समुद्घात, 20. योगनिरोध, 21. मोक्षगमन-विधान, 22. अनन्त फल। ग्रन्थ की विस्तृत विषयवस्तु का आपाततः बोध इन अधिकारों के नामों से ही हो जाता है। किन्तु प्रसङ्गतः इनमें निर्ग्रन्थ-स्वरूप, लोकस्वरूप, आत्मा के आठ प्रकार, मोहनीय कर्म के उन्मूलन की प्रक्रिया, गृहस्थचर्या आदि विषयों का भी निरूपण हुआ है।

Page #242

232 Studies in Umāsvāti
प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में वर्णित बहुत से विषय ऐसे हैं जो तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के पूरक हैं, यथा-दशविध धर्मों, द्वादश भावनाओं, षड्लेश्याओं एवं मुक्ति की प्रक्रिया का जो विस्तृत वर्णन प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में उपलब्ध है वह तत्त्वार्थ में उठी जिज्ञासाओं का शमन करता है। आत्मा के द्रव्य, कषाय, योग, उपयोग आदि आठ भेद, विनय का महत्त्व, प्रशम-सुख की प्राप्ति का उपाय, कुल-रूप-बल आदि अष्ट मद, चतुर्विध धर्मकथा, अठारह हजार शीलाङ्ग आदि कुछ विषय ऐसे हैं जो प्रशमरतिप्रकरण की पृथक् रचना के वैशिष्ट्य को प्रदर्शित करते हैं। प्रशमरति के कुछ प्रमुख विषयों पर यहाँ विचार किया जा रहा है।
प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में चर्चित कतिपय प्रमुख विषय
कल्प्य और अकल्प्य का विचारः प्रशमरतिप्रकरण के अष्टम ‘भावना' अधिकार में साधु-साध्वी के लिए कल्प्य-. अकल्प्य का विधान करते समय पिण्ड, शय्या, वस्त्र, पात्र आदिको एक अपेक्षा से कल्प्य प्रतिपादित करते हुए उमास्वाति द्वारा प्रश्न उठाया गया कि भोजन, आश्रय, वस्त्र, पात्र आदि ग्रहण करने वाले साधु को अपरिग्रही कैसे कहा जा सकता है? इसका समाधान करते हुए उन्होंने कहा कि आहार, शय्या, वस्त्रैषणा, पात्रैषणा तथा जो कल्प्य (ग्रहण करने योग्य) एवं अकल्प्य (ग्रहण न करने योग्य) का विधान है वह सद्धर्म और देहरक्षा के निमित्त से है
पिण्डः शय्या वस्त्रैषणादि पात्रैषणादि यच्चान्यत्। कल्प्याकल्प्यं सद्धर्मदेहरक्षानिमित्तोक्तम्।। कारिका, 138
उमास्वाति का मन्तव्य है कि धर्म के उपकरणों को धारण करने वाला साधु भी पङ्क में उत्पन्न कमल की भाँति निर्लेप रह सकता है । साधु के लिए क्या कल्प्य है और क्या अकल्प्य, इसका निरूपण करते हुए उन्होंने स्पष्ट शब्दों में कहा है कि जो ज्ञान, शील और तप का उपग्राहक और दोषों का निग्राहक है वह निश्चय से कल्प्य है तथा शेष सब अकल्प्य है।' इसी तथ्य को उन्होंने प्रकारान्तर से कहा कि जो वस्तु कल्प्य होने पर भी सम्यक्त्व, ज्ञान और शील की उपघातक होती है तथा जिससे जिन प्रवचन की निन्दा होती है वह कल्प्य वस्तु भी अकल्प्य ही है। उमास्वाति प्रतिपादित करते हैं कि देश, काल, क्षेत्र, पुरुष अवस्था, उपघात और शुद्धपरिणामों का विचार करके ही कोई वस्तु कल्प्य होती है, एकान्ततः कोई वस्तु कल्प्य नहीं होती।"

Page #243

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 233 इस प्रसङ्ग में वे निर्ग्रन्थ का स्वरूप प्रतिपादित करते हुए कहते हैं कि ज्ञानावरण आदि अष्टविध कर्म, मिथ्यात्व, अविरति एवं अशुभ योग ये सब ग्रन्थ हैं तथा इन्हें जीतने के लिए जो निष्कपटरूपेण यत्नशील रहता है वह निर्ग्रन्थ है
ग्रन्थः कर्माष्टविधं मिथ्यात्वाविरतिदुष्टयोगाश्च। तज्जयहेतोरशठं संयतते यः स निर्ग्रन्थः।। कारिका, 142
इस प्रकार उमास्वाति वस्त्र, पात्र आदि को साधना में बाधक नहीं मानकर उन्हें अपेक्षा से कल्प्य स्वीकार करते हैं। उमास्वाति की यह मान्यता उन्हें श्वेताम्बर सिद्ध करती है। तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में उमास्वाति ने इस प्रकार के किसी मन्तव्य को स्थान नहीं दिया है।
मुक्ति की प्रक्रियाः मोक्ष-प्राप्ति में बाधक आठ कर्म हैं-ज्ञानावरण, दर्शनावरण, वेदनीय, मोहनीय, आयुष्य, नाम, गोत्र और अन्तराय। इनमें से ज्ञानावरण, दर्शनावरण, मोहनीय एवं अन्तराय ये चार घाती कर्म हैं जो केवलज्ञान में बाधक हैं। इन आठ कर्मों में से सर्वप्रथम मोहनीय कर्म का क्षय किया जाता है। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में मोह क्षय करने की प्रक्रिया का सुन्दर निरूपण हुआ है। इसके लिए जीव सर्वप्रथम अनन्तानुबन्धी क्रोध, मान, माया एवं लोभ का क्षय करता है। तदनन्तर मिथ्यात्व मोहनीय एवं सम्यक्त्व-मिथ्यात्व-मोह का क्षय कर सम्यक्त्व मोहनीय को नष्ट करता है।
इस प्रकार मोहकर्म की सात प्रतियों का क्षय करने के पश्चात् यदि मोहोन्मूलन की प्रक्रिया अनवरत चलती रही तो जीव आठ कषायों (प्रत्याख्यान चतुष्क और अप्रत्यख्यानावरण चतुष्क) का क्षय करता है। फिर क्रमशः नपुंसकवेद, स्त्रीवेद, हास्यादि षट्क (हास्य, रति, अरति, भय, शोक और जुगुप्सा) का क्षय करके पुरुषवेद का क्षय करता है। फिर संज्वलन क्रोध, मान, माया एवं लोभ का भी क्षय कर जीव वीतरागता को प्राप्त कर लेता है।12 इस प्रकार मोहनीय कर्म की 28 प्रकृतियों का क्षय होने पर पूर्ण वीतरागता प्राप्त होती है। पूर्ण वीतरागता के साथ ही ज्ञानावरण, दर्शनावरण एवं अन्तराय नामक घाती कर्म को क्षय कर साधक केवलज्ञान प्राप्त कर लेता है।13
___ इस प्रकार मोहनीय, ज्ञानावरण, दर्शनावरण और अन्तराय नामक चार घाती कर्मों को क्षय कर लेने वाला केवलज्ञानी शेष चार अघाती कर्मों (वेदनीय, आयु, नाम और गोत्र) को अनुभव करता हुआ एक मुहूर्त तक अथवा कुछ कम एक

Page #244

234 Studies in Umāsvāti
पूर्वकोटि काल तक विचरण करता है। 14 अन्तिम भव की आयु अनपवर्तित होने के कारण अभेद्य होती है। वेदनीय, नाम और गोत्र कर्म भी उसके समान अभेद्य होते हैं। किन्तु जिस केवली के आयुकर्म की अपेक्षा वेदनीय, नाम और गोत्र कर्म की स्थिति अधिक होती है तो वह उसे समुद्घात करके आयुकर्म के समान कर लेता है। 15 समुद्घात करने की एक निश्चित विधि होती है जिसमें आत्म- प्रदेशों को लोकाकाश में फैलाकर कर्म स्थिति को समान कर दिया जाता है, जिसके अन्तर्गत आत्मप्रदेशों को क्रमश: दण्डाकार, कपाटाकार, मथन्याकार और लोकव्यापी किया जाता है। यह प्रत्येक कर्म एक-एक समय में होता है । 1"
इसी प्रकार विपरीत क्रम से आत्म-प्रदेशों का एक-एक समय में संकोच किया जाता है।” समुद्घात के पश्चात् योग निरोध की प्रक्रिया प्रारम्भ होती है । सबसे पहले मनोयोग का निरोध किया जाता है, फिर क्रमशः वचनयोग और काययोग का निरोध किया जाता है । " काययोग का निरोध करते समय शुक्लध्यान के अन्तिम दो प्रकार सूक्ष्मक्रिय अप्रतिपाति और व्युपरतक्रिय नामक ध्यान को ध्याता है। यह ध्यान की अन्तिम अवस्था है। 19 इसके बाद अयोग अवस्था आ जाती है।2° इसे कर्मसिद्धान्त में चौदहवाँ गुणस्थान कहा गया है। इसे शैलेशी अवस्था भी कहा गया है। यह अवस्था पाँच ईषद् ह्रस्वाक्षरों को उच्चरित करने जितने समय तक के लिए होती है। 21 इस अवस्था में ही वह केवली अवशिष्ट कर्मों का एक साथ क्षय कर देता है।
इसके साथ ही औदारिक, तैजस और कार्मण शरीरों से मुक्त होकर वह ऋजु श्रेणि से अस्पृशद् गति द्वारा एक समय में ही ऊर्ध्व लोक में अवस्थित हो जाता है। यहाँ वह सादि, अनन्त, अनुपम और अव्याबाध उत्तम सुख को प्राप्त होते हुए केवल सम्यक्त्व, केवलज्ञान, केवलदर्शन स्वरूप होकर रहता है। 22
लोकस्वरूपः
प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में लोक का बाह्य स्वरूप भी निरूपित हुआ है। इसमें लोक को ऐसे खड़े हुए पुरुष के आकार का प्रतिपादित किया गया है, जिसके दोनों पैर फैले हुए हों तथा कटिभाग पर दोनों ओर हाथ रखे हुए हों। लोक को जैन दर्शन षड्द्रव्यात्मक स्वीकार करता है। धर्म, अधर्म, आकाश, पुद्गल, काल और जीव ये षड् द्रव्य हैं। यह लोक अधोलोक, मध्यलोक और ऊर्ध्वलोक के रूप में तीनों भागों में विभक्त है। अधोलोक उलटे सकोरे के समान आकार का होता है । तिर्यक्लोक को अनेक प्रकार का तथा ऊर्ध्वलोक को पन्द्रह प्रकार का बताया
वह

Page #245

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 235 गया है। रत्नप्रभा आदि सात नरक ही सप्तविध अधोलोक हैं । तिर्यग्लोक जम्बूद्व प आदि के भेद से अनेक प्रकार का तथा ऊर्ध्वलोक में सौधर्मादि के दशकल्प, ग्रैवेयक के तीन, महाविमान का एक तथा ईषत्प्राग्भार का एक, इस प्रकार 15 प्रकार का लोक है।
आत्मा के आठ प्रकार
आत्मा के द्रव्य, कषाय, योग, उपयोग, ज्ञान, दर्शन, चारित्र और वीर्य की मार्गणा के आधार पर आठ प्रकार का कहा गया है। जीव की भांति अजीव की भी द्रव्यात्मा स्वीकार की गई है। सकषाय जीवों के कषायात्मा, सयोगियों के योगात्मा, समस्त जीवों के उपयोग आत्मा, सम्यग्दृष्टि के ज्ञानात्मा, सब जीवों के दर्शनात्मा, विरत जीवों के चारित्रात्मा तथा समस्त संसारी जीवों के वीर्यात्मा कही गई है। आत्मा शब्द का प्रयोग चेतन के लिए होता है तथापि अजीव पुद्गल आदि के लिए 'आत्मा' शब्द का प्रयोग नय विशेष से किया जा सकता है, ऐसा प्रशमरतिकार ने निरूपित किया है। 23
अष्ट मद
जाति, कुल, रूप, बल, लाभ, बुद्धि, वाल्लभ्य और श्रुत मदों का उल्लेख करते हुए कहा गया है कि इन मदों के कारण विवेकहीन हुए मनुष्य इहलोक और परलोक में हितकारी अर्थ को भी नहीं देखते हैं। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में इन सभी मदों को त्यागने की प्रेरणा की गई है। उदाहरण के लिए कुलमद को त्यागने की प्रेरणा करते हुए कहा गया है कि जिसका शील दूषित है, उसको कुलमद करने से क्या प्रयोजन है? और जो अपने गुणों से अलङ्कृत एवं शीलवान् है उसको भी कुल का मद करने से क्या प्रयोजन है? इन आठ प्रकार के मदस्थानों में निश्चय से कोई गुण नहीं है, केवल अपने हृदय का उन्माद और संसार की वृद्धि है। यह भी कहा गया है कि जाति के मद से उन्मत्त मनुष्य पिशाच की भाँति यहाँ पर भी दुःखी होता है और परलोक में भी जाति आदि की हीनता को प्राप्त करता है। आगम एवं कर्मसिद्धान्त में अष्टविध मद को नीच गोत्रकर्म के बन्धन का कारण निरूपित किया गया है। उमास्वाति ने कहा है कि समस्त मदों के मूल का नाश करने के लिए अपने गुणों का गर्व और पर - निन्दा को छोड़ देना चाहिए । जो दूसरों का तिरस्कार एवं उनकी निन्दा करता है तथा अपनी प्रशंसा करता है वह अनेक भवों में भोगने योग्य नीच गोत्र का बन्ध करता है।

Page #246

236
Studies in Umāsvāti
धर्मकथा वैराग्य मार्ग में स्थिरता के लिए प्रवचन-भक्ति, शास्त्र-सम्पद् में उत्साह और संसार से विरक्त जनों के साथ सम्पर्क के अतिरिक्त धर्मकथा भी वैराग्य की स्थिरता के लिए आवश्यक है। धर्मकथा के चार प्रकार प्रातिपादित हैं1. आक्षेपणी, 2. विक्षेपणी, 3. संवेदनी और 4. निवेदनी। जो कथा जीवों को धमार्ग की ओर आकर्षित करती है वह अक्षेपणी कथा तथा जो कामभोगों से विमुख करती है वह विक्षेपणी धर्मकथा है। जिस कथा से संसार का सम्यग्बोध हो एवं उसमें दुःख का अनुभव हो उसे संवेदनी तथा कामभोग से वैराग्य उत्पन्न करने वाली कथा निर्वेदनी कहलाती है। ये चारों कथाएँ तो अपनाने योग्य हैं, किन्तु स्त्री, भक्त, चोर और जनपद कथा परित्याज्य हैं।
शास्त्र का लक्षण प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में शास्त्र का लक्षण धर्म में अनुशासित कर दुःख से त्राण करना स्वीकार किया गया है। उमास्वाति कहते हैं कि 'शास्' धातु अनुशासन अर्थ में पढ़ी जाती है 'त्रैङ्' धातु पालन अर्थ में निश्चित है।24 उमास्वाति ने शास्त्र को रागादि के शासन का साधन बताते हुए कहा है कि जो रागद्वेष से उद्धत चित्त वाले मनुष्यों को धर्म में अनुशासित करे तथा दु:ख से रक्षा करे वही शास्त्र है
यस्माद्रागद्वेषोद्धतचित्तान् समनुशास्ति सद्धर्मे।।
संत्रायते च दु:खाच्छास्त्रमिति निरुच्यते सद्भिः।।18715 प्रशमरतिप्रकरण और तत्त्वार्थसूत्र : पारस्परिक साम्य प्रशमरतिप्रकरण एवं तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में अनेक स्थलों पर पर्याप्त साम्य है। यह साम्य कहीं शब्दशः भी प्रकट हुआ है, जो यह सिद्ध करता है कि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र एवं प्रशमरति के रचयिता एक ही हैं। साम्य इतना स्फुट है कि उससे इनकी एककर्तृकता में सन्देह नहीं रह जाता है। तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के तृतीय एवं चतुर्थ अध्याय के अतिरिक्त शेष सभी अध्यायों की कुछ विषयवस्तु एवं सूत्रों की तुलना प्रशमरतिप्रकरण से की जा सकती है। यहाँ पर अध्याय क्रम से तुलना प्रस्तुत हैअध्याय-1 (i) सम्यग्दर्शनज्ञानचारित्राणि मोक्षमार्गः। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 1.1
सम्यक्त्वज्ञानचारित्रसम्पदः साधनानि मोक्षस्य। तास्वेकतराऽभावेऽपि मोक्षमार्गोऽप्यसिद्धिकरः।। -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 230

Page #247

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 237 प्रशमरतिप्रकरण की दूसरी पंक्ति का साम्य तत्त्वार्थभाष्य की निम्न पंक्ति में द्रष्टव्य है
एतानि च समस्तानि मोक्षसाधनानि, एकतराऽभावेऽप्यसाधनानीत्य
तस्त्रयाणां ग्रहणम्। – तत्त्वार्थभाष्य, 1.1 (ii) तत्त्वार्थश्रद्धानं सम्यग्दर्शनम्।
तन्निसर्गादधिगमाद्वा। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 1.2-3 एतेष्वध्यवसायो योऽर्थेषु विनिश्चयेन तत्त्वमिति। सम्यग्दर्शनमेतच्च, तन्निसर्गादधिगमाद्वा।। -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 222
इनमें 'तत्त्वार्थश्रद्धानं सम्यग्दर्शनम्' का भाव साम्य है तो 'तन्निसर्गादधिगमाद्वा' अंश तो पूर्णतः शब्दशः ज्यों का त्यों उभयत्र प्राप्त है। (iii) सर्वद्रव्यपर्यायेषु केवलस्य। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 1.30
कात्ाल्लोकालोके व्यतीतसाम्प्रतभविष्यतः कालान्। द्रव्यगुणपर्यायाणां ज्ञाता द्रष्टा च सर्वाथैः।। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 270
प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में जहाँ केवलज्ञानी को लोक एवं अलोक के अतीत, वर्तमान एवं भविष्य काल के समस्त द्रव्य, गुण एवं पर्यायों का ज्ञाता-द्रष्टा कहा गया है वहाँ तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में उसे सूत्र शैली में समस्त द्रव्य एवं पर्यायों का ज्ञाता कहा गया है। (iv) एक जीव में एक साथ कितने ज्ञान हो सकते हैं इस सम्बन्ध में तत्त्वार्थसूत्र एवं प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में उमास्वाति मिलती-जुलती शब्दावली में कहते हैं कि एक जीव में एक से लेकर चार ज्ञान तक पाये जा सकते हैं
एकादीनि भाज्यानि युगपदेकस्मिन्नाचतुर्थ्यः। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 1.31
एकादीन्येकस्मिन् भाज्यानि त्वाचतुर्थ्य इति।। -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 226 (v) मतिश्रुताऽवधयो विपर्ययश्च। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 1.32
आद्यत्रयमज्ञानमपि भवति मिथ्यात्वसंयुक्तम्। – प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 227
इन दोनों पंक्तियों में भावसाम्य है। 'आद्यत्रयज्ञान' मति, श्रुत एवं अवधिज्ञान का ही द्योतक है तथा ये तीनों ज्ञान मिथ्यात्व से युक्त होने पर विपर्यय को प्राप्त होते हैं।

Page #248

238
Studies in Umāsvāti
अध्याय-2 (i) औपशमिकक्षायिकौ भावौ मिश्रश्च जीवस्य स्वतत्त्वमौदयिक- पारिणामिकौ च। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 2.1
द्विनवाष्टादशैकविंशतित्रिभेदा यथाक्रमम्।। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 2.2 भावाः भवन्ति जीवस्यौदयिकः पारिणामिकश्चैव।
औपशमिकः क्षयोत्थः क्षयोपशमजश्च पञ्चैते।।
ते चैकविंशतित्रिद्विनवाष्टादशविधाश्च विज्ञेयाः। -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 196-197
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के उपर्युक्त दो सूत्रों में औपशमिक, क्षायिक, क्षायोपशमिक (मिश्र), औदयिक और पारिणामिक भावों के नामों एवं उनके भेदों का उल्लेख है। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण की उपर्युक्त कारिकाओं में भी इन्हीं पाँच भावों के नामों एवं भेदों का समानरूपेण उल्लेख है, मात्र क्रम भिन्न हो गया है।
पाँच भावों एवं उनके भेदों की समानता के अतिरिक्त प्रशमरति में सान्निपातिक नामक षष्ठ भाव का भी उल्लेख हुआ है। उसके पन्द्रह भेद कहे गए हैं
___ षष्ठश्च सान्निपातिक इत्यन्यः पञ्चदशभेदः। -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 197 (ii) उपयोगो लक्षणम्। – तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 2.8
सामान्यं खलु लक्षणमुपयोगो भवति सर्वजीवानाम्। –प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 194 जीव का लक्षण उपयोग है, यह तथ्य उभयत्र समान शब्दावली में अभिहित
(iii) स द्विविधोऽष्टचतुर्भेदः। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 2.9
साकारोऽनाकारश्च सोऽष्टभेदश्चतुर्धा तु। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 194 वह उपयोग दो प्रकार का है- साकार(ज्ञान) एवं अनाकार(दर्शन)। इनमें प्रथम साकार उपयोग आठ प्रकार का एवं अनाकार उपयोग चार प्रकार का है। (iv) संसारिणो मुक्ताश्च। –तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 2.10
जीवा मुक्ताः संसारिणश्च संसारिणस्त्वनेकविधाः। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 190
जीव संसारी एवं मुक्त के भेद से दो प्रकार के हैं। इनके उपभेदों में भी दोनों ग्रन्थों में पर्याप्त साम्य है।

Page #249

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 239
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 2.30
समयेनैकेनाऽविग्रहेण गत्वोर्ध्वमप्रतिघः । - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 288
(v) एकसमयोऽविग्रहः।
अध्याय-5
(i)
—
संख्येयाऽसंख्येयाश्च पुद्गलानाम् । - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.10
नाणोः । - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.11
द्वयादिप्रदेशवन्तो यावदनन्तप्रदेशिकाः स्कन्धाः ।
परमाणुरप्रदेशो वर्णादिगुणेषु भजनीयः । । - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 208
प्रशमरति के अनुसार पुद्गल स्कन्धों में दो से लेकर अनन्त प्रदेश होते हैं,
परमाणु में कोई प्रदेश नहीं होता। इस तथ्य को तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में इस प्रकार प्रकट किया गया है कि पुद्गल में संख्येय, असंख्येय एवं अनन्त प्रदेश होते हैं, जबकि अणु में कोई प्रदेश नहीं होता ।
(ii)
लोकाकाशेऽवगाहः। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.12 धर्माधर्मयोः कृत्स्ने । - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.13
असंख्येयभागादिषु जीवानाम् । - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.15
लोकालोकव्यापकमाकाशं मर्त्यलौकिकः कालः।
लोकव्यापि चतुष्टयमवशेषं त्वेकजीवो वा ।। -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 213
आकाश लोक एवं अलोक में रहता है, काल मनुष्य लोक में रहता है, शेष चार द्रव्य लोकव्यापी हैं, एक जीव के प्रदेश भी लोकव्यापी कहे गए हैं। तत्त्वार्थसूत्र धर्म एवं अधर्म द्रव्य को सम्पूर्ण लोक में व्याप्त कहा गया है, तथा लोकाकाश के असंख्यातवें भाग से लेकर सम्पूर्ण लोक तक जीवों का अवगाहन कहा है। (iii) आऽऽकाशादेकद्रव्याणि । तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.5
निष्क्रियाणि च।
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.6 धर्माधर्माकाशान्येकैकमतः परं त्रिकमनन्तम् ।
कालं विनाऽस्तिकाया जीवमृते चाऽप्यकर्तृणि।। – प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 214
धर्म, अधर्म एवं आकाश संख्या में एक-एक हैं तथा निष्क्रिय हैं। यह कथन दोनों ग्रन्थों में समानरूप से हुआ है। किन्तु प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में शेष तीन द्रव्यों पुद्गल, जीव और काल को अनन्त प्रतिपादित करते हुए काल को छोड़कर
—
-

Page #250

240 Studies in Umāsvāti शेष पांच द्रव्यों को अस्तिकाय कहा गया है तथा छह द्रव्यों में से 'जीव' को छोड़कर शेष पाँच को अकर्ता माना गया है। (iv) गतिस्थित्युपग्रहो धर्माधर्मयोरुपकारः। -तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.17
आकाशस्यावगाहः। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.18 धर्मो गतिस्थितिमतां द्रव्याणां गत्युपग्रहविधाता।
स्थित्युपकृच्चाधर्मोऽवकाशदानोपकृद् गगनम्।। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 215 उपर्युक्त दोनों कथनों में पूर्ण समानता है, जिसके अनुसार धर्म को गति, अधर्म को स्थिति एवं आकाश को अवगाहन में उपकारक प्रतिपादित किया गया है। (v) स्पर्शरसगन्धवर्णवन्तः पुद्गलाः। -तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.23 शब्दबन्धसौक्ष्म्यस्थौल्यसंस्थानभेदतमश्छायातपोद्योतवन्तश्च।
- तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.24 स्पर्शरसगन्धवर्णाः शब्दो बन्धश्च सूक्ष्मता स्थौल्यम्।
संस्थानं भेदतमश्छायोद्योतातपश्चेति। -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 216 पुद्गल के लक्षण से सम्बद्ध उपर्युक्त दो सूत्रों एवं कारिका में पूर्ण साम्य है। मात्र उद्योत एवं आतप के क्रम में भिन्नता है। (vi) शरीरवाङ्मनः प्राणापानाः पुद्गलानाम्। –तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.19
सुखदुःखजीवितमरणोपग्रहाश्च। –तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.20 कर्मशरीरमनोवाग्विचेष्टितोच्छ्वासदुःखसुखदा:स्युः।
जीवितमरणोपग्रहकराश्च संसारिणः स्कन्धाः।। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 217 शरीर, वाक्, मन, उच्छ्वास (प्राणापान), सुख, दुःख, जीवन, मरण- ये सब संसारी जीव पर पुद्गल के उपकार हैं। यहाँ दोनों ग्रन्थों का समान प्रतिपादन है। (vii) वर्तना परिणामः क्रिया परत्वापरत्वे च कालस्य। -तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.22
परिणामवर्तनाविधिः परापरत्वगुणलक्षणः कालः। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 218 काल के कार्य एवं लक्षण पर वैशेषिक सूत्र का प्रभाव परिलक्षित होता है। (viii) उत्पादव्ययध्रौव्ययुक्तं सत्। -तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.29
अर्पितानर्पितसिद्धः। –तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 5.31

Page #251

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 241 उत्पादविगमनित्यत्वलक्षणं यत्तदस्ति सर्वमपि।
सदसद्वा भवतीत्यन्यथार्पितानर्पितविशेषात्।। -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 204 व्यय के लिए प्रशमरति में विगम एवं ध्रौव्य के लिए नित्यत्व का प्रयोग हुआ है, शेष यथावत् है।
अध्याय-6
शुभः पुण्यस्य, अशुभः पापस्य। -तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 6.3-4 पुद्गलकर्म शुभं यत्तत्पुण्यमिति जिनशासने दृष्टम्।
यदशुभमथ तत्पापमिति भवति सर्वज्ञनिर्दिष्टम्।। – प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 219 अध्याय-7 (i) मूर्छा परिग्रहः। -तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 7.12 अध्यात्मविदो मूर्छा परिग्रहं वर्णयन्ति निश्चयतः।
-प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 178 हिंसाऽनृतस्तेयाऽब्रह्मपरिग्रहेभ्यो विरतितम्। –तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 7.1 (ii) अणुव्रतोऽगारी। –तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 7.15
दिग्देशानर्थदण्डविरतिसामायिकपौषधोपवासोपभोगपरिभोगपरिमाणाऽतिथिसंविभागव्रतसम्पन्नश्च। -तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 7.16
स्थूलवधानृतचौर्यपरस्त्रीरत्यरतिवर्जितः सततम्। दिग्व्रतमिह देशावकाशिकमनर्थविरतिं च। सामायिकं च कृत्वा पौषधमुपभोगपारिमाण्यं च। न्यायागतं च कल्प्यं विधिना पात्रेषु विनियोज्यम्।।
-प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 304-305 श्रावक के बारह व्रतों का तत्त्वार्थसूत्र एवं प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में समान क्रम है। उपासकदशाङ्गसूत्र में देशावकाशिक को सामायिक के पश्चात् एवं उपभोगपरिभोग परिमाण व्रत को दिग्व्रत के पश्चात् रखा गया है। इस दृष्टि से उमास्वाति ने आगम निरूपित क्रम में अपनी सूझ से परिवर्तन किया है।

Page #252

242 Studies in Umāsvāti
अध्याय-8 (i) आद्यो ज्ञानदर्शनावरणवेदनीयमोहनीयायुष्कनामगोत्रान्तरायाः।
-तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 8.5 सज्ज्ञानदर्शनावरणवेद्यमोहायुषां तथा नाम्नः।
गोत्रान्तराययोश्चेति कर्मबन्धोऽष्टधा मौलः। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 34 (ii) पञ्चनवद्यष्टाविंशतिचतुर्द्विचत्वारिंशद्विपञ्चभेदाः यथाक्रमम्।
-तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 8.6 पञ्चनवद्यष्टाविंशतिकश्चतुःषट्कसप्तगुणभेदः।
द्विपञ्चभेद इति सप्तनवतिभेदास्तथोत्तरतः।। -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 35 (iii) प्रकृतिस्थित्यनुभावप्रदेशास्तद्विधयः। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 8.4
प्रकृतिरियमनेकविधा स्थित्यनुभागप्रदेशतस्तस्याः। -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 36 उपर्युक्त तीनों स्थलों पर दोनों ग्रन्थों में लगभग पूर्ण साम्य है। अन्तिम स्थल में प्रकृति बन्ध के ही प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में स्थिति, अनुभाग एवं प्रदेश-ये तीन प्रकार गए हैं। अध्याय-9 (i) उत्तमः क्षमामार्दवार्जवशौचसत्यसंयमतपस्त्यागाकिञ्चन्य
ब्रह्मचर्याणि धर्मः। -तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 9.6 सेव्यः क्षान्तिर्दिवमार्जवशौचे च संयमत्यागौ।
सत्यतपोब्रह्माकिञ्चन्यानीत्येष धर्मविधिः।। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 167 सत्य, तप और ब्रह्मचर्य के क्रम में भेद के अतिरिक्त दशविध धर्मों का उभयत्र समान कथन हुआ है। (ii) अनित्याशरणसंसारैकत्वान्यत्वाशुचित्वास्रवसंवरनिर्जरालोकबोधि
दुर्लभधर्मस्वाख्यातत्त्वानुचिन्तनमनुप्रेक्षाः। -तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 9.7 भावयितव्यमनित्यत्वमशरणत्वं तथैकतान्यत्वे। अशुचित्वं संसारः कर्मास्रवसंवरविधिश्च।। निर्जरणलोकविस्तरधर्मस्वाख्यातत्त्वचिन्ताश्च।
बोधेः सुदुर्लभत्वं च भावना द्वादश विशुद्धाः -प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 149-150 संसार एवं बोधिदुर्लभ भावनाओं के क्रमभेद के अतिरिक्त पूरी समानता है।

Page #253

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 243
(iii) सामायिकच्छेदोपस्थाप्यपरिहारविशुद्धिसूक्ष्मसम्पराययथाख्यातानि चारित्रम्। - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 9.18
सामायिकमित्याद्यं छेदोपस्थापनं द्वितीयं तु ।
परिहारविशुद्धिकं सूक्ष्मसम्परायं यथाख्यातम्।
इत्येतत्पञ्चविधं चारित्रं मोक्षसाधनं प्रवरम् ॥ - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 228-229
(iv) अनशनावमौदर्यवृत्तिपरिसंख्यानरसपरित्यागविविक्तशय्यासनकायक्लेशा बाह्यं तपः । - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 9.19
अनशनमूनोदरता वृत्तेः संक्षेपणं रसत्यागः ।
कायक्लेशः संलीनतेति बाह्यं तपः प्रोक्तम् ।।
प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 175
विविक्त शय्यासन के स्थान पर प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में संलीनता शब्द प्रयुक्त हुआ है। (v) प्रायश्चित्तविनयवैयावृत्त्यस्वाध्यायव्युत्सर्गध्यानान्युत्तरम् । - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र 9.20 प्रायश्चित्तध्याने वैयावृत्त्यविनयावथोत्सर्गः।
स्वाध्याय इति तपः षट्प्रकारमभ्यन्तरं भवति ।। – प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 176 क्रम भेद के अतिरिक्त नाम साम्य है । तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में व्युत्सर्ग शब्द प्रयुक्त है। उसके स्थान पर प्रशमरति में 'उत्सर्ग' शब्द आया है।
(vi) आज्ञाऽपायविपाकसंस्थानविचयाय धर्ममप्रमत्तसंयतस्य । - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 9.37 आज्ञाविचयमपायविचयं च स ध्यानयोगमुपसृत्य।
तस्माद्विपाकविचयमुपयाति संस्थानविचयं च ।। – प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 247 उपर्युक्त सूत्र एवं कारिका में धर्मध्यान के चार भेदों का उल्लेख हुआ है।
अध्याय- 10
(i)
मोहक्षयाज्ज्ञानदर्शनावरणान्तरायक्षयाच्च केवलम् । - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 10.1
मस्तकसूचिविनाशात्तालस्य यथा ध्रुवो भवति नाशः ।
तद्वत् कर्मविनाशो हि मोहनीयक्षये नित्यम् ।। छद्मस्थवीतरागः कालं सोऽन्तर्मुहूर्तमथ भूत्वा । युगपद् विविधावरणान्तरायकर्मक्षयमवाप्य ।।
शाश्वतमनन्तमनतिशयमनुपममनुत्तरं निरवशेषम् ।
सम्पूर्णमप्रतिहतं सम्प्राप्तः केवलं ज्ञानम् ।। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 267-269

Page #254

244 Studies in Umāsvāti
पहले मोहकर्म का क्षय होता है, फिर युगपद् रूप से ज्ञानावरण, दर्शनावरण एवं अन्तरायकर्म का नाश होकर केवलज्ञान प्रकट होता है। यह तथ्य दोनों ग्रन्थों में समान है किन्तु प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में यह भी प्रतिपादित किया गया है कि वह केवलज्ञान शाश्वत, अनन्त, अनतिशय, अनुपम, अनुत्तर, निरवशेष, सम्पूर्ण एवं अप्रतिहत होता है। (ii) तदनन्तरमूर्ध्वं गच्छत्यालोकान्तात्। -तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 10.5
सिद्धस्योर्ध्वं मुक्तस्यालोकान्ताद् गतिर्भवति।।- 294
लोकाग्रतः सिध्यति साकारेणोपयोगेन।। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 289 (iii) पूर्वप्रयोगादसङ्गत्वाद्बन्धच्छेदात्तथागतिपरिणामाच्च तद्गतिः।
-तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 10.6 पूर्वप्रयोगसिद्धेर्बन्धच्छेदादसंगभावाच्च।
गतिपरिणामाच्च तथा सिद्धस्योर्ध्व गतिः सिद्धा।। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 295 उपर्युक्त दोनों स्थलों में दोनों ग्रन्थों का कथ्य लगभग समान है।
प्रशमरतिप्रकरण और तत्त्वार्थसूत्र : पारस्परिक भेद वैषम्य प्रशमरतिप्रकरण एवं तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में जिन बिन्दुओं पर पारस्परिक भेद दृष्टिगोचर होता है उनमें से कुछ प्रमुख विषयों पर यहाँ विचार किया जा रहा है(1) नव तत्त्व तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में सात तत्त्व निरूपित हैं, जबकि प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में नौ पदार्थों का उल्लेख है, यथा - जीवाजीवात्रवबन्धसंवरनिर्जरामोक्षास्तत्त्वम्। –तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 1.4 जीवाजीवाः पुण्यं पापास्रवसंवराः सनिर्जरणाः। बन्धा मोक्षाश्चैते सम्यक् चिन्त्याः नवपदार्थाः।। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण,189
इस सम्बन्ध में चार बिन्दु विचारणीय हैं - (क) पदार्थ एवं तत्त्व में कोई भेद है या नहीं?
(ख) उमास्वाति ने नौ पदार्थों के स्थान पर सात तत्त्वों का निरूपण किस अपेक्षा से किया?

Page #255

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 245 (ग) उन्होंने इन तत्त्वों का क्रम क्यों बदला?
(घ) क्या उनके द्वारा पुण्य-पाप का समावेश आस्रव या बन्ध में करना उचित है?
चारों प्रश्नों के सम्बन्ध में क्रमशः विचार प्रस्तुत हैं
(क) पदार्थ एवं तत्त्व शब्द जैनदर्शन में एकार्थक हैं। स्वयं उमास्वाति ने तत्त्वार्थभाष्य में 'सप्तविधोऽर्थस्तत्त्वम्' 'एते वा सप्तपदार्थास्तत्त्वानि '25 वाक्यों द्वारा अर्थ, पदार्थ एवं तत्त्व को एकार्थक बतलाया है।
(ख) उमास्वाति ने पुण्य एवं पाप पदार्थ का समावेश आस्रव तत्त्व में किया है, जैसा कि उनके 'शुभः पुण्यस्य' 'अशुभः पापस्य26 सूत्रों से प्रकट होता है। आस्रव के साथ बन्ध तत्त्व में इनका समावेश स्वतः सिद्ध है, क्योंकि, बंधी हुई कर्मप्रकृतियाँ या तो पुण्य रूप होती हैं या पाप रूप। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण के टीकाकार हरिभद्र ने पुण्य एवं पाप का समावेश बन्ध तत्त्व में ही किया है-शास्त्रे पुण्यपापयोर्बन्धग्रहणेनैव ग्रहणात् सप्त संख्या।"
(ग) प्रशमरतिप्रकरण एवं विभिन्न आगमों में तत्त्वों का क्रम जीव, अजीव, पुण्य, पाप, आस्रव, संवर, निर्जरा, बन्ध एवं मोक्ष के रूप में है। पुण्य-पाप की पृथक् गणना न करने पर इनका क्रम रहता है- जीव, अजीव, आस्रव, संवर, निर्जरा, बन्ध एवं मोक्ष। किन्तु तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में उमास्वाति ने आस्रव के पश्चात् बन्ध को रखकर क्रम बदल दिया है। उनके द्वारा ऐसा किया जाना उचित प्रतीत होता है, क्योंकि कर्म पुद्गलों के आस्रव के अनन्तर बन्ध ही घटित होता है तथा संवर एवं निर्जरा के द्वारा मोक्ष घटित होता है।
(घ) तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में पुण्य-पाप का समावेश आस्रव एवं बन्ध में करके उन्हें स्वतन्त्र तत्त्व के रूप में निरूपित नहीं करना अनेक कारणों से उचित प्रतीत नहीं होता, यथा
(i) पुण्य एवं पाप एक-दूसरे के विरोधी हैं। पुण्यकर्म जहाँ सम्यग्दर्शन एवं केवलज्ञान में सहायक कारण है वहाँ पापकर्म उसमें बाधक है। कर्मसिद्धान्त के अनुसार जब तक पापकर्म की प्रकृतियों का चतुःस्थानिक अनुभाग घटकर द्विस्थानिक नहीं होता और पुण्यप्रकृतियों का अनुभाग द्विस्थानिक से बढ़कर चतुः स्थानिक नहीं होता तब तक सम्यग्दर्शन नहीं होता है। इसी प्रकार पुण्यप्रकृतियों का अनुभाग जब तक उत्कृष्ट नहीं होता तब तक केवलज्ञान प्रकट नहीं होता है। इस दृष्टि से पाप के अनुभाग का घटना एवं पुण्य के अनुभाग का बढ़ना सम्यग्दर्शन एवं केवलज्ञान में सहायक होने से ये एक-दूसरे के विरोधी सिद्ध

Page #256

246 Studies in Umāsvāti होते हैं। अतः इन दोनों का पृथक् कथन आगम एवं कर्मसिद्धान्त की दृष्टि से अपेक्षित प्रतीत होता है।
(ii) आठ कर्मों में से चार घाती कर्म ज्ञानावरण, दर्शनावरण, मोहनीय एवं अन्तराय-पापकर्म हैं। केवलज्ञान की प्राप्ति हेतु इनका क्षय अनिवार्य होता है। पुण्य कर्मों के क्षय की आवश्यकता नहीं होती। इसलिए पापकर्म जहाँ मुक्ति में बाधक हैं, वहां पुण्य कर्म नहीं, पुण्य कर्म तो अघाती हैं' जो आत्मा की कोई घात नहीं करते। वे देशघाती भी नहीं है। मनुष्यगति, पंचेन्द्रिय जाति, वज्रऋषभनाराच संहनन, समचतुरस्रसंस्थान आदि पुण्य कर्म तो मुक्ति में सहायक माने गये हैं। इसलिए पुण्य एवं पाप दोनों का पृथक् बोध आवश्यक होने से इन्हें तत्त्वगणना में पृथक् रूपेण स्थान देना उचित प्रतीत होता है।28
(iii) आगमों में सर्वत्र पाप के त्याग का ही विधान है तथा पाप-प्रकृतियों के क्षय का ही निरूपण है। पुण्य त्याग या उसका क्षय करने की प्रेरणा कहीं नहीं की गई है। कुछ उदाहरण द्रष्टव्य हैं
तवसा धुणइ पुराणपावगं, जुत्तो सया तवसमाहिए।"
- दशवैकालिकसूत्र, 9.4.4 तप-समाधिसे युक्त साधक सदैव तप के द्वारा प्राचीन (पूर्वबद्ध) पापकर्मों को नष्ट करता है।
संवरेणं कायगुत्ते पुण्णे पावासवनिरोहं करेइ।० __-उत्तराध्ययनसूत्र, 29.55
(iv) आत्मा के शुभ परिणामों के कारण योग शुभ एवं अशुभ परिणामों के कारण योग अशुभ होता है।1 कर्मों के शुभाशुभ का कारण होने से योग शुभाशुभ नहीं होते। यदि ऐसा कहा जाए तो शुभ योग होगा ही नहीं, क्योंकि शुभ योग को भी ज्ञानावरण आदि कर्मों के बन्ध का कारण माना गया है। जो आत्मा को पवित्र करे वह पुण्य है तथा जो पुण्य का विरोधी है वह पाप है। इसे दूसरे शब्दों में यह भी कहा जा सकता है कि संक्लेश पाप है एवं विशुद्धि पुण्य है। संक्लेश में कषायवृद्धि होती है तथा विशुद्धि में कषाय-कमी। इस प्रकार पुण्य-पाप को समान समझना उपयुक्त नहीं।
(v) कसायपाहुड की जयधवला टीका में अनुकम्पा एवं शुद्ध उपयोग को पुण्यास्रव का हेतु तथा इसके विपरीत निर्दयता एवं अशुद्ध उपयोग को पापास्रव का हेतु बताया गया है

Page #257

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 247 पुण्णासवभूदा अणुकंपा सुद्धओ अ उपजोओ। विवरीओ पावस्स हु आसवहेउं वियाणाहि।।' – कसायपाहुड
यहाँ ज्ञात होता है कि पुण्यास्रव एवं पापास्रव एक दूसरे के विपरीत हैं, अतः दोनों का पृथक् कथन आवश्यक है।
(vi) पुण्य-पाप का समावेश आस्रव एवं बन्ध तत्त्व में करने का परिणाम यह हुआ कि पुण्य को भी पाप की ही भाँति मुक्ति में बाधक मानकर आचार्य कुन्दकुन्द के द्वारा पाप को लोहे की बेड़ी तथा पुण्य को सोने की बेड़ी कहा गया, जो उपयुक्त प्रतीत नहीं होता। क्योंकि जो पुण्य केवलज्ञान की प्राप्ति में बाधक न होकर साधक है, उसे सोने की बेड़ी कहना पाप की श्रेणि में डाल देना है। हाँ, यह अवश्य है कि यह अघाती पुण्य कर्म शरीर रहने तक रहता है, शरीर छूटने के साथ वह वैसे ही स्वतः समाप्त हो जाता है, जिस प्रकार कि यथाख्यात चारित्र स्वतः छूट जाता है। इसलिए पुण्य को पापकर्म के समकक्ष नहीं रखा जा सकता।
(vii) यदि पाप एवं पुण्य को एक ही श्रेणी में रखकर समान रूप से त्याज्य प्रतिपादित किया जायेगा तो साधना का मार्ग ही नहीं रह सकेगा; क्योंकि पूर्णतः अयोगी अवस्था तो चौदहवें गुणस्थान में होती है। उसके पूर्व जो मन, वचन एवं काय योग रहता है वह या तो कषाय के आधिक्य के कारण अशुभ होता है या कषाय के घटने के कारण शुभ होता है। अशुभ से शुभ की ओर बढ़ने पर ही साधना सम्भव है। अत: पुण्य को पाप कर्म की भाँति एकान्ततः त्याज्य कहना कदापि उचित प्रतीत नहीं होता।
ये कतिपय बिन्दु हमें चिन्तन करने के लिए विवश करते हैं कि उमास्वाति ने पुण्य एवं पाप को तत्त्व-संख्या में स्थान न देकर जैनदर्शन के साथ कितना न्याय किया है? सप्त तत्त्व के प्रतिपादन की उनकी मौलिक सूझ कहीं जैन दर्शन के तत्त्वज्ञान में भ्रान्ति उत्पन्न करने में निमित्त तो नहीं बन गई? विद्वानों को इस पर गम्भीरता से विचार करने की आवश्यकता है। श्वेताम्बर एवं दिगम्बर आगम-परम्परा एवं कर्मसिद्धान्त के अनुसार तो नवतत्त्व या नव-पदार्थ को स्वीकार करना ही उचित प्रतीत होता है। --- पुष्ट्यर्थ उद्धरण(अ) नवसब्भावपयत्था पण्णत्ता तंजहा-जीवा अजीवा पुण्णं पावो, आसवो संवरो णिज्जरा बंधो मोक्खो। –स्थानांगसूत्र, नवमस्थान (आ) जीवाजीवा य बंधो य, पुण्णं पावासवो तहा।
संवरो निज्जरा मोक्खो, संते ए तहिया नव।। - उत्तराध्ययनसूत्र, 28.14

Page #258

248 Studies in Umāsvāti (इ) जीवाजीवा भावा पुण्णं पावं च आसवं तेसिं।
संवरणिज्जरबंधो मोक्खो य हंवति अट्ठा।।” – पंचास्तिकाय, 108 (उ) णव य पदत्था जीवाजीवा ताणं च पुण्णपावदुगं। आसवसंवरणिज्जरबंधा मोक्खो य होंति ति।।38
-गोम्मटसार, जीवकाण्ड, गाथा, 621 इन सब आगमिक उद्धरणों में भी नव तत्त्वों या पदार्थों का कथन किया गया है, अतः उमास्वाति द्वारा पुण्य-पाप तत्त्व का तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में पृथक् कथन न करना जैन परम्परा में विवाद को जन्म देता है। (2) काल द्रव्य उमास्वाति ने प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में धर्म, अधर्म आकाश एवं पुद्गल के अतिरिक्त काल को भी अजीव द्रव्यों में स्थान दिया है, जबकि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में उन्होंने काल को कतिपय आचार्यों के मत में द्रव्य निरूपित किया है। इससे यह विवाद का विषय बनता है कि उमास्वाति के मत में काल एक पृथक् द्रव्य है या नहीं? इस सम्बन्ध में निम्नाङ्कित बिन्दु विचारणीय हैं___(क) तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में धर्म, अधर्म, आकाश एवं पुद्गल को उमास्वाति ने अजीवकाय कहा है। यहां अजीव के साथ काय शब्द उनके अस्तिकाय होने का सूचक है। 'काल' अजीव है, किन्तु वह अस्तिकाय नहीं है, क्योंकि उसके कोई प्रदेश-समूह नहीं हैं, इसलिए इसे चार अजीवकायों के साथ उमास्वाति ने नहीं गिनाया है। जीव अस्तिकाय है, किन्तु अजीव नहीं है, इसलिए उसे भी यहाँ नहीं गिनाकर उसके लिए पृथक् सूत्र दिया गया है। फिर उमास्वाति ने इन पाँचों द्रव्यों की समानता-असमानता के आधार पर उनका वर्णन किया है।
(ख) 'काल' का पृथक् द्रव्य के रूप में उल्लेख तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के पाँचवें अध्याय के 38वें सूत्र 'कालश्चेत्येके' के द्वारा किया गया है। किन्तु इसके पूर्व इसी अध्याय के 22वें सूत्र में उन्होंने 'वर्तना परिणामः क्रिया परत्वापरत्वे च कालस्य' सूत्र के द्वारा काल का लक्षण और उसके कार्य बताए हैं, जिससे सिद्ध होता है कि काल उन्हें पहले ही एक द्रव्य के रूप में अभीष्ट था। ऐसी स्थिति में सूत्र की उपयोगिता नहीं रह जाती है।
सम्भवतः यही कारण है कि सर्वार्थसिद्धि आदि टीकाओं में यह सूत्र 'कालश्च' रूप में ही पढ़ा गया है। पूज्यपाद देवनन्दी ने 'काल' के पृथक् कथन का औचित्य प्रतिपादित किया है। उन्होंने प्रश्न उठाया कि काल का कथन

Page #259

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 249 धर्म, अधर्म आदि चार अस्तिकायों के साथ क्यों नहीं किया गया? इस प्रश्न का समाधान करते हुए उन्होंने कहा कि उस सूत्र में काल का कथन करने पर काल में कायत्व स्वीकारना पड़ता है, जो कि काल में है नहीं। इसी प्रकार सूत्रों में परिगणित धर्म, अधर्म एवं आकाश के अतिरिक्त शेष द्रव्य पुद्गल एवं जीव सक्रिय हैं, अतः उनके साथ 'काल' भी सक्रिय हो जाता, जो अभीष्ट नहीं है । 42 उपर्युक्त दोनों बिन्दुओं से यह सिद्ध होता है कि उमास्वाति को काल पृथक् द्रव्य के रूप में अभीष्ट था।
(ग) पं. दलसुख मालवणिया का इस सम्बन्ध में भिन्न मत है। वे लिखते हैं कि श्वेताम्बर एवं दिगम्बर दोनों के मत में लोक पंचास्तिकायमय है। उत्तरा - ध्ययनसूत्र के अतिरिक्त लोक को षड्द्रव्यात्मक नहीं बताया गया है। 44 मालवणिया जी का यह कथन इस बात की ओर संकेत करता है कि उस समय पाँच द्रव्य मानने की भी परम्परा रही है तथा उमास्वाति काल को पृथक् द्रव्य मानने के पक्षपाती नहीं थे। पं. मालवणिया जी के इस कथन पर प्रश्न तब उठता है जब व्याख्याप्रज्ञप्ति एवं अनुयोगद्वारसूत्र में स्पष्टतः षड्द्रव्यों का उल्लेख प्राप्त होता है 45 तथा उमास्वाति ने स्वयं प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में 'काल' को अजीव पदार्थों में परिगणित किया है। इससे उमास्वाति का अपना मत सन्दिग्ध हो जाता है। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में उन्होंने पुद्गल को रूपी तथा धर्म, अधर्म, आकाश एवं काल को अरूपी द्रव्य कहा है, यथा
धर्माधर्माकाशानि पुद्गला काल एव चाजीवाः ।
पुद्गलवर्जमरूपं तु रूपिणः पुद्गलाः प्रोक्ताः ।। 46
प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 207
इसका तात्पर्य है कि उमास्वाति को काल पृथक् द्रव्य के रूप में अभीष्ट था, किन्तु वे इसके सम्बन्ध में रहे मतभेद को प्रकट करना चाहते थे ।
( 3 ) बन्धहेतु
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में कर्म - -बन्धन के पाँच हेतु गिनाए गए हैं मिथ्यात्व, अविरति, प्रमाद, कषाय और योग । प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में राग-द्वेष, मोह, मिथ्यात्व, अविरति, प्रमाद एवं योग को कर्मबन्ध का हेतु बताया गया है।
आगम में मिथ्यात्व आदि को आस्रव का हेतु तथा राग-द्वेष को बन्ध का कारण बताया गया है।
( 4 ) नय, प्रमाण और अनुयोग
जैन ज्ञान-मीमांसा में अधिगम के लिए नय, प्रमाण एवं अनुयोग को सहायक

Page #260

250 Studies in Umāsvāti
माना गया है। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में 'अनेकानुयोगनयप्रमाणमार्गैः समनुगम्यम् कारिकांश के द्वारा अनेक अनुयोग, नय एवं प्रमाण मार्ग से अधिगम करने के कथन से इसकी पुष्टि होती है । तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में ' प्रमाणनयैरधिगम : '48 सूत्र के द्वारा प्रमाण एवं नय से अधिगम सम्पन्न होने का कथन करके विभिन्न अनुयोगों का निर्देश इन तीनों सूत्रों में पृथक्रूपेण किया गया है।
नामस्थापनाद्रव्यभावतस्तन्न्यास : 19 – तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 1.5
निर्देशस्वामित्वसाधनाधिकरणस्थितिविधानतः ।
सत्संख्याक्षेत्रस्पर्शनकालान्तरभावाल्पबहुत्वैश्च । ̈ – तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, 1.7-8
तत्त्वार्थभाष्य में नाम, स्थापना, द्रव्य एवं भाव को स्पष्टरूपेण अनुयोगद्वार कहा गया है— ' एभिर्नामादिभिश्चतुर्भिरनुयोगद्वारै: '151 इसी प्रकार निर्देश, स्वामित्व, साधन, अधिकरण, स्थिति और विधान भी भाष्य के अनुसार अनुयोगद्वार है, 52 और सत्, संख्या, क्षेत्र, स्पर्शन, काल, अन्तर, भाव, अल्पबहुत्व भी अनुयोगद्वार है 1 53 इस प्रकार अधिगम में नय एवं प्रमाण के साथ अनुयोगद्वारों का भी तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में महत्त्व स्वीकार किया गया है। नियुक्ति एवं षट्खण्डागम में भी इन अनुयोगद्व रों की चर्चा उपलब्ध होती है। अनुयोगों के माध्यम से किसी एक विषय का ज्ञान सम्यक् रीति से हो सकता है। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण की अपेक्षा तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में अनुयोगद्वारों का कथन व्यवस्थित रूप में हुआ है। इससे प्रतीत होता हे कि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र प्रशमरतिप्रकरण के पश्चात् विरचित है।
यहाँ इस तथ्य पर भी विशेष ध्यान आकर्षित करना होगा कि नय एवं अनुयोग का प्रत्यय जैन दर्शन की अपनी मौलिक विशेषता है एवं चिन्तन के क्षेत्र में भारतीय दर्शन को उसका यह अमूल्य योगदान है। ज्ञानमीमांसा के सम्बन्ध में प्रमाण के अतिरिक्त नय एवं अनुयोग का भी अपना महत्त्व है।
(5) पंचविध ज्ञान
मति, श्रुत, अवधि, मनःपर्याय एवं केवल नामक पंचविध ज्ञानों का जितना सुव्यव स्थित निरूपण तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में उपलब्ध होता है उतना प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में नहीं । प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में पाँच ज्ञानों के नाम उपलब्ध होते हैं, तथा उन्हें प्रत्यक्ष एवं परोक्ष में विभक्त किया गया है, 56 किन्तु इन ज्ञानों के भेदोपभेदों का कथन - विवेचन प्रशमरति में उपलब्ध नहीं है, जबकि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के प्रथम अध्याय का अधिकांश ज्ञान के पाँच भेदों के भेदान्तर एवं उनके विवेचन पर ही केन्द्रित है। तत्त्वार्थसूत्र का प्रथम अध्याय जैन ज्ञानमीमांसा का संक्षेप में व्यवस्थित निरूपण करता है।

Page #261

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 251 (6) प्रमाण निरूपण प्रमाणमीमांसा के सम्बन्ध में उमास्वाति का एक अन्य महत्त्वपूर्ण योगदान यह है कि उन्होंने ही सर्वप्रथम पंचविध ज्ञानों को प्रमाण के रूप में प्रतिष्ठित . किया” आगमों में ज्ञान के प्रत्यक्ष एवं परोक्ष भेद तो प्राप्त होते हैं, किन्तु वहाँ उनके लिए 'प्रमाण' शब्द का प्रयोग नहीं है। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में उमास्वाति ने पंचविध ज्ञानों को प्रत्यक्ष एवं परोक्ष में विभक्त किया है, किन्तु ज्ञानों के लिए 'प्रमाण' शब्द का प्रयोग तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में ही किया गया है। इस प्रकार तत्त्वार्थसूत्र प्रमाणमीमांसा की दृष्टि से भी प्रथम महत्त्वपूर्ण ग्रन्थ है, जिसमें आगम-परम्परा में प्राप्त ज्ञान के विवेचन को प्रमाण के रूप में स्थापित किया गया है। उन्होंने इन्द्रिय एवं मन के सापेक्ष मति एवं श्रुतज्ञान को परो:०० तथा आत्ममात्रापेक्ष अवधि, मनःपर्याय एवं केवलज्ञान को प्रत्यक्ष प्रमाण' कहकर जैन प्रमाण-मीमांसा को एक व्यवस्थित स्वरूप प्रदान किया है, जो आगे सिद्धसेन, अकलङ्क, विद्यानन्द, वादिराज, अभयदेव, प्रभाचन्द्र, हेमचन्द्र, वादिदेव, यशोविजय आदि दार्शनिकों के द्वारा पल्लवित एवं पुष्पित हुआ है। उमास्वति ने 'मतिः स्मृतिः संज्ञा चिन्ताऽभिनिबोध इत्यनर्थान्तरम्'62 सूत्र के अनुसार मति, स्मृति, संज्ञा, चिन्ता और अभिनिबोध को एकार्थक प्रतिपादित कर भट्ट अकलङ्क के लिए स्मृति, प्रत्यभिज्ञान, तर्क एवं अनुमान को परोक्ष प्रमाण के पृथक् भेद निरूपित करने का मार्ग खोल दिया। भट्ट अकलङ्क ने मति के पर्यायार्थक 'स्मृति' शब्द से स्मृति प्रमाण का, 'संज्ञा' शब्द से प्रत्यभिज्ञान प्रमाण का, 'चिन्ता' शब्द से तर्क प्रमाण का एवं अभिनिबोध शब्द से अनुमानप्रमाण का विकास किया।
(7) षड् लेश्या तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में षड्लेश्याओं (कृष्ण, नील, कापोत, तेजो, पद्म और शुक्ल) का कथन औदयिक भाव के इक्कीस भेदों के अन्तर्गत आया है। इसके अतिरिक्त तृतीय अध्याय में सात नरकों में अशुभतर लेश्याओं के प्रसंग में और चतुर्थ अध्याय में देवों के प्रसंग में विभिन्न लेश्याओं का कथन हुआ है।64 निर्ग्रन्थों के विवेचन में नवम अध्याय में (9.49) भी लेश्या शब्द का प्रयोग हुआ है। किन्तु तत्त्वार्थसूत्र में यह कहीं भी उल्लेख नहीं है कि ये लेश्याएँ कर्मबन्ध में भी सहायक हैं। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में लेश्या के सम्बन्ध में स्पष्ट कथन है कि कर्म के स्थितिबन्ध
और विपाक (कर्म फल) में लेश्या विशेष से विशेषता आती है। ये छह लेश्याएँ कौनसी हैं तथा वे कर्मबन्धन में किस प्रकार सहायक हैं, इसका वर्णन करते हुए

Page #262

252 Studies in Umāsvāti उमास्वाति कहते हैं
ताः कृष्णनीलकापोततैजसीपद्मशुक्लनामानः। श्लेष इव वर्णबन्धस्य कर्मबन्धस्थितिविधात्र्यः।। -कारिका, 38
कृष्ण, नील, कापोत, तैजस, पद्म और शुक्ल नामक लेश्याएँ कर्मबन्ध की स्थिति में उसी प्रकार सहायक हैं, जिस प्रकार रंग को दृढ़ करने में श्लेष सहायक है।
___ इस अध्ययन से विदित होता है कि प्रशमरति एक महत्त्वपूर्ण ग्रन्थ है, तथापि इसे वह महत्त्व प्राप्त नहीं हुआ, जो तत्त्वार्थसूत्र को प्राप्त है। इसके अनेक सम्भव कारणों में से कुछ इस प्रकार हैं- (1) 'प्रशमरति' आगमिक प्रकरण ग्रन्थ है, इसमें दार्शनिक तत्त्व नगण्य हैं, जबकि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र जैनदर्शन का प्रतिनिधि ग्रन्थ रहा, अत: दार्शनिकयुग में टीका के लिए वही आधारभूत ग्रन्थ माना गया। (2) प्रशमरतिप्रकरण में श्रमण के लिए वस्त्र की एषणा का भी उल्लेख हुआ है, जो दिगम्बरों को स्वीकार्य नहीं था, अतः दिगम्बराचार्यों ने इस पर टीका करना उचित नहीं समझा और श्वेताम्बराचार्यों के लिए आगमग्रन्थ उपलब्ध थे, अतः इस प्रकरण पर अपेक्षाकृत कम ही टीकाएँ लिखी गईं। जो लिखी गईं उनमें से अधिकांश उपलब्ध नहीं हैं। (3) सूत्र शैली के ग्रन्थों पर दार्शनिक युग में जितनी टीकाएँ लिखी गईं, उतनी कारिका ग्रन्थों पर नहीं। ऐसे ही कुछ और भी कारण रहे होंगे, जो यह स्पष्ट करते हैं कि उमास्वाति का प्रशमरतिप्रकरण उतना प्रकाश में क्यों नहीं आया, जितना कि तत्त्वार्थसूत्र। आधुनिक युग में उपयोगी ग्रन्थः आधुनिक युग में प्रशमरतिप्रकरण की उपयोगिता असंदिग्ध है। प्रशमरति-प्रकरण में प्रशम एवं उसके सुख का प्रतिपादन उमास्वाति की नितान्त मौलिक सूझ है। उन्होंने वैराग्य, माध्यस्थ्य या कषायविजय रूप प्रशम का फल परलोक में ही नहीं, इस लोक में भी निरूपित किया है। प्रशमरतिप्रकरण की रचना का यही प्रमुख उद्देश्य भी प्रतीत होता है। उमास्वाति ने कहा है कि विषयसुख की अभिलाषा से रहित प्रशमगुणों से अलङ्कृतसाधु उस सूर्य की भाँति है जो अन्य समस्त तेजों को अभिभूत करके प्रकाशित होता है। प्रशम एवं अव्याबाध सुख को चाहने वाला साधक सद्धर्म में दृढ़ है तो देवों और मनुष्यों से युक्त इस लोक में उसकी तुलना नहीं हो सकती।
उमास्वाति का मन्तव्य है कि जिन्होंने मद और काम को जीत लिया है, मन, वचन और काया के विकारों से रहित हैं तथा पर की आशा से विरहित

Page #263

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 253 हैं, ऐसे शास्त्रविधि के पालक साधुओं को यहीं मोक्ष मिल जाता है। यहाँ पर उमास्वाति सम्भवतः प्रशम सुख को ही मोक्ष सुख के रूप में प्रकट कर रहे हैं, क्योंकि उससे मोक्षसुख का अंशतः अनुभव किया जा सकता है।
प्रशमसुख की महिमा का वर्णन करते हुए उन्होंने कहा है कि सम्यग्दृष्टि और सम्यग्ज्ञानी व्रत एवं तपोबल से युक्त होकर भी यदि उपशान्त नहीं है तो वह उस गुण को प्राप्त नहीं करता जिसे प्रशम सुख में विद्यमान साधु प्राप्त कर लेता है। उमास्वाति कहते हैं कि स्वर्ग के सुख परोक्ष हैं तथा मोक्ष के सुख अत्यन्त परोक्ष हैं, प्रशम का सुख प्रत्यक्ष है वह पराधीन नहीं है और न ही वह विनाशी है
स्वर्गसुखानि परोक्षाण्यत्यन्तपरोक्षमेव मोक्षसुखम्। प्रत्यक्षं प्रशमसुखं न परवशं न व्ययप्राप्तम्।। –प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, 237
सन्दर्भ 1. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, पं. सुखलाल संघवी, पार्श्वनाथ विद्याश्रम शोध संस्थान,
वाराणसी, 1993, प्रस्तावना पृ. 18 । 2. जैन साहित्य का इतिहास, भाग 2, श्री गणेशप्रसादवर्णी जैन ग्रन्थमाला,
वाराणसी, प्रथम संस्करण, पृ. 375। 3. जैन साहित्य का बृहद् इतिहास, भाग 4, पार्श्वनाथ विद्याश्रम शोध
संस्थान, वाराणसी, पृ. 267। 4. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, प्रस्तावना, पृ. 29, पादटिप्पण 1। 5. प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, हारिभद्रीय टीका एवं अवचूरि सहित, श्री परमश्रुत ___ प्रभावक मण्डल, श्रीमद् राजचन्द्र आश्रम, अगास, द्वितीयावृत्ति विक्रम संवत्
2044, परिशिष्ट 1। 6. वही, कारिका 2। 7. वही, कारिका 171 8. वही, कारिका 1401 9. वही, 141। 10. वही, 144। 11. वही, 1461 12. वही, कारिका 260-2।

Page #264

254 Studies in Umāsvāti 13. वही, कारिका 268-9। 14. वही, कारिका 2711 15. वही, कारिका 272-3 । 16. वही, कारिका 274। 17. वही, कारिका, 275। 18. वही, कारिका 277-9। 19. वही, कारिका 2801 20. वही, कारिका 2821 21. वही, कारिका 283। 22. वही, कारिका 289। 23. आत्मादेशादात्मा भवत्यनात्मा परादेशात्। - वही। 24. वही, कारिका 1861 25. तत्त्वार्थभाष्य, सूत्र 9.41 26. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, सूत्र 6.3-4। 27. प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, कारिका 189 की टीका। 28. कन्हैयालाल लोढा, आगम एवं कर्मसिद्धान्त के आलोक में पुण्य-पाप
तत्त्व, संपा. धर्मचन्द्र जैन, प्राकृत भारती अकादमी, जयपुर, 1999। 29. दशवैकालिकसूत्र, सम्यग्ज्ञान प्रचारक मण्डल, जयपुर, 1983, गा. 9.4.4। 30. उत्तराध्ययनसूत्र, भाग-3, सम्यग्ज्ञान प्रचारक मण्डल, जयपुर, 1989, गा.
29/551 31. शुभपरिणामनिर्वृत्तो योगः शुभः। अशुभपरिणामनिवृत्तश्चा- शुभः। __ - सर्वार्थसिद्धि, पूज्यपाद देवनन्दी, भारतीय ज्ञानपीठ, दिल्ली 1971,
गाथा 6/3। 32. न पुनः शुभाशुभकर्मकारणत्वेन। यद्येवमुच्यते शुभयोग एव न स्यात्।
शुभयोगस्यापि ज्ञानावरणादि- बन्धहेतुत्वाभ्युपगमात्। - वही। 33. पुनात्यात्मानं पूयतेऽनेनेति वा पुण्यम् – वही। 34. कसायपाहुड, जयधवलाटीका, पुस्तक 1, पृ. 96। 35. स्थानांगसूत्र, नवमस्थान, आगम प्रकाशन समिति, ब्यावर, 1992 । 36. उत्तराध्ययनसूत्र, गा. 28.14।

Page #265

उमास्वातिकृत प्रशमरतिप्रकरण : एक अध्ययन 255 37. पंचास्तिकाय, कुन्दकुन्द महान दिगम्बर जैन तीर्थ सुरक्षा ट्रस्ट, टोडरमल
स्मारक ट्रस्ट, जयपुर, 1984, गाथा 108 । 38. गोम्मटसार (जीवकाण्ड), श्रीमद् राजचन्द्र आश्रम, अगास, 1985, गाथा
621। 39. अजीवकाया धर्माधर्माकाशपुद्गलाः - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, सूत्र 5.1 । 40. 'जीवाश्च' – वही, सूत्र 5.3। 41. 'कालश्चेत्येके', वही, सूत्र 5.38। 42. 'आऽऽकाशादेकद्रव्याणि', वही, सूत्र 5.5; निष्क्रियाणि च - वही, सूत्र
5.6। 43. उत्तराध्ययनसूत्र, गा. 28.7। 44. पं. दलसुख मालवणिया, आगमयुग का जैन दर्शन, प्राकृत भारती
अकादमी, जयपुर, द्वितीय संस्करण 1990, पृ. 214। 45. व्याख्याप्रज्ञप्तिसूत्र, भाग-4, आगम प्रकाशन समिति, ब्यावर, 1986% __शतक 25 उद्देशक 4, सूत्र 8 एवं अनुयोगद्वारसूत्र, आगम प्रकाशन समिति,
ब्यावर, 1987, सूत्र 269 । 46. प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, गा. 207अ 47. अनेकानुयोगनयप्रमाणमार्गः समनुगम्यम् - वही, गा. 229। 48. प्रमाणनयैरधिगमः - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, सूत्र .... । 49. वही, सूत्र 1.5। 50. वही, सूत्र 1.7-81 51. वही, सूत्र 1.5। 52. एभिश्च निर्देशादिभिः षड्भिरनुयोगद्वारैः – तत्त्वार्थभाष्य, सूत्र 1.7। 53 सद्भूतपदप्ररूपणादिभिरष्टाभिरनुयोगद्वारैः सर्वभावानाम् – वही, सूत्र 1.8। 54. आवश्यकनियुक्ति, नियुक्तिसंग्रह, श्री हर्ष पुष्पामृत जैन ग्रन्थमाला, खारी
बावल, जामनगर (गुजरात), 1989, गा. 13, 8.95। 55. षट्खण्डागम। 56. प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, कारिका 224-225 । 57. तत् प्रमाणे - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, सूत्र 1.10। 58. नन्दीसूत्र, आगम प्रकाशन समिति, ब्यावर, 1991, गा. 2। 59. ज्ञानमथ पञ्चभेदं तत् प्रत्यक्षं परोक्षं च। - प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, कारिका 224 ।

Page #266

256 Studies in Umāsvāti 60. आद्ये परोक्षम् - तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, सूत्र 1.11 । 61. प्रत्यक्षमन्यत्, -वही, सूत्र 1.12 । 62. वही, सूत्र 1.13। 63. जैन, डॉ. धर्मचन्द, बौद्ध प्रमाणमीमांसा की जैन दृष्टि से समीक्षा,
पार्श्वनाथ विद्यापीठ, वाराणसी, 1995, पृ. 293-4। 64. तत्त्वार्थसूत्र, सूत्र 3.3, 4.2, 4.7, 4.21, 4.23 । 65. प्रशमरतिप्रकरण, कारिका 38। 66. वही, कारिका 242। 67. वही, कारिका 2361 68. वही, कारिका 238 ।। 69. वही, कारिका 2371

Page #267

21
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की पूज्यपाद देवनंदिकृत सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति
में उद्धरण
कमलेशकुमार जैन
प्रायः कोई भी पुरातन ग्रन्थकार या टीकाकार अपनी बात को स्पष्ट करने के लिए, उसे प्रमाणित या पुष्ट करने के लिए, दूसरी मान्यता को प्रस्तुत करने के लिए या उसका खण्डन करने के लिए, ग्रन्थ-ग्रन्थान्तरों से अवतरण उद्धृत करता है। इन उद्धरणों में बहुत से ऐसे होते हैं, जो मुद्रित ग्रन्थों में उसी रूप में नहीं मिलते। उनमें पाठान्तर प्राप्त होते हैं। कुछ ऐसे भी उद्धरण पाये जाते हैं जिनका स्रोत अभी तक अज्ञात है। कुछ अवतरण ऐसे भी हैं जो किसी ग्रन्थ या ग्रन्थकार विशेष के नामोल्लेख के साथ तो आते हैं, पर तत्तत् ग्रन्थकारकृत ग्रन्थों में वे उपलब्ध नहीं होते। कई ऐसे भी वाक्य या वाक्यांश मिलते हैं जो ग्रन्थान्तरों से तो लिये गये हैं, परन्तु उनके साथ कोई उपक्रम वाक्य या संकेत (यथा, तथा, उक्तं, यथोक्तं, या तथोक्तं आदि) नहीं होता, इसलिए वे प्रकृत ग्रन्थ के ही अंग बन गये प्रतीत होते हैं। कुछ ऐसे भी उद्धरण, वाक्य या वाक्यांश मिलते हैं, जो प्राकृत से संस्कृत में रूपान्तरित करके ग्रहण किये गये हैं, परन्तु इस तरह के उद्धरणों की संख्या बहुत कम है।
तत्त्वार्थसूत्र पर पूज्यपाद देवनन्दि (प्रायः ईसवीय 635-680) विरचित सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति नामक एक महत्त्वपूर्ण व्याख्या है। दिगम्बर परम्परा के अनुसार, सर्वार्थसिद्धि (प्रायः ईसवीय 340 के आसपास) तत्त्वार्थसूत्र पर उपलब्ध व्याख्याओं में प्रथम मानी जाती है। स्वयं व्याख्याकार ने इस व्याख्या का नाम सर्वार्थसिद्धि दिया है, और इसे वृत्ति रूप कहा है। इस वृत्ति में भी उक्त प्रकार के बहुत से वाक्य-वाक्यांश, पद्य-पद्यांश या गाथाएँ उद्धृत हैं।

Page #268

258 Studies in Umāsvāti
ये उद्धरण वृत्तिकार देवनन्दि द्वारा अपनी बात को स्पष्ट करने के लिए, प्रमाणित या पुष्ट करने के लिए या अन्य-अन्य भारतीय दर्शन परम्पराओं में स्वीकृत मान्यताओं एवं सिद्धान्तों को प्रस्तुत करने के लिए अथवा उनका खण्डन करने के लिए ग्रन्थान्तरों से ग्रहण किये गये हैं।
सर्वार्थसिद्धिगत इन उद्धरणों में वैदिक साहित्य से, दोनों दर्शन-परम्पराओं (वैदिक और अवैदिक) के साहित्य, जैन आगम एवं आगमिक साहित्य तथा व्याकरण साहित्य से उद्धरण मिलते हैं। इनमें बहुत से उद्धरण तो रचनाकाल की दृष्टि से सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति से पहले रचे गये ग्रन्थों में से हैं, परन्तु कुछ ऐसे भी हैं जो सर्वार्थसिद्धि के बाद लिखे गये ग्रन्थों में भी मिलते हैं, जबकि पूर्वकालीन ग्रन्थों में वे अभी तक प्राप्त नहीं हुए।
___ अर्धमागधी परम्परा (श्वेताम्बर सम्प्रदाय) में तत्त्वार्थभाष्य को स्वोपज्ञ (उमास्वातिकृत) माना जाता है। पं. नाथूराम प्रेमी आदि विद्वानों ने तुलनात्मक अध्ययन के आधार पर यह सिद्ध किया है कि सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति लिखते समय पूज्यपाद देवनन्दि के समक्ष उमास्वातिकृत स्वोपज्ञ भाष्य अवश्य रहा होना चाहिए। यद्यपि देवनन्दि ने अकलंकदेव या सिद्धसेनगणि की तरह तत्त्वार्थाधिगमभाष्य के पाठ अथवा उसकी मान्यताओं का विरोध या खण्डन नहीं किया है, तथापि दोनों में अनेक वाक्य एवं पद एक से मिल जाते हैं।
पं. फूलचन्द शास्त्री ने सर्वार्थसिद्धि और विशेषावश्यकभाष्य के कुछ पाठों की तुलना करके यह निष्कर्ष दिया है कि विशेषावश्यकभाष्य लिखते समय सर्वार्थसिद्धि उपस्थित रही होगी। परन्तु, यहाँ पर यह भी अनुमान किया जा सकता है कि कहीं सवार्थसिद्धिकार के सामने विशेषावश्यकभाष्य तो उपस्थित नहीं रहा। साथ ही पंडित फूलचन्दजी ने जिन वाक्यों की तुलना करके उक्त निष्कर्ष दिया है, उन वाक्यों को ध्यान से देखने पर यह नहीं लगता कि उनमें कोई विशेष समानता है। अतः इस मान्यता पर पुनर्विचार करने की आवश्यकता है।
अन्यान्य भारतीय लेखकों की तरह देवनन्दि का स्थितिकाल भी कम विवादास्पद नहीं है। विद्वद्गण अपनी-अपनी मान्यता के अनुसार, उन्हें ईसवीय 5वीं से 7वीं शताब्दी के मध्य रखते हैं। भिन्न-भिन्न विद्वानों द्वारा स्वीकृत निष्कर्षों पर ऊहापोह करके तथा कुछ अन्य तथ्यों के आधार पर प्रो. मधुसूदन ढांकी ने देवनन्दि का समय ईसवीय 635-680 निर्धारित किया है। इस आलेख में उक्त समय सीमा को ही आधार मानकर चर्चा की गई है।

Page #269

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की पूज्यपाद देवदिकृत सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति में उद्धरण 259 सर्वार्थसिद्धि कोशकार ने 'वृत्तिः' (वृत्+क्तिन्) का अर्थ भाष्य, टीका, विवृति आदि किया है
और दृष्टान्त रूप में काशिकावृत्ति को ग्रहण किया गया है। वृत्ति ग्रन्थ में सूत्रों के अर्थ की प्रधानता होती है। इसी कारण सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति में तत्त्वार्थसूत्र के अर्थ को प्रधानता से स्पष्ट किया गया है।
सिद्धान्ततः वृत्ति, भाष्य, चूर्णि, टीका आदि के स्वरूप या लक्षण स्वतंत्र निर्धारित हैं। पर व्यवहार में जैन परम्परा में ही नहीं अपितु भारतीय सन्दर्भ में भी, इसकी स्थिति कुछ पृथक् ही प्रतीत होती है। अकलंकदेव ने तत्त्वार्थाधिगमभाष्य का वृत्ति शब्द से उल्लेख किया है और आगे 'अयमभिप्रायो वृत्तिकारस्य' करके 'कालश्च' सूत्र का उल्लेख किया है। उन्होंने यहाँ पर 'वृत्तिकारस्य' शब्द से सर्वार्थसिद्धि का ग्रहण किया है।
जैन परम्परा में भी वृत्ति, भाष्य आदि का प्रयोग एकमेव हो गया प्रतीत होता है। यही कारण है कि न्यायकुमुदचन्द्र के कर्ता प्रभाचन्द्र ने तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक को भाष्य शब्द से संकेतित किया है। एक अन्य उदाहरण यह भी है कि अकलंकदेव ने लघीयस्त्रय पर स्वयं विवृति लिखी है। यह विवृति कारिकाओं की व्याख्या रूप न होकर उसमें सूचित विषयों की पूरक है। इसी प्रकार की पूरक वृत्ति धर्मकीर्तिकृत प्रमाणवार्तिक के स्वार्थानुमान परिच्छेद पर भी मिलती है। अकलंककृत एक अन्य ग्रन्थ की ऐसी विवृति का न्यायविनिश्चयविवरण के कर्ता वादिराजसूरि ने एक स्थान पर वृत्ति शब्द से और दूसरे स्थान पर चूर्णि शब्द से उल्लेख किया है। इससे प्रतीत होता है कि पुरातन आचार्य या ग्रन्थकार वृत्ति, विवृति, चूर्णि, भाष्य, वार्तिक आदि को सामान्यतः एक रूप मानते रहे हैं।
सर्वार्थसिद्धि में लगभग 85 उद्धरण मिलते हैं, जो वाक्य-वाक्यांश, पद्यपद्यांश, या गाथा-गाथांश के रूप में ग्रन्थान्तरों से लिये गये हैं। इनमें वेद से मात्र एक, षड्दर्शन, बौद्ध एवं चार्वाक मत से तेरह, प्राकृत जैन आगम, आगमिक एवं अन्य साहित्य से 21, जैन दार्शनिक संस्कृत साहित्य से सात, जैन आचारविषयक चार, लौकिक/साहित्यिक नौ एवं व्याकरण के 32 उद्धरण हैं।
इनमें एक उद्धरण वेद से है, जो भिन्न-भिन्न दो प्रसंगों में उद्धृत है-1. 'पुरुष एवेदं सर्वम्' इत्यादि कैश्चित् कल्प्यत' इति। 2. 'पुरुष एवेदं सर्वम्' इति वा नित्य एव अनित्य एवेति'। ये दोनों उद्धरण ऋग्वेद (10.90.1) से ग्रहण किये गये हैं।

Page #270

260 Studies in Umāsvāti
षड्दर्शन सर्वार्थसिद्धि में सात उद्धरण ऐसे हैं जो षड्दर्शनों से सम्बद्ध प्रतीत होते हैं। इनमें कुछ उद्धरणों का अर्धांश ही उस परम्परा की कृतियों में मिलता है एवं कुछ ऐसे हैं, जिनके स्रोत की जानकारी नहीं मिल सकी है1. 'चैतन्यं पुरुषस्य स्वरूपम्, तच्च ज्ञेयाकारपरिच्छेद-पराङ्मुखम्' इति।-1.0.2
(योगभाष्य 1.9 पर 'चैतन्यं पुरुषस्य स्वरूपमिति' पाठ मिलता है, लेकिन
शेषांश वहाँ पर नहीं मिलता।) 2. 'बुद्ध्यादिवैशेषिकगुणोच्छेदः पुरुषस्य मोक्षः' इति।-1.0.2 (वैशेषिक) 3. 'सन्निकर्षः प्रमाणम् इन्द्रियप्रमाणमिति केचित् कल्पयन्ति।'-1.10.166
(नैयायिक) 4. 'अक्षमक्षं प्रति यद् वर्तते तत्प्रत्यक्षमित्यभ्युपगमात'-1.12.178 (न्यायबिन्दु
टीका पृ. 19: 'अक्षमक्षं प्रति वर्तते तत्प्रत्यक्षम्'। 5. 'न तर्हि इदानीमिदं भवति, रूपं मया दृष्टं गन्धो वा घ्रातं' इति।- 1.17.198
(बार्हस्पत्य भाष्य, 1.1.4 में ,न तर्हि इदानीमिदं भवति' पाठ मिलता है,
पर शेष नहीं। 6. 'रूपादीनामेकं कारणममूर्तनित्यमिति केचित्कल्पयन्ति।'-1.32.237 (सांख्य) 7. 'अपरे पृथिव्यादिजातिभिन्नाः परमाणवश्चतुस्त्रिव्येकगुणास्तुल्य- जातीयानां
कार्याणामारम्भका' इति।-1.32.237 (नैयायिक) इस सम्बन्ध में मेरा विचार है कि सम्भवतः स.सि. वृत्तिकार ने या तो दर्शनान्तरों या ग्रन्थान्तरों से भाव मात्र लेकर अपने शब्दों में इन मतों का उल्लेख किया है अथवा वे मूल ग्रन्थ आज प्राप्त नहीं हैं, जिनसे ये वाक्य ग्रहण किये गये हैं।
बौद्ध
इसमें तीन (3) उद्धरण ऐसे हैं जो बौद्धदर्शन से सम्बद्ध हैं :
1. 'प्रदीपनिर्वाणकल्पमात्मनिर्वाणम्' इति च। 1.0.2 2. अथवा 'क्षणिकाः सर्वसंस्काराः' इति प्रतिज्ञा हीयते।-1.12.180
यह कारिका कई ग्रन्थों में उद्धृत पायी जाती है। तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक, 1.1.57 पर 'येषां मतं' करके इसका यही प्रथम चरण 'क्षणिकाः सर्वसंस्काराः' उद्धृत

Page #271

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की पूज्यपाद देवनंदिकृत सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति में उद्धरण 261 किया गया है। बोधिचर्यावतार, 9.7 की प्रज्ञाकरमतिकृत पंजिका व्याख्या पृष्ठ 187 में 'तथा' करके पूर्ण कारिका उद्धृत है, जो इस प्रकार हैक्षणिकाः सर्वसंस्काराः स्थिराणां च कुतः क्रिया। भूतियैषां क्रिया सैव कारकं सैव चोच्यते। इस कारिका की पहली पंक्ति कुमारिल के तन्त्रवार्तिक में उद्धृत की गई
है। भामती में दूसरी पंक्ति के 'यैषां' की जगह पर 'येषां' पाठ मिलता है। 3. अन्ये वर्णयन्ति
'पृथिव्यादीनि चत्वारि भूतानि, भौतिकधर्मा वर्णगन्धरसस्पर्शाः, एतेषां समुदायो रूपपरमाणुरष्टकं इत्यादि।' 1.35.237 (बौद्ध)
लोकायत इतरे वर्णयन्ति'पृथिव्यप्तेजोवायवः कठिन्यादिद्रवत्वाधुष्णत्वादीरणत्वादिगुणा जातिभिन्नाः परमाणवः कार्यस्यारम्भकाः'-1.32.237 (लौकायतिक)
इसी प्रकार से दो उद्धरण और मिलते हैं, जो दार्शनिक ग्रन्थों से लिये गये
हैं, इनके स्रोत का पता नहीं चल सका है। 1. 'सामान्यचोदनाश्च विशेषेष्वतिष्ठन्ते' इत्युक्ते विशेषे व्यवस्थितः परिगृह्यते।
7.17.695 2. 'सत्ताद्रव्यत्वगुणत्वकर्मत्वादि तत्त्वम्' इति कैश्चित्कल्प्यत इति। 1.2.12
जैन आगम एवं आगमिक साहित्य सर्वार्थसिद्धि में 21 उद्धरण जैन आगम, आगमिक तथा आगम स्थानीय ग्रन्थों से ग्रहण किये मिलते हैं। 1. आगमस्तावत्
'पुढं सुणेदि सदं अपुढें चेव पस्सदे रू। गंध रसं च फासं पुट्ठमपुटुं वियाणादि।' 1.19.203 इसी प्रकार की एक गाथा आवश्यकनियुक्ति में मिलती है। पंचसंग्रह में

Page #272

262 Studies in Umāsvāti
भी इसी तरह की एक गाथा पायी जाती है। नन्दीसूत्र 60, गा. 72-77 में यह कुछ शब्द-व्यत्यय के साथ मिलती है। तत्त्वार्थवार्त्तिक (त. वा.) में 1.19.2 पर भी उद्धृत पायी जाती हैउक्तं चबंधं पडिएयत्तं लक्खणदो हवइ तस्स णाणत्वं। तम्हा अमुक्तिभावो णेयंतो होइ जीवस्स। इति। 2.7.269
इस गाथा का स्रोत स्थल भी अभी तक अज्ञात है। यह गाथा प्रभाचन्द्र विरचित तत्त्वार्थवृत्तिपदम् में सूत्र संख्या 1/27 पर भी 'उक्तञ्च' करके उद्धृत की गई है। अन्तर मात्र यही है, वहां 'होइ जीवस्स' के स्थान पर 'हवदि जीवाणं' पाठ मिलता है।
सूत्र संख्या 2.10 की व्याख्या में पाँच गाथाएँ 'उक्तं च' करके उद्धृत है। ये पाँच गाथाएँ इस प्रकार हैं1. उक्तं च- 'सव्वे वि पुग्गला खलु कमसो मुव्बुज्झिया या जीवेण।
असई अणंतखुत्तो पुग्गलपरियट्टणसंसारे।।' 2.10.275 2. उक्तं च- 'सव्वम्मि लोयखेत्ते कमसो तं णत्थि जं ण उत्पण्णं।
ओगाहणाए बहुसो परिभमिदो खेत्तसंसारे।।' 2.10.2763. उक्तं च- 'उस्सप्पिपणि अवसप्पिणि समया वलियासु णिखसेसासु।
जादो मुदो य बहुसो भमणेण दु कालसंसारे।।' 2.10.277 4. उक्तं च-'णिरयादिजहण्णादिसु जाव दु उवरिल्लया दु गवेज्जा।
मिच्छत्तसंसिदेण दु बहुसो वि भवट्ठिदी भमिदा'।। 2.10.278 5. उक्तं च– 'सव्वा पयडिट्ठिदीओ अणुभाग पदेसबंधठाणाणि।
मिच्छत्तसंसिदेण य भमिदा पुण भावसंसारे।।' 2.10.279
ये पाँचों गाथाएँ किंचित पाठान्तर और क्रमभेद सहित कुंदकुंदाचार्य कृत रचना के रूप में प्रसिद्ध बारस अणुवेक्खा में क्रमशः गाथा संख्या 25 से 29 पर मिलती है। तथा षड्खण्डागम की धवलाटीका में भी क्रमशः 1.5.4/18, 1.5.4/23, 1.5.4/24, 1.5.4/25 एवं 1.5.4/26 पर उद्धृत मिलती है। परन्तु इनमें से कोई भी गाथा त.वा. में उद्धृत नहीं की गई है।
इसमें दो गाथाएँ ऐसी हैं जो 'आगमप्रामाण्याच्च तथाऽध्यवसेयम्। तदुक्तम्'

Page #273

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की पूज्यपाद देवनंदिकृत सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति में उद्धरण 263
हैं।
एवं 'उक्तं च' करके उद्धृत
1. ओगाढगाढणिचिओ पुग्गलकाएहि सव्वदो लोगो ।
सुहुमेहिं बादरेहिं अणंताणं तेहिं विवहेहिं । । 5.14.553
2. अण्णोण्णं पविसंता दिंता ओगासमण्णमण्णस्स ।
मेलंता विय णिच्चं सगसब्भावं ण जहंति ।। 5.17.557
ऐसी ही गाथाएँ कुंदकुंदविरचित एवं पंचत्थियसंगहसुत्तं में क्रमश: संख्या 64 एवं 7 पर मिलती हैं। इनमें पहली 'ओगाढगाढ' इत्यादि गाथा त. वा. में भी उद्धृत है। उद्धरण के उपक्रम वाक्य में सूचित किया गया है- सर्वज्ञानद्योतिततार्थसारं गणधरानुमतवचनरचनं शिष्यप्रशिष्यप्रबन्धाऽव्युपरमादव्युच्छिन्नसन्तानम् आर्षवितथमस्ति । उक्तं च
णिच्चिदरधादु सत्त य तरू दस वियलिंदिएसु छच्चेव । सुरणिरयतिरिय चउरो चोद्दससमणुए सदसहस्सा।। 2.32.234
यह गाथा बारसाणुवेक्खा में गाथा 35 पर मिलती है। मूलाचार की दो गाथाएँ 226 एवं 1106 तथा गोम्मटसार, जीवकाण्ड की गाथा संख्या 89 भी इसी प्रकार की हैं। यही गाथा: त.वा. में भी उद्धृत है। एक गाथा 'तस्याश्च संबंधे गाथां पठन्ति' करके उद्धृत है
'पुव्वस्स दु परिमाणं सदरिं खलु कोडिसदसहस्साइं । छप्पण्णं च सहस्सा बोद्धव्वा बासकोडीणं ।' 3.31.426
यह गाथा जम्बूद्वीपप्रज्ञप्ति में 13.12 पर भी मिलती है।
एक गाथा कल्पों के लक्षणों के विषय में 'उक्ता च संग्रहगाथा' करके उद्धृत की गई है। इसको उन्होंने स्वयं ही संग्रहगाथा कहा है, जो इस प्रकार है
'ववहारुद्धारद्वा पल्ला तिण्णेव होंति बोद्धव्वा ।
संखा दीव-समुद्दा कम्मट्ठिदि वण्णिदा तदिए । । ' 3.38.439
यह गाथा तिलोयपण्णत्ति (प्राय: ई. 550) की गाथा 94 से मिलती है। तिलोयपण्णत्ति की गाथा इस प्रकार है
ववहारुद्धारद्वा तियपल्ला पढयम्मि संखाओ ।
विदिए दीव समुद्धा तदिए मिज्जेदि कम्मठिदी।
यद्यपि इन दोनों गाथाओं के शब्दों एवं शब्दक्रम में बहुत अन्तर है,

Page #274

264 Studies in Umāsvāti
तथापि दोनों का अर्थ प्राय: एक सा है । जम्बूद्वीपप्रज्ञप्ति, 13, 36 पर भी यह गाथा मिलती है।
ज्योतिष्पिण्डों से व्याप्त आकाश प्रदेश का परिमाण बताते हुए 'उक्तं च ' करके एक गाथा दी गई है
णउदुत्तरसत्तसया दससीदी चदुगं तियचउक्कं ।
तारारविससिरिक्खा बहुभग्गबगुरू अंगिरारसणी ।। 4.12.465
ऐसे ही अर्थ वाली एक गाथा तिलोयसारो ( त्रिलोकसार) में उपलब्ध है, परन्तु दोनों के पाठों में बहुत अन्तर है ।
सूत्र संख्या 5.25 की वृत्ति में 'उक्तं च' करके एक गाथा उद्धृत है
'अंतादि अंतमज्झं अंतंतं णेव इंदियेगेज्झ ।
जं दव्वं अविभागी तं परमाणुं विआणाहि । । '
त.वा. 5.25। पर में भी यह गाथा 'उक्तं च' करके किंचित् पाठभेद पूर्वक उद्धृत पायी जाती है। इस तरह की गाथा कुन्दकुन्दकृत णियमसारो ( नियमसार) में क्रम संख्या 26 पर किंचित् पाठभेद के साथ मिलती है। तिलोयपण्णत्ति 1.987 पर भी इसी अर्थवाली गाथा किंचित् पाठान्तरादि के साथ प्राप्त होती है। इनमें नियमसार की गाथा इस प्रकार है
अत्तादि अत्तमज्झं अत्तंतं णेव इंदियग्गेज्झ ।
अविभागी जं दव्वं परमाणू तं वियाणाहि ।।
सूत्र संख्या 5.36.596 की वृत्ति में निम्नलिखित गाथा उद्धृत मिलती हैद्धिस्स णिद्धेण दुराधिएण लुक्खस्स लुक्खेण दुराधिए ।
णिद्धस्स लुक्खेण हवेइ बंधो जहण्णवज्जो विसमे समे वा ।।
यही गाथा त. वा. 5.36.2 पर 'उक्तं च' करके उद्धृत की गई है। यह गाथा किंचित् पाठान्तर के साथ छक्खंडागम, 5.6.36 पर तो मिलती ही है, गोम्मटसार, जीवकाण्ड में भी गाथा संख्या 614 के रूप में पायी जाती है।
सूत्रसंख्या 5.38.600 पर द्रव्य के लक्षण के प्रसंग में 'उक्तं च' करके एक गाथा दी गयी है
'गुण इदि दव्वविहाणं दव्वविकारो हि पज्जवो भणिदो ।
हि अणूणं दव्वं अजुदपसिद्धं हवे णिच्चं । । '
यह गाथा कहाँ से ग्रहण की गई है, यह ज्ञात नहीं हो सका है।

Page #275

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की पूज्यपाद देवनदिकृत सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति में उद्धरण 265 स.सि. 5.39.602 पर कालद्रव्य के अनेकत्व के प्रमाणस्वरूप 'उक्तं च' करके एक गाथा उद्धृत की गई है
'लोगागासपदेसे एक्केक्के जे ट्ठिया हु एक्केक्का। रयणाणं रासीव से कालाणू मुणेयव्वा।।'
यह गाथा गोम्मटसार, जीवकाण्ड में गाथा संख्या 589 एवं दव्वसंगहो में गाथा संख्या 22 पर प्राप्त होती है और ये दोनों ही ग्रन्थ सर्वार्थसिद्धि की रचना के बाद के हैं, अतः यह तो संभव नहीं है कि स.सि. ने इसे इन ग्रन्थों से ग्रहण किया हो, यह गाथा तो किसी प्रसिद्ध एवं सर्वार्थसिद्धि के पूर्व रचित ग्रन्थ से ली गई है।
सूत्र संख्या 7.1 की वृत्ति में 'उक्तं च' करके एक गाथा उद्धृत की गई हैअसिदिसदं किरियाणं अक्किरियाणं तह य होइ चुलसीदी। सत्तट्ठमण्णाणीणं वेणइयाणं तु बत्तीस।। 7.1.73
यह गाथा किंचित् पाठान्तर के साथ भावपाहुड 135 पर मिलती है एवं गोम्मटसार, कर्मकाण्ड पर यह गाथा 876 के रूप में भी उपलब्ध होती है।
सूत्रसंख्या 7.3 की वृत्ति में 'तथा चोक्तम्' करके एक गाथा उद्धत हैजोगा पयडि-पएसा ठिदि अणुभागा कसायदो कुणदि। अपरिणदुच्छिण्णेसु य बंधट्ठिदिकारणं णत्थि।। 7.3.736
उक्त गाथा एक तरफ मूलाचार में गाथा संख्या 244 पर मिलती है और मूलाचार निःसन्देह सर्वार्थसिद्धि से पूर्व की रचना मानी जाती है। दूसरी ओर पंचसंग्रह 4 एवं 507 तथा गोम्मटसार, कर्मकाण्ड में गाथा 257 पर प्राप्त होती है। वे दोनों ही ग्रन्थ सर्वार्थसिद्धि के बाद के माने जाते हैं।
जैनदर्शन
सर्वार्थसिद्धि में पाँच उद्धरण ऐसे आये हैं जो जैन ग्रन्थों से लिए गये प्रतीत
होते हैं परन्तु उनके स्रोत का अभी तक निश्चय नहीं हो सका है1. 'ज्ञानादेव चारित्रनिरपेक्षात्तत्प्राप्तिः श्रद्धानमात्रादेव वा,
ज्ञाननिरपेक्षाच्चारित्रमात्रादेव' इति च।-1.0.3 2. यथा 'उपयोग एवात्मा' इति।-1.4.20

Page #276

266
Studies in Umāsvāti
3. एवं ह्युक्तं 'प्रगृह्य प्रमाणतः परिणतिविशेषादर्थावधारणं नयः' इति।- 1.6.24 4. तथा चोक्तं-'सकलादेशः प्रमाणाधीनो विकलादेशो नयाधीनः' इति।- 1.6.
24
यही वाक्य अकलंकदेवकृत तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक (1.6.3) पर 'तथा चोक्तम्' करके इसी रूप में- 'सकलादेशः प्रमाणाधीनो विकलादेशो नयाधीनः' उद्धृत हुआ है। यही वाक्य आगे चलकर तत्वार्थवार्तिक 4.42.13 पर भी दो खण्डों में उद्धृत है। जैसे, सकलादेशः प्रमाणाधीनः' इति वचनात्। 'विकलादेशो नयाधीनः इति वचनात्।' 5. 'नान्यथावादिनो जिनाः' इति। 9.36.890
स. सि. में दो उद्धरण ऐसे हैं जो स्पष्टतः जैन साहित्य से लिये गये हैं। इनमें प्रथम का तो स्रोत निश्चय नहीं हो पाता परन्तु दूसरे का स्रोत मिल
जाता है। 1. स.सि., 1.12.179 पर 'अथानेकार्थग्राहि, यह प्रतिज्ञा करके एक कारिका
उद्धृत की गई है'विजानाति न विज्ञानमेकमर्थद्वयं यथा। एकमर्थं विजानाति न विज्ञानद्वयं तथा।' सा हीयते।
हरिभद्रसूरिकृत (ई. 745-785 में सक्रिय) शास्त्रवार्तासमुच्चय में यह कारिका बिना किसी उपक्रम वाक्य के क्रमसंख्या 332 पर ग्रन्थ के अंग रूप मिलती है। दोनों में अन्तर यही है कि शास्त्रवार्तासमुच्चय में इस कारिका का उत्तरार्ध पूर्वार्द्ध के रूप में मिलता है और पूर्वार्ध उत्तरार्ध के रूप में।
नेमिचन्द्र सिद्धान्तचक्रवर्तिकृत तिलोयसारो (त्रिलोकसार) में भी उक्त कारिका प्राकृत गाथा के रूप में पायी जाती है। वहाँ पर भी उद्धरण सूचक कोई संकेत नहीं है।
जैनाचार स. सि. में चार उद्धरण ऐसे हैं, जिन्हें जैनाचार विषयक माना जा सकता है। इनके स्रोत का भी स्पष्ट पता नहीं चलता। 2. उक्तं च-'वियोजयति चासुभिर्न च वधेन संयुज्यते।' 7.13.687
यह उद्धरण सिद्धसेन-दिवाकर कृत के रूप में प्रसिद्ध 'द्वात्रिंशिका' 3, 16

Page #277

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की पूज्यपाद देवनदिकृत सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति में उद्धरण 267 का एक चरण प्रतीत होता है।
सूत्रसंख्या 7.13 की वृत्ति में ही 'उक्तं च' करके दो गाथाएँ उद्धृत की गई हैं
'उच्चालिदम्हि पादे इरियासमिदस्स णिग्गमट्ठाणे। आवादे (धे) ज्ज कुलिंगो मरेज्ज तज्जोगमासेज्ज। ण हि तस्स तण्णिमित्तो बंधो सुहुमो वि देसिदो समए। मुच्छापरिग्गहो ति य अज्झप्पपमाणदो भणिदो।।' 7.13.687
इसी तरह की दो गाथाएँ प्रवचनसार, क्षेत्र 3, 16-17 पर मिलती हैं। प्रवचनसार (3-18) की जयसेन कृत वृत्ति में भी, ये दोनों गाथाएँ युगल रूप से उद्धृत की गई हैं।
उक्त दोनों गाथाएँ किंचित् पाठभेद के साथ सावयपन्नत्ती (श्रावकप्रज्ञप्ति) में पायी जाती हैं। यहाँ पर इनकी क्रमसंख्या 232 एवं 224 है
उच्चालियंमि पाए इरियासमियस्स संकमट्ठाए। वावज्जिज्ज कुलिंगी मरिज्ज तं जोगमासज्ज। न य तस्स तन्निमित्तो बंधो सुहुमो वि देसिओ समए। जम्हा सो अपमत्तो स उ पमाउ ति निछट्ठा।।
सावयपन्नत्ती सटीक उपलब्ध होती है। सावयपन्नत्ती किस की रचना है, इस विषय में मतभेद पाया जाता है और दोनों ही प्रकार के साधक प्रमाण उपलब्ध होते हैं। कुछ लोग इसे उमास्वातिकृत रचना मानते हैं, और हरिभद्रसूरि को मात्र टीकाकार। लेकिन कुछ लोगों की मान्यता है कि टीका तो हरिभद्र कृत है ही, मूल के कर्ता भी हरिभद्र सूरि ही हैं।
उच्चालियम्हि पाए इरिया समिदस्स णिग्गमत्थाए। आवाधेज्ज कुलिंग मरिज्ज तं जोगमासेज्ज।। ण हि तस्स तण्णिमित्तो बंधो सहमो य देसिदो समये। मुच्छापरिग्गहो च्चिय अज्झप्पपमाणदो दिट्ठो।। जुम्म।। स. सि. वृ. 7.13.687 पर "उक्तं च" करके एक गाथा दी गई हैमरदु व जियदु व जीवो अयदाचारस्स णिच्छिदा हिंसा। पयदस्स णत्थि बंधो हिंसामित्तेण समिदस्स।।

Page #278

268 Studies in Umāsvāti
___ यह गाथा प्रवचनसार 3.17 में भी मिलती है जो कि कुन्दकुन्दकृत प्रसिद्ध गाथाओं में से एक है। यही गाथा तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक में 7.13.12 पर "उक्तं च" करके उद्धृत मिलती है।
___ कुछ विद्वानों का अनुमान है कि यह गाथा द्वादशारनयचक्र के टीकाकार सिंहसूरि कृत है, परन्तु उसमें अभी तक मिल नहीं सकी है।
विद्वद्गण अपनी-अपनी शोध-खोज या मान्यता के अनुसार कुन्दकुन्द का स्थितिकाल ईसापूर्व प्रथम शती से ईसवीय आठवीं शती तक स्वीकृत करते हैं।
और यदि देवनन्दि (635-680) अपनी रचना सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति में कुन्दकुन्द कृत साहित्य से उद्धरण देते हुए पाये जाते हैं, तब कम से कम कुन्दकुन्द सर्वार्थसिद्धि के बाद कैसे ठहरेंगे?
प्रो. बंशीधर भट्ट, प्रो. चन्द्रभाल त्रिपाठी आदि मनीषियों की यह भी मान्यता है कि सर्वार्थसिद्धि में उद्धृत और विशेषतः कुन्दकुन्द विरचित ग्रन्थों में मिलने वाली गाथाएँ स्वयं सर्वार्थसिद्धिकार के द्वारा उद्धरित नहीं हैं, अपितु उन्हें बाद में जोड़ा गया है। इस मान्यता के समर्थन में उक्त विद्वानों की कौन-कौन सी युक्तियाँ हैं, यह मुझे मूल रूप से देखने को नहीं मिल सका। इस मान्यता का उल्लेख मैंने प्रो. एम. ए. ढांकी से हुई चर्चा के आधार पर किया है।
उक्त मान्यता को दृष्टि में रखकर जब मैंने सर्वार्थसिद्धिगत ऐसे सभी उद्धरणों को ध्यानपूर्वक देखा तो पाया - 1. सर्वार्थसिद्धि में जो गाथाएँ या अन्य उद्धरण दिये गये हैं, वे प्रसंग या सन्दर्भ
की माँग रहे हैं। 2. विशेष रूप से कुन्दकुन्दकृत साहित्य के रूप में प्रसिद्ध ग्रन्थों की जो
गाथाएँ सर्वार्थसिद्धि में उद्धृत मिलती हैं, उनमें की अधिकांश गाथाएँ उनके उत्तरवर्ती व्याख्याकार अकलंकदेव कृत तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक में यथास्थान उद्धृत
मिल जाती हैं। 3. अब यह तो माना नहीं जा सकता कि तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक के आधार पर
सर्वार्थसिद्धि के लिपिकारों या सम्पादकों ने उन्हें उद्धृत कर दिया है, क्योंकि
ऐसा कहने के लिए कोई प्रमाण नहीं है। 4. जहाँ तक सर्वार्थसिद्धि की हस्तलिखित प्रतियों का प्रश्न है, तो भारतीय
ज्ञानपीठ से प्रकाशित सर्वार्थसिद्धि के परिशिष्ट- 4 में उद्धृत वाक्यसूची देते समय सम्पादक पं. फूलचंद शास्त्री ने स्पष्ट लिखा है- "सर्वार्थसिद्धि में

Page #279

तत्त्वार्थसूत्र की पूज्यपाद देवनदिकृत सर्वार्थसिद्धिवृत्ति में उद्धरण 269 हस्तलिखित प्रतियों के आधार से गाथा, श्लोक या वाक्य उद्धृत मिलते हैं, वे किन ग्रन्थों के हैं या किन ग्रन्थों के अंग बन गये हैं यहाँ उन ग्रन्थों के नाम निर्देश के साथ यह सूची दी जा रही है। उनके इस कथन से यह सिद्ध है कि ये उद्धरण हस्तलिखित प्रतियों में यथावत् विद्यमान हैं। अतः यह कहना कठिन है कि ये उद्धरण सर्वार्थसिद्धिकार कृत नहीं हैं। 'तथा चोक्तम्'स्वयमेवात्मनात्मानं हिनस्त्यात्मा प्रमादवान्। पूर्व प्राण्यन्तराणां तु पश्चात्स्याद्वा न वा वधः।।' 7.13.687
यह कारिका तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक 7.13.12 पर भी 'तथा चोक्तम्' करके उद्धृत की गई है।
'उक्तं च'रागादीणमणुप्पा अहिंसगत्तं ति देसिदं समये। तेसिं चे उप्पत्ती हिंसेति जिणेहि णिद्दिट्ठा।' 7.22.705 यह गाथा तत्त्वार्थवार्तिक 7.22.7 पर भी 'उक्तं च' करके उद्धृत मिलती है।
इस गाथा का भावात्मक संस्कृत रूपान्तरण (अनुवाद) अमृतचन्द्रसूरि द्वारा रचित पुरुषार्थसिद्ध्युपाय में मिलता है, जो इस प्रकार है
अप्रादुर्भावः खलु रागादीनां भवत्यहिंसेति। तेषामेवोत्पत्तिः हिंसेति जिनागमस्य संक्षेपः।।44
इस अनुवादित पद्य एवं कई अन्य गाथाओं के अनुवादित पद्यों को देखकर ऐसा लगता है कि उक्त प्राकृत पद्य किसी प्राचीन ग्रन्थ के हैं और उनकी ही छाया पुरुषार्थसिद्ध्युपाय में है, क्योंकि सर्वार्थसिद्धि में उद्धृत पूर्वोक्त पद्य को अमृतचन्द्रसूरि कृत मानने से वे पूज्यपाद देवनन्दि से पहले के सिद्ध होंगे और उनको इतना प्राचीन मानने के लिए कोई प्रमाण नहीं है।
लौकिक आठ (8) उद्धरण ऐसे हैं जो साहित्यिक और लौकिक ग्रन्थों से लिये गये हैं। . इनके निर्देश स्थलों की अभी तक जानकारी नहीं हो सकी है।
1. 'क्षत्रिया आयाताः, सूरवर्माऽपि' इति। (1.4.19) 2. यथा 'अभ्रे चन्द्रमसं पश्येति'। (1.9.164)

Page #280

270 Studies in Umāsvāti 3. 'कारणसदृशं हि लोके कार्यं दृष्टम्' इति। (1.20.206) 4. यथा-'साधोः कार्यं तपःश्रुते' इति। (5.17.559) 5. उक्तं च
'न दु:खं न सुखं यद्वद्धतुर्दृष्टश्चिकित्सिते। चिकित्सायां तु युक्तस्य स्याद् दुःखमथवा सुखम्।' न दुःखं न सुखं तद्वद्धतुर्मोक्षस्य साधने,
मोक्षोपाये तु युक्तस्य स्याद् दुःखमथवा सुखम्'।। – (6.11.630) 6. यथा 'अन्नं वै प्राणाः' इति। (7.10.68) 7. यथा 'धनं प्राणाः' इति। (7.10.68) 8. यथा 'काकेभ्यो रक्ष्यतां सर्पिः'। (9.9.819)
व्याकरण सर्वार्थसिद्धि में 32 उद्धरण व्याकरण के हैं, जो पाणिनिकृत अष्टाध्यायी, कात्यायनकृत वार्तिक, पातंजल महाभाष्य, जैनेन्द्र व्याकरण आदि से ग्रहण किये गये हैं। इन उद्धरणों में चार सूत्रवाक्य ऐसे हैं, जिनके स्रोत की जानकारी नहीं मिलती। ये चार सूत्रवाक्य इस प्रकार हैं
1. 'प्रत्यासत्तेः प्रधानं बलीयः।' 1.3.16 2. 'आविष्टलिंगाः शब्दा न कदाचिल्लिंग व्यभिचरन्ति।' 5.2.529 3. तथा चोक्तम् 'क्व भवानास्ते। आत्मनि' इति। 5.12.549 4. सर्वेषु भवेषु सर्वतः 'दृश्यन्ते अन्यतोऽपि'इति तसि कृते सर्वतः।
___8.24.780 इस प्रकार आचार्य पूज्यपाददेवनन्दिकृत सर्वार्थसिद्धि नामक तत्त्वार्थवृत्ति एक महत्त्वपूर्ण प्राचीन टीका ग्रन्थ है। इसमें जो उद्धरण मिलते हैं वे विविध विधाओं से सम्बन्धित तो हैं ही, ऐतिहासिक एवं सांस्कृतिक दृष्टि से भी अत्यन्त महत्त्वपूर्ण हैं। इन उद्धरणों के आधार पर आगे भी तुलनात्मक एवं ऐतिहासिक दृष्टि से अध्ययन किया जा सकता है और इतिहास की लुप्त एवं टूटी कड़ियों को जोड़ा जा सकता है।

Page #281

Index
Akalankadeva, Bha 9, 31, 32, 42, 45,
82, 101, 117, 118, 121, 147, 149, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 178, 180, 184, 189, 194, 206, 209, 211, 251, 259, 268
Abandoning a thing fit to be abandoned
(vivege) 113 Abandoning unfit articles
(vyutsarga) 110 Abhavya 43, 115 Abhayadevasūri 4, 80, 85, 189, 251 Abhayanandisūri 80, 85, 206 Abhinibodha 251
Abhiniveśa
142
Absence of discipline (avirati) 29 Absence of right faith (mithyātva) 29 Absolute knowledge (Brahmjñāna) 114 Absolutism of existence 135 Acanna 172, 186 Act of holding (dhāraņā) 114 Activity (karma) 31 Activity (yoga) 29,72 Adharma dravya 249 Adhigamaja 213 Adhikarana 96 Adholoka 234
Akalpya 234 Akaṣāya (devoid of passion) 34 Akaņāya yoga 76, 142 Aksara-śrutāvarana 33 Aloka 239 Amrtacandrasūri 45, 46, 53, 129,
132, 269 Analytic (dharmya) 110 Ananta 239, 239, 244 Anantadarśana 49 Anantajñāna 47, 49 Anantakarmānsa 223 Anantanātha carite 187 Anantanāthapuranam 182, 186 Anantasukha 47
Anantasakti 44
Adhyātma-mata-parīksā 50 Adhyātmi-Bālacandra 166 Adventures of Ideas 103, 104, 105 Aggala 181, 182, 185 Aggregate (skandha) 84 Aghāti karma 88, 233 Ahimsā 142, 150 Airyapathika 80 Ajātivāda 131 Ajīvakāya 245, 248
Anantavisamyoga 223 Anantaviyojaka 222, 223, 225 Anantavīrya 44, 49 Anantānubandhī visamyoga 73, 222, - 226, 233 Anapavartita 234 Anatiśaya 244 Anākāra upayoga 238 Anākula 46 Anekānta, union of opposites 105,
135

Page #282

272 Studies in Umāsvāti
Anger (krodha) 73 Antarmuhurta 83 Antarāyakarma 43, 45, 46, 47, 51,
218, 233, 244 Anubhāga 83, 84, 242 Anumānapramāņa 251 Anupama 41, 244 Anuttara 244 Anuttaraupapātika deva 85 Anuyoga 205 Anuyogadvāra (text) 96, 97, 99, 100,
101, 192, 249 Anuyogadvāra (disquisition door) 42,
95, 96, 100, 101, 250 AN Whitehead 103 Aņicca (anitya) 202 Anu 239 Aņuvekkhā (Anupreksā) 202 Anuvratadhāri 223 Aparigraha 101, 142 Apramattasamyata 226 Apratihata 244 Apratyākhyānāvarana 221, 224, 233 Arhat 40 Arhat Vardhamāna 2 Arthaprakāśikā 207 Arunopapāta Ocean 149 Asamkhyāt 150 Asamkhyeya 239 Asātā- vedanīya 43, 47 Asmitā 142 Assembly Hall (Samavasarana) 43 Asteya 142
Astikāya 130, 240, 248 Aśubha bhāva 143 Aśubha karma 219 Asukla Krsna 143 Asamada 231 Aşasahasrī 212 Asādhyāyi 270 Aticāra 42 Atiśaya 244 Atomist view 106 Attachment (rāga) 73 Attributes 136 Audayika bhāva 44, 87, 238 Audārika śarīra 234 Aupaśamika bhāva 238 Auspicious 29, 33 Auspicious yoga 33, 34 Austerity (tapas) 110 Authority of the scriptures
(āgama- pramāna) 41 Auxiliary (nimitta) causation Avadhijñāna 143, 218 Avagāhana 239, 240 Avasthā-parināma 137
138
Avidyā 142
Avirata 226 Aviratasamyagdrsi 225 Avirati 142, 202, 250 Avitarka 135 Avyābādha (avvābāham) 39, 40, 41,
44, 51, 52, 53, 58 Avyābādha-guņa 53 Avyābādha-sukha 42, 50, 52

Page #283

Index
273
Bārasānuvekkhā 262, 263 Becoming 125 Beginningless transformation
(anādi pariņāma) 55 Being 125 Bhadrabāhul, Caturdaśapūrvi
176, 222 Bhadrabāhu II 222 Bhagavad Gītā 114
175,
Bhagavatīsūtra 40, 81, 86, 126, 145,
148, 217, 222 Bhāskaranandi 161, 206
Ayogi 224 Ayogikevalī (n) 32, 86, 223 Ācārānganiryukti 41, 222 Ācārāngasūtra I 74, 75, 78, 121, 129
130, 217, 222 Ādipurāņam 172, 182, 184 Āgamapramāna 41 Ājīvikas 87 Akāśa 146, 239 Aksepani 236 Ālāpapaddhati 136 Āptaparīksā 180, 212 Ārambha 75 Ār(ri)yadeva 156, 158, 177, 178, 179 Āryanuta 182 Asrava (inflow) 30, 35, 76, 141, 245 Asrava nirodha 76 Ātapa 240 Ātma-pradeśa 234 Ātma-viśuddhi 48, 58 Āyu(sya) karma 42, 51, 85, 86, 233,
234, 261, Āyukarma for next life
(parabhava ãyu) 86 Āvaranīya karma
Āvasyakaniryukti 51, 261 Balākāpincchācārya 173, 179 Bandha 245 Bādara (gross) 83 Bādarasampradāya 226 Bāhubali Pandita 182 Bălcandradeva, Adhyātmi 165, 166,
167, 168, 180,185 Bālacandra, Maladhāri 166, 206
Bhāsya-Tarkānusarini 207 Bhāvanā 231 Bhoga 48 Bhuvikarma 160 Bhūtabali 203, 205 Black body (krsnarāji) 149 Black body (tamaskāya) 142, 148 Bliss (saukhyam) 46 BL Rice 160 Bodhicaryāvatāra 261 Bodhidurlabha 243 Bodily activity (kāya yoga) 88 Bondage (bandha) 48, 71, 72 Boppana-pandita 166 Boika 2 Brahmacarya 142 Brahmajñāna 114
Brahmaloka 149
Brahman 152 Brahmanical darśana 26 Brahmin Somila 40

Page #284

274 Studies in Umāsvāti
Brahmasutra 190
Brahmasiva 172, 181, 182, 185
Bṛhadaranyaka Upanisad 151
Buddha 151
Buddhi 135, 139, 140
Buddhism 101, 151
Buddhist 48, 100, 125, 192
Candrakula 4
Candraprabha carite 173
Candraprabha-puraṇam 181, 182, 185
Candrarşi 223
Caraṇānuyoga 202
Careful inspection of articles received (viveka) 110
Carefulness (samiti) 73, 77
Care in walking (īryā samiti)
Carelessness (pramāda) 74, 77 Causation (nimitta) 138
Camuṇḍarāya 161, 172, 178, 180, 184
Caritra 51
Căritra-moha 222
Caritra-mohaniya 43, 48, 55, 56, 73,
161
Căritrātmā 143, 235
Cārvāka 259
Căturyāma 143
Cessation (nirjarā) 105, 125
Change of Quality (dharma pariņāma) 137
Changing (parināmin) 140
Chando^nuśāsana 159
Chandogya Upanisad 151
Checking all the activities of the body (viussagge) 113
Cikitsāśāstra 207 Cikka-Padmanna Setty 187
Cirantanamuni 189, 207, 216
Cognition (pramāṇa) 191 Combined confession and repentance -(tadubhaya) 109
Comfort (upabhoga) 43
Compassion (anukampā) 48
Consciousness (caitanya) 48
Conduct (căritra) 191
Confessing transgression (alocana) 109
Consciousness (caitanya) 48, 106, 140
Contemplation on scripture (ānāvicae) 113
Conventional or metaphorical way (upacāra) 53
Correct recitation (amnaya) 110 Cosmic garbha 149
Cosmic man 145, 146, 149, 152
Cosmic woman
147
Cosmology 8
Cosmography 8
Covered (āvṛta) 54
Cūḍāmani, Kannada c.omm. 157, 158, 178
Cūḍāmani, head-jewel 158
Cūḍāmani, poem, 158, 159
Cycle of birth (janmacakra) 30 Cycle of death (mṛtyucakra) 30 Dandākāra 234
Dandi 158, 159
Darśanakṣapaka 223
Śrīvardhadeva 157,

Page #285

Index
275
Darśanamoha 222, 226 Darśanamohaksapaka 222, 223, 226 Darśana-mohanīya 43, 48, 55, 56 Darśanātmā 235 Darśanāvaraña 43, 44, 46, 218, 233,
244 Darśanopayoga 218 Dasabhakti 207 Daśakalpa 235 Daśakumāracarite 159 Daśavaikālikasūtra 75, 148, 246 Dānaprakarana 4 Decay (vyaya) 136 Deceitful manipulation (māyā) 73 Deep meditation on emancipation
(anamtavattīyānuppehā) 113 Defiled transformation
(vibhāva-parināma) 55 Defilement (vibhāva) 46, 56 Delusion (moha) 55 Delusion-producing (mohanīya) 55 Destruction (pralaya) 131 Deśavirata 226 Deśavirati 223 Deśāvakāśika vrata 241 Deśigagana 165, 181 Devanandi, Pūjyapāda 136, 162, 173,
258 Devasena 136 Devendrakīrti 176 Devendrasūri 223 Dhananjaya 230 Dharmabhūşaņa 161, 162 Dharmakāya 151, 249
Dharmadhyāna 243 Dharmakīrti 212, 259 Dharmanāthapurānam 182 Dharma-pariņāmav137 Dharmaparīkse 173, 179, 186 Dharma-prakarana 5 Dharma-prcchā 225 Dhavalā 83, 99, 100, 101, 171, 172,
184, 197, 262 Dhāranā 114, 115 Dhrauvya 240, 241 Dhyāna 5, 114, 115, 231 Dinnāga 163 Digvrata 241 Direct knowledge (pratyakşa
jñāna) 140, 194 Directness 194 Discursive knowledge 128 Disgust (jugupsā) 73 Distinction-cum-non-distinction
(kathañcit bhedābheda) 138 Divākaranandi-Bhaāraka 164, 165,
166, 172 Doctrine of Anekānta, union of
opposites 105 Doctrine of the Jainas 147 Dogmatism 105 Doing work by the permission of guru
(padipucchanā) Dravya-sangraha 166 Dravya vedanīya 52 Dravyānuyoga 202 Dravyāstika 127, 128 Dravyātmā 235 Dryness (rukṣa) 84

Page #286

276
Studies in Umāsvāti
157, 171, 178,
Drşivāda 78 Dual 105
Gļddhapr(in)icchācārya
179
Dualism 105, 150 Dualist 138
10
Dualistic Pluralism
130
Dukhaksaya 39
Dupadupikāvrtti
Tattvārtha-bhāsya-laghuvrtti 206,
216 Duration (sthiti) 73, 74 Dvādaśāranayacakra 267 Eager for protecting worldly objects
(sārakkhānubandhi) 112 Efficient cause (nimitta) 74 Ekatvavitarka 35
Emancipation (mukti) 40,113
Energy (vīrya) 54, 72 Enlightened world-view (darśana) 110 Essays in Science and Philosophy 104 Evil actions (pāpa) 34 Exposition (anuyoga) 21 Faint heart (osanna dose) 112 Falsehood (mithyātva) 29 Feeling (vedanā) 43, 53 Feeling sorrow (soyanatā) 112 Fellow monastics (samanojña) 114 Figuratively (upacaratah) 52 Flavour (anubhāga) 33 Free from affliction (avvahe) Free from bewilderment
(asammohe) 113 Fruit (vipāka) 40 Fruition (vipāka) 44, 51, 87 Function 140
Gandhahastī / Siddhasena 161, 189 Gandhahasti-mahābhāsya 161, 162,
184, 206 Gandhahasti, Siddhasenagani 3 Gana 2 Gautama(svāmī) 126 Generic stand-point 31 Ghāti karma 42, 45, 47, 54, 56, 80,
85, 87, 233, 246 Gommaa-jina-stuti 166 GommaasāraJivakānda 165, 166,
248, 263, 264, 265 Gommaasāra- Karmakānda 83, 265 Good actions (punya) 34 Good bone-joints 110 Gotra karma 42, 233 Graiveyaka (neck) 148, 235 Greed (lobha) 73 Grünwedel's Alt-Kutscha 147 Grddha-dīpikā 193 Grddhapr(in)ccha 171, 179, 181,
197, 203 Gunanandi/Pūjyapāda 207 Gunasthāna 35, 48, 53, 56, 81, 87,
115, 225, 247 Gunaśreņi 221, 222, 224, 225 Gunavarma II 182, 186 Gupti 141, 142 Gūļārthadīpikā 193 Hagiological list (sthavirāvali)
Hand-broom (rajoharana)
Hardship (parīşaha) 52, 85 Haribhadrasūri, Yakinīputra 4, 35,

Page #287

Index
277
132, 147, 149, 188, 206, 207, 229,
230, 245, 266, 267 Harigupta Vācaka 8 Harikesi-adhyayana 3 Harmaless souls, Paul Dundas 77 Hastimalla 161 Hahayogin 34 Hatred (dveșa) 73, 78 Hemacandrasūri 188, 251
Influx (äsrava) 72 Ingress (āsrava) 31 Injurious thought activity
(himsānu-bandhi) 112 Innate qualities 42 Inscription of Hombuja 156 Inscription of Śravanabelagola 157 Intensity (anubhava/anubhāga) 74 Intensity of fruition
(anubhava/anu-bhāga) 74 Interlocking bones on one side
and pin on the other 110 Interlocking of bones on both
sides 110 Interlocking of bones on both sides,
strengthened with pin and plate 110
114
Highest heavenly abodes
(anuttarau- papātikadevas) Hindu Yogaśāstra 114 Hiranyagarbha 114, 135 Hinayāna 151
Interlocking of bones on one side
with half pin and half plate or interlocking of bones with
pin 110 Intuition (darśana) 48, 54
Hombuja 156, 177, 187 Homogeneous aggregates
(astikāyas) 130 Householder(śrāvaka) 77 Idealistic system 125 Ignorance (ajñāna) 50 Impermanence 136 Inadvertence (pramāda) 35 Inauspicious yoga 32, 33 Indirect (parokşa) 140 Indirectness (paroksatā) 194 Indrabhūti 127 Indranandi 159, 160, 184 Infinite energy/ virility
(ananta-vīrya) 44 Infinite happiness (ananta-sukha) 51 Infinite knowledge (ananta-jñāna) 46 Infinite power (ananta-sakti) 44 Infinite spiritual bliss
(paramānanda) 45
Irreversible stillness of the soul
(vyu-parata kriyā nivrtti) 112 Isopadeśa 207 īryāpatha [bandha) karma 34,76, 79,
80, 82, 84, 85 Īryāpatha kriyā 76, 79, 80, 81 īśvara 141 Īsatprāgbhārā 235 Jaina Bible 22 Jaina cosmography 28 Jaina cosmology 28 Jaina loka 46, 47, 147, 149, 152 Jaina Path of Purification 21
Jainendra Siddhānta Kośa
146

Page #288

278
Studies in Umāsvāti
Jainendranyāsa 207 Jainendravyākarana 207, 211, 270 Jalakāya 218 Jambūdvīpa 235 Jambūdvīpaprajñapti 165, 263 Jambūdvīpasamāsa 1 Janghā-carana 173 Janna 172, 182, 186 Jaāsimhanandi 183 Javanijjam 40 Jayadhavalā 247 Jayakīrthi 159 Jayasena 46, 53, 165, 267 Jāti 143 Jina-candra-Bhaāraka 163 Jinasenādeśavrati 181, 187 Jinābhiseka 207
Kalpya 234 Kamalabhava 186 Kapāākāra 234 Karaṇānuyoga 202 Karmayoga 114 Karmic body (kārmana śarīra) 73 Karmic bondage 79, 85 Karnaparyāya 172, 182, 185 Karnāalaghuvrtti 165 Karunā 142 Kaşāya 48, 78, 142, 202, 250 Kasāyaprābhỉta/Kasāyapāhuda 247 Kasāyavijaya 231, 253 Kasāyātmā 235 Kārmana śarīra 42, 234 Kārttikeyānupreksā 224 Kāśikāvrtti 259 Kātyāyana 270 Kävyādarśa 159 Kãya-yoga 32, 86, 234 Kevala-căritra 48 Kevala-darśana 43, 47, 234 Kevalajñāna 43, 47, 119, 121, 218,
233, 234, 245, 247 Kevala-samyaktva 41, 47, 48, 234 Kevali(n) 41, 42, 123, 135 Kevali samudghāta 88, 120, 121, 150 Knowledge (ñāna) 54 Kondakundānvaya 9, 165 Krisna-III (935-65), the Rastrakuta
king 178 Krta-kārita-anumodita 135 Ksapaka 223
Jinendrabuddhi/Pūjyapāda 162, 207
Jiva varna (colour of the soul) 87 jñāna 43, 119, 143 Jñānacandra carite 187 Jñāna guna 55 Jñānayoga 114 Jnānātmā 235 Jñānāvaraña 43, 135, 218, 244, 246 Jñānāvaranīya 50, 54, 55, 233 Jñānopayoga 218 Jodī- Basavanpura 159 Jugupsā 233
Jyotiska 143, 149 Kaivalya 135 Kallinātha-purāņam
181

Page #289

Index
279
Laghu-Samantabhadra 181 Laksana parināma 137 Laksmideva 206
Ksapanaka 2 Ksapakaśreņi 231 Ksaya 33 Ksayopaśama 32, 33, 44, 221, 222,
224 Ksāyika bhāva 43, 238 Ksāyika cāritra 41, 43, 48, 50 Ksāyika darśana 50 Ksāyika dāna 43 Kṣāyika- jñāna 50, 58 Kṣāyika qualities 58 Ksäyika samyaktva 43, 48, 50, 51 Ksāyika sukha 51 Kṣāyika vīrya 50, 58 Ksāyopaśamika 238 Kșetrasamāsa 1,9 Kșīņa 223 Kșīnakasāya 226 Ksīnaklesa 135 Ksīnamoha 223
Lamenting (kamdanatā) 112 Latent (śānta) 137 Laxmidhar 189 Lay vow (anuvrata) 73 Lābha 43 Lābhāntarāya karma 43, 47,53 Leśyā (colouring) 87, 252 Liar (mosānubandhi) 112 Liberated (siddha) 39, 48 Limitless past (anantänubandhi) 73 Loka 146, 239 Loka -mastaka 148 Lokapurusa 147 Lokavyāpī 234 Lokākāśa 152, 154, 234, 239 Lowering of ascetic seniority
(cheda) 110 Madhyaloka 234 Mahābala 186 Mahābhārata 135 Mahābhāsya 194 Mahāvīra 121, 127 Mahāvrata 57, 135, 142 Mahāyogī, Řşabha 135 Mahāyāna 151, 152 Maitrīm 142 Mallavādi 8,9 Mallisena-prasasti 157 Manahparyāya 143, 218 Mangarasa III 181, 187
Kula 2 Kulamada 235 Kumārila Bha 212, 261 Kumudacandra-bhaāraka 45, 165 Kumudendu 172, 182, 186 Kunda (Konda) kunda 9, 45, 46, 47,
50, 52, 53, 54,119, 165, 176, 177, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 205, 247,
262, 267, 268, Lack of self-discipline (avirati) 74 Ladder of spiritual progress
(gunasthāna) 56 Laghīyastraya 259 Laghubhāsāvacanikā 207

Page #290

280 Studies in Umāsvāti
Manogupti 142
Mano-yoga 141, 234
Mathanyākāra 234
Mathura Synod 5
Mati-jñāna 104, 218
Mati-jñānāvarana 33
Matter (pudgala) 120, 138
Maturing of karma (karmavipäka) Mayurapicchācarya 179
Madhyasthya 231, 253
Mānasakarma 141
Manatungācārya 8
Mātṛkāpadāstika 127
Meditation (dhyāna) 109, 114
Memory (smrti) 140
Mendicant duties (iriyāvahiyā kriyā) Mendicant vow (mahāvrata) 73 Mental activity (manoyoga) 30 Metaquality 44
Middle World (madhyaloka) 146, 150 Mithyādṛṣi 55, 56, 223
Mithya-darśana 55, 56, 142
Mithyātva 56, 202, 250
Mīmānsā-ślokavārttika 212
Modes (paryāya) 136
Mohaniya 46, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 74, 87,233
Mohāvarana 52, 135
Mokṣa (liberation) 39, 141, 150, 245
Mokṣadharma, a section of the
Maha-bharata 87
Mokṣasukha 208
Mokṣaśāstra 161, 164, 167, 168
Momentariness (kṣaṇikatā) 135
Mournful (ārta) 110
Mudita 142
Mukta 238
Multiple contemplation (prthaktva vitarka) 112
Municandrasuri 4
Mülaprakṛti 86
Mūlācāra 74, 165, 265
Naiyāyika 194, 211
Nandisūtra 191, 261
Nandisangha Paavali 198
Napumsakaveda 233
Navatattva 193
Navya- Nyaya 193
Naya 104, 191
Nayajñāna 192
Nayakīrti siddhantadeva 165
Nagacandra 181
Nāgarāja 186
Nāma karma 42, 43, 233 Näthayogins 34
Negligence (pramāda) 29, 129 Nemicandra Siddhantacakravarti 166, 172, 182, 183, 185, 266
Nemijineśa -Sangati/Harivamsa 181, 186
Neminathacarite/Salva Bhārata 183,
186
Neminathapurānam 182, 183, 185, 186
Next life-span (parabhava ayu) 86, 87 Nigoda-jīva 54
Nigrāhaka 232
Niravaśesa 244

Page #291

Nirdeśa 95, 96
Nirdvandva 50
Nirjarā 84, 225, 245
Nirukta 132
Nirvāṇa 48
Nirvedani katha 236
Nirvicāra 135
Nisaragaja 213
Nityatva 240, 241
Nitya- udghāita Jñāna 54
Niyamasāra 200, 201, 264
Nītisāra 184
No-indriya matijñānāvaraṇa 33
No-karma-vargaṇā 43
No-kaṣāya 48, 56
Non- Absolutism 130, 180 Non- abstinence 29 Non-control (avirati) 35
Non distinct (abhinna) 46
Non-dualist 138
Non-existence 135
Non-karmic matter
43
Non-possession (aparigraha) Non- logicians 194
Non-universe
148
Nyaya 101
Nyāyadīpikā 161, 162 Nyāyakumudacandra 259
Nyāyasūtra, Gautama 190
Nyāyaviniścaya-vivarana 259
Object 39
Obscurations (avaraṇas) 54, 55
Omniscience (kevalajñāna) 50
Index 281
Omniscience (sarvajñatva/ keval Jñāna) 43, 50, 51, 56, 85, 121
Omniscient (kevali) 120,128
Omniscient-with-activity
(sa-yoga-kevali) 30
Ontological validity 136
Oral 30
Oral activity (väg yoga) 30
Origination (Utpada) 105, 136
Own-nature (svabhāva) 56
Paccaya 97, 98
Padartha 245
Padmanandi, Acārya 9, 176
Painful (asātā) 43, 51
Pampa, Adipurāṇam 172, 178, 180, 182, 184
Pañcasangraha 261, 265
Pañcatthiyasangahasutta 263
Pañcāśaka 4
Pañcāstikāya 165, 249
Pañcāstikāyasāra 200, 201, 248
Pannatti 149
Parabhava ayu 86
Parallelism 139
Paraloka 235
Parama audārika śarīra 53
Paramaśubha 52
Paramānanda 46
Paramātma- prakāśike 166
Parigraha 75
Pariņāmi- nityatā 138, 201
Partial destruction and partial
suppression (kṣayopasama) 45
Partial renunciation

Page #292

282 Studies in Umāsvāti
(apratyākhyānā varana) 73 Paryāyāstika 131 Paryusaņā kalpa 2 Passion (kaşāya) 34, 72, 73 Patañjali 139, 140, 143 Patency (samskāra) 140 Patrapariksā 212 Payanavarni 172, 181, 187 Pānini 270 Pāpāsrava 247 Pāriņāmika bhāva 238 Pārśva carite 184 Pārsvanātha 143
Prabhācandra 206, 251, 259 Pracitta jñāna 143 Pradeśa bandha 83, 84, 242 Prajñākaramati 261 Prajñāpanāsūtra (Pannavaņā) 78, 222 Prakrti bandha 83 Pramattasamyata 226 Pramā 192 Pramāda 78, 142, 202, 250 Pramāna 95, 118, 151, 191, 192 Pramāna-mīmāmsā 189, 251
Pārsvanāthacarita 198
Pramāna-parīksā 212 Pramāņa sangraha 173 Pramānavārtika 209, 212, 259 Pranava or Omkāra 141 Pranidhāna 213 Praśama 231, 253
Pārsvanāthapurānam 183, 186 Pārsvapandita 183, 186 Pātañjala Mahābhāsya 270 Pātañjala Yogasūtra 35 Pātraisanā 232 Penance 109 Perfect absorption in meditation
(samadhi) 114 Perfect conduct (yathākhyāta caritra)
73, 85 Perfect knowledge (keval jñāna) 128 Persistence 136 Physical activity (kāya yoga) 30 Pīhabandha 231 Plato 106 Pleasant (sātā) 43 Pleasurable feeling (sātā-vedanīya) 44 Politeness (maddave) 113 Possession (parigraha)
Praśamaguna 253 Praśamaratiprakarana 1, 2, 5, 41,
120,215, 229, 230, 232, 235, 252,
253, Prasamasukha 253 Pratyabhijñāna 251 Pratyākhyānāvarana 222 Pravacanasāra (Pavayana) 165, 200,
201, 266, 267
Pride (māna) 73
Primeval cause 140 Primordial state 139 Proper view of reality
(samyag darśana) 73 Prthaktva vitarka 35 Pịthvīkāya 218 Pudgala 32, 248

Page #293

Pudgala karma 241 Punyāsrava 186, 247
Pure conduct (samyak-cāritra) 57
Index 283 Reordination (upasthāpana) 110 Repenting past deeds
(pratikramana) 109 Restraining of breath
(prāņāyāma) 114 Restraining of organs
(pratyāhāra) 114 Reverence (humility) 109, 110 Rise (udaya) 51, 87 Rising (udita) Rgveda 34, 151, 259 Rsabha 135 Sabhāsya-Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra
1, 2, 3 Sadasukhadasa, Pt. 207
Pure consciousness 46 Pure non-conventional view
(śuddha niscaya-naya) 46 Purest conduct (ksāyika-cāritra)
Puruşa or Original man 138 Purusa-sūkta hymn, Rg-veda 151 Purusaveda 233 Purusārthasiddhupāya 269 Puspadanta 203, 205 Puspadantapurāņam 182, 186 Pūjyapāda, Devanandi 8, 30, 42, 44,
47, 48, 49, 52, 74, 82, 99, 101, 118, 149, 155, 161, 162, 180, 184,
198, 206, 208, 209, 269, 270 Pūrva 78 Purvapratipanna 225 Purva-videhaksetra 181 Quantity of karmic matter
(pradeśa) 74 Questioning (prcchanā) 110 Rajas 140 Rajoharana 2 Ratnaprabhā 150 Ray of discrimination
(viveka/ bheda-vijñāna) 54 Rājavārtika or Tattvārtha-vārtika 31,
61, 161
Sakasāya yoga 75, 142 Salva 172, 183, 186 SalvaBhārata/Neminātha carite
183,
186
Samacaturasra 246
Samantabhadra 8, 9, 96, 121, 122,
155, 156, 161, 184, 206 Samavasarana (Holy assembly) 43 Samavāyāngasūtra 35 Samaya Parīkse 181, 182, 185 Samayasāra 129, 165, 199, 200 Samadhi 114 Samadhitantra 207 Sambhavanandi 168 Samudghāta 120, 231, 234 Samyagdarśana 48, 56, 101, 112, 245 Samyagdrși 221, 224, 253 Samyak 223 Samyaktva 48, 223, 233
Rāmacandra-carita-purānam
181
Rāmāyana 182, 186 Reality / Sarvārthasiddhi 23
110
Reflection (anupreksā) Renunciation 109

Page #294

284 Studies in Umāsväti
Samyaktva Adhyayana (Chapter of Acārānga- Niryukti) 222
Samyaktva- Mohaniya 222, 233
Samyaktva utpatti 223
Samjvalana 82, 233
Samkhyeya 239
Samkleśa 247
Samkṣepa śloka 39, 41
Samlīnatā 243
Samvara 35, 142, 245
Samyama 142
Samvedani katha 236
Samvuḍa anagāra 81
Sangrahani verses 7
Sanmatitarkaprakarana 215
Sangrahaṇī-gāthā (samkṣepa-slokas Akalanka)
Sarvajña 119, 122
Sarvavirati 223
Sarvärthasiddhi 30, 42, 73, 161, 162, 167, 184, 198, 199, 206, 207, 208, 209, 213, 214, 257, 258, 260, 261, 265, 268, 269, 270
Sarvarthasiddhi-vṛtti 257,258,259 Sarvästivādin, Buddhist 48
Sattva 140
Saudharma 235
Savicara 135
Savitarka 135
Sayogi 224
Sa-yoga(i)-kevali (in) 32, 85, 86, 87
Sākāra upayoga 238
Sāmāyika 100, 114, 241
Sāmkhya 211
Sāmparāyika bandha 79, 82, 84 Sāmparāyīka karma (kriya) 76, 77, 79, 82
Sännipätika 238
Sārasangraha 207
Sātā vedaniya 47, 81, 82, 83
Sāvayapannatti 2
Schubring, W 81
Scriptural study 109
Segregation from the order (parihāra) 110
Self-restraint (yama) 114
Sexual cravings (strīveda, pumveda and napumsakaveda) 73
Siddhapriyastotra 207
Siddhahood 47, 49
Siddhatva 47, 49
Siddhasena Diväkara 8, 96
Siddhasenagani 6, 7, 49, 57, 82, 117, 132, 206, 207, 215, 258
Siddhipriyastotra 207 Siddhiviniścaya 215
Simhanandi ācārya 177, 178 Sin due to false scripture (anṇāna dose) 112
Sin without repentance till death (amaramta dose) 112
Sīmandhara svāmi 173
Sīmandhara Tirthankara 162
Skandha 84
Smṛti pramāṇa 251
Smoldering (samjvalana) 73
Snigdha (sticky) 84
Softness or gentleness (mrdu) Somil, Brahmin 40

Page #295

Index
285
Svārthānumāna 259
Soul (jīva) 119 Space-points (ātmapradeśa) 72 Speech (vacas) 72 Srsividyā 202 Standpoint (naya) 192 State of purity (svabhāva
pariņāma) 55 Sthavirāvalī, Paryusanākalpa 2 Sthānāngasūtra 4, 79, 81, 112, 118,
248 Sthiti bandha 74, 83, 84, 242 Straight forwardness (ārjava) 113 Striveda 233 Subsidence cum destruction 30, 31
Subduing (niyama) 114 Subsidiary passion (no-kaņāya) 73 Subtle infallible physical activity
(sūksmakriyāpratipātti) 112 Subtle matter (no-karma) 52
Svopajña-Bhāsya 39 Şaddarśanasamuccaya 230 Șaddravya 231, 234, 249 Şakhandāgama
(Chakkhandāgama) 78, 165, 172,
197, 202, 203, 250, 264 Śabdānuśāsana 157, 158, 178 Śabdāvatāranyāsa 207 Śaileśī avasthā 234 Śama 223 Sakarācārya 131 Saucaprakaraṇa 2,3 Śākhā 2 śānta 223 śāntinātha 182, 184 śāntisūri 5 śāntīśvarapurānam 182, 186 Šāstravārtāsamuccaya 266 sisapriya Śivamāra 160 Śivaśarma 223 Śivakoi ācārya/ sūri 156, 177, 178 śīlacandravijaya 3 śīlānka 58, 224 Śrāvakaprajñapti (Sāvayapannatti)
Haribhadra 3,267 Śrāvakaprajñapti- Umāsvāti 3, 4 śrīmadbhāgvata 135 Śrīvardhadeva 158, 159 Śrutakevali 175 Śrutakevalin Bhadrabāhu I 177 Śrutamuni 155 Śrutasāgara 189, 207
Sukhabodhā commentary 163 Sukumāra carite 182, 184 Super mundane body
(parama-audārika-śarīra) 53 Superintending element
(adhişhātā) 141 Sūksmakriya apratipatti 234 Sūksmasamparāya 226 Sūktiratna 173
Sūtrakstāngasūtra I 74, 77, 78, 79,
173 Svastika 149 Svasaṁvedana anumāna 218 Svasamvedana pratyaksa 218 Svāmīkumara 224

Page #296

286
Studies in Umāsvāti
Tattvārthavrtti-pada-vivarana 206,
261, 262 Tattvārthavrtti /Sukhabodhāīkā 206 Tattvārthavrtti Yogadeva 30, 183, 206 Tattvārthādhigama-bhāsya 39, 198,
206, 214, 258 Tattvārthādhigamasūtra 1,6, 21, 23,
26, 145, 198 Tātparya-Tattvārthavrtti 165, 206 Teaching (vācanā) 110
Thārāpadra-gaccha 3 Thinking of stealing (tenānubandhi)
112
Śrutasāgaravarņi 180 Śrutasāgarīya-tattvārthavrtti 207 Subha anubhāva 85 Subha bhāva 143 śubhacandra 224 śubha karma 219 Suddha bhāva 143 śukladhyāna 34, 86, 120, 234 Śvetāśvatara Upanişad 114 Taijasa śarīra 234 Tamas 140 Tantravārttika 261 Tarka pramāna 251 Tattva 245 Tattvapradīpikā-vrtti 45 Tattvaprakāśikā 206 Tattvaratnapradīpike 166, 185 Tattvārtha-bhāsya-laghuvṛtti 206, 216 Tattvārtha-Mahāśāstra
Vyākhyāna 158 Tattvārtha Ratnaprabhakara 206 Tattvārtha-Rāja-Vārttika/Vārttika 41, 163, 184, 206, 209, 213, 214, 259,
261, 266, 267, 268, 269 Tattvārtha subodhini 207 Tattvārthasūtra 22, 24, 39, 42, 51,
57, 73, 74, 76, 77, 84, 85, 95, 99, 101, 103, 117, 118, 126, 145,
155, 158, 167, 191, 218 Tattvārthasūtra/Moksaśāstra 167,
203, 205
Tiloyapannatti 263, 264 Time 72 Tiryagloka 234, 235 Tiryañca 219 Tolamolideva 159 Total happiness (ananta-sukha) 50 TotalRenunciation
(pratyākhyā-varana) 73 Tranquility (praśama) 48 Trilokasāra (Tiloyasāra) 166, 264, 266 Trisasi -Laksana 184 Tumbulūrācārya 158, 159, 160 Tunnel running 145 Two bones bound by skin, sinews
and flesh 110 Ucchvāsa 240 Udaya 84 Uddeśa 96 Udīraņā 84 Udyota 240 Umāsvātī /Umāsvāmī 1, 3, 4, 31, 39,
47, 52 71, 75, 79, 88, 95, 117,
Tattvārtha-śloka-vārtika 32, 100,
163, 184, 198, 206, 212, 213, 214 Tattvārthaślokālankāra 100 Tattvārtha-ippanaka 207

Page #297

118, 122, 145, 149, 176, 201, 229 Umāsvāti Vācaka/ Vācakamukhya
5, 24 Uncompounded (asamsksta) 48 Unitary contemplation (ekatva
vitarka) 112 Universe (loka)
Unpredictable (avyapdeśya) 137 Upabhoga 43 Upabhoga-paribhoga
parimāņavrata 241 Upaghātaka 232 Upagrāhaka 232 Upakarana 2 Upanisad 114 Upaśama 222, 224, 231 Upaśamaka 223 Upaśānta 223 Upaśānta kasāya 226 Upaśāntamoha 222 Upaśānta-mohaniya 81 Upayogātmā 235 Upayoga 119, 213, 231, 238 Upāśakadaśāngasūtra 241 Upeksā 142 Upper world 147 Utpannāstika 127, 131 Utsarga 243 Uttarādhyayanasūtra 3, 35, 75, 80,
89, 173, 246, 248, 249 Ūlūkabhaācārya 179 Urdhvaloka 234 Vacanayoga 234 Vairāgya 253
Index 287 Vaiśesika 125, 126, 192 , 211, 240 Vajrarsabhanārācasamhanana 246 Vajra-samhanana 135 Valid cognition (pramā) 193 Vanaspatikāya 218 Varadattācārya 156, 178 Vardhamāna Muni 176 Vardhamāna-purānam 181, 186, 187 Vardhamāna Svāmī 180 Variable constant
(pariņāmi-nitya) 137 Variety or type (prakrti) 72, 74 Vastraišanā 232 Vasubandhu Vaakera 74 Vācakamukhya Umāsvāti 5 Vādideva 251 Vādirājasūri 184, 198, 259 Vādivetāla sānti Sūri 3 Vārtika, Kātyāyana 270 Vedanā 58, 101 Vedanīya 42, 44, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58,
83, 84, 85, 223 Vedant 58, 101 Vedantic 106 Vedāntin 125 Vibhāvaparināma 55 Vibration (parispanda) 72 Vibudhasena 189, 206 Videhaksetra 162 Vidhāna 96
Vidyādhara kula 3 Vidyānanda, Vādi, Svāmi 32, 100,

Page #298

288 Studies in Umāsvāti
Vyāsa-Bhāsya 141
101, 117, 180, 184, 189, 206, 212, 213, 251
Vyuparata-kriyānivrtti 35, 85,
234
Vyutsarga 243
Vidyānandi(n)-svāmi 163 Vijayaśīlacandrasūri 3 Vikrānta - kaurava 161 Viksepaņī kathā 236 Vimāna 149 Violence 25 Viratapratyākhyānāvaraṇa Virati 224 Virāgatā 231 Virtual action (upakāra) 138 Višākhācārya 175
Weeping with tears (tippanatā) 112 White - pure (śukla) 110 Whitehead 103, 105, 106 William Johnson 71, 74, 76 Without attentiveness (anāuttam) 81
World-Man or Cosmic Man 146 Wrathful (raudra) 110, 111 Yama 142
Yasahkirti/Pūyapāda 207
Višesävasyakabhāsya 58, 99, 100, 258 Visuddha adhyavasāna 213 Visuddhi 247
Viviktaśayyāsana 243 Viyāhapaññatti (Bhagavati) 40, 249 Virasena-āiriya, svāmi 82, 83, 84,
171, 172, 184, 197 Virya 43, 48 Viryāntarāya-karma 43,72 Viryātmā 235 Vitarāga (kevalin) 48 Vocchinna Vettaviläsa 173, 179, 186 Vyābādha 39, 50, 53 Vyākhyāprajñapti 249 Vyāsa 141
Yasovijaya, Gani/ Upadhyāya/
Vācaka 50, 53, 96, 191, 192,
193, 194, 207, 216, 251 Yathākhyāta 57,247 Yākinisunu/putra 2,35 Yāma 142 Yapanīya 2 Yoga 29, 143, 202 Yogadeva Grhasthācārya 189, 206 Yoganirodha 231, 234 Yogasūtra 35 Yogavibhāga 194 Yogātmā 235 Yogic posture (āsana) 114 Yogīndradeva 189, 206

Page #299

G. C. TRIPATHI
is Director, Bhogilal Leherchand Institute of Indology.
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH
is Professor, Bhogilal Leherchand Institute
of Indology.

Page #300
Studies in Umasvati and his Tattvarthasutra Papers presented at an International Seminar organized by the B. L. Institute of Indology विधायमानिसमाति- EAधमालयभिवामध्य तिनिधाजविताविसावरसावेदानी मिलताamARIMARRIUMBालासवासामासिकधरवाहामानवाouamanel नाममimitsuKOMBHABIासवाचकानातामयादेवशमशताhindi अभियानुसावधानानपानमावित्तियार दयाबासनामनिवाधिकामिकाक सादिकारकादिकापरतासndidehdसायालामा सामनासमangaमय Padmयासाममिकाममयावनिमययातिहा पधारामयिशवसीम sandhiविनिय987DRIBaneमिसाधनाकामासमालयतिimalayaparal retatuकमकाममा पासवरामविया वासरममावनियामरशियालयकताविम्या: जमी बावकरवायजामाशातातिminsResunपिसिसमाRDIABINE साक्षात्कारमा ਸਵਰਗਵੀ ਧੁਰ ਰੂਪ कालयानारामagali नयासपदमतपतला हालात गंवातारारतियातर मततामयादा मंजमामदासमया। aaraaस्यपकानाकर सर्वय HIG H OGHLAL. LEHERCHAND INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY29 BHOGILAL LEHERCHAND INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY