Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya

Author(s): Suzuko Ohira
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/001578/1

Page #1

A STUDY OF TATTVĀRTHASŪTRA WITH BHĀSYA
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
L. D. SERIES 86 GENERAL EDITORS DALSUKH MALVANIA NAGIN J. SHAH
By SUZUKO OHIRA
L. D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOGY, AHMEDABAD-9
Jain Educatio
al

Page #2

A STUDY OF TATTVĀRTHASUTRA WITH BHASYA
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
L. D. SERIES 86 GENERAL EDITORS DALSUKH MALVANIA NAGIN J. SHAH
BALSUKH MERLEVANTA
SUZUKO OHR
By SUZUKO OHIR4
L. D. INSTITUTE OF INDOLOCY AHMEDABAD-9
अहमदान
दाबाद

Page #3

FIRST EDITION January 1982
Price Rs. 48/
Revis 90
Princ LD

87
Printed by
Ila Printery
Near Madhuram Talkies Ahmedabad
and Published by
Nagin J. Shah Director
L. D. Institute of Indology Ahmedabad-9

Page #4

FOREWORD
The L. D. Iostitute of Indology has great pleasure in publisbing A study of the Tattvärthasūtra with Bhäşya with special reference to the Authorship and Date by Dr. Suzuko Obira. The work embodies results of her deep and strenuous research which she carried out successfully for her Doctorate.
Tattvārthadhigamasutra is accepted as an authoritative text in the Svetāmbara as well as Digambara tradition. And both the traditions agree that its autbor is Vācaka Umāsvāti(mi). But the Svetämbaras maintain that he belonged to their tradition while the Digambaras maintain that he belonged to theirs. Again the Śvetambaras contend that he himself is the author of the Bhasya while the Digambaras strongly uphold that the Bhāşya is not his work. Moreover, Svetāmbara and Digambara scholars assign him to different periods of time. Hence the problem of the authorship and date of Tatt várthasūtra with Bhāsya needed serious study and research which Dr. SuzukOhira undertook and accomplished very successfully. To arrive at almost correct conclusions she has explored, analysed and studied all tbe necessary sources, viz. the prasasti of the Blasya, inicriptions, pattavalis, commentaries of Svetāmbara canonical texts, Digambara texts, especially the Sarvārthasiddhi, and the works of modern scholars. She has traced the development of certain concepts in order to assign the Tattvärthasūtra with Bhisya to a particular period of time. The historical evaluation of the Tattvārthasūtra deserves special attention of scholars. In this connection she has competently dealt with the topics of the Migration of Jajna Communities and the Great Schism in the Gupta Age. Dr. Ohira rightly deserves our congratulations for the present study. We extend our heart-felt thanks to her for allowing us to publish her research work in our L. D. Series,
I am sure this publication will prove useful to all those interested in Jaipa Studies.
Nagin 3. Shah L. D. Institute of Iodology
Director Ahmedabad-9
30-3-82

Page #5

Page #6

INTRODUCTION
The Tattvārthādhigamisutra (abbreviated hereafter as T. S) of Umāsvāti bolds a unique position in the literary history of the Jainas. Since when it gained an authoritative position in the two traditions, it has occupied the heart of the Jainas, lay or clerical, as the Bible of their religion and as the essential work of their doctrinal axioms. The T. s. is a compendium of the theoretical contents of the canon expressed in terms of seven tattvas, having mokşamārga as its guiding theme. This prakarana in some 350 sūtras (the Svetambara Version counts 344 and the Digambara Version 357) along with its Bhāşya was composed by Umāsvāti sometime in the late middle of the 5th century A. D. at Pataliputra, imbibing the current philosophical problems of the non-Jajoa systems of thought. The Gupta period to which the author belonged was one of the darkest ages for the Jainas, wherein the then socio-economic impact forced them to migrate from the North to the West and the South, which caused, together with the fatally accidental calamity of a long famine and the consequent call of the Canonical Convention at Valabhi, the division of the Jaina church into the present day śvetāmbara and Digambara. The T. S. that was carried down by the emigrants to the South met a necessary revision thereby, and established itself as a pro-canonical text of the Digambaras. The present problem of the authorship of the T. S. which is claimed by the two camps has thus cropped up.
The assignment of this thesis is to testify whether or not the T. S. accompanied by its Svopajñabhāşya was composed by Umāsvāti. This issue is somewhat odd in a way, because a mention that Umāsvāti or Umāsvāmi is the author of the T. S. which is unanimously accepted by the two sects is found in the praśasti of the Bhasya alone in the earlier literature of both traditions. However the Digambara Version lacks the entire Bhasya portions, and the abundant epigraphical evidences in the South record that Umāsvāmi alias Grddha piccha is a Digambara autbor of the T. s.' On tbe other hand, none of the autobiographical document in the prasasti has been yet proved of its historicity, and no early inscriptional evidence remains in the North and the West to prove that Umäsvāti belonged to the canonical tradition in the North. The problam thus reinains to be investigated. The present day academic circle is divided into three groups as to which party Umāsvāti belonged to, i. e., the Āgamic tradition which the Svetambaras uphold whole-heartedly, the Digambara tradition which came to compile its own pro-canonical texts, and the Yāpaniya tradition which was later absorbed into the Digambara fold and is no more existent. As the codices in the Western stock reveal, the lay Jainas did least bother about nor even distioguished which version of the text belonged to which tradition. This problem was raised and became controversial among the academic circles in this present century when the T. S. study came to attract the scholars' serious attention,

Page #7

(vi)
Undoubtedly this is a touchy problem involving sectarian sentiments, Leaving them aside for the historical pursuit of the problem itself, the verification of the authorship of the Sabhāşya T. S. involving the determination of its dates has its own significance and importance. The T. S. stood at the end of the canonical period. The Third Canonical Convention was held at Valabbi in the latter half of the 5th century A.D., and the great schism split the Saidas into the two camps. The canonical age was succeeded by the commentarial period in the Svetambura side and by the prakarana period in the Digambara side, and the age of logic commenced in both camps at the same time. The T. S. thus stood at the point of intersection in he bistory of the Jainas in the two traditions, to the literary activities of which it exerted unfathomable influences. An ascertainment of the position of the T. S. in the literary history of the Jainas as such is only possible when the problems of its authorship and its date are decisively sol:ed and when its historical background is brought to ligbt.
The problems proposed in this thesis are of three cutegories (1) Testification of the authorship of the Sabhāsya T. S., (2) Ascertainment of its date, and (3) Its historical evaluation. The first two problems that are the original assignment of this thesis are indisputably fundamental, which however have not yet been settled successfully by the modern scholarship. The major reasuns for it seem to lie in the scholars' attitudes towards the problems coloured by the sectarian considerations and in tbeir methods of handling the limited materiais. Conscious attention is therefore paid 10 the matter of methodology which would save us from falling in the pitfalls. The Jiterary materials involving theoretical discussion are handled by adopting the comparative method and the method of conceptual evolution, for which my indebtedness goes to Pt. Sukhlalji's Commentary on Tattvärthasūtra of Väcaka Umāsvāti and Jaina Ontology by Dr. K. K. Dixit. Ample opportunities are hence provided to conduct independent inquiries joto the specific problems. The external source materials including MSS, archaeological and literary materials are used as far as available mainly adopting the text-historical method and the historical method. For this type of inquiry, all these methods are required to achieve a warrantable result and the emphasis on any one of which would ensue a danger.
The first proposal to verify the authorship of the Sabhäsya T. S involves three problems : (1) Which version of the text is the original ?, (2) Was the Bhāsja composed by the aphorist himself ?, and (3) Was the Sabhāşya T, S. composed by Umāsväti? A series of these interrelated problems is attempted to be tackled in the first two chapters step by step in the sequence shown in the table of contents. The last problem of the verification of prašisti to determine the authorship of the T. S. is approached by the metbod of a critical analysis of the existing pattāvalis, and the testimony vouches for the fact that the Sabhāsya T. S. is the original text composed by Umāsvāti.
The second proposal to ascertain the date of the text (thereby the date of Umāsvāti in approximation) is handled in Cn.III, Sec. IV, pt.2. This is a vexing problem because the dates of the relevant authors 0: texts, both Jaina and non-Jaina, have

Page #8

[vii]
not yet been definitely settled down in the present day academic circles, upon which depends the final assignment of the date of our text. However, ibe date of the T. S. sometime in the late middle of the 5th century A. D. arrived at from the available external and internal evidences would be the closest approximation in the present state of progress in research. Also on the more reliable epigraphical evidences the traditional date of the Third Valabhi Council based on the date of Mahāvira's nirvāṇa and the currently accepted date of Bhadrabāhu II based on the traditional legend (see also Ch. III. Sec. IV, Pt. 1, (3)) are proposed to be reassigned, even though the final assignment of their decisive dates has to be suspenaded for the want of further evidences which may turn out in the future.
The third proposal is taken up in the final chapter. A his!orical evaluation of the T. S. must be assessed on the basis of 1) Umāsvāti's performance in composing the T.S., 2) Its capacity of influencing the post-Umāsvāti authors, and 3) Its position held in the literary history of the Jainas in the two traditions. The first problem is dealt with in Sec. I while analyzing the mechanism of the T. S., i, e., its structure, source materials and their organization. This clarifies what kinds of problems were in what way posited by Univāti to bring out the innovation of the Agamic concepts and the formulation of new concepts. The second problem becomes self-evident to a great extent while making a survey of the factors of reaction raised to the T. S. in the commentarial works on the conon in Sec. II, and while tracing the further develop nent of certain theoretical problem proposed by Umāsvāti in Sec. III. A series of independent discussions conducted in Sec. III with a view to finding how certain concepts had gone through the stages of evolution by the time of Umāsvāti, how the concepts were handled by Uinăsvati, and how they took the course of develop ment in the immediate post-Umäsväti period in both traditions. In so doing, the obscure imports of ceriain aphorisms and their Bhäş ya expositions come to be clarified. Since the problerns raised in the T. S. are many and the concerned literary materials are inexhaustible, the inquiries made in Secs. II-III within a limited scope are impossible to cover them all, of which improvement is left wide open to the future, The third problem is treated in the final section by way of clarifying the historical background of the Jainas in the Gupta age involving their literary activities. The history of the Jainas in the Gupta age has been so far buried in oblivion, which is attempted to be brought to light in order to explain the background and the cause of the great schism, that enables us to place the T. S. in the clear-cut position in the literary history of the two Jaina traditions.
The problems proposed in the last category are particularly of challenging nature, however they are indeed difficult as they involve many technical and historical problems yet unsolved. Nevertheless this thesis is hoped to be able to contribute to the research activities in this direction, and any constructire suggestions for its incvenent will be appreciated. The Bhasya which was composed by the aphorist himself and the Sarvārthasiddhi which is the oldest extant Digambara commentary

Page #9

[ viii)
on the T. S. composed by Pujyapāda are directly involved with the problemsn question, however the rest of numerous commentaries including the great commentaries such as Rājavārtika and Slokavārtika are excluded from the scope of major treatment. The Sabhāşya T. S. is based on the Tattvārthadhigamasūtram (Calcutta,
1903) ed. by K. P. Mody, the text of the Sarvārthasddhi is based on the edition made by Phulcandra (Banaras, 1971, 2nd ed.), and the canonical texts are based on the Sutagame (Bombay, 1953-54) in two volumes ed. by Papphabhikkhu, unless otherwise specified. In this thesis, we are distinguishing the two recensions of the text i. e., the text of the Bhāşya and the text of Pujyapāda by Svetämbara and Digambara according to the current practice, of which the latter expression is appropriate, but not the former as it belongs to the period prior to the schism. This convention should be allowed here for the sake of the brevity of expression, but not for any other purposes. Some portions of this thesis were already published in the current journals.
The subject matter of the present thesis which is submitted for the Ph. D. degree to the Gujarat University was originally assigned to an introductory chapter to my English translation of Bhāskaranandi's Tattvarthavrtti by late Dr A. N. Upadhye, University of Mysore, which has developed into this shape and was completed under the guidance of Pt. D. D. Malvania, L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad. Both of my guiding scholars, who were good friends and bave been the leading heads of the academic circles of the two rival traditions, are of unusual personality in showing extraordinary patience to the immature student without whose proper direction, encouragement and assistance it was impossible for me to fulfill this difficult task. Also Dr. K. K. Dixit, the former research officer at L. D. Institute of Indology, has kindly stood by me for long in the capacity of a consultant, by whom my historical attitude towards problems was molded. I cannot adequately express my sense of gratitude to all of my teachers, to whom this thesis is humbly dedicated.
I would also like to express my sincere appreciation for the kind cooperation to many friends, to the librarians and staff members of the following institutions : L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad (and Dr. Nagin J. Shah): Department of Jainology and Prakrits, University of Mysore, Mysore : University of Mysore Library, Mysore : Indian Government Epigraphy Office, Mysore (and Dr. G. S. Gai): Oriental Research Costicute, Mysore : Bhandarkar Oriental Researeh Institute, Poona : Dr. A. N. Upadhye's private library, Kolhapur and his family): Rajaram College Library, Kolhapur : Hemacındrācārya Jñana Mandir, Pattan (and Mr. Sarabhai M. Shah and Mr. Babubhai P. Dave, Pattan).
- Suzuko Ohira

Page #10

CONTENTS
FOREWORD
i-ii
V-viil
INTRODUCTION CONTENTS
11 Linguistic changes
6-12 III Omissions and commissions
12-16 IV Matabhedas
16-23 Part 1 Matabhedas
16-17 Rules of atomic combination V:34 (35)
18-20 3 Parişahas IX:11 (11)
21-23 CHAPTER II IS THE BHASYA AN AUTOCOMMENTARY OR NOT? 24-53 Section IMSS evidences
24-26 II Sambandhakarikā
26-30 III Textual commentary
30-38 Part 1 Treatment of citations
30-31 2 Modes of elucidation
31-33 3 Polemical aphorisms and their expositions
33-38 (1) I:23 (22)
33-34 (2) V:31 (32)
34-37 (3) JX:27 (27)
37-38 4 Siddhasena's criticism
38-39 5 The Bhāşya and the Sarvārthasiddhi
40-42 IV Verification of prasasti - Authorship of the T. S.
42-53 CHAPTER III A HISTORICAL EVALUATION OF THE T. S.
54-145 Section I Source materials of the T.S. and their organization
54-69 II References to the T. S. in the Āgamic commentaries up to the 10th century A. D.
70-78 III Some problems in the T.S.
78-112 Part 1 Kevala jñana and darśana
78-83 2 Perceptibility of things
83-88 3 Treatment of dhyana
88-98 4 Jivasa māsa, mārganästhāna and gunastbāna
98-104 5 Treatment of cāritra in mokļamārga
104-112

Page #11

IV Historical position of the T. S. Part 1 The Jainas in the Gupta age
(1) Historical background of the Gupta age (2) Migration of Jaiba communities
(3) Great schism 2 Umāsvāti's date and works
(1) His date
(2) His works
3 Historical position of the T.S. APPENDIX I NOTES
II BIBLIOGRAPAY
I Tattvärthasūtra - A selected bibliography II Bibliography for Ch. III, Sec. II III Bibliography
- General (In Sanskrit and Prakrit) IV Bibliography - General (In the other languages)
113-140 113-134 113-116 116-126 126-134 135-140 135-137 137-140 141-145 146-156 157-169 157-159 159-100 160-165
165-169

Page #12

A STUDY OF TATTVĀRTHASUTRA WITH BHASYA

Page #13

Page #14

CHAPTER 1
WHICH VERSION OF THE TEXT IS THE ORIGINAL!.
Sec. 1. MSS OF THE T.S.
Since numerous MSS of the T.S. are available (the Jinaratnakosa counts 39 entries), it is incumbent upon us to begin with their survey with a view to finding if any external evidences can be therefrom established to solve our problem, "Which version of the text is the original ?! To make a general remark of the MSS condition of the T.S., the Digambara text as well as the Svetambara text accompanied by the Bhāşya are well preserved in the codices without damage, however curiously enough, the Svetāmbara copies unaccompanied by the Bhāsya so far consulted are without exception polluted by the Digambara apborisms. Does it at all imply that the Digambara recension of the text was the archetype from which the Svetāmbara recension was dervied ? And how did this strange phenomenon come to occur ? These questions remain to be explained.
Investigated below are the codices of the Western version of the T.S. with and without the Bhāşya (the Southern version is excluded from consultation as it is generally well preserved) located in the following institutions : L. D. Institute of Indology (LDII), Ahmedabad; Hemacandrācārya Jhāna Mandir (HJM), Pattan; San. ghavi Pāda (SP), Pattan; Limbadi Jaina jñāna Bhandar (LJJB), Limdi (MSS were sent therefrom); and the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI), Poona. Those
examined include two palm leaf MSS, one of which is dated 1303 V. S. (no. 8) and the other (no. 9) appearing to be another copy of the same, which lacks the first folio and remains in the worst possible condition that it may fall into pieces sooner or later. The rest are the paper MSS ranging from the 16th to the 20th ceutury V. S. Those in Gujarat area mainly consist of the Svetāmbara versions and those at Poona mostly of the Digambara versions.
The aphorisms of the T. S. were likely not numbered originally, because they frequently exhibit themselves without an indication of the sequential number in the codices, the phenomenon of which is commonly observed in the texts of Siddhasena and Haribhadra, and in the text Sarvarthasiddhi. When enumerated, the a phorisms are often misnumbered, deliberately or otherwise, for instance, sometimes

Page #15

Sec. 1. MSS OF THE T.S.
numbering is skipped, sometimes the same number is assigned to the two different sutras, sometimes one sutra is counted as two, sometimes mangalacarapa (which belongs to the Sarvärthasiddhi) is reckoned, sometimes prasisti is enumerated in continuation of the upasamhārakārikā (up. kārikā), and so on.
The following table may reflect a general feature of the MSS of the T.S. preserved in Śventambara tradition so far consulted. The description of each chapter of the Sabhasya T.S. is omitted because the text has evaded transformation at maximum being accompanied by its Bhasya (a slight change is however observed, for instance, in Limdi copy of no. 1090, ser. no. 17, sutra 1:27 of the Svetambara text is replaced by the Digambara sutra, and sutra 1:26 of the Digambar text is exchanged with the Svetambara aphorism). In order to see how far the MSS in the Svetambara stock are contaminated by the Digambara edition, the examination was made by way of spot checking the following sutras which exhibit gross disagreements between the two recensions due to the linguistic change, omission-cum-commission or matabheda 1 21-22(21), 27(26), 34-35(33). II: 13-14-13-14), 23(22), 31(30), 49(49). III (12-32). IV:20(19), 29-37(28-31), 48-53(40-42). V (29), 38(39). VI: 18(17-18), (21). VII: (4-8). VIII: 7(6), 14(13), 26(25-26). IX: 27-28(27), 32-33(31-32), 37(36). X: (7-8). Those in parenthesises indicate the Digambara aphorisms. If a chapter contains more than one Digambara aphorism, it is indicated by "S/D". If it consists of the Svetambara aphorisms alone it is marked by "S" and the contrary case by "D". The -survey here conducted is thus neither meticulous nor exhaustive, however it is hoped to be enough to have a general view of the MSS condition of the T.S. handed down in the western tradition.
Ser. no. Place Cat./Acc. no.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
O
9
LDII
HJM
BORI
LDII
HJM

33
$P
cat. 3474, acc. 5917
cat. 3467, acc. 3198
1501
1076/of 1891-95
Date (V.S.)
cat. 227, box 179
cat. 322, box 91
c.1950
c.1550
20th c.
cat. 3466, acc. 3911 c 1650
1053
1054
1303
Mangala S. Kärikä Śloka

1-31
1-9
""
33
1-9
29
1
S S/D S/D
S S/D S SSD
Text (Chapters)
2 3
S S/D S
S S
39
""
33
S S
is i
S
93
D
39.
2

Page #16

Sec. 1. MSS. OF THE T.S.
10
HJM LDII
14111 10597
19th c. 19th c.
S S/D S SSD
11
13
"
11192 cat. 3472, acc. 3799 14022
c. 18th c. c. 1850
S S/D D SDD:
HJM
1810
1-31
15
LDII
15106
17th
c.
16
HJM
799
(2)
... ...
LJUB
1090
1-31 1-31 ... 1-31
Prasasti.
Ser no.
Up. Kārikās
Text • (Chapters)
7 8
Other Appendices
4
5
6
9
10
1.
2. S 3 S 4 S
S S/D S/D
S
S S/D
S S/D
S S Missing S/D
S/D S/D D
S S D
S
S
S
D
5 6
S S
S/D S/D
S/D S
S
S S
S
8 9
S
S
S
41-32 (numbered
as 33-35) ..
S D
S:
D...
10 S S S Missing 11 S S S/D D 12 Ille- D D D 13 D S/DS /D D
gible
D D
S D
D D. 21 kārikās
1-31/1-32 (S.K.) (up k.) 1-9 s. kārikās
.
14
Numbered
text with
the Bhāşya ... ... ... ...
1-6

Page #17

15
16
17
Unnumbered Digambara text.... Numbered Svetambera text with the Bhasya ...
as above
as above as above
...
...
... ... ******

...
...
... ... ... ***
(must be as above, latter half unchecked)
...
...
Sec. 1. MSS OF THE T. S
1-6
The forms of entry are various (no. 1) sambandhakärikā (s. karika) alone; (nos 2-3) text alone; (nos. 5-7) 1-9 s. kärikäs text; (nos. 8-9) 1-9 s. kārikās + text ✦ up. kātikā + 4-6 prasasti verses; (nos. 10-11) mangalacarana + text; (no.12) mangalacarana + text + s. karika+up kārikā; (no. 13) mangalacarana text + 21 up. kārikās 1-9 s. karikas (these 21 up. kärikäs include the original verses1-14, 16-21 and 23; the original verse 18 which is numbered in the MS as 21 comes after the original verse 20); (no.14) Sabhasya T.S.: and (nos.15-17) Digambara text + Sabhasya T.S. The MS B (1532 V. S) and MS D (1467 V. S) which were used for the edition of the T. S. by K. P. Mody appear to have come from the same of our MSS nos. 15-17 above. He notes down that the MS K used by him further adds Siddhasena's commentary on it. Puspikas vary sometimes: (no. 10) iti tattvärthadhigame' Jiva-nirupano nama pañcamo'dhyāyaḥiti tattvärthadhigame"srava-nirūpano nāma şaşṛho'dhyāyaḥ (no.15) tattvärtha dhigame'rhad-vacana-sangrahe bhasyato dasamadhyayaḥ samaptaḥ (no 16) tattvärtha dhigame jina-vacana-san grahe bhagyato dajamo 'dhyayaḥ samaptah/ (no.17) tattvärtha dhigame bhāṣyataḥ dvitiyo'dhyāyaḥ
The Svetambara copies unaccompanied by the Bhagya are thus in all the cases. defiled by the Digambara sutras. And pollution is the worst in the cases of Chs. III and X which underwent a thorough revision in the South. Serial nos. 10-13 are accompanied by the well known verse of benediction, 'mokşamargasya netäram...... which belongs to the Sarvarthasiddhi. Nos. 12-13 push back the s. kärikā to the end of the text as this mangala verse is prefixed at the outset; and strangely enough, a majority of the chapters of these two copies consists of the Digambara sutras. No. 13 is said to have been copied by Bhimaji, pupil of Mahimaprabhasüri of Purnimapaksa, therefore it allegedly belongs to the Svetambara side. The copysts of these MSS seem to be least bothered about whether the text is a Svetämbara version or Digambara version. They tore up the Sabhsaşya T.S. into pieces, mixed the śvetämbara and Digambara sutras, and produced their own versions in effect. They even bound the Digambara text with the Sabhasya T.S., of which practice seems to date back, judging from the MSS used by K. P. Mody, as early as or much earlier than 1467 V. S.

1-6
The palm leaf MS of 1303 V. S. preserved at Sanghavi Pada, Pattan, is again a peculiar copy; an obvious attempt was made here to rearrange the third chapter which is the only chapter in this copy consisting of the Digambara aphorisms. The order of the Digambara sutras rearranged in this chapter is as follows: 1-10/ 20-30

Page #18

Sec. 1. MSS. OF THE T.S.
(24 slightly altered; 27-28 missing)/ eka-dvi-tri-gavyuto sthita-manusyah tat...? nad bhyah 27/ tri-palyopamotkṛṣṭa-sthitih/ 31/ 28/ 11-14/ 17 (altered)/ 19/15/ 18 (altered) 16/ 32-39// Since the rearranged sequence does not improve the original reading but disturbs the context confusingly, it is difficult to see the intention behind this performance. Some copysts, who might have been monks or professional copysts, behaved thus quite freely in altering the original text, which suggests that the rules and regulations in scribing copies were loose, had they been established at all.
The Bhasya was used by Pujyapada in his Sarvarthasiddhi, Akalanka in his Ralavārtika and Virasena in his Dhavala, but after them it is difficult to know if any serious attention was paid to it in the South. We are not at all sure whether the Bhagya was in front of Vidyanandi or not. Bhaskaranandi who belonged to the 12th century A. D. does not refer to the Bhasya at all, neither Śrutasägara of the 16th century. Virasena of the 9th century refers to the T.S. of Grddhapiccha, and the epigraphical evidence at śravapabelgola in the 12th century onwards indicate that people believed that Gridhapiccha alias Umasvati was the author of the T.S." It is most likely therefore that the Sabhäşya T.S. gradully receded into background in the South after Virasena's time, having given an authoritative position to the revised version of the T.S. accompanied by its important commentaries, and the authorship of the T.S. was then passed over to Grddhapiccha Acarya alias Umāsvāti.
The convention of scribing the text portion alone was perhaps followed after the model of the Digambara version. Amṛtacandra, although he is suspected to have resided in the West, might have very well quoted the up. kärikä from the Rajavartika. The practice of attaching the up. karika completely or partially to the text portion. alone might have again started after the model of the Rajavartika. Likewise the copysts. prefixed the first nine s. karikas to the Svetämbara text most probably after the Digambara version wherein the famous mangala verse is usually prefixed. Although the density of pollution must have gone worse with the march of time, the corruption likely began at an earlier stage when the Digambara recension became very popular. Soon after the T.S. was brought down to the South by the emigrants, it underwent a thorough revision particularly of its linguistic aspects. This refined version seems to have attracted those people in the western tradition, and influenced them to transform the copies of their own text to the extent that they have almost lost their identity to be the Svetambara recensions.
Since this explains the reason for the defiled phenomena of the Svetambara text by the Digambara aphorisms, and since the Svetambara recension of the text accompanied by the Bhasya has been well preserved, a doubt raised at the outset that the Digambara edition might be the original on the ground of the MSS evidences disappears. The critical edition of the Sabhäşya T.S. ought to be based on Siddhasena's
5

Page #19

Sec. 2. LINGUISTIC CHANGES
Bhāsyānusarini which has preserved the reading and meaning of the text as well as its autocommentary. The authenticity of either recension of the T.S. must be therefore testified upon the ground of the internal evidence alone, which shall be taken up in the following sections. Sec. 2. LINGUISTIC CHANGES
Which version of the text is the archetype is to be testfied in the 2nd through the 4th sectioss. This is indeed an irritating problem, for it is pretty difficult to find the crucial keys for its solution. An attempt is made here to approach the problem from the following three different angles : Sec. 2) Linguistic changes, Sec. 3) Omissions and commissions, and Sec. 4) Matabhedas. To give a conclusion first, the problem is best tackled by the second and the third methods which logically seem to be most barren in bringing out a fruitful answer, and the linguistic approach which is expected to produce a most fruitful result has turned out to be miserably barren.
We shall begin with the survey of linguistic changes evinced in the two recensions of the T.S. In dealing with the problem, the relevant aphorisms, which are grouped together under certain peculiarities, are going to be rated upon the basis of the evidence wherein the clarity of an aphorism, that is the vital concern of the apħorist to convey, is considered to be better achieved in the given context. The numbr at the end of each group indicates a positive point. When the cases are difficult to evaluate, the number of the occurrences as such is given in brackets. The Digambara sūtras are always indicated in parenthesises. Thus "2. (O), [1]" means that the clarity of the import of an aphorism is positively better achieved in the verāmbara version in two cases discussed in this group, nil in the case of the Digambara recension, and one instance therein is difficult to be rated upon this criterion as either recension has its own positive ground. The data collected here is by all means not attempted to be exhaustive, but is expected to be sufficient to have a warantable result.
der
1. The order of words and aphorisms (1) 1:22: ... nārake-devānām
(21) ... deva-nārakānām II:35 näraka-devānām....
(34) deva-närakānām. .. The Āgamic description of the four gatis as a rule begins with the lowest order and ends with the highest, inasmuch as the description of the three worlds is made in the ascending order. The Sevetāmbara reading shows conformity with the canonical description, while the Digambara reading grammatical.
0,(0) [2]

Page #20

Sec. 2. LINGUISTIC CHANGES
(2) VI:6 avrata-kaşāyendriya-kriya ... . (5) indriya-kaşāyāvrata-kriyah
... bhāva viryādhikarana ... (6) ... bhāvādhikarana-virya ... VIII:10 ... kaşāya-nokaşāya ...
(9) ... akaṣāya-kasāya ... The word order of VI:(5) appears to be based on the psychical process in the sequence of cause and effect, or stress is laid on indriya as the most important cause of sämparāyika āsrava. In the canonical codes such as Sthāna 5.2. 517 and Samavaya 16, asravadvāra is mentioned as of five. i.e., mithyādrašina, avirati, pramada, kasaya and yoga, which are enunciated to be the causes of bandha in VIII:1. Pramāda therein is generally included in the other items, i.e., avirati or kasāya, in the later works. The aphorist of VI:6 seems to bave thus followed the Agamic tradition. VI:7 expresses it rightly, firstly because bhāva and virya constitute here a pair of psychical and physical factors of kriyā and secondly because adhikarana meets its exposition in the immediately succeeding aphorism. The svetāmbara reading of VIII:10 exhibits grammatical accuracy. Nokasāya is a technical term used by the karma specialists, and akasāya in Sanskrit rendering may tend to mislead the meaning.
2, (0) [1] (3) IX:31(32) vedanayas.ca
32(31) viparitam manojñasya
IX:31(32) pertains to amanojña, therefore the Southern version does not make sense.
: 1, (), [0] 2 Compoundization
V:22 vartanā parināmah krijā ... (22)
vartanā-parināma-kriyāh ... VI:13 bhūta-vraty-anukampā dānam sarāgasamyama ... (12)
bhūta-vraty-anukampa-dana-sarāgasamyama ... The compoundisation of these words, even though it impresses us with its seemingly neater expression, weekens emphasis on each individual important concept, thus the Svetambara reading is preferred.
2, (0), [0] 3. Dictions (1) VI:16 bahv-ārambha-parigrahatvam ca nārakasyāyuşah (15)
närakasyāyuşah VII:4
... ihamutra ca... .

Page #21

(9)
... ihamutra... ...svabhavau ca samvega
VII:7
(12)
vā
95
The conjunction ca in VI:16 and VII:4 is not needed, however the word ca is preferred to va in VII:7(12).
(2)
1:27
(26)
11:5
(5)
11:7
(7)
11:21
(20)
III:1
(1)
IV:9
(8) IV:13
(12)

IV:52
(41) VI:15
(14)
VI:23
(24)
VII:29
(34)
VII:32
(37)
x:6
(6)
1, (2), [0]
... sarva-dravyes v-asarva-paryayeṣu [V: 2Bh. uktam hi... dravyes v-asarva-paryāyeşu...]
...dravyeṣv-asarva-paryāye şu
... dānādi-labdhaya's ... .. labdhaya's ... jiva-bhavyabhavyatvadini ca
..jiva-bhavyābhavyatvani ca
... sabdas-teṣām-arthāḥ sabdas-tad-arthaḥ
... 'dho'dhah
'dho'dhaḥ pṛthutaraḥ [Bh. ratnaprabhā sapta adho'dhah]
...
pravicāraḥ dvayor-dvayoh
.. pravicārāḥ
Sec. 2. LINGUISTIC CHANGES
suryas-candramaso surya-candramasau...
.. jaghanyā tv-aṣṭa-bhāgaḥ ... tad-aṣṭa-bhāgo'parā ..tivratma-parināmas... ...vra-parināmas
...sangha-sädhu-samadhir... ...sadhu-samadhir...
...adana-nik şepa... ...adana...
... nidāna-karaṇāni
... nidanāni
... parināmāc-ca tad-gatiḥ ...parinamac-ca
The addition of the word sarve to 1:(26) saves it from giving way to ambiguity. The word labdhi is used in the other senses also, therefore danadi is required in II: (5). The word adini in II:7 includes various characteristics of the jiva not referred to in the previous aphorisms, e.g., kartṛtva, bhoktṛtva, etc. of which senses cannot be expressed by the conjunction ca which can be referrable to the common nature of

Page #22

Sec. 2. LINGUISTIC CHANGES
dravya such as astitva, guņavattva, etc. Therefore the inclusion of adini is herein required. The word tad in II:(20) evinces ambiguity. The Jaina view of the construction of the lower world is explicitly conveyed by supplying the word prthutaran to III:(1). The svetāmbara reading of IV:9 clarifies the meaning better. IV:13 offers the clear-cut Jaina view of the plurality of the sun and the moon. As to the aphorism IV:52(41), the precise meaning is attained by the Svetāmbara reading The word pariņāma, leśyā-pariņāma, yoga-pariņāma, etc. therefore atma-pariņāma in VI:15 expresses the purport more exactly. Sangha is an independent concept, which is required to be in the sūtra VI:(24). Ādāna-niksepa is a technical term, which is better to be retained as it is in VII:29[34]. Regarding the sutra VII:32 (37), the reading on nidāna-karapāni is preferred because all the rest of the compounds are made out of nouns and verbs. Tad-gati is the subject matter under consideration in x:6(6), therefore it is in this context necessary to be stated.
13,0), [0] (3) 1:23 yathokta-nimittah... [Bh. yathokta-nimittah
kşayopasama-nimittah ity-arthah] (22) kşayopasama-nimittah... II:38 teşām paramparam sūkşmam
(37) paramparam sükşmam III:10 tatra bharata...
(10) bharata... VI:22 viparitam subhasya
(23) tad-viparitam subhasya VII:6 maitri-pramoda-karuny1--madhyasthāni sattva-guna... (11)
ca sattva-guna... VIII:7 maty-ādinām
(6) mati-śrutāvadhi-manahparyaya-kevalānām VIII:14 dānādinām (Bh. antarāyah pañcavidhah / tad-yathā -
danasyāntarāyah, labhasyāntarāyah...] (13) dana-Tabhu-bhogopabhoga-viryānām
The Digambara sūtras here convey the purport of the text more exactly either by adding the explanatory words used in the Bhāşya, by dropping the unnecessary wording from or by supplying the minimum wording to the Svetāmbara readings. VIII:7 and 14 have to refer way back to I:9 and II:4 for the word adi.
0, (7), [0] (4) III:2 tāsu narakāh (Bh, ratnaprabhāyām naraka-vāsānām
trimsac-chatasahasrāni/ seşāsu pañcavimšatih
... narakasatasahasram-ity-ā şaşthyah] (2) tāsu trimsat-pamcayimsati ...yarhākramam

Page #23

Sec. 2. LINGUISTIC CHANGES
V:2
VII:27 ... opabhogādhikatvāni
(32) ... opabhoga-paribhogānarthakyāni VIIT:8 ... Styānagrddha-vedaniyāni ca
(7) ... styānagrddhayas-ca
These belong to a miscellaneous category, of which divergence in reading is difficult to be rated. By adding the word vedaniya to each type of sleep in VIII:8, its positive sense of experience is conveyed. However dropping this word from the sutra does not harm its import.
0,(0) [3]
Subtotal 19, (9), [6] - 34 4. Two sātras expressed by a single sūtra in either text. (1) Two Digambara sūtras found in one in the śvatāmbara recension
dravyāni jivās-ca (2-3) dravyāni, jivās-ca VI:18
alpārambha-parigrahatvan svabhāva-mārdavārjavam ca mānuşasya (17-18) alparambha-parigrahatvam mānuşasyal svabhāva-mārdavam ca The division of the sūtra V:2 into (2) and (3) is justifiable in this context. VI:18 which adds ārjava is all right as it is, for the difference of the two concepts, i. e., alpārambha, etc., and svabhāva-mārdava, etc., is not so great.
0, (1), [11 (2) Two śvetāmbara sūtras found in one in the Digambara recension 1:21-22 dvi-vidho'vadhih / bhava-pratyayo naaka-devānām
(21) bhava-pratyayo'vadhir-deva-nārakānām V:7-8 asankhyeyāh pradešā dharmadharmayoh / jivasya
(8) asankhyeyäh pradesa dharmādharmaika-jivānām VI:3-4 subhah punyasya / asubhah pāpasya
(3) subhah punyasyāśubhaḥ pāpasya VITI:2-3 sakaṣāyatvāi-jivah... pudgalān-ādatte / sa bandhah
sakaṣāyatvāj-jivah .. pudgalān-ādatte sa bandhah IX:27-28 ... dhyānam / a muhūriāt
(27) ... dhyānam-āntarmuhūrtāt X:2-3 bandha-hetv-abhāva-nirjarābhyām, kytsna-karma kşayo
mokşah (2) bandha... nirjarābhyām krisna-karma-vipramokşo
mokşah The Digambara sūtras in this group exhibit an attempt to combine two aphorisms dealing with the same topic. I : 21-22 impart the meaning more lucidly. The Svetāmbara reading of V: 7-8 is better, because dharma-adharma and jiva belong to two
(2)
10

Page #24

Sec. 2. LINGUISTIC CHANGES
different categories. VI: 3-4 which are possibly made in two sutras for the sake of emphasis can be also combined into one. In case when the beginning word is a pronoun sa, it signalizes in the text that a new sutra begins, i. e., II: 8-9 (8-9), VI: 1-2 (1-2), VIII: 22-23 (22-23), and IX: 1-2 (1-2), which is obviously the aphorist's style of writing. The same style is naturally expected to be kept here also. The aphorisms IX: 27-28 or IX: (27) include the definitions of dhyātā, dhyana and its duration, which consist of three different concepts that ought to have been treated each independently. As such, neither reading of the two is appropriate. The Svetambara sūtra X: 2 does not make sense. For from the Bhasya on X 2, it is evident that this sutra 2 is intended to go with X:1 as the cause of jivan-mukti. The cause of the manifestation of kevala jana which is already mentioned in X: 1 is sufficient to explain the cause of jivan-mukti state, therefore the addition of X: 2 creates redundancy. Besides it invites a contradiction. Threefold yogas subsist throughout the penultimate stage of a sayoga kevali, therefore herein still exists the cause of bandha called iryapathika, even though its duration is very short. The statement of 'bandnahetv-abhāvāt as the cause of the rise of sayoga-kevalihood is thus not correct The Biafya on the sutra X:3 reads, "hetv abhäväc-cottarasyäprädurbhavaḥ,' wherein 'hetv-abhavat' must mean 'bandhahetv-abhavat,' which seems to suggest that the sutra 2 is also considered to be the cause of the videha-mukti. The sūtra 2 thus stands in an ambiguous position. The Digambara reading which clearly expresses the Jaina position is hense justified.
Out of forty-two cases of the analysis of linguistic changes evinced in the texts of the two traditions, twenty-two cases in the Svetambara recension exhibit better in clarifying the purport of the text, while the favourable instances in the Digambara edition is only eleven, and nine cases remain indeterminate. The text of Pujyapāda obviously demonstrates an effort made to improve the aphorisms from the grammatical and phraseological viewpoints, i.e.. 1) by grouping the homogeneous ideas together by way of compoundization and combining two sutras into one, 2) by adjusting the sequence of words, and 3) by dropping the redundant words and supplementing the minimum words neeled for clarification. In so doing, many mistakes were committed on the technical level, which brought out ambiguity in conveying the precise meaning of the aphorisms. The revision of the text must have been made not too long after the happening of the great schism which shall become clear in the later chapter, hence the same Agamic heritage allegedly existed in the South at that time. Therefore. the technical mistakes committed here cannot be due to the lack of Agamic tradition in the South. It is likely due to overemphasis laid on the linguistic refinement of the
11

3, (1), [2]
subtotal 3, (2), [3] — 8 grand total 22, (11), [9]-42

Page #25

Sec. 3. OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS
original text. At any rate, this survey tangibly shows that the linguistic method has failed to offer a ground to prove which version was the archetype from which the other edition was originated, because we can argue on the basis of the positive result above that the Svetāmbara recension made an improvement upon the other from the viewpoint of the technicalities involved with the canon. Sec. 3. OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS "1. The aphorisms missing in the Digambara version
II:19 upayogah sparsādişu IV:49-51 grahånām-ekam nakşatrānām-ardham tārakānām caturbhāgah IV:53 catur-bhāgah seşānām V:42-44 anādir-ādimāņš-cal rūpişv-ādiman yogopayogau jiveșu IX:38 upaśānta-kşinakaşāyayos-ca
A remark is mide by K.P. Mody that the MS K used by him for his edition of the T.S. has a marginal note saying that some regard sūtra 11:19 as a part of the Bhāşya but Siddhasena treats it as a sūtra. The Digambara version dropped it perhaps considering it to be a part of the Bhāşya. IV:49-51 and 53 are of minor nature, the exclusion of which does not affect the context. The concept of pariņāma expressed in
V:42-44 is defective and its elimination is quite proper, the discussion of which has been already advanced by Sukhlal in his commentary on the T.S. The removal of IX:38 involves a different view held by the Southern author of the T.S., which shall be touched upon in Ch. III, Sec. III, Pt.3. The Svetāmbara text is thus substantially well preserved in the Digambara version, however this does not testify that the Svetämbara version is the original which met an improvement in the South, because a later recension can also degenerate the earlier one instead of improving it.
2. The aphorisms missing in the Svetāmbara version (1) IV:(42) laukāntikānām-astau sāgaropamāni sarveşām
VI:(21) samyaktvam ca (2) II:(48) taijasam-api [49Bh. taijasam-api sariram
labdhi-pratyayam bhavati] II:(52) seşās-tri-vedāh [51 Bh. päriseşyāc-ca gamyante
jarāyy-anda-potajās-trividhā bhavanti--
striyaḥ pumāmso napumsakāniti] VII : (4-8) [Bhāvanās are explained in the Bhāşya on sūtra 3, although there
is a slight disagreement between the two texts.] VIII : (26) ato'nyat-pāpam (26Bh. ato'nyat-pāpam] . X: (7) āviddha-kulāla-cakravad-vyapagata-lepālābuvad
eranda-bijavad-agni-śikhāvac-ca (These are traceable in X:7 up.
12

Page #26

Sec. 2. OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS
kārikās 10-12 and 14 rather than in 6Bh of, which illustrations for the 2nd ani 4th causes of the ascendance of a soul are somewhat confused.] X:(8) dharmāstikāyābhāvāt [6Bh. and up. kārikā 22
dharnastikāyābhāvā] (3) III : (12-32) [Description of Jambūdvipa. The Digambara sūtra (24),
'Bharatah şad vimsati-pañca-yojana-sata-vistarah șad-caikona vimsati-bhāgā yojanasya', and (25), 'tad-dviguna-dviguna-vistārā varṣadhara-varsā videhāntāh', are found in UI:11 Bh., 'tatra pañca yojana-satāni șad vimšāni șaț-caikona-vimsati-bhāgā bhārata-viskambhah sa dvir-dvir-himayad-dhaimavatādinām ā videhebhyah'. Sūtra (27), 'bharatairāvatayor vyddhi-hrāsau șat-samayābhyām-utsarpiny-avasarpinibhyām', is located in IV:15Bh., 'tā anuloma--pratiloma avasarpiny-utsarpinyau bharatairāvateşv-anādy-anantam
parivartante ho-rātravat'.] (4) V:(29) sad-dravya-lakşanım
The aphorisms in the first group are of minor nature, the exclusion of which does not upset the major context of the work. The Digambara aphorisms in the second series are all found in the Bhāş ya, some in exact agreement in wording. Prior to the exposition of bhāvanā, VII:3 (3) rends, 'tat stheir pārtham bhavanah pañca pañca.' The word yathākramam accompanying the numerical subdivisions of the categorical items is the author's idiomatic expression, meaning in the enumerated order as immediately explained as follows.' VII:3(3) is not accompanied by the word yathakramam, therefore the further exposition of bhāvanās is not expected to be made. This attests that th: Dizinir sūcra VII:() is not th: original, which is likewise with the case of the aforementioned sücra III:(2) that does not further expound narakas enumerated therein (see Sec. II, 3.4).
As to the 3rd series, the Digambara sūtras III:(12-32), that is, twenty-one, aphorisms out of thirty-nine in Ch[ll, are lacking in the Svetamburu text, among which three aphorisms, i.e., IIT:(24-5, 27) are found in the Bhāsya on VII:11 and IV:15, although their wording is not in exact agreement. The number of missing sūtras here is very large in proportion, thus in the Svetambara text the description of Jambulvipa is strikingly short in comparison with that of the upperworld. These additional aphorisms include:(1) Description of Jambūdvipa as to the mountains, lakes, rivers and size of the regions (12-26), (2) Mode of time in the different regions affected by th: descending and ascending time cycle, and the lifetime of human beings
13

Page #27

Sec. 3. OMISSIONS COMMISSIONS
(27-31), and (3) width of Bharata calculated as 1/190 of that of Jambudvipa (32). The first group helps us to formulate a graphic idea of the geographical feature of Jambudvipa, which is described by way of outlining the regions and mountains in the other recension. The second and the third groups are of comparative importance, of which crucial sü:ras are all found in the Bhasya. As a whole, these are of positive. value as the MSS in the western tradition exhibit a mass pollution of this chapter by these Digambara aphorisms. The Jambudvipa samāsa, another prakarapa attributed to Umāvāti, depicts the geography of six regions and six mountains in due order, excluding the central four regions of Kurus and Videhas which are treated in the 2nd ahnika. Its sketch of Mt. Himavan includes the colour of the mountain which corresponds to (12), the name of the lake on top of it (cf (14)), its size (cf. (15-16)), one yojana lotus in it (cf. (17)), the name of a goddess residing in it (cf. (19)), the names of a pair of rivers flowing from it (cf (20)), and their directions (cf. (21-22). The description of each varsadhara-parvata refers to its colour, the names of the lake, goddess and rivers, and the directions of the rivers. The colour of Mt. Sikhari is said in the T.S. hema, which is mentioned tapaniya in the Jambudvipasamāsa. III:(16) is also found in the 4th ähnika, vapi-kundahrata dasavagahah. Similarly, III:(26) and (32) can be traced in the same ähnika, merüttarasu viparyayal and rupadi dvigunarasiguno dvipavyäso navati sata-vibhakto bharatädişu viskambhah
The above examination reveals that the composition of the Digambara sutras III (12-32) was made by drawing materials from the Bhasya and the Jambudvipasamasa. Logically speaking, however, an argument in reverse case is also possible that the Bhasya as well as the Jambudvipasamasa drew materials from the Digambara recension of the T.S. From the inquiry so far made into the contents of the missing sutras in the Svetanbara edition in the series 1-3, there is a tangible evidence that the śvata nbara text is the archetype on the ground of idiomatic usage of the word yathakramam, but the case is too minor to justify the whole thesis. Generally speaking, the omission or commission of words and aphorisms cannot decisively determine the authenticity of one text from which the other is derived. Thus our attempt has not yet achieved its end.
The 4th series remains to be investigated. The Svetambara recension lacks V:(29) 'sad-dravya-lakṣaṇam' which is present in the Digambara version immediately preceding the sutra 'utpada-vyaya-dhrauvya-yuktam sat (29(30)). Now, in what context the problem of sat is posited? It is posited in the domain of pudgala, i.e., V:23 36, of which 25-28 and 32-36 pertain to the matter of apu-skandhas as follows:
Apu skandhas
25-28
25 26-27 28

32-36
Apu-skandhas as the components of pudgala Origination of apu-skandhas
Cause of the visibility of skandhas. Process of atomic combination

14

Page #28

Sec. 3. OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS
Sat-nityatva 29
30
31
37-44
Threefold nature of sat Nityatva
Justification of 29-30
Guna-paryaya-parinäma, kala)
(Dravya
The arrangement of these sutras strikes us to wonder why V:29-31 are inserted in the strange context of an-skandhas instead of properly placed in the context of dravya. This must be explained in order to solve the present problem, whether V:(29) is a later accretion or not.
The Bhasya on V:28 reads, dharmadini santiti katham grhyata iti/atrocyate/lakşanatah. It does not say explicitly that dravya is sat in the sense of the Sarvarthasiddhi to V:(29), "yat-sat-tad dravyamity-arthah' but implies it. The Bhasya proposes here that one can estalish the existence of these dravyas form the nature of existence itself, which makes an introduction to the next sutra. An inferential method as such in proving the existence of things is foreign to the thinking pattern of the Jaina canon, and its source must be sought in the non-Jaina literature available at the time of Umāsvāti. The Vaiseṣika sutra text of Cindrānanda, Chapter IV ähnika I reads, 'sad-akaranavat tan-aityam 1 tasya karyam lingam /2/ kāranābhāvād-dhi kāryabhavaḥ /3/ anityam-iti ca vises a-pratiṣedha-bhavaḥ [4] mahaty-aneka-dravyavattvāt-rūpāc-copalabdhiḥ [6] adravyavativāt piramaniv-an palabdhiḥ/7/ sankhyaḥ primāṇāni prthaktvam samyoga-vibhāgau paratvaparatve karma ca rupidravya samavayat cakṣuşani /12/ arupiṣv-acak şuşatvāt /13/. Here the existence of a paramaou which is nitya and invisible is inferred from its karya. Perception arises in the case of a mahat because it has many dravyas and it is possessed of a form. Things become perceptible to the eyes due to the inseparable relation of rūpi-dravya with various gupas such as sankhya. That which is sat and without cause is said to be nitya. Thus the problems of sat-nityatva, apu-skandha and cakṣusaacaksusa are herein posed, and it is exactly in this milieu of paramaou-mahat that our topic of satsāmānya is taken up. In another word, the quest for sat-nityatva of V:29-31 is made in relation to the origination and perceptibility of apu-skandha, that is, within the framework of 'pudgala', but not in the context discussing the ontological nature of sat in relation to dravya itself. If the latter were the prime interest of the aphorist, the same question should have been posited in the context of dravya as Palcastikaya 1:8-10, but it is not the case here. 'sad-dravya-lakṣaṇam' does not therefore fit in the context here at work, thus it is justified to be the later interpolation. This Digimbari aphorism is too important to be missed, and the supposition in the reverse case that it was the original sutra unquoted by the Svetambara receusion is improbable, This testifies that the aphorism V:(29) does not belong to the original text of the T.S.
As to the four categories considered under "Omissions and Commissions" the Diga abara text exhibits, an improvement made on the Svetambara recension by excluding the defective paripami account of V:42-44 (group 1), by promoting the important
15

Page #29

Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS
bhāvanā items of VII:3Bh. to the sūtra proper (group 2), and by supplementing sūtras III:(12-32) (group 3) and V:(29) (group 4), which are all of positive value. But the decisive clue that can corroborate the authenticity of the Svetämbara version was offered by the sūtra V:(29) alone, to which we may add the case of the author's idiomatic ujage evinced in VII:3(3) in relation to VII:(4-8) as a minor but positive evidence.
Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS
Part 1 Matabhedas
The following eight cases and two polemical instances which are going to be discussed independently in pts. 2-3 are concerned with the major matabhedas, which inclu le the doctrinal discordances maintained in the two traditions and the different views held in the two recensions of the T.S we shall begin with the eight cases of matabhedas found in the two texts. (1) I:34-35 Nayas are of five kinds, i. e., naigama, sangraha, vyavahāra, rjusutra
and sabde.
--The source supporting the view : Āvas yakaniryukti 144 (33) They are of seven kinds, adding samabhirūdha and evambhūta to the
above five.
- Anuyogadvāra 953, Āvas yakaniryukti 754 Six nayas are also upheld by Siddhasena Divākara, but the majority of the authors in both traditions accept sevenfold nayas, Therefore the divergence as such which must have arisen at the different stages of development cannot be really speaking called a matabheda. (2) II:13-14 The sthāvaras are of three kinds, i. e., prthivi, ap, and vanaspati. Tejas
and vāyu are the trasas. --- Sthāna 3. 3. 215, Jivājivābhigama 1. 22, etc.,
Uttarādhyayana 36. 60-73, etc. (13) The sthāvaras are of five kinds, i. e., prthivi through vanaspati.
---- sthāna 5. 1. 488, Praśamarati 192 (3) II:31 The jiva's anābāra in transit path is up to three instants.
- Bhagavati 7. 1. 259, Sūtrakrtaniryukti 147. (30) It is up to two instants.
- Prajñāpanā 1175 a (Dixit : Jaina Ontology, p. 87) (4) 11:49 Ahāraka sarira belongs to a caturdaša pūrvadhara.
16

Page #30

Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS
(49) It belongs to a pramatta samyata.
Prajnapana 21. 575.
This is again not a matabheda but an interpretational difference, because the Śvetambaras and Digambaras believe that it belongs to a fourteen purvadhara alone, and at the time of using it, he is necessarily a pramatta samyata. Both sects believe that all the pramatta samyata do not possess äbäraka sariras.
(5) IV:2
Jyotiskas are of tejo leśya, and Bhavanavasis and Vyantaras of four. lesyas, i. e., krpa through tejas.
Sthana 1.72.
(2) Four lesyas apply to three deva nikayas, i. e.,
Bhavanavasis, Vyantaras and Jyotiskas.
(6) IV:3, 20 Twelve kalpas.
-The Agama unanimously maintains 12 kalpas, e. g., Prajnapana 5.243, Uttaradhyayana 36.211-12.
(3, 19) IV:(3) accepts 12 kalpas, but (19) enumerates 16 kalpas. (7) V: 38 A certain äcärya says that time is also a substance. Time is also a substance.
(39)
The Agamic tradition explains the metaphysical world by way of the five astikāyas or by way of six dravyas. Kala is treated as an independent dravya by the latter view, c.g Uttaradhyavana 28.7-8. In view of the former, kala is either excluded totally from five astikayas or included in them as the paryaya of jiva and ajiva. Therefore this case is not considered to be a doctrinal discordance.
(8) VIII 26 Inclusion of samyaktva, hasya, rati, and purusaveda in punya karmas. (25) Their exclusion from punya karmas.
Siddhasenagani is critical about the inclusion of these four karmas in the punya group, but he quotes kärikäs which support both views.
17
Out of these eight cases, both views in three cases are supported by the Agamic tradition, ie, 2, 3, and 8, three cases are strictly speaking not matabhedas, i.e. 1, 4, and 7, the last two cases of nos. 5 and 6 are of minor importance in nature. Conspicuous matabhedas did not thus yet take the form of expression in the revised text, which suggests that the revision was made soon after the occurrence of the schism. After all, these divergent views maintained in the texts of the two traditions cannot offer us a solution to ascertain which of the two is the original text. We shall now try to examine the last two polemical cases one by one. These are: Pt.2) Rules of atomic combination, and Pt. 3) parisahas.

Page #31

Part 2 Rules of atomic combination
-V: 34 (35) 'guna-sāmye sadṛśānām
Ta theory of atomic combination is treated in V:32-36 (33-37) as follows:
32 (33) snigdha-rūkṣatvād-bandhaḥ
33 (34) na jaghanya-guṇānām
34 (35) guna-samye sadṛśānām
35 (36) dvy-adhikādi-guṇānām tu
36
bandhe samadhikau pärinämikau
(37) bandhe adhikau pārināmikau ca
These aphorisms are the same in both recensions of the text with the exception of a slight difference in the case of sutra 36(37). V:33-35(34-36) which lay down the rules of fusion by the degrees of atoms in both similar and dissimilar cases are commonly shared by the two traditions without any alteration in reading, but the concept of these aphorisms elucidated by the commentarial works in the two traditions displays a marked discordance, which is shown in the following table (quoted from Pt. Sukhlalji's Commentary on Tattvärthasutra, p. 217):
Degrees
1. Minimum) + M.
2. M. 1 degree
3. M. 2 degrees
4. M.3 degrees, etc.
5. Non-M. + Non-M. of equal degrees
6. Non-M. + Non-M. of
1 degree
7.
8.
Sv. commentaries similar dissimilar

No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS
Yes

Dig. commentaries similar dissimilar
No
No
No
No
Non-M.Non-M. of
2 degrees
Non-M.Non-M. of 3 degrees, etc.
Yes
Yes
No
No
It is indeed strange that the same aphorisms can impart such a striking disagreement in effect. By examining the possibility and impossibility of combination in all these eight different instances against the rules of atomic combination stated in the sūras 33-35 (34-36), it becomes patent at once that these sutras are in accordance
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
18

Page #32

Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS
with the contents of the table in the Svetāmbara tradition, but are in discordance with those in the Digambara tradition. The Bhāşya to these sūtras does not explain more than what the aphorisms say, although it adds a few illustrations to facilitate understanding. And really speaking, the commentarial elucidation is not much required to these sūtras 33-35, because their meanings are quite lucid by themselves. Then, how could the Digambara commentaries have produced such a remarkably different result from the same sūtras ? An investigation shall be made on this point below according to the exposition of the Sarvārthasiddhi, because the Raiavārtika and Slokavārtika do not say beyond what has been covered by Pujyapāda.
Pūjyapāda defines the word sadršānām in V:(35) as tulya-jāliya, which shows no discrepancy with the Svetāmbara definition of this term. The purport of this sūtra (35) which bans combination between the similer atoms with the same degrees is illustrated as follows (s - snigdha or smooth, r- rūksa or rough) : (1) Dissimiler 2s + 2r; 3s + 3r. (2) Similar 2s + 2s
2r + 2r Here the rule of prohibition is extended to the dissimilar cases also, which certainly contradicts the sūtra statement. Therefore a question is raised, 'yady-evam sadrśa-grahanam kim-artham ?,' to which a reply is mida. 'gu 11 -vaişım ye sadršānām-api bandha-prat ipatty- artham sadrsa-grahanam kriy.te'which is obviously drawn from the Bhāşya on V:34. An inquiry into the obscure position of 'sadçśānām' is not further pursued in the Sarvārthasidhi. According to Pujyapāja, atomic combination is thus prevented or proceeded in the following cases : (1) Same degrees (a) between the similar atoms
(No) (b) between the dissimilar atoms
(No) (2) Different degrees (a) betwe 5 the similar atoms
(Yes) [(b) between the dissimilar atoms
(Yes)] The last case, i.e., (2) (b), is not herein discussed, but the probability of their combination is positive from the succeeding sūtra. As the commentator himself admits the word sadrsanām in the sūtra has no meaning in this context; nay, it is unwanted as it misleads what is desired to be conveyed of the Digambara theory of the coalition of atoms.
The sūtra (36) lays down a rule for permitting the combination between atoms with the difference of two degrees. The word dvy-adhikādi is said to mean here dvyadhikatā. The purport of this sūtra in permitting combination is illustrated by Pūjya pada as follows: (1) Similar kinds
2s + 4s; 3s + 5s; 4s + 6s ... 2r + 4r; likewise
19

Page #33

Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS
(2) Dissimilar kinds 2s + 4r; likewise
According to the commentary on the sūtra (36), the atomic combination is thus allowed or banned in the following cases : (1) Difference by 2 degrees (a) between the similar atoms (Yes)
(b) between the dissimilar atoms (Yes) (2) In all other degrees
(a) between the similar atoms (No)
(b) between the dissimilar atoms (No) These rules imparted in the sūtra (36) invalidate the statement of the sūtra (35) which is utterly insignificant and unwanted. Pūjyapāda quotes a verse from the Satkhandāgama 5. 6. 36 in testifying the Digambara concept of the rules of atomic combination, 'niddhassa niddhena durādhiena lukkhassa lukkhena durādhiena / niddhassa lukkhena havadi bamdro jahannavajje visame same vā'. The formulae pronounced here include : (1) Combination takes place when there is difference by two degrees (a) between the similar atoms
(b) bewteen the dissimilar atoms (2) This rule excludes the case of minimum degree
(a) between the similar atoms
(b) between the dissimilar atoms These rules which lucidly explain the previous table of atomic combination conceived in the Digambara fold correspond to those enunciated in the sūtras (34) and (35), which indisputably proves that the sūtra (35) is undesirable. Since ‘guņasānye' in V:(35) has no position in the Digambara concept of atomic combination, the word sama has to be dropped from V:36, thereby a slight difference in reading is ensued between V:36 and 7: (37). Likewise 'sadrśānā n' in V: (35) has no place in these rules, which clearly explains why the explanation of this word is so bewildering in the Sarvārthasiddhi. The defective nature of the sūtra (35) which does not convey but upsets the Digambara theory of atomic combination demonstrates that these concerned aphorisms in the text of the Sarvārthasiddhi are not the original.
It is difficult to have a clear-cut view of the Digambara theory of atomic combination from these aphorisms alone which are reproduced from the original text with a minor change. Neither Pūjyapāla's exposition elucidates it. The earliest source that tangibly exhibits its Digambara position is the Şațkh.indāguma, fof which authority Pūjyapada admits. The revisor of the text obviously followed the Satkhandagama without fully realizing the undesired nature of the aphorism V: (35), which is clearly reflected in Pujyapada's performance in the Sarvārthasiddhi. This tends to suggest that the revisor of the text was Pūjyapāda himself. The revision of the T.S. must have been made in the South not too long after the great schism. It means that many mionr
20

Page #34

Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS
doctrial differences could not have yet existed as so evinced in the previous discussion This leads us to suspect that Pūjyapāda is here trying to establish this concept of the Şațkhandāgama as the Digambara position of the theory of atomic combination to strike a difference from their rivals' position. Part 3 Parişahas - IX: 11 (11) 'ekādaśa jine -
Sūtra 18:11(11) reads, 'ekādaśa jine' that to a jina occur eleven parişahas due to vedaniya karinas, i. e., kşut, pipāsā, śita, uşņi, damsa-masaka, caryā, sayyā, vadha, roga, troa-sparsa and mala. It is not clear here if the word jine which is expressed in locative singular signifies a sayoga kevali alone or a sayoga kevali as well as an ayoga kevali. Its commentaries, i.e., the Bhāsya and the Sarvārthasiddhi down to Śrutasagara's vịtti, are all silent about it. The Bhagavati 8. 8. 342 mentions that these eleven parişahas occur to both stages of kevalihood. However an ayoga kevali whose duration lasts only for a fraction of a muhurta is absolutely devoid of yoga, therefore parişahas as such have no opportunity to occur to him. Hence the word jinc should be considered to be applicable to a sayoga kevali alone.
This aphorism 1X:11(11) is commonly shared by the text of the two schools. The Svetā nbaras are of the view that a sayoga kevali is subject to the effects of vedaniya karmis inasmuch as to the effects of the other three types of aghātikas, therefore what is stated in the above aphorism is in perfect harmony with their concept. As for the Digambaras, the content of the same sūtra is however not the same but reverse, or only acceptable with a proviso of 'upacara.' The Digambaras argue that parişahas such as hunger cannot arise to a jina because mohaniya karmas which are the concomitant causes (sahāya) for the rise of asalā-vedarā are absent in him even though these vedaniya karmas in the form of dra vya are present. In another word, vedaniya karmas in the form of dravya exist in him, but those in the form of bhāva do not exist, thus no asātā-vedanā arises to him. The Sarvärthasiddhi proposes a limited clause of 'upacara' upon which it concedes to accept the logical ground of this aphorism, 'nanu ca mohani yodaya -sahāyābhāvāt-kşud-ādi vedanābhāve parişahavyapadesa ni yuktah? sit yam-evam-etat-vedanābhāve' pi dravyakurma-sad--bhāvāpek şayā parişahopacārah kriyate, niravašeșa-nirasta-jñänavarane yugapatsakalapadārthāvabhāsikevaljnānālisiye cintā-nirodhābhāve pi tat-phala-karma-nirharana--phalāpekṣayā dhyā. nopacāravat’ The rest of the Digambar commentators follow and develop Pūjyapāda's explanation. This discordance of the view on the same sūtra is needless to say generated by the dogmatic divergence between the two sects as to admitting or otherwise of a kevali's kavalāhāra. And according to the Digambaras, this sūtra cannot be tolerated in the way as it stands. In fact the sūtra should be better read with the word of negation as the Sarvārthasiddhi comments, 'athavā-ekādaśa jine "na santi" iti vākya-seşah kalpaniyah; sopaskāratvāt-sūtrânām.'
21

Page #35

Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS
Then bow the provis) of 'upicāra' or a figurative view point should be understood in this context ? Pūjyapā la proposes a thesis that parişahas are non-parişahas to a jina because the meaning of parişaha as hardship does not apply to him as there is no rise of bhāra-velaniya-karmas (asātā-vedana) in the absence of mohaniya karmas, but these are figuratively called parişahas because dravya-vedaniya-karmas are present in him: just so sūksmakriya and samucchinnakriyā are non-dhyānas because the definition of dhyāna as cintā-nirodha does not apply to them, but these are figuratively called dhyānas because the effect of karma-nirharani is present. Sūksmakriya and samucchionakriyā are the last two divisions of śukla dhyāna which are so acknowledged by the two traditions. Therefore if these are admitted to be a part of dhyāna, one is compelled to accept, Pujyapāda seems to urge, the Digambara position of parişahas upon the basis of the same logic.
Now, it is quite doubtful that these two final divisions of sukla dhyāna are called dhyānas on the ground that they yield karmic destruction, for the Jajna dhyāna includes ārta and raudra dhyānas which cause inauspicious karmic inflow. The middle term herein is thus vitiated, hence Pūjyapada's thesis does not work. Sūkşmakriya and samucchinnakriyā are loosely called dhyānas possibly in the conventional sense in relation to moksa, because in most religious schools liberation is believed to be achieved by means of dhyān or samālhi. In real sense, the definition of dhyāna does not apply to a sayoga kevali who performs sūksmakriyā dhyāna at his final stage with subtle kāya-yoga alone and to an ayoga kevali who is released from all the threefold activities. At any rate, since the basis of upacāra is vitiated, the proposer's attempt of bringing in this dhyāna illustration to corroborate his view has failed.
The proposition says that bhava-vedaniya-karmas are absent in a jina in the absence of mobaniya karmas. However möhaniya karmas and vedaniya karmas belong to the two separate divisions of karmas which independently yield different efficacies of their own and whose nature and functions eannot be mixed up, otherwise a chaos is invited pertaining to the distinction of the karmic divisions. So if the above thesis is allowed, the same logic must be extended to the other aghātikas, e. g., "Bhāvagotru-kirnis do not arise to a jina, because the concurrent mohaniya karmas are already exhausted in him.” Then Pūjyapada insists that bhāvavedaniya-karmas are absent in a jina, but dravya-vedaniya-karmas are present in him. This is absolutely illogical because the same karma is discussed from the two viewpoints of dravya and bhāva, therefore wherever there is one, there is the other together. Otherwise the same logic must be similarly applied to the other aghalikas, e. g., "Dravya-audarika-Śariranāni-karma is present in a jina, but its bhāva-karma is absent in him." These views are certainly irrational, but the dogmatical belief in tradition does not often go with the theoretical accuracy as it involves itself with the religious sentiments. The Digam baras could not tolerate to acknowledge the presence of bhāva-vedaniya-karmas in a
22

Page #36

Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS
jina, but they could not deny the presence of dravya-vedaniya-karmas in him. For this reason, the revisor of the text seems to have conceded to accept the sūtra 11(11) without alteration, of which purport had to be however amended by the comwentary in accordance with their dogmatic belief. Pūjyapāda tried to amend it by employing the dialectics of upacāra so that the positive sense of this aphorism would not be entirely spoilt at least, in which he failed. This testifies that the aphorism IX:11 (11) did not originally belong to the Digambara tradition. And the fact that this Digambara aphorism cannot be comprehended without its commentary decisively demonstrates that the revisor of the text was Pūjyapāda himself. CONCLUSION
The last two cases discussed in Sec. IV, Pts. 2-3, which involve doctrinal discordances in the two traditions, are crucial to determine the authenticity of either version of the T.S. It is impossible to tackle the problem from the scrutiny of the concerned aphorisms alone, and it is absolutely needed to mobilize the expositions of the commentarial works which have concealed the key for its solution. There may be still some other similar instances as such. However these two cases relevant to mitabhedas along with the case of V:(29) discussed in Sec. III, 2.4) are enough to establish the evidences to testify that the text preserved in the Svetāmbara camp is the archetype from which the Digambara recension is derived. In addition to them, we may count the case of the author's idiomatic usage of ‘yatbākramam' (Sec. III, 2.2)) and the case of his style of writing wherein a pronoun sa always opens a new aphorism (Sec. II, 4.2)) as the minor evidences in proving the same. Then the question raised in reference to the revision of the Chapter III, whether the Digambara text drew these materials from the Bhāşya and the Jambūdvipasamäsa or vice versa (see Sec. III, 2.3)), is auromatically answered.
23

Page #37

CHAPTER II
IS THE BHĀSYA AN AUTOCOMMENTARY OR NOT
Sec. 1. MSS EVIDENCES
The original text is accompanied by the Svopajñabhāșya. The word Bhāşya in a broad senze applies collectively to all the depending portions attached to the text and in a narrow sense to the textual commentary alone. We are using the word Bhāsya in both senses (in as much as the title T.S. is used in both senses, i. e., the text in two recensions and the Sabhāsya T. S.), which should be distinguished in the given context. This term was foreign to the author hiniself, which became conventionalized in the course of time inasmuch as the word sūtra designated in the title. For the Bhāşya clearly mentions that the title of the text is Tattvārthādhigama-sāstra (prašasti 5), which is sometimes called Tattvārthādhigami (prasisti 6) or Tattvārtha-sangraha (puşpikā to Chs. 4-5). The textual commentary refers to the text as śāstra (e. g., 1:1 Bh.) and sūtra (e. g., 1:11Bh.) as well. Thus the term sūtra likely became customary after the Sūtra text of the Digamb:ras won its popularity in the South. The Bhās va consists of the sambandhakārikā (s. kārikā), prasisti and textual commentary, which are annexed to the text at the beginning, end, and middle, respectively. S. kārikā or an introductory verse conveys what the text is and why it was written. Prasasti or a colophon informs us who the author is. Bhāşya or a textual commentary is made for and arranged after each sūtra, and each chapter is appended by a puspikā indicating its end. The physical outlook of the work is thus well planned and even modern. The s. kārikā prasisti are composed in verse in āryā metre, the text in sūtra style, and its commentary in prose.
Do all these appendices belong to the same author of the text or not? This somewhat odd question, as the prašisti registers the author's name, must have arisen due to the reason that the Southern version is not accompanied by the Bhasya. Even when the Western version of the text has been proved to be the original, the same doubt does not seem to disappear so easily for various reasons, e. g., due to the unconventional format of the work accompanied by an introductory verse and a colophon which is new in the olden days, due to the mastery competence in Sanskrit
24

Page #38

Sec. 1. MSS EVIDENCES
displayed in the s. karika which is again the earliest specimen in the extant Jaina literature, and due to the yet unverified strange name and gotra of the author and his background recorded in the prasasti. The problems involved here are of two kinds :1) whether the Bhasya is an autocommentary or not ?, and 2) whether the sabhāṣya T. S. was composed by Umásvati or not? These are the interrelated problems and the first question cannot be ultimately answered without solving the second problem. Nevertheless we shall proceed our quest according to the order of the arrangement of the Bhasya components, and the second problem pertaining to theve rification of prasisti which establishes the authorship of T. S. shall be handled in the last section of this chapter.
Let us begain with the examination of the printed edition of the Bhasya against the testimony of the codices reported in Ch. I, Sec. I, with a view to finding whether any new evidence to solve the problem is derived therefrom or not. The printed edition of the Sabhasya T. S. consists of thirty-one s. karikas, the text accompanied by its commentary, and six couplets of prasasti verses in due order. Is this construction of the T. S. invariable in the MSS corpus ? Diverse forms of this work in the codices have been already reported. The text accompained by the Bhasya has escaped alteration, but that unaccompained by it underwent monstrous transformations. Ms no. 1 located at L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, is a copy of the s. karika alone. Does it then imply that it was originally an independent poem? First of all, the intrinsic evidence that the s. kārikā is an introduction to the body of text which cannot stand alone as an independent poem vitiates the ground of this suspicion. Secondly and extrinsically, the archetype of this copy can be traced in the separate text upon which Devagupta commented, that is bound together with Siddhasena's Blaşyanusarini. It is unknown. why Devagupta commented on the s. kärikä alone, however his benediction evinces that his original intention was to compose 'tattvärthasya... ikā, which was obviously not fulfilled for some reason or the other. The Bhāṣyanusarini reproduces the entire work of the Sabhasya T. S. minus s. karika, of which brief commentary he made is no more than a supplement to Devagupta's exegetic exposition. therefore evident that Siddhasena attached Devagupta's commentary along with its text at the outset and used them as a part of the Bhāṣyanusarini. Hence the doubt raised regarding the Ms. no 1. has been removed.
The palm leaf MSS (nos. 8-9) at Sanghavi Pādā, Pattan, copy only the latter half of the prasisti, i. e., verses 4-6, which records the author's name, title of the work and its purpose. The former half of the prasasti, i. e., verses 1-3, talks about the lineage of his teachers, his parents, the place of his brith, and the place where the T. S. was composed. Theoretically speaking these lines can be added or dropped at any time, by which the context of the rest of couplets are least disturbed. Does it suggest then that the verses 4-6 alone were authentic to which the rest were accrued
25

Page #39

Sec. 2, SAMBANDHAKARIKA
later by someone else? We are here reminded of the independable nature of these palm leaf MSS which made a crazy revision over the third chapter of the Digambara text. These three couplets of prasisti are furthermore numbered as 33-35 in continuation of thirty-two upasamhāra kārikās (up. kārikās), and the enumeration as such is an obvious conflation, for both poems do not belong to the same category. For these reasons, it is difficult to assess much reliability to these MSS. What actually happened here seem's to be that only the latter half of psasasti which is of more informative value than the former half was copied in order to adjust the space left on the last page.
Likewise some MSS extract the first nine s. kārikās alone at random and attach them to the text. And some others copy the text along with the mangalācarana which belongs to the Sarvārthasiddhi. As we have already described, various versions of the T. S. as such have been derived by the athetisation, amplification and conflation of the transmitted text. Then it does not change the authentic position of the printed text, which must be primarily based on Siddhasena's Bhāş yānusarini, the oldest commentary on the Sabhāşya T. S. Siddhasena never raised a doubt about the common authorship of the text and its Bhīsy.1. Therefore the statement that Umāsvāti was believed to be the author of the Sabhāsya T.S. is correct within the time-limit of the Bhāsyānusarini, more than which we cannot draw any conclusion on this problem from the existing codices. Then, a testimony of the common authorship of the text and its Bhāşya must be again made on the basis of the internal evidences alone, which shall be taken up in the following sections. Sec. 2. SAMBANDHAKĀRIKĀ
Some scholars are of the view that the s.kācikā, prasasti and puspikā must have been composed by Unāvāti himself because these portions are left uncommented in the Sabhāsya T. S. and because a puspikā is appended at the end of each chapter referring to both text and its commentary. Their opinion may be true from the vicwpoint of literary practice in tradition, however it cannot prove the point in question, because theoretically speaking, their interpolations in such a way can be made at any time.
To give a conclusion first, it is impossible to attest that they were composed by the same aphorist froin these separate Bhasya portions alone. Our study in the previous chapter has revealed that for a decisive testification of the authenticity of either version of the text, it reqires the commentaries on the text of both versions, In another word, in order to prove that Text A is the original from which Text A' is derived we need the existence of the Svopajñabhāşya, i.e., B/A, and the Sarvārthasiddhi, i.e.,B/A'.
This is precisely so due to the unmistakable reason that A cannot be comprehended without B/A as both were derived from the same pen, and A' cannot be underetood without B/A' as both were derived from the same pen on the basis of A and B/A.
26

Page #40

Sec. 2. SAMBANDHAKARIKA
We should at present forget about the theorization of this formula, because we are in the position to demonstrate that A and B/A were composed by the same hand. Therefore in order to testify that Text A and its Commentary B/A inclusive of all the portions were composed by the same hand, it would require the existence of Text A' and its Commentary B/A' inclusive of all the counterportions. Among the Bhasya components, the textual commentry alone satisfies this condition for its testimony. The ultimate proof of the common authorship in respect of the textual commentary is therefore expected to be arrived at, however it is expected to be difficult for us to testify the same in respect of the other Bhāşya portion which lack their counterparts in the other tradition.
The common authorship of the prasasti can be established if the textual commentary were proved to have been written by the same aphorist and if the biographical accounts in the prasasti were verified to be authentic, because the fact that Umāsvāti or Umājvāmi is the author of the T.S. as so unanimously admitted by the two schools is found in the prasasti alone in their earlier records. Only then, the same authorship of the s.kārikā cin ba acepte i so long as there are enough positive evidence for it within itself and in relation to the text, textual commentary and praśasti. The puspikā as such which can be easily interpolated at any time by any person can never be proved of its authenticity after all, which must be taken for granted on the basis of the MSS evidence within its capacity and on the basis of the literary practice in tradition as so suggested by the other scholars. In this section, therefore, we shall concentrate our. selves to find the positive evidences for the joint authorship that the s.kārikā exhibits within itself and in relation to the text, textual commentary and prasasti.
- The s kātikā consists of two major portions, i.e., the former 2/3 relevant to the life of Lord Mahāvira and the latter 1/3 relevant to the information of the work. The latter portion includes the following topics: (1) Salutation to Lord Mahavira (21) and an introduction of the nature of the text (22); 2) Difficulty of the task in composing the Compendium of the canon (23-26) and reasons for its achievement (27-30); and 3) Moksamärga as the theme of the work (31). Kāriks 21-22 and 31 alone are herein essential, which satisfy the primary requirements for a mangalācarana consisting of the indication of the subject matter, purpose, relation and the dedicated. It is therefore suspected that these three verses were originally composed as the benedictory verses in the body of the text as the conventional practice goes, to which the middle portion of verses 23-30 were inserted, while augmenting the former 2/3 portion relevant to Lord Mahāvira to the kāciā 21, and thus it turned out to shape up the present form. The former portion contains the following topics:1) The Jainas' ideal way of life (1-3);2) Classification of man (4-6);3) Nature and cause of the tirthakara (7-10); and 4) Life of Lord Mahavira (11-20). All the first three topics herein are the under
27

Page #41

Sec. 2. SAMBANDHAKĀRIKA
plots leading to the theme of Lord Mahāvira, for whose biography's sake 1/3 of the total kārikās is spared.
The essential three kārikās read, 'krivā tri-karana-suddham tasmai paramarsaye namaskārm/ pūi yatamāya bhagavate yirāya vilinamohāyal/21/1 fattvārthādhigamākhyam bahv-arthem sangraham laghu-grantham/vaks yāmi śişya-hitam-imamarhad-vacanaikadeśa sya|/22// na rte ca mokşamārgād-dhitopadeśo'sti jagati krtsne'smin/ tasmāt-param-imam-eveti mokşamārgam pravaksyāmi //31//. The first kārikā is a verse of salutation, while the rest convey us the first-hand information of the work as to its nature and theme. The nature of the work is said here to be bahv-artham sangraha of arhad-vacanaikadeśa, which echoes in the puspika at the end of each chapter (excepting Ch. III), ' tattvārthādhigame'rhat-prayacana-sangrahe' and in the similar expressions. The real task attempted and accomplished by the author of the T. S. is to summarize the contents of the canon within the scheme of seven tattvas, for which moksamárga is used as a guiding theme. Since the Bhāşya portions are altogether dropped from the Digambara version, Pūjya pada and the following commentators on the T. S. in the South, even though having duly emphasized the theme of moksamārga, paid least attention to the T. S. as such. Actually there was no need for them to emphasize this aspect, because since the beginning of their literary activities, the T. S. was received in the South in the capacity as such replacing the contents of the canonical texts redacted at the Third Valabhi Convention. At any event, the exact nature of the work attempted by the author is expressed in the s. kārikā and puspikā alone in the Sabhāşya T. S. but in no other place.
The author of the s. kārikā utters a desperate outcry that the task he has begun is such a difficult kind (23-26), nevertheless he is somehow encouraging himself to get over with it in order to gain benefit for himself and for the other from the achievement of this work (27-30). This portion of kārikā expressing the author's private world is worthy, because this is an exceptional place in Sabhāşya T, S. where his inner struggle in fulfilling the task is so vividly conveyed with a tone of unrestrained emotional flow that the readers can meet him person to person. Umāsvāti wrote the T. S. in the Gupta age when all the rest of the philosophical schools had come to possess their own standard texts. The Jainas could not have been left behind, and the T. S. was the need of hour. With this historical background, we can well understand the position of the author here who imposed this difficult task upon himself. This portion enables us to appreciate the motivation and purpose of author in composing the work, otherwise it is utterly an unnecessary part in the context, for it does not help to comprehend the nature and content of the work itself. As such, this portion would not have existed if the s. kārika were written by someone other than the author himself. Neither the genuine nature of this expression can be imitated or composed by the others.

Page #42

Sec. 2. SAMBANDHAKARIKA
Samyagdarśana which is the basic condition to be a Jaina is sung at the very outset. The Jaina way of life, the classification of man, and the nature as well as the cause of tirthakara (1-20) are stated in view of moksı, of which underlying tone is the logical assertion of the karma theory of Jainism which distinguishes it from the other religions in its ethical outlook. These topics, some of which are the modifications in the Agama, are in fact too self-evident and too familiar accounts to be commypicated to the Jainas themselves in this place of introduction. What the author seems to be aiming at here is to distinguish the Jaina position of these religious and theological issues from that of the other schools, the conscious attempt of which is persistently maintained throughout the composition of the text and its commentary. The T S. was composed in the darkest age for the Jainas when they were migrating to the other parts of India from Mathurā. The kārikākāra seems to be loudly appealing to the then Jaipa communities for the common objective of transmitting the tradition of Mabāvīra, the motivation of which is likewise reflected in the karikā 28 and prašisti 4-5. The historical circumstances as such perhaps made the author 'more particular about in declaring these Jaina positions at the outset to be demarcated from those of the others. The reference to these topics at the very beginning of an introductory section does not otherwise make much sense.
Prasasti verses 4-5 deliver the purpose of the composition of the work in two ways: 1) For the sake of upholding the teachings of Arhats handed down by the worthy preceptors through generations, and 2) Due to compassion for the beings upon having observed the world afflicted with pains and snagged by the thoughts of wrong Āgamas. The second message seems, rather than to be a stereotyped expression, to convey the then historical circumstances of the religious struggles in the Gupla age when the new religions such as Vaišnavism and saivism came into power in the florescence of the Hindu revival movement, which finally drove the Jainas away from Mathurā. The first message is obviously announced to the then Jaina communities, a similar aspiration of which is sung in the s.kārikā 28, 'tasmāt-tat-prāmānyāt samāsato vyäsatas-ca jina-vacanıml śreya iti nirvicāram grāhyam dhāryam ca vācyam ca'. Being the artbat-pravacana-sangraha, the T.S. is no other than the jina-vacana itself. In another word, the T.S. was composed for the sake of facilitating the transmission of the legacy of the Jaina canon, the fact of which bas passed the test of time. At any rate, we can point out in the s.kärikā and prašisti a coherent spirit for the ultimate aim in composing the work.
Thus all these kārikās which are inessential or do not have much relevancy to the io formation of the work itself become meaningful and comprehensible in the historical context wherein the author was placed. It means that it would have been very difficult for a later interpolator if at all there were any to compose these portions unless he shared the same historical background. Pujyapāla dropped fron the Sarvārthasiddhi all these
TL
29

Page #43

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
inessential portions in the s.karika for these did not mean much in the context of his time, and replaced the s. kärikä by the min galacarana which was directly derived from the karikas 21 and 31. We have thus collected in this section sufficient data which may not establish themselves as decisive evidences, but are positiv. enough in accepting the: joint authorship of the s.kärikä if the testimonies of the other Bhasya portions were produced.
Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
Part 1 Treatment of citations
The problem, whether or not the textual commentary was composed by the same aphorist, is going to be handled in the first three parts of this section: Pt. 1) Treatment of citations, Pt. 2) Modes of elucidation, and Pt. 3) Polemical aphorisms and their expositions. Here again a decisive testimony comes from the independent inquiries into the controversial suras and their expositions made in Part 3, and the ample positive evidences alleged in the first two parts serve in the capacity of fortifying the same testimony.
The sutra V:38, 'kalas-ce:y-eke', suggests that there were two views on kala in the canon in respect of its dravyatva. As is evinced in the quest for matabbedas, the Jaina canon preserves many conflicting views as to one and the same concept which. have arisen in the long course of time. The aphorist is therefore necessarily constrained to represent a selected view on it according to his own judgment, or he may simply. juxtapose the different views in tradition by reserving his personal justification. The sūtra V:38 is made in the sense of the latter. The Bhasya contains several similar cases as such which quotes the opinions of the others by way of indefinite pronouns such as 'kecit' 'ekācārya', 'eka', and the like, as follows:
1:5 nama-sthapana-dravya-bhavatas-tan-nyasah
Bh. kecid-apy-ahur-yad-dravyato dravyam bhavati tac-ca pudgala-dravyameveti pratyetavyam
1:6 praman-nayair-adhigamaḥ
Bh. tatra pramanam dvi-vidham... catur-vidham-ity-eke
-Fourfold pramapas are enumerated in the Anvyogadvara 131, 'pamane cau-vvihe pannattel tam-jahā nā na-ppamane thavana-ppamāne davva-ppamane bhava ppamanel, which are likewise recorded in the Sthana 4.1.321. The Bhagavatt 5 4 192 reads, 'pamane cau-vvihe p-o tam -iaha-paccakkhe aṇumane o amme agame... which reflects an influence made by the Nyayasutra 1.1.3.
1:31 ekadini bhāyāl yugapad-ekasminnā caturbhyah

30

Page #44

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
Bh. atha kevalajñānasya pūrvair-matijñānādibhih kim saha-bhavo bhavati' nety
ucyatel kecid-ācāryā vyācak şate nābhāvah/ kim tu tad-abhibhūtatvād-akt mcit-karāni bhavantindriyavat.../ kecid-apy-āhuh/ apāya-'adravyatayā matijfānam tat-pürvakom srutajñānam-avadhijñāna-manahparyāyajnane
ca rūpi-dravya-visaye tasmān-naitāni kevalinah santiti II:43 sarvasya Bb. eke tv-ācāryā nayavādāpek şam vyācakşatel kārmanam evaikam-anadi
sambandham/ tenaivaike na jivsyānādih sambandho bhayatiti/ taijasam tu labdhy-apekşam bhavati să ea taijasa-labdhir-na sarvasya, kasya-cideva bhayati/
- The Bhagavatt 8.9.349-50 hold that both are anādibaddha.. A majority of these views quoted in the Bhāşya does not speak in support of the positions of the text but goes against them. The commentator refers to these condicting views without any critical attitude. An attitude as such primarily belongs 'to the sangrahakāra as so demonstrated in the sūtra V:38, wherein he attempts to give a fair representation of the then available view3. The Sarvārthasiddhi ignors all these citations inade in the Bhāşya. Pūjyapāda stands in a commentator's position, who accepts the viewpoints established in the text. Once the established viewpoints are received, juxtaposition of the contrary cases loses its meaning for it least helps to clarify the purport of the text. Pujyapāda likely dropped these citations as they are not competent in serving for his purpose. This lends probability to the joint authorship of the textual commentary.
Part 2. Modes of elucidation
(1) Exposition of the technical terms
1:13 explains matijõāna by way of its synonyms, 'matih smrtih saññā cinābhinibodha ity-anarthāntaram', which is an Āgomic method of exposition called ekārthikā. buyoga.The same method of explaining words by way of their equivalents occurs consistently in the Bhāsya, e.g, nisarga (1:3)., avagraba, ihā, apāya and dbāraņā (1:15), naya (:35), vigraha (II:29), apara (IV:39), upagraha (V:17), himā (VII:8), krodha, māna, mayā and lobha (VIII:10), kşamā (IX:6), and so on. Some of these synonymous terms may represent the canonical usage, for the equivalents of mati are traced in the Nandi 80 and Āvas yaka niryukti 12. This is the major method of explaining words in the Bhāşya which rarely adopts the nirukti method of derivation, and the case is
reverse in the Sarvārthasiddhi wherein the latter method is predominant. . · The different approaches of these two commentators in explaining words seem to have been derived from the different backgrounds of their ages where they belonged
-31

Page #45

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
rather than from their different personal styles. The Āgamic literature which does not yet know how to define a concept adopts the method of its exposition by way of synonymous terms, which is followed by the Bhäşya as so done in the sūtra 1:13, whereas the Sarvārthasiddiri knows how to define a concept, and the key words among those listed above are all clearly explained by Pujyapāda. The T. S. employs various anuyoga methods in approaching problems, for instance, five jñanas in the first chapter are merely distinguished or classified one after the other by way of anuyogadvāras such as karana, adhikarana, kāla, svāmi, alpabahutva, ksetra, tathājñāna-atathājñāna, etc. The T.S. also tries to define certain concepts and succeeded in it, e.g., samyagdarsina in 1:2(2), sat in V:29(30), guna-dravya in V:37(38), and 40(41), āsrava in VI:1-2(1-2), and so on. However many of them were born in the cross current with the non-Jaina thoughts wherein the aphorist was compelled to define them in order to distinguish the Jaina positions from those of the others, but such method of definig term; was never adopted by the bhāsyakära in elucidating aphorisms.
The explanation of technical terms in the Bhāş ya is often insufficient, like those occurring in 1:13(18!, II:1(1), 8(9), 26(25), VI:1(1), 5-6(4-3), IX:9(9), etc. which are well explained by the Sarvārthasiddhi. On the other hand, the Bhāşya sometimes gets into over detailed explication of the technical terms e.g., those in VIII:10, 1X:6, and so on. Thus the exposition of terms in the Bhāsya is as a whole unbalanced, which is duly improved in the Survārth. siddhi. These evidences well suggest the later position of the Sarvārthasiddhi.
(2) Exposition of the aphorisms
Whether the purport of an aphorism that he composed is correctly conveyed to the readers or not- this must be the vital concern of the aphorist. Therefore if he himself were to draft a commentary on his own sútra, he would first of all impart its general import which is the vital message he wants to convey. For an ordinary commentator, it would not be necessrily the first step to take, but to statrt with exegesis or word by word explanation is more an effective method to achieve the clarification of the entire purport as it has bien so done in tradition. The difference in the mode of elucidation as such is clearly displayed in the Bhāşya and the Sarvārthasiddhi, of which illustration shall be given below:
I:1 samyag-darsana-jñāna-caritrāņi mokşa-mārgah Bhāşya: General import of the sūtra (samyag-darśanam samyag-jñānam samyag-cāritramityeşa tri-vidho mokşa-mārgah)-their definition and subdivisions are to be given later (tam purastāl-lakşınato vidrā natas-c1 vistarenopadeks yāmahl śāstrānupūrvi-vinyāsartham tū ldeśa-mātram-idam-ucyate) three pathways together constitute moksamārga (etāni
32

Page #46

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
ca samastāni mok$a-sādhanāni / ekatarābhāve'py - asādhanānity - atas - trayāņām grahanam) — their order is made according to the causal sequence (eşām ca pūrvalābhe bhajaniyam-uttaram / uttara labhe fu niyatah pūrva-lābhah) - the modifier samyak is explained (tatra samyag iti prašamsārtho nipātah, samañcater-vā bhāvah) explanation of the words darśana and samyag-darśana (darsanam-itidiser - avyabricăriņi sarvendriyānindriyārtha prāptiretat samyag-darsanam/ prasastan darsa, nam samyag-darśanam sangatam vā darsanam samyag-darśanam) – application should be likewise extended to the rest (evam jñāna-cāritrayor-api). Sarvārthasiddhi : Explanation of the word samyak (samyag-itis avyutpannah sabdo vyutpanno vā/ añcateh kvau sainañcațiti samyag-itis asyārthah prasamsā) – three pathways modified by the word samyak - their brief explanation, of which detailed definition and subdivisions are to be followed later (eteșām sva-rūpam lakṣaṇato vidhānatas-ca purastād-vistare?, nirdekşyāmah/ uddesa-mātram tv-idam-ucyate) - their etymological derivations - their arrangement made according to the causal seqnence (jñānasya samyag-vyapadesa - hetutvāt/ cāritrāt pūrvam jñānam prayuktam, tat-pūrvakatvāccāritrasya) - exposition of moksa and mārga - general purport of the sūtra (atah samyag tat-pürvakatvāc-căritrasya) — exposition of moksa and mārga — general purport of the sūrra (atah samyag-darsanam samyag-jñānam samyak-cāritramity etat tritayam samuditam mokşasya sākşān-mārgo veditavyah)-introduction to the next aphorism.
The example above is at random picked up from the first aphorism of the first chapter, ut both the Bhāşya and the Sarvārthasiddhi throughout maintain each unique pattern of the mode of exposition as such. The bhāsyakära's exposition begins with the more important messages and ends with the less important ones in terms of the desired intention of the aphorist, while Pūjyapāda's method of exposition takes almost a reverse step which is made in view of the audience. This again lends plausibility to the fact that the text and the Bhāşya were composed by the same hand.
We shall now turn ourselves to the independent inquiries into the following polemical aphorisms and their expositions : (1) 1:23 (22), (2) V: 31 (32), and (3) IX : 27 (27). Part 3 (1)
1:23 yathokta-nimittah şad-vikal paḥ seșāņām'
1:(22) ‘kşayopasama-nimittaḥ şad-vikalpaḥ seșāņām' Aphorisms 1:21-23 discuss two types of avadbi jñāna generated by two different causes, which read, 'dvi-vidho'vadhih/21// bhava-pratyayo nāraka-devānām //2211
33

Page #47

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
yathokta-nimittah şad-vik alpah seşānām!/23//'. 'yathokta-nimittaḥ' mentioned in the sūtra 23 is impossible to be understood from these aphorisms alone. The Bhāşya on the aphorisms 21 cun pents, 'bhiva -pratyayah kşiyopisana-ninittas-ca', and the B'āsya on the aphoris n 23 elucidits the poiat, 'ya!hokta-nimittah kşayopasama nimitta ity-arthah. The said phrase, 'yathokta-gimittah', in the sūtra 23 indisputably refers to the Bhasya on the sūtra 21, which proves that Umāsvāti was composing this text portion along with its commentary. This bears witness to th? fact that the concerned aphorisms and their Bhāsya expositions were written by the same hand. The same sūtra is read in the text of Pūjyapāda, 'kşayopasamı-nimittah şadvikalpah seşānām (1: (22)), an improvement of which reading could not have been made without referring to the Bhāşya on the sūtras 21 and 23.
Incidentally, it became unquestionable in this context that the author first drafted the text side by side taking down necessary commentarial notes, upon which the further details of exposition were made later.
V:31 (32) Sarpitānarpita-siddheh
It has been previously examined that the anomalous arrangement of V:29-31 relevant to sat-nityatva was derived in the context of the topics discussed in the Vaiseșika. sūtra 4.1. These sūtras read, 'utpāda-vyıya-dhrauvya-yuktam sat (29), 'tad-bhāyāyyayam nity.in (35),' and 'a-pitā irpita-siddheh (31)'. The concept expresssed in the aphorism 29 does not yet occur in the extant canonical corpus. Sūtra 30 is directly derived from the concept expressed in the sūtra 29.4 V:31 offers the ground of reasoning for the sūtras 29-30 that the existence which is eternal is at the same time characterized by the mutually contradictory characteristics. Arpita-anarpita, expressing a theory of relativity, are included in ten dravyānuyogas listed in the Sthana 10 972,5 which are made in actual use, for instance, in the Uttaradhyayana niryukti 49, eso puna du-viho appiya-vavahāra arappio ceval ikk-ikko puni ti-viho attāri pare tad-ubhae ya' (three characteristics here denote ksāyika, aupaśmika and kşayopaśmika).
Umāsvāti posited the problem of sat-nityavta in the context of pudgala wherein the matter substance is discussed from the standpoint of bhāva as to its nature (2324), dravya as to its components (25-27), køetra as to its perceptibility (28), and bhāva as to the process of combination (32-36) and a similar method of approach is likewise observed in handling the rest of the topics, i. e., dravya-guna-paryāya and pariņāma, as these can be treated from the standpoint of bhāva (37,40-44). [The topic of kala expressed in the aphorisms 38-39 is absolutely misarranged in this context ]
The Nyāyasūtra 4.1.10 takes up the topic of rebirth, and in this connection examined and refuted in 4.1.11-24 are the theories of the origination of things upheld by
34

Page #48

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
various schools. The Nyāyasūtra 4.1.25-40 then investigate various views on the nature of things, 'saryin-antiya'n-utpatti-vināša-dharmakatvāt (25)', 'sarvam nityam pañca-bhūtanityatvāt (29)', 'sarvam prihag-bhāva-laksana-prthaktvāt (34)', and 'sarvam-abhāvob hāvesy itaretarābhāva-siddheh (37), which represent the positions of the Ksanikavāda, Brahmnism, Sautrāntika-Vaibbasika and sūnyavāda respectively. The first two schools herein assume the nature of things to be anitya or nitya on the basis of utpatti-vināśıdharmakatva or pañc-bhūta-nityatva. The Vai seșikasūtra 1.2.18 (text of Candrānanda) refers to the nature of sat that it has no specific mark of its own, 'sal-lingāviseşādviseşa-lingabhāvāc-caiko bhāyah iti'.
The Āgamic authors posited problems from various points of inquiry. From the viewpoint of dravya, pudgala is ultimately conceived in terms of atoms, and from the view. point of bbāva it is understood in terms of its properties. The Bhagavati 14.4.511 discusses that an atom is everlasting from the standpoint of dravya, but everchanging from the aspect of bhāva, 'paramānu-paggale nam bhamte: kim sāsae asāsae ? goyamā: siya sāsae siya asāsae, se kena-ttheram bhamle: evam vuccai siya sāsae siya asā sae ? goyamā: davvatthayāe sasae, vanna -pajjavenim jāva phāsa-pajjivehim asāsae, se tena-tthenam jāva siya sāsae siyı asās.de. Neither the Ksan kuvā la's view of sarve-anityatva nor Brahmavāda's view of sarva-nityatva expressed in the Nyāyasūtra above are acceptable to the Jainas. Umāsvāti thus caught hold of the causes of anityatva upheld by the K$anika väda, i. e., utpatti-vināša, and the Brahmavāda's nilyatva which can be expressed in terms of dhrauvya and proposed the Jaina view of sat from the standpoint of dravya-cum-bhāva that existence can be simulatneously qualified by these three mutually differing characteria stics, which clearly distinguishes itself from the Vaisesika assertioa that the existence has no specific mark of its own. The idea of pariņāma-nityatā is already implied in the Uttaradhyayana 28.6 wherein the definition of and the relation held among dravyaguņi-paryāya are expressed, 'guraram-asao davvam, ega-darva-ssiya guna / lakkhanam pajjavāņam tu, ubhao assiyā bhave.' And in this very context of the Nyāyasūtra discussion of the nature of things, Umāsváti proposed the Jaina view of nityatva to be paripāma-nityatā in the sūtra 30, that is, the state of the existence in these three forms is everlasting. The concept of sat-nityatva was thus grasped and expressed by Umāsvati primarily in the context of pudgala.
Then the aphorism 31 proposes arpita-anarpita theory to be the reasoning ground of the concepts expressed in the previous two aphorisms. The Bhāşya says that threefold natures of sat and the twofold natures of nitya, the latter of which remains without explanation, are established by the viewpoints of arpitavyāvahärika and anarpitavyāvahārika. It then shows how these viewpoints are to be applied to four kinds of sat as follows:
35

Page #49

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
is
is
Viewed from arpita-anarpita stand
points in respect of three numbers, Kinds of sat i.e., singular, dual and plural. predication by sat and asat (1) dravya
dravya (2) mātska
mātska amatska
is not (3) utpanna
utpanna anutpanna
is not (4) paryāya
sad-bhāva paryāya asad-bhāva paryāya
is not tad-ubhaya paryāya
avaktavya What is expressed here is more obscure than cryptic. The Bhāş ya does not first of all explain the technical term arpita-anarpita, which are understood to be visesa-avisesa in the canon. Secondly, aphorism 31 is offering the theorization of the concept of three different natures of sat expressed in the sūtra 29 about which no exposition is made, instead the Bhşāya strangely brings in an inferior list of the fourfold characteristics of sat about which alone the discussion is furthered. Thirdly, in discussing the matter, an application of arpita-anarpita viewpoints is considered in respect of each individual nature of sat in four forms, but not in respect of mutually differring threefold characteristics of sat which is the very point to be explained. Finally, an explanation of the theory of these two viewpoints is totally neglected regarding the nature of nityatva. The Bhāş ya is thus out of tune here in every respect.
The Sarvārthasiddhi defines the terms arpita-anarpita, then briefly and clearly elucidates the purport of the sūtra V: 31 (32) with an appropriate illustration. Modern scholars follow the Sarvārthasiddhi in explaining this sū'ra, solely giving up the obscure exposition offered by the Bhasya. The later commentator like Siddhasenagani says that the bhāsyakāra is elucidating the aphorism by way of the nayavāda consisting of dravyāstika and paryāyāstika and by way of the syādvāda. This is farfetching, because this sūtra does not pertain to the theory of knowledge, and the first chapter wherein these ought to be dealt with does not refer to them at all. The concepts of these two principal divisions of nayavāda and saptabhangi are not yet clearly grasped by the canonical authors nor by Umāsvāti, otherwise the exposition of payas made in 1:34-35Bh. should have been altogether different. As a matter of fact, until these aphorisms V: 29-31 were formulated, the concept of the anekā tavāda could not have been developed. These sūtras themselves provided the basis for the immediate arrival of the age of logic. Then, what does this sudden appearance of the list of fourfold natures of sat mean in relation to its threefold characteristicts in question?
The Sthāna 4.2.372 reads, 'cattāri ekka pa. tam. davie-ekkae mau-ekkae pajjaeekkae samgaha-ekkae, cattāri kai p. tam. daviya-kai màuya-kai pajjava-kai sam.
36

Page #50

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
gaha-kai, cattāri savvā p. tam. ņāma sayvae thavana-savve ãesa-savvae niravasesasavvae.' This is obviously made up with two different topics, which are assembled to. gether under the heading of number, i.e., one, many and all, of which the first topic alone we are now concerned. Likewise the Disavaikālika niryukti 8.7 reads, 'namam thavana davie māugapada samgahekkae ceva/ pajjava bhāva ya tahā satteta ekkaga bhaniya'. [Its cūrni explains mātskapada by utpada, dhruva and vigama as the coo cept existed in the Dustivāda, which is of course impossible ] Sangrahapada here is replaced by utpanna in the Bhāş ya. From the way the Bhasya explains each content of sat by the three numbers of singular, dual and plural, it seems that the commentator deduced these fourfold kinds of sat directly from the Sthāna above by making the said alteration as to sangrabapada.
The canonical authors used to posit problems from various points of investigation such as dravya, kşetra, kala and bhāva, and the canon exhibits the concept that guna is always found in dravya but paryāya is found in both. However, these four items in the Sthāna, i.e., dravya, māıřka, utpanna and paryāya, which are said in the Dasavaikalika niryukti to be the contents of sat, constitute the closest concept to threefold natures of sat formulated by Umāsvāti, j.e., utpāda, vyaya ard dhrauvya.
The commentator's performance as examined above is indeed a strange kind, bringing in the inferior Āgamic classification of sat and imparting the application of arpitaanarpita viewpoints to them instead of to the threefold natures of sat in question. Such performance is inconceivable unless we assume that the commentator is here attempt. ing to justify that the concept of the surras 29-30 which were formulated by the author himself in the context of the non-Jaina views are the authoritative Jaina views in the light of the canonical code. He seems to be thus attesting that the Jaina concept of sat in threefold natures and its consequent theory of pariņāma-nityatā are all found in the canon in the closest form of expression as such. The commentator here. appears to have been much involved with this proof establishment as the aphorist, and seems to have neglected his primary duty of explaining the meaning of the technical terms and elucidating the purport of the sūira. He is doubtlessly writing this commentary from the standpoint of the aphorist, but not from that of the commentator. The irrelevant nature of this commentary is otherwise difficult to be explained. IX : 27 (27) '... ekāgra-cinta-nirodho dhyānani'
IX : 27-28, futtama-samhananasyaikāgra-cintā-nirodho dhyānam ā muhurtāt,' are made in one sūtra in the text of Pujyapāda, 'uttama-samhananasyaikāgra-cintanirodho dhyānam ā antarmuhūtāt (27).' Herein dhyāna is defined as 'ekāgra-cintanirodhaḥ,' which is explained to denote two different contents in the Bhāşya, 'ekāgracintā-nirodhas-ca', but is commented to denote one content by all the other commentarial works on the T. S. in both traditions. Pūjyapāda explains it, 'nānārthāvalambanena cinta parispandavati, tasyā anyāsesa-mukhyebhyo vyāvartya ekasminn-agre niyama ekāgra-cintā nirodha ity-ucyate.' As the examination of Umāsvāti's treatment of
37

Page #51

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
dhyana made in Ch. III, Sec. III, pt. 3 evinces, it denotes two different contents, i. e, ekāgra-cintā and (kāya-)yoga-nirodha, of which the former defines dhyāna of those in chadmastha and the latter of kevalis. This is the concept of dhyāla maintained in the Āgamic tradition, of which position is also clearly reflected in the argument on this matter exhibited in the immediate post-Umāsvāti literature in the svetāmbara tradition. It is difficult to read the definition of dhyāna as of two different contents from the sūtra text proper, and the aphorist's commentary alone elucidates it as such, which corroborates the joint authorship of the sūtra and its commentary. In fact, the aphorism should have been expressed in dual ending, 'ekāgra-cinta-niro. dhau', then the said obscurity would not have arisen. Part 4 Siddhasena's criticism
That the textual commentary was made by the same aphorist has been thus decisively established on the strength of the independent quests made in part 3, to which we may add another proof alleged in the inquiry into the controversial sūtra V:28(28) and its commentary pertaining to the perceptibility of things which is conducted in Ch. III, Sec. III, Pt.2. The positive evidences for it attested in the first two parts fortify the same conclusion.
Siddhasenagapi and the following commentators on the Sabrāşya T.S. never suspected that it was composed by Umājvāti. However Siddha sena raised bitter criticisms against the Bhasya in his Bhasyanusarini, most of which were likewise reproduced by Haribhadrasūri and his disciples in the Laghviţikā. As such, even though these controversial issues advanced by him do not have much to do with our problem under consideration, it would not be out of place here to take up this topic in order to clarify the nature of his condemnation. His criticisms are made against the Bhāşya on the following aphorisms :8
1) 11:17Bh. The twofold divisions of upakaranendriya mentioned by Umāsvāti are
not supported by the Agama. 2) III:3Bh. "The height of the bodies of nairayika in Ratnaprabhā is seven dhanus,
three hastas and six angulas, which is doubled for those in other bhumis."
This statemeat finds no mention in the canon, - Jivāiivābhigama 3. 2. 86 endorses the description made in the Bhāsya. 3) 111:9Bh. “Between Nandanavana and Saumanasavana, the circumferential
decrese of the space-units of Mt. Meru occurs at every 1/11 unit as it ascends." The decrease of pradeśas occurs even within the measure of one angula, therefore the statement of "pradesi paribāņi at every 1/11 unit” is out of sense. Also Umāsvāti does not mention its occurr. ence below and above these vanas.

Page #52

Soc. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
- Umāsvāti must have given here a mathematical formula of the pradesa parihāni of Mt. Meru, therefore Siddbasena's criticism does not make much sense. The space between these two vanas alone was likely mentioned for the sake of an illustration, it is otherwise difficult to understand it. 4) III:15Bb. Umāsvāti counts altogether fifty-six antaradvipas at Mt. Himavan and
Mt. Sikhari, but some sources count ninety-six. However since fiftysix antarandvipas are also mentioned in the Jivajivābhigama, etc. Siddhasena concedes a point that the source used by Umāsvāti might have been lost.
- Prajñāpanā 2.105 also counts fifty-six antaradvipas.
5) IV:26, sūtra & Bb. The divisions of Lokāotika which are told as of eight by
Umāsvāti are counted as pine in the canon, - Sthāna 8.790 enumerates eight, but its 9.894 lists nine. The nature of difference here is interpretational, whether to count the central Rştavimāna or not. 6) VIII:12Bh. The name of the second samhanana is vajranārāca as so called in
the Karmaprakrti, but not ardhavajrarṣabhanārāca. - Sthāna 6.572 calls it usabhaņārāya, likewise Samavāya 242, Jivājivābhigama
1.38 and Prajapana 23.615. 7) [X:6Bh. Caturdaśa and ekavimsati rātrikyā pratimas of ascetics are called in the
canon under the name of dvitiya sa piarătriki and tftiyā saptarātriki. - Samavāya 42 and Daśāśrutaskardha 7 use the terms padhamā sattarāimdiyā, doccă sattarāimdiyā and taccā sattarājmdisā.
All these points raised by Siddhasena are of minor importance, which are better called complaints rather than criticisms. The 4th is not even a complaint, which can be dropped from the list. Two issues, i.e., 1 and 3, fail to find their sources in the canon of which the 3rd can be dropped off as it does not make much sense. The 2nd statement made by the Bhasya is alleged in the canon, and both pros and cons of the 5th issue are supported by the Āgama. The 6th finds another name in the canon which does not support both Umasvati and Siddhasena. Siddhasena's assertion of the 7th issue is endorsed in the canon. Pūjyapāda agrees with Umāsvāti as to 1, 2, and 5, but goes with the side of Siddhasena as to 6, while he describes 4 differently from the Bhāsya and drops refere aces altogether as to the 3rd and 7th issues. Thus Siddhasena's complaints as to 1 through 6 have no claim, and the 7th issue is too minor to be argued about. The controversial issues created by Siddhasenagapi are thus worth for nothing, least contributing to the positive improvement of the Bhāsya.
39

Page #53

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
Part 5 The Bhasya and the Sarvarthasiddhi
Before we proceed to the suspending problem of the verification of prasasti, it would not be idle to reflect upon the nature of improvement made by the Sarvarthasiddhi on the Bhasya even though this topic is again of an appending nature in... the context of our assignment. The chronological priority of the Bhasya to the Sarvarthasiddhi is self-evident, and in front of Pujyapada was the Bhasya from which he drew most of his materials to write the Sarvarthasidhi as evinced in the modes of elucidation of the two commentaries. Let us study below what kinds of improvements Pujyapada made upon the Bhasya with a view to appraising the position of the Sarvarthasiddhi.
The language of the Bhasya is archaic, which is changed in the Sarvärthasiddhi into the classical Sanskrit that we are familiar with. The Sarvarthasiddhi improved the method of explaining terms by giving their definitions or by conferring their precise meanings, which was done in the Bhasya by way of the Agamic method of equation by synonyms. The unbalaced exposition of words in the Bhasya, often left without explanation (they are most likely considered to be self-evident) but sometimes overdetailed, is balanced up in the Sarvärthasiddhi. The untimely expositions made in the awkward places in the former find the proper places in the latter, for instance, Pujayapada explains five sariras under 11: (36) which Umasvati does in II:49Bh. Then the Sarvarthasiddhi adds sufficient grammatical expositions to achieve clarity of the meanings of words and passages, which are generally lacking in the Bhasya. The citations of the current views on the controversial issues and the recapitulating verses, etc., in the Bhasya which are not essential in elucidating the purport of the text are all curtailed in the Sarvarthasiddhi. Instead, the latter adds ample illustratory examples to facilitate understanding. The concept of pariņāma which is defective in the original sutras V: 42-44 and thereby dropped from the Digambara version is lucidly expounded under the sutra V: (42), and likewise the confused exposition of V 31 (32) is duly improved by Pujyapada. Pujyapada was able to make all these improvements, firstly because he had the Bhasya beside him. upon which he could work over critically from the standpoint of a commentator, and secondly because he was a Sanskrit grammarian who was competent in expressing himself in the plain style of Sanskrit.
The factor of time gave him a greater advantage in elucidating the text more systematically from the advanced level of technicalities and dialectics. Having come after the Satkhaṇḍāgam, Pujyapada knew 14 gupasthanas, 14 märganästhānas and 14 jivasamāsas which Umasväti was not fully acquainted with. Aphorirm I: (8) is systematically expounded from the technicality of these sthānās, Having come in the age of logic which was propelled by Siddnasena Diväkara, Jinabhadra, Kundakunda, Samantabhadra, and so on, he could explain nayavada (1:(6)) clearly with further penetration from the dicho

40

Page #54

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
tomous standpoint of dravyārthike and paryāyārthtka. Kāla in V: (22) is elucidated from the mukhya-vyāvahārika viewpoints. A dichotomous anuyoga couplet of dravyaa bbāra, which is taken into account in the T.S. in explaining indriya (II :-17-18(17-18)), adhikaraga (VI:8 (7) ) and saņvara (IX: 1 (1) ), is furthered in the Sarvårthasiddhi wherein its application is extended to manas (II (11), lesyā (II : (6); vāc (V: (19), etc.. Later, work like the Dravyasangraha applies it to all the tativas.) . .
On the other hand, Pūjyapada failed in clarifying the import of certain aphorisms as we have already discussed. In company with all the rest of commentators, he had difficulty in comprehending the sūtra V:28 (28) pertaining to the perceptibility of things (see Ch. III, Sec. III, Pt.2) and IX : 27(27) pertaining to the definition of dhxãoa. He overlooked the unwanted nature of the sūtra V :(35), thereby his exposition of the aphorisms V:(35-36) is ambiguous and confused. He likewise failed in clarifying the Digambara position of parişahas occurring to a jina in IX:(11), and his exposition of the sutras IX: (36-37) pertaining to dharma dhyātās and their gunasthānas is puzzling. IV: (19) which enumerates sixteen kalpas is in confict with IV: (3) which counts kalpopapannas as of twelve subdivisions. The Sarvārthasiddhi does not offer any logical explanation for this chaotic coordination of the number of kalpas involved with the Digambara position. Almost all of these blemishes were handed down as they are to the later commentators, who neither attempted to improve them.
Another distinct feature noted in the Saryārthasiddhi is its open attitude in attacking the non-Jaina views and defending those of the Jainas, wbich was gradually getting to be the common atmosphere of the days. Umāsvāti refers to the nonJaina systems by way of the generic term tantrāntariya, for instance, in I: 35 Bb (non-Jainas in general), III : 13h, (Buddhists), V :22Bh. (Buddhists), etc., against whom no critical attitude is held. Pujyapāda challenges them by naming the opponents or otherwise, for instance, pertaining to moksamārga in utthānikā, pertaining to pramaņa in 1:(10), pertaining to pratyaksa in I : (12), and so on. He defends the Jaina position in respect of the material nature of karma in V: (19), in respect of the nature of sallekhanā as non-suicide in VII: (22), etc.
We have already pointed out a few instances which suggest or demonstrate that Pujyāpāda was the revisor of the text. Also the facts that the linguistic refinement of the original text is the main feature of the revision of the text and that the Jainendravyākaraṇa was composed prior to the Sarvārthasidd hi' again lend support to the above testimony that the revisor of the text was the grammarian Pūjyapāda himself.10 As the revisor of the text, Pūjyapāda rather tried to preserve the original text as much possible as It is. However he composed the Sarvārthasiddhi primarily from the Digambara point of view. His sectarian viewpoints are noted in the exposition of argabāhya (1 : (20)), atomic combination (V :(34-36)), kevali kavalähāra (VI : (13)), parisaha (IX :(11)), distinction of siddhas by linga (x: (9)), and so on.
41

Page #55

Soc. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRAŠASTI
The prime contribution of the Sarvārthasiddhi is that it revised and improved the Bhasya by way of clearly elucidating its general contents in the current language and concept of the time. Time demanded a proper revision of the Bhāşya. And for the Jainas in the South who refused to acknowledge the authority of the canonical list made at the Third Valabhi Council, an inprovement of the Bhāşya was the call of time along with a revision of the original text. Pujya pāda performed this task commendably well. And since he wrote a new commentary on the T.S., the rest of the Bhāsya portions, i. e., s.kārikā aad prasisti, disappeared also. The revised vers: ion of the T. S. came to be circulated popularly along with the Sarvārthasiddhi in the South, thereby the latter prepared the ground for the arrival of the Rājayártika and Slokavārtika which would not have been derived immediately from the Bhāşya. The contribution made by Pūjyapāda should be evaluated highly in this historical context. Pūjyapāda's date is somehow fixed by the scholars in the beginning of the 6th century A. D." And considering all the circumstances, it may be proper to assume at least half a century of a temporal distance between Umāsvāti and Pūjyapāda. Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI -AUTHORSHIP OF THE T. S.
The testification of the authorship of the Sabhāşya T. S. solely depends upon the verification of the prasasti document, which has not yet been performed success. fully by the modern scholarship. The verification of the prasasti record not only enables us to testify the common authorship of the prasasti itself, but also that of the s.kārikā of which positive data for it have been sufficiently well produced in the foregoing section. This problem has to be therefore tackled by all means. The colophon12 records his biography as follows:
1. Preceptor for initiation: Ghoşanandikşamaņa (ekāda sārgavid)
Grand-preceptor : Śivasri (vācakamukhya) Preceptor for education : Mūla (vācakācārya)
Grand-preceptor : Muņdapādaksamana (mahāvācaka) 2. Father : Svāti of Kaubhisana gotra
Mother: Vatsi (Siddhasena comments that bis mother's name was Umā ond her gotra Vatsa)
place of birth: Nyagrodhikā 3. Author: Umāsvāti
Position: Uccairnagara Vacaka Title of the work: Tattvārthādhigamaśāstra Place of its composition; Kusumapura

Page #56

Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI
None of other works ascribed to him even bears his name. Also the practice of attaching such a colophon with full information of the author to this extent, even though the date is excluded, was not conventionalized in the classical period. His name sounds peculiar and his gotra Kaubbişana which finds no mention in the Gotrapravaramañjari appears equally strange. Thus there are enough reasons to suspect that this colophon might be a later interpolation.
Unfortunately much of what is told about himself in the prasasti has ever been sealed to us because its testifial sources, either literary or epigraphical, are inaccessible. Then we are not able to establish a full testimony to the said account. What we can do at the most under the circumstances is to try to prove the historicity of any items mentioned above if possible, by which the rest of whole account could be authentic. As it shall be duly clarified in the third chapter, Umāsvāti refers to or dist. inguishes the Jaina concepts from those of the non-Jainas expressed in the VaiseşikaSūtra, Nyāyasūtra, Sankhyakārikā, Yogasūtra and Abhidharmakosa. All the works up to the Yogasūtra are known to have been composed before the date of Vasubandhu. Thus it is certain that Umāsvāti's date falls between Vasubandhu and Pujyapāda, that is, approximately the 5th - 6th centuries A.D. Also from the scope of the source materials represented in the T. S. which shall be again dealt with in the following chapter there is no doubt that he belonged to the Āgamic tradition in the North. If therefore there are any early resources around this period onwards in the Svetāmbara tradition which refer to Umāsvāti and/or which bear witpess to any prašasti statement, e. g, the name of his teacher, parent, gotra, sākhā, work, etc., they are extremely valuable for us to tackle our present problem.
Fortunately we are in possession of such materials. The Kalpasūtra therāvali records Uccairoāgara sākhā which is according to the prasasti the legitimate sākhā of our author, but it is silent about Umā vāti as it lists the gurus' lineage up to Skandila, president of the Second Canonical Convention. The Nandisātra therävali speaks of Svāti as a descendant of Hārita gotra which is followed by many other pattāvalis, however this gotra is denied by his autobiography. The biographical record claimed by himself and the one offered by the Nandisātra thus shows a conflict. This Nandi paţtāvali is however the oldest source available to us in relation to our problem, of which important nature should not be overlooked. We ought to therefore carefully examine the relevant contents expressed in this text and explain the nature of this conflict with a view to establishing the historicity of the prasasti document. ' Mathura inscriptions of the Kushan dynasty have confirmed the general trustworthiness of the sthaviravali recorded in the Kalpasūtra, for nearly 1/3 of the ganas, kulas and sākhās mentioned in the latter are identified by the former, by which some of the readings in the Kalpasūtrz were improved and the actual relation of a partcular šākhā to the particular kula and gana which is not coordinated in the Kalpa therāvali became

Page #57

Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI
patent.13 On behalf of this historical authenticty, we shall be allowed to use this Kalpasūtra as a criterion to measure the reliability of the other pattavalis which are as a rule distorted with a view to establishing the authority of a particular patriarchal order concerned.
Uccairnagari (variously spelled in the inscriptions of the mixed dialect of Prakrit and Sanskrit as Uccanagari, Uccenāgari, Ucenāgari, Uccenakari, etc.), which is a sakha belonging to Brahmadäsika kula of Kotika (Kottiya) gana as so endorsed by the Kalpasūtra, enters at least ten times the stage of Mathura inscriptions during the reings of Kanishka and Huvishka, i.e., 2nd century A.D.14 It appears that Kotika gana was one of the most influential parties in those days, of which name is said by Bühler to have survived in the 14th century A.D.15 A few other kulas and khas in this gap are listed in the inscriptions, and its Vidyadhari sākhā makes its appearance again in the Mathura inscription of 432 A.D. The inscriptions were made by the lay Jainas mostly in memory of the donation of images, which as a rule register the names of their preceptors in the above gapa, kula and akha in due order. Once it happens, however, that Brahmidasika kula is mentioned together with Uccairnagari śākhā1 and twice Uccairnagari sikha alone." All these belong to the period of king Huvishka. This may suggest that the larger divisions of gapa and kula were already on the way to be expressed by the smaller division of sakba. which is exactly so found in the case or Uccairnagari fakha recorded in our prasasti. Uccairnagart is the name of a fakha, and Uccairnagara a member of the kha, thus "Uccairnagara vācaka' signifies a reciter of Uccairnagari fakha. Furthermore Uccairnagara is identified with a place name which is also known as Varana, modern Bulandashahar (Baran or Bannu) in U.P.18
It is interesting to note in this connection that 1/4 of the names of these three units of gana-kula-sakha listed in the Kalpasūtra are derived from the place names of Northern India ranging from Bengal through Rajasthan as follows: Antarañjikā (Atranji-khera, on the Kälinadi), Bhadariyaka (Bhaddilapura, identified with Bhadia. Hazaribagh Dt.), Bhrahmadasika (Bambhalijja, Bambhadiva, island, unlocatable), Dasikhabatika (Bengal), Indrapuraka (Indore, Bulandashashar Dt.), Kakandikā (Kākandi, Kakan, Monghyr Dt.), Kamiyaka (Kampillapura ? a city on the bank of the Ganges), Kausambika (Kosam, Allahabad), Kotivarsiya (Dinajpur, Bengal), Madhyamikā (Nagari, Rajasthan), Māsapūrikä (Māsapuri, the capital of Purivatta, not identifiable), Pundravardhaniya (Maḥāsthāna, Bogra Dt., Bengal), Śrāvastikä (Sravasti, U. P.), Tāmraliptikā (Tamaluk, Midnapore Dt., Bengal), Väniya' (Väniyagama, a city near -Veil), Varanas (Varap, or Varuna, Bulandashahar, U. P.), Vätsaliya' (Vaccha).1 Those with an asterisk appear in the Mathura inscriptions, which are likewise distributed over the same geographical area, It means that the Jainas at Mathura had come from all these places, attesting that Mathura likely became the centre of the Jainas by the 2nd century A. D. in the North.

-44

Page #58

Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI
According to the Kalpasutra, Uccairnågan sakha was founded by Arya Santisenika, a disciple of Arya Datta. Kolika gana to which Uccairnāgari sākhā belongs was instituted by Susthita and Supratibuddha. Umsvāti is not referred to in the Kalpasūtra therävall, a brief table of which pertaining to the later discussion is provided below (based on the Kulpasūtru in the S.B.E., V.22) : ... 8. i Mahāgiri 1. Uttara
Founder of Uttarabalissaha gana from which
Candanāgarı säkha derived. 2. Balissaha ]
i Suhasti
5. Sugupta of Harita gotra Founder of Våraņa gana
Ifrom which Vajranägai
sakha derived. 7. Susthita
1 Founder of Kotika gana from which 8. Supratibuddha S Uccairnāgani sikhä derived. 10. Indradatta 11. Datta 12. Säntisenika Founder of Uccairnägari sakha 25. Kalaka
33. Sánlilya ...
The following pattavalis speak of our author (unless the source is specified, those indicated with pages refer to the Pattavalisumuceya, v. I, ed, by Darsana vijaya) : 1. l. i. Nandisutra puttavali 980 V. N. (453 A. D.) p. 12
... Mahāgiri - Subatthi
Bahulassa sarivvaya (Balissaba: Kosia)
Sãi
(Häriya)
Sāmajja (Hāriya)
Samdilla ... it. Nandisutra carni (Nandisütra cürni with Haribhadra's retti,
pub. by Sabhadevaji Kesarimalagi Svetāmbara
Sansthā, pp. 6-7 ... Mahagiri - Suhatthi
Sugļhita-Suppadibadha
45

Page #59

Sec. 4. verificatiON OF PRAŠASTI
Mabāgiri Balissaba (Kāsava) Sãi
(Hāriya)
Sāmajja (Hāriya)
Samailla (Kosita) ... üi. Haribhadra's vytti on Nandisutra (ibid. pp. 14-15)
... Mahāgiri
Balissaha (Kausika) Svāti (Hārita) Syāmācārya (Hārita)
sandilya (Kausika)... iv. Malayagiri's tikā on Nandisūtra (Rāya Dhanapati Simha Bahādurakā:
Agama sangraha, v. 45) ... Mahāgiri
Balissaha (Kausika)
Svāti
(Hārita)
Śyāmācārya (Hārita)
śāņailya (Kausika) ... 1. 2. Dharmasāgaragani : Tapāgaccha pattāvali. 1646 V.S. (1589 A. D.) p. 46
... Mahāgiri
(his disciple) Balissaha (his disciple) Svāti, author of the texts such as Tattvårtha (his disciple) śyāmācārya, author of Prajñā pană (d. 376 V. N.)
(his disciple) śāņờilya ... 3. Sriguru patřāvali author and date unknowo. p. 165 ... Mahāgiri - Suhasti
Susthita - Supratibuddha of Kotika gaccha (etad-vārake) Pal'ssaha

Page #60

Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI
(his disciple) Svāti Vācaka of Tattvārthasangraha (his disciple) Kālakācārya of Prajītāpanā (d, 376 V. N.) Indradiona ...
II, 4. Dharmaghosasuri : Duhşamākāla śramana sangha staya. c. 1300 V. S.
p, 23 Prathamodaya yugapradhāpas
... Mabāgiri
Suhasti
Ghanasundara
śyāmācārya Skandila
Revatimitra ... p. 24 Dvitiyodaya yugapradhānas
... Revatimitra
Simhasūri
Halila
Jinabhadra
Umāsvāti
Puşpamitra ... P. 24 also offers the account of Umāsvāti's life: grhavāsa 20 years, vrataparyāya 15 years, yugapradhāna 75 years, total age 110 years, 2 months and 2 days. Avacūri p. 17
... Revatimitra
Ārya mungu
Svāmi (Svāti)
Hārina Syāmārya
sāndilya ...
p. 18

Page #61

Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI
· Hărila
54 (yugapradhāna)
(Here a verse is inserted, pamasde parasie vikkamakala udaljhanti atthamio' haribhaddasūri süro, bhavianam disae kallanam') Jinabhadra 60
Umäsväti
75
Pusyatisya 60 ... II. 5. Vinayavijivagani : Srirugipradhana. 1651 A. D. p. 140
Lokaprahūsa sarga 34. These repeat the accounts of prathamodaya and dviliyodaya yugapra
dhānas as above. III. 6. Ravivardhanagani : Patrālisirouldhira. 1682 A. D. p. 152
... Yākinisūnu Haribhadrasiri
Viraprabhastri
Umāsvāti (yugapradhana, 1190 V. N. or 663 A. D.)
Jinabhadragani ... 7. Jinavijaya : Kharataragacchu paravali sangraha (pub. by Babu
Puranacandra Nahar) p. 9
... Dev: bhigani ksamisramana (90 V. N. or 373 A. D.)
Govinda väcaka
Umäsvāti vacaka, author of Prusimaruli
Devinda vācaka
Jinabhadragani ksamāśramana (980 V. N. or 453 A. D) ...
p. 26
Govinda
Sambhūtidinna
Lauhityamuni
Pausva mukhya
Umāsvāti vācaka (bhāyādyesu vidhayakani munivara!
Janabhadrastri...

Page #62

Sce. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRAŠASTI
The geneological tables of these patļāvalis pertaining to Umāsvāti disagree one another to a great extent, and we cannot rely upon any one of them immediately. These are classified into three groups above so that their internal relationship can be easily traced. The pattāvalis in the Group I unanimously place Svāti before Syāmācārya, those in the Group II after Jinabhadra, and those in the Group III before Jinabhadra. Svāti is thus spoken in close connection with śyāmācārya and Jinabhadra. Group II offers the genealogies of prathamodaya and dvitiyodaya yougapradhānas. Herein the lineage of prathamudaya yugapradhānas follows the table of the Group I, which refers to Syāmācārya but drops a mention of Svāti (Syāti is mentioned in its avacūri p. 17), and the lineage of dvitiyodaya yugaoradhānas places Umāsvāti after Jinabhadra. Group II is evidently attempting to shift Unāsvāti's chronological position to the later period. In IIT. 6, Umāsvāti comes much later than Haribhadrasūri of the 8th century A. D., of which impossible occasion seems to have happened due to the effect of the verse inserted before tbe turn of Jinabhadra in I1.4, avacūri p. 18. It seems therefore that the last group was likely influenced by the table of the second group which was obviously derived from the first grovp. Then the materials in the first group alone deserve further investigation.
The pattāvalis in the first group consists of (1) Nandi pattāvali and its commentaries, and (2) two independent texts. A glance over these genealogies makes it patent that the Nandisutra is the archetype of the rest of the works. Svāti who has no place in the Kalpasūtra finds a seat in the Nandisūtra onwards bearing Härita gotra. Two characteristic features are noticed in the mode of his entry in these archives, namely, his gotra and his relative position in the genealogy. We shall examine these points below against the record of the Kalpa therävali. (1) Gotra
The Nandisūtra and its commentaries ascribe Harita gotra to Svāti as well as to śyāmācārya, while the other two pattāvalis do not refer to it. Umāsvāti speaks of his gotra as Kaubhişaņa. Syāmācārya, if he is identified with Kalakacārya, is said in the Kalpasūtra as of Gotama gotra. The Kalpa therāvali assigns Harita gotra to Srigupta alone, who is the founder of the Vāraņa gana (said to be Cārana in the Kalpasūtra, which has been corrected into Varana by Būhler on the inscriptional evidences.) (2) Relative position (a) Predecessors (1) Mabāgiri -- Balissaha --- [Svāti] all except I. 3
Suhasti Mahāgiri -- Balissaha -- (Svāti) I. 3 (Sriguru pattāvali)
[etad várake] Suhasti ---- Susthita--Supratibuddha
49

Page #63

Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRAŠASTF
Svāti is interpolated after Balissaha to the list of the Kalpa genealogy. The second table is essentially the same with the first one, excepting that it brings in Susthita - Supratibuddha of suhasti line against Balissaha
as the rivals. (b) Successors
The Nandisātra is doubtlessly responsible for formulating the lineage of
[Svāti]--Śyāma--Sandilya, to which the rest of the texts take recourse. The tradition ascribes Mabāgiri and Suhasti to be the contemporaries of Samprati, which may be an open question. Even then, Svāti's position assigned herein as his grand-disciple is an improbable fact. Also his position as the predecessor of śyāma, author of the Prajñå panā, is incredible, for the content of the T. S. cannot be succeeded by that of the Prajñāpanā. Šāņdilya whom Jacobi identifies with Skandila can neither be acceptable as the grand-disciple of Vācaka, for the content of the T. S. stands later than the period of th: Canonical Convention at Mathurā. His relative chronological position in relation to his predecessors and successors cannot be therefore acceptable as it is. Before we get into an inquiry why this could have happened so, we would like to examine the curious fact here first, i. e., why Svati's first entry in the archive was made in this particular place in relation to Balissaha with the assignment of a foreign gotra, because to be the disciple of Balissaha is an obvious interpolation to the Kaipa genealogy, and to have Hārita gotra comes into conflict the prasasti record. So we shall go back to the Kalpasūtra and review how the ācāryas involved in this scene are informed of themselves : (1) Balissaba (his gotra not mentioned)—the founder of Uttarabalissaha gana,
from which Candanāgari sākbā derived. (2) Susthita and Supratibuddha (of Vyāghrāpatya gotra-the founder of kotika
gana, from which Uccairpāgari sākhā derived. (3) Srigupta of Hārita gotra--the founder of Vāraņa gana, from which Vajra
nāgari sākhā derived. It strikes us to find that the ācāryas coming in this scene are all related in one way or the other to the sākhä сalled Nāgari, i. e., Candanāgari, Vajranagari and Uccairnāgari, to the last of which our author claims to belong. It appears that his entry in the Nandisūtra, after which the rest of the texts followed, was made in some connection with these three Nāgari sākhas which are the only sākbās bearing the name Nagari in the Kalpasūtra. Then what is the probable reason that the Nandi allowed his entry in relation to Nagari sakha? We shall speculate on this point with regard to his gotra and his relation to Balissaha. (1) Gotra
The Nandi cūrni and the other commentaries do not raise any doubt as to why the Nandisūtra assigned Hārita gotra to Svāti. We shall propose a probable archival
50

Page #64

Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI
error occurred in the Nandisātra in the following way. Uccairnagara is, as already mentioned, known also as Varaņā, an ancient kingdom which is counted as one of the twenty-five and a half Aryan countries of the Jainas. The Nandi author likely confused Uccairnagara with its another name Varaņā as the place of säkhā where Svāti belonged, Sväti was thet assigned to belong to Vāraṇa gana which was founded by Srigupta of Hārita gotra. Thus by the second confusion of the place name and gana, Vācaka's gotra came to be fatally recorded as Harita, which was likewise extended to Syämācārya. The confusion seems to have thus happered accidentally. (2) Relation to Balissaha The Nandi verses 25-26 read,
'elāvaccasa-gottam vam tāmi mahāgirim suhatthim cal tatto kosia-gottam bahulassa sariv-vayam vamde/ hāriya-guttam sāim ca vamdimo hāriyam ca sāmajjam/ vande kosiya-gottam sam lillam ajja-iiyadharam//
(Bahula's twin brother is Balissaha) It is patent from the Kalpa therāvali that Balissaha is the direct disciple of Mahāgiri, from the line of which Suhasti's line differs. The Nandi verses above do not clearly distinguish their relation, which however is elucidated by its cūrni, And in tbis Nandi cūrni, Svāti is plainly stated as the pupil of Balissaha, 'balissahassa amtevāsi sāti hāriyassagutte.' The cūrni author least bothers about our problem, why Svāti's seat was all of a sudden allotted under Balissaba. But why did the Nandisutra reckoo Svāti after Balissaba ?
In the previous genealogical table of the Kalpasūtra it is noted that all the three Nāgari sākhās are derived from the ganas established by the disciples of Mahāgiri and Subasti alone. Also it has just been suggested that Umāsvāti's identity to be an Uccairnā gara was likely muddled with a Vajranagara (whose sakhā branched off from vāraņa gana) in connection with the assignment of his foreign gotra. This tends to support a surmise that he was popularly identified with the Vācaka of Nāgari sākhā who might have been known to people as Nāgara Vācaka.20 If his specific Nāgari šākhā were already confused with the other or forgotten, but if he were popularly identified with Nagara Vācaka, it is most desirable for him to be placed in the spot wherein some way all these three Nāgari sākhās are conveniently found together in the established patriarchal Jineage. And sure enough, such a spot is ready in the Kalpa therávali in the circle of Mahāgiri-Subasti whose disciples are responsible for branching off of all these Nāgari sākhās. Then this is the exact place where Nāgara Vācaka ought to be assigned – under one of the organizers of the three ganas who are each responsible for the origination of their own Nägarī sākhā. It appears that this is the picture bow Svāti came to be allotted under one of the disciples of Mahāgiri-Subasti. It is
dud.
$1

Page #65

Sec. 4, VERIFICATION OF PRAGASTI
not known why the Nandi author proposed Balissaba as the predecessor of Svāti instead of Srigupta or Susthita-Supratibuddha. It may be that the Nägarī sākbā wbich branched off from Balissa ha's gana was more well known than the other two. It is neither known whether it was so done intentionally or accidentally.
The Sriguru pattāvali epters Balissaha and Sustbita-Supratibuddha as the rivals (vāraka: hostile, opposiog). The addition of this abrupt information seems to have an intriguing attempt to assert that Svāti does not belong to Susthita-Supratibuddha line, namely, Uccairnāgari sakbā, for this party is said to have stood hostile against Balissaha party of which Svāti is placed as a member. It may allude to a fact that there were some prestige struggles for the prerogative over our eminent Vācaka among the Nāgari sākhās. This pațţāvali is undated, but from the manner of its description it may stand close to the period of the Tapāgaccha pattāvali of Dharmasāgaragani, i. e., 16th century A. D. This tradition could be an old one, but it cannot be so old, for it essentially follows the interpretation of the Nandi commentaries. It can certaioly pot be older than the cūrņi which comments upon the Nandisutra. Then the implication made in the Sriguru pattāvali should not be counted seriously for the consideration of our problem.
It is sufficiently convincing that the Nandi author created a seat for Svāti in the genealogy of the Kalpasūtra wherein all the Nāgasi sākbās branched off from the disciples of Mahāgiri-Subasti. Arya Säntisenika, the founder of Uccairnāgari śákhā, was totally forgotten in the context because he stood outside this Mahāgiri-Suhasti circle. A doubt may arise as to how his gotra Hārita could have escaped a criticism expected from Haribhadra and Malayagiri who are said to have commented uson the T. S. The author of the Nandi yrtti was not likely the same Haribhadra who wrote a commentary on the T.S. after the Bhas yānusāriņi. Malayagiri's commentary on the T. S. does not exist, and we are not sure if he composed it at all. Thus this doubt shall be dismissed.
Although much remains still in darkness, yet foregoing discussion sufficiently well explains that Svāti referred to in the Nandisūtra is identical with Umāsvāti who belonged to one of the three Nāgari sākhās recorded in the Kalpasūtra, and that the Nandi record of his gotra was likely derived by the confusion of the place names. The Nandi author seems to have attempted to justify his interpolation of Svāti after Balissaha by way of bringing in the line of Syāma-śāņdilya who belonged to much earlier date than Umāsvāti, The modes of such manipulation suggest that this interpolation was made in a considerably later time when the position of the T. S. came to be well recognized in the Jaina circle. The later authors of the pattāvalis in the Groups II and III faced difficulty in accepting Umāsvāti's chronological position Created by the Nandisutra and attempted to adjust it by pushing him further dowo. This is enough to ascertain that th: Nandisutra, although it is accompanied by the

Page #66

Scc. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI
archival errors, is the oldest valid source to verify the autobiographical account of Umāsvāti. Then it suffices to prove that the prasasti is the authentic document written by the author himself.
Our task is not fully over yet. We have not yet raised a question - what is this Nagari sākha ? Mathura inscriptions list all the three Nāgari šākhas recorded in the Kulpasūtra. The seat of Uccairnāgari šākā is Bulandashahar, U. P. Vajranagari (Pk. Vajjanāgari) should be, according to Bühler's proposal, corrected into Vrijināgari which is derived from Vịji country of Bihar.21 The location of Candanāgasi sākā is not traceable. It is likely that a Nāgari sakhā means the sākhā derived from a place name bearing the word 'nagara 22 inasmuch as the later Nägara gaccha was derived from Vadanagara. The relation between the Nägara caste of Brahmanical system and the Jaina Nāgara sect is denied by the scholars.23
His gotra 'Kaubhisana' is not listed in the Gotrapravaramañiari. Its possible forms of corruption are also difficult to be traceable therein. Bhisana meaning terrifying, frightening and horrible, is the name of Siva, 24 to which ‘ku' is affixed. In all probability, Vācaka Sväti was a descendant of the Saiva Brahmin 25 His proficiency in Sanskrit and his interest in and knowledge of the non-Jaina thoughts which are all unusual for the Jainas in the classical age also support a conjecture that he was likely a convert from the Brabnianical faith. Naming a child by giving the names of his parents was a common practice in ancient Iodia. Uma-Svāti certainly sounds peculiar,and he seems to have been called Svāti after his father in the olden days as the earlier pattāvalis report. Nyagrodhika, the birth place of author, is difficult to identify, which might have probably been in U. P. not far away from Uccair nagara or Bulandashihar. Kusumapura must be identified with Pāțaliputra, the ancient capital of the Nandas through the Guptas, where the First Jaina Canonical Conference was held. Umāsvāti seems to have preferred the classical name 'Kusuma' to 'Patali' for the usage of the latter violates the metrics of the poem which is composed in Āryā metre.
We have thus somehow achieved in justifying and attesting the fact that the prasasti, which was believed by Siddhasenagani to have been written by the author himself, is the authentic record of Umāsvāti in the light of the Nandisūtra pattāvali with the help of the Kalpa therāvali. This clears up the pending problem of the authorship of the s.kārikā. We have thus duly demonstrated that the Sabhāşya T. S. was composed by Umāsvāti himself.
53

Page #67

CHAPTER III
A HISTORICAL EVALUATION OF THE T. S
Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
A historical evaluation of the T. S. must be assessed on the basis of 1) Umasvati's performance in composing the T.S, 2) Its capacity of influencing the post-Umäsväti authors, and 3) Its position held in the literary history of the Jainas. The first problem is taken up in Sec. I Source materials of the T. S. and their organization. The second category of problem becomes self-evident while handling the relevant problems in in Sec.II-III, even though the exhaustive inquiries into this matter are not possible within the limited scope of this study Sec.II References to the T.S. in the Agamic commentaries up to the 10th century A. D. Sec.III Some problems in the T. S. The third problem is handled in Sec. IV Historical position of the T.S.
That the T.S. is a compendium of seven tattvas derived by way of epitomizing the canonical contents as so pronounced in the s.kärikä 22 has been already endorsed by Atmarama in his Tattvarthasutra jaināgamasamanvaya, wherein he traced the Digambara recension of the T. S. sūtra by sutra in the canonical body. The T.S. has stood the test of time as the standard work of Jaina philosophy, as it inclusively represents the essential Jaina doctrines peculiar to this system so far developed in the canon, which are lucidly discerned from those of the non-Jaina systems and which are. presented in the concisely organized form. In view of this and with a view to evaluating his performance in composing the T.S, an attempt is made in this section to examine the mechanism of the organization of its source materials, both Jaina and non-Jaina, used for the composition of each chapter of the T.S., in order to clarify which concepts were in what way derived from the Agama, which concepts. were in what way distinguished from those of the other schools, which concepts were in what way improved or for nulated by Umasvati, and how these were put together in the text. Some important concepts proposed by him are further discussed independently in Sec. III.

54

Page #68

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S, AND THEIR ORGANIZATINO
Introductory Sätras I : 1-4
The beginning four aphorisms lay down the basic plan of the T. S, which read, 'sanyag-d.irs.ana-jñāna-căritrāņi mokşa-mārgahl tattvārtha-śraddhānam samyag-darśanam/ tan-nisargād-adhigamād val jivā'ivāsrava-bandha-samvara-nirjarā-mokṣās-tattvam.' That mokşamārga consists of threefold pathways is propounded in the Uttarādhyayana 23.33 wherein Gautama replies to Kesi, ‘aha bhaye painnā u, mokkh-sabbhūya-sähaņā/ nāņam ci damsınam ceva, cartitam ceva nicchae.' Likewise the Rşibhāṣitam, which is enumerated as one of the angabāhya texts in the T.S. I:20Bh., refers to the same concept in its Ch. 24, 'tamhā'dhuvam asāsatam-iņam samsāre savva-jivānam sam sati-karanam iti naccā ņāra-damsana-carittäni sevissāmi, ņāna-damsana-caritrāņi sevittă anādiyam jāra kantāram vitivatitrā sivam acala jāva thānam abbhuvagate citthissāmi.' That having faith in nine tattvas constitute the content of samyaktva is again known to the Uttarādhyayana 28. 15. The Sthànı 2.1.102 lists samyagdarsina in two divisions by pisargaja and abhigamaja.
As widely accepted, the Uttarādhyayana 28 entitled Mokha-maggagai provides the materials for Umāsvāti io outlining the composition of the T. S, of which contents are as follows : (1) Introduction: 1-3, jñāna-darśana-cāritra-tapas as constituting mokşamārga; (2) Irāna: 4. five jñānas- 5-6. dravya-guna-paryāya- 7-13. six dravyas and their functions; (3) Darsana: 14. nine tattvas-15, samyaktva or having faith in nine tattvas as a believer's qualification-16-27. ten types of devotees including nisargaruci and abhigama-ruci-28. right faith is attainable by praising tattvas, devotion to the knowers of tattvas, and avoidance of wrong tenets - 29-30. there is no jñana and caritra without darśana, there is no cāritra without jñāna. and without cãritra-guna there is no moksa- 31. eight angas of samyagdrsti; (4) Cāriira : 32-33. fivefold cāritras such as sāmāyika; (5) Tapas : 34. tapas in two divisions accompanied by six subdivisions each; (6) Conclusion: 35-36. fruits of fourfold pathways to liberation.
Umāsvāti improved ninefold tattvas here into seventold tattvas because punyapāpa can be logically absorbed in asrava and bandha tattvas.' The popular sequence of nine tattvas is jiva-ajiva, punya-pāpa, ásrava-samavara-nirjarā, and bandha-moksa, as so found in the Sthānı 9.867, Prasamarati 189, Pancāstikā ya 116, Mūlācāra 5.6 and so on. The Uttarādhyayana 28.14 sepárates bandha tattva from moksa, i. e., jiva-ajiva, bandha, punya-pāpa, äsrava-samvara-nirjarā-mok$a. The T. S. 1:4 modifies them once again according to the causal sequence towards moksa, i. e., jivaajiva-āsrava-bandha-samvara-nirjarā-moksa. Fourfold paths to liberation in the Uttarādhya yana 28 are also replaced by the then known threefold pathways because tapas can be logically included in caritra. This triplet was prevalent in the canonical literature in relation to various concepts such as ārädhana, of which order usually appears in the sequence of juāna-darśana-cāritra, as so expressed in the Uttarādhyayana 23. 33. The Unwrādhyayana 28. 29-30 attach importance to their causal sequence towards
55

Page #69

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S, AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
moksa in the order of darsana-jñāna-caritra, after which Umāsvāti followed, in addition, attributing the word samyak to them in the fashion of "four noble truths" as poioted out by many scholars.
Even though the T. S. thus utilized the materials of the Uttarādhyayana 28, the structure of these two prakaranas are fundamentally different. The Uttarādhyayana 28 is based on the doctrine of fourfold mokşamärgas wherein tattvas constitute the content of darśanamärga, while the T. S. is based on the doctrine of tattvas for which mokşamārga plays a role of the guiding theme.
An exposition of mokşamărga by way of the doctrine of tattvas that by which the entire teachings in the Agama can be known never occurred in the pre-Umāsvāti period. In fact it was possibly the first attempt in this direction made in the philosophical systems in India, after which appeared similar works such as Dasapadārtha. Sastra of Candramati and Padārihadharma sangraha of Prasastapāda in the Vaišeşika system. Tattvas, either nine or seven, succinctly express the principles of Jainism based on the law of causality inasmuch as the twelve interdependent originations do for Buddhism. Tattvas constitute primarily the ontological principles expressing the process of a soul's contact with kirmis up to their total removal from it, upon which th: ethico-religious doctrines and practices of the Jainas have been developed. The doctrine of tattvas is thus the product of the late canonical period brought about in the context of the Karma theory. Umāsväti caught hold of the Uttarādhyayana passage stating that having faith in nine tattvas constitutes the content of samyaktva, and planned to systematize the essential contents of the canon known to him within the framework of seven tattvas. Although the doctrine of seven tattvas alone expresses mokşamärga, these belong fundamentally to the ontological category. Umāsvāti therefore made use of the doctrine of threefold mokşamärga as the guiding theme of this prakarana, which allowed him to express the ontological principles of asrava up to moksa tattvas in terms of ethical context, and which allowed him to discuss about the theory of knowledge that was coming to be current in the later canonical stage.
Seven tattvas are thus distributed in the second through the tenth chapters in the T. S., wherein jñānamimämā is dealt with in the first five chapters consisting of jñāna and jñeyas, and cāritramimāmsā in the rest of chapters, then having faith in the entire work of which is assumed to be darsanācāra. Jñāna is treated in the first chapter, firstly because it does not fit in the category of tattvas, and secondly because it serves as an introduction to the rest of chapters as the means of tattvärthadhigama. Ch II is relevant to the theory of souls, Chs. III-IV fall in the fields of cosmography and mythology, Ch. V conducts a discussion of ontology, Chs.VI-IX pertain to the subject of ethics and disciplinary codes, and Ch.X deals with the theological topics of liberation and siddhahood. Thus virtually all the branches of knowledge developed
56

Page #70

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
in the Agamic period are attempted to be organized in this scheme of seven tattvas
guided by the theme of threefold pathways to liberation. Chapter 1
Umāsvāti discusses the following topics on the theory of knowledge : (1) 4. seven tattvas as prameya; (2) 5-6. three methods of knowledge, i. e., niksepa, pramāna and naya; and (3) their exposition: 7-8. the other anuyogadvāra - 9-33. pramāņa - 34-35. naya.
All these methods of knowledge minus naming five knowledges as pramāṇa were in vogue in the later Āgamic texts, e. g., the Nandi, Anuyogadvāra, etc. The Uttarādhyayana 28.24 lists pramāņa and naya as the methods of cognition of all the nature of dravya, and its 28.4-5 say that fivefold jñānas are the methods of cognizing dravya, guņa and all paryāyas. Pramāņa mentioned in the Uttarādhyayana 28.24 therefore must denote no other than these fivefold knowledges, even though it is not explicitly so identified. The T.S. made this point clear for the first time, obviously to distinguish its Jaina position from that of the non-Jaina schools. Niksepa continues to be the primary method of anuyoga in the niryukti literature, and sat-sarkhyā. etc., of apuyogadvāras are employed in the Samtaparūvanasuttāni 7 of the Satkhandāgama. Seven nayas are likewise treated in the Anuyogadvāra and Satkhandāgama, although Umāsvāti resorts to five nayas which is referred to in the Āvas yaka niryukti 144.
Over 2/3 of this chapter is spared for the exposition of pramāna, and the topics dealt with in this connection are : five jiānas as pramāņa (9-10)-its two major divisions, i. e., paroksa and pratyak$a (11-12) - expostion of each koowledge by way of its subdivision, cause, possessor, place of operation, etc. (13--30) - number of knowledge possible to occur to a soal simultaneously (31) -- viparyaya jñāna (32-33). A majority of these materials is deduced from the classification of knowledge worked out in the Sthāra 2.1.103, and also from the Nandi and Anuyogadvära. The definition of jñāna stated in the sūtra 33 finds no mention in the canon, which was probably formulated by Umāsvāti on the line of the Yogasūtra 1.8, ‘yiparyayo mithyāiñānamatad-rūpa-pratiştham'. Umāsvāti takes the position of yugapadvāda of kevali's upayogas in 1:31 Bh. against the canonical position of kramavāda, of which discussion shall be made separately in Sec. III, Pt.l.
The Nyā yasūtra 11.2.2 says that ajtihya is included in sabda, and artbāpatti, sambhava and abhāva in anumāni. In counteracting, the T. S. 1:12Bh. defends the Jaina position that anumāni, upanāna, agama, arthāpatti, sambhava and abhāva are all included in mati and śruta, as these are caused by the sannikarsa of indriyas with their arthas. The Nyāyasūtra 1.1.4 defines pratyaksa as indriya-sannikarsotpanna, from which the Jaina position is discerned in the sūiras 18-19 by negating sannikarsa between the eyes and their objects. I:35Bh. emphatically articulates that naya is an in dependent method of knowledge peculiar to the Jaina school alone.
57

Page #71

Sec, 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S, AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
Chapter II-IV
Although Chs. III and IV pertain to Jaina cosmography and mythology which are distinctly called Lokaprajñapti and Devagatipradarśana in the respective puspikā, these chapters are better handled here together with Ch. Il in view of their source materials and their common category coming under the jiva tattva. Ch. Il conducts a theoretical discussion of Jaina concept of the jiva in general, i.e., its states in relation to karmas, its nature, classification, transmigration, birth and physical body. Its peculiar characteristics and its further divisions and sub-divisions in each form of existence as so embodied in samsāra are taken up in the succeeding two chapters. These three chapters are thus relevant to the samsāri jivas, and the siddhas are treated in the final chapter.
The contents of these chapters are as follows: Ch. II. 1-9. states and nature of the soul - 10-25. its classification - 25-31. transit to next birth - 32–36. mode of birth -- 37-52. sarira, linga and anapavarty-āyus. Ch. II Lower world : 1-6. seven earths and narakas, their residents and lifetime; Middle world : 8. ring-shaped construction of continents and oceans - 9-11. Jambūdvipa with Mt. Meru in the middle, its size, regions and boundary mountains - 12-16. human regions and classification of human beings - 17-18. lifetime of human beings and animals. Ch.IV Upper world: 1-53. hierarchy of devas, their abodes, leśyās, sexual behaviours and lifetime.
The materials contained in these three chapters are mostly provided in the Jivājivābhigama, which is a catalogue of the classification of jivas based on two kinds up to ten kinds, of which investigation is made by way of various anuyogadvāras such as sarira, kasāya, leśyā, indriya, sanjña, veda, drști, darśana, jñāna, yoga, upayoga, āhāra, upapāia, sthiti, gati, and so on. Its third chapter describes the thre worlds in relation to the classification of jivas by gitidvāra. Some other materials are supplemented to it from the Prajñāpanā, Sthāna and Jambūdvipaprajñapti.
As to the contents of Ch. II, the number of physical sense organs and the object of senses (20-21) as well as three kinds of sex (40Bh.) are generally so acknowledged by the other philosophical systems likewise. Also the modes of birth and the types of uterus birth etc. (32, 34-36), the varieties of bodies (37) and the kinds of sex of the beings in various gatis (50-51 Bh.) are to a certain cxtent commonly shared by the other schols, for these are derived from the same traditional stock, of which slightly different positions held by the Jainas are lucidly expressed in the relevant aphorisms.
The other concepts discussed in this chapter are peculiar to the Jainas. The idea of the beginning seven sūtras which classify the soul in terms of the technicalities of karma doctrine is new. These five states of a soul were undeniably the then prevalent categorical items, which occur in 1:8 Bh. as the divisions of bhāva anuyogadvāra. The Sthāna 6.649 and Annyogadvāra 127 enumerate six types of bhāva including sännipātika,
58

Page #72

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T.S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
which is excluded from the T. S. possibly because it fails to be an essential part. (The Prasamarati 196-97 count the sixth.) Their subtypes were obviously born by way of systematizing those enumerated in the Anuyogadvāra 127, and particularly noteworthy here is Umāsvāti's performance in determining the subtypes of pāriņāmika bhāva. The construction of the T. S. is based on the doctrine of tattvas. Umāsvati therefore seems to have caught hold of the then popular concept of bhäva anuyogadāra, and began his exposition of seven tattvas with the Jaina concept of the soul in terms of karma doctrine. The subtypes of the soul's fivefold states became standardized in the later karma works. The presence of karma, yoga and the activity of ähāra involving the soul's transmigratory passage are again stated in view of the karma theory. Likewise anapavartyāyus expressed in the last aphorism is a technical term in the karma doctrine. It should not be lost sight of that the canonical classification of the five sensed-beings by jalacara, etc, found in the Prajñāpanā 1 and in the other canonical texts met a reclassification by Umāsvāti in II:34Bh. in accordance with their modes of birth such as jaräyuja, possibly under the sway of the non-Jaioa classification. He quotes the Astādhyāyi 5.2.93 for explaining the term indriya in II:15Bh., and Vyāsa's commentary on the Yogasūtra JII:22 in 11:52Bh."
• The description of the worlds made in Chs. III-IV is no more than a skillful reproduction of the Āgamic cosmography. It had been developed in the traditional Indian soil, and many of its aspects are commonly shared by the other schools likewise. Therefore in describing the loka, Umāsvāti is conscious in discriminating the Jaina position from that of the others, for instance, he notes in III:1 Bh., 'api ca tanträntariyā asankhyeyeșu loka-dhātuşy-asankhyeyāh prthivi-prastārā ity-adhyavasitah/ tat-pratiședhārtham ca sapta-grahanam-iti', which must refer, as Siddhasena points out, to the Buddhist view expressed in the Abhidharmakosa 3.3.Bh. Haribhadrasűri refers to a purānic view also, ... tantrāntariyah sakyādajah asankhyeyeșu loka-dhātuşu... , aneka brahmānd opalak şanam-etad, tat-pratişedhārtham...'. The standard of measurement and time is mentioned in the Abridharm kosa, and the T.S. IV:15Bh. also refers to the Jaipa standard of time.
The Abhidharmakośa Ch III entitled Lokanirdesa carries the similar topics discussed in the T. $. Chs.III-IV as pointed out by many scholars, of which contents are as follows : 1-7. three dhätus, i. e., kāni, rūpi and ārūpya, situated one above the other, and five gatis therein (i. e, nāraka, preta, tiryanca, manusy and deva) — 8-18. modes of birth (i. e., and ja, jarāyuja, samsvedaja and upapāduka), the antarābhava and the birth of sattvas in five gatis - 19-44. bhavacakra explained in terms of twelve pratityasamutpāda - Middle world 45-52. väyu-jala-kañcana-mandalas-Mt. Meru, its surroundings, formation and size, four concentric continents and oceans - 53-57. Jambu ivipa, its size, shape, regions and rivers -- Lower world : 58-59. naraka by its divisions - Upper world: 60-77. heavenly bodies, their sizes, time divisions created by
59

Page #73

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
the motion of the Sun, divisions of the upper world, residents, their sexual behaviours and sizes of bodies - 78-84, lifetime of samsaris - 85-102. standard of measurement and time, etc.
The outline and concents here must have been carefully studied by Umásvāti in order to clearly explain the Jaina position of cosmography and mythology. The Buddhist treatment of indriya expressed in the Abhidharmakosa Chs. I-II differs greatly from that of the Jainas, which is likewise elucidated in the T.S. Ch. Il mainly drawing materials from the Prajñāpanā 2. Chapter V
The 5th chapter pertaining to the Jaina ontology consists of two parts, i. e., (1) 1-16. five astikāyas; and (2) 17-44. six dravyas. The canonical tradition explains the metaphysical world by way of these two different principles, which Umāsvāti also adopted. The first portion relevant to the nature of five astikāyas is no more han at reproduction of the Agamic materials, for instance the Bhagavati 2.10. The second part explains the function of six dravyas (17-22), the nature of puugala (23-36), and the nature of dravya (37-44). These topics are offered in the Uttarādhyayana 28.7 in respect of the laksana of six dravyas, the Uttarādhyayanı 36 in respect of pudgala and dravya, the Prajñāpanā 13.418 in respect of the theory of atomic combination.
Sūtras V:17-22 examine the upakāra of six dravyas, e.g., 'gali-sthity-upagrahau dharmadharmayor-upakāraḥ (17)', which is made after the canonical works, e. g., the Sthāna 5.3.530, Untarādhyayana 28 9. etc. Upakära is expalined in V:17Bh. to be the equivalent of prayojana, guna and artha; and upagraba to be the synonym of nimitta, apekṣā, karani and hetu. The mode of exposition made in the T. S. is inferential, inferring the existence of an imperceptible substance from its perceptible attribute. An inferential thinking pattern as such which is foreign to the Agama was doubtlessly introduced from the Vaiseşikasūtra, wherein the 2nd and 3rd chapters attempt to establish the existence of dravyas from their guņis, for instance, 'nișkramanam praveŚ anam ity-ākāśasya lingam (2. 1. 20),' 'aparasmin param yugapad-ayugapac-ciram kşipram-iti kāla-lingāni (2. 2.(6),' 'prānāpāna-nimeşonmeşa-jirana-mano-gatindriyantaravikārāḥ sukha-duḥkheccha-dveşau prayainās-cātmano lingāni (3. 2. 4),' and so on. The Vaissika definition of kāla obviously gave some influence for the formulation of the aphorism V:22.5
The Bhāsya on V:22 explains paratva-aparatva as of three kinds, i. e., prasamsākrta, kŚtra-krta and kala-kria, the first two of which are irrelevant to kāla as the bhāşyakāra admits. The latter two occur in the Vaiseșikasūtra 7.2.25, which were both reproduced by Unāsvāti along with an additional illogical pair of anuyoga items, i, e., prasasta-aprassata. Another strange notion which strikes us in this context of Ontology is the nature of jiva stated as of mutual assistance (V:21) (which is used as a catchphrase by the present day Jaioas). It is looked at from the common sense
60

Page #74

Sec. I. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
moralistic viewpoint that finds no mention in the canonical texts, which must have been formulated by the author himself. The Prasamarati replaces it by the Agamic concept of samyaktv-jñāna-căritra-virya-sikşa.
The Buddhist usage of the term pudgala differs from that of the Jainas. It has been already discussed that the treatment of pudgala was born in the context of the Vaiseşikasūtra Ch. 4 and that the concept of sat in threefold characteristics was also derived in the milieu of the Nyāyasūtra 4. 1. 11-40. The Jainas do not sanction four or five mahābhūtas as the constituents of the matter, but believe sabda, etc., to be its modifications. In the sūtras 23-24, this point is carefully discrimirated from the concepts held by the other systems. The Vaiseșikasūtra refers to the nature of aņu to be sat-akāranavat-nitya (4. 1. 1), adravyavat-anupalabdhi (4. 1. 7) and pariinandala (7. 1. 26). The T. S. V: 250h. quotes a passage in this regard, 'kāranam-eva tad-antyam sūksmo nityas-ca bhavati paramānuh / eka-rasa-gandhavarno dvi-sparsaḥ karya-lingas-ca.' This citation fails to find its source at present, however it sufficiently well distinguishes the Jaina concept of aņu from that of the other schools. The law of perceptibility of things which shall be separately dealt with in Sec. III, Pt.2 was formulated by Umāsvāti to clarify its Jaina position. The theory of atomic combination is taken up in V:32-36, which are disturbed in the middle by the aphorisms on satsāmánya. The nature of dravya is treated at the end in relation to guņa, paryāya and pariņāma. Kāla is reclaimed as a dravya in this context, which is certainly out of tune having lost its proper place, which should have been introduced right after the exposition of five astikāyas, Dravya ard gupa are defined in the sūtras 37 and 40, of which concepts were derived by way of improving the same in the Uttarādhyayana 28.6 with the help of the Vaiseşikasūtra 1.1.15-16.6
Umāsvāti introduced and innovated some important concepts in this chapter by facing the relevant non-Jaina concepts, but having been likely carried away by the topics in which he was engrossed, the general arrangement of these topics here is undeniably disorganized.
Chapter VI
To: treatment of ásrava includes the following topics: (1) 1-2. definition; (2) division; at sulivisio 13: 3-4. by payı ad pāpi – 5. by sâmparāyika and iryāpatha - 6-10. subdivisions of samprāyika by causes and by various categorical topics; and (3) 11-26. causes of ásrava binding eight mūla prakrtis.
There is no convenient Āgamic source which readily provides en bloc the materials used in this chapter to facilitate its composition. The Tattvärthasūtra jaināgamasamanvaya most frequently refers to the Bhagavati passages in its satakas 1, 6, 8 and 9, and less frequently to the Sthina and Uttarādhyayana. The sources of these materials
61

Page #75

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
are widely dispersed in the canonical corpus, and this chapter is outlined according to Umāsvāti's original plan and scheme.
This chapter displays an inventory of kriyā belonging to various categories which had been worked out independently in the long Āgamic period, thereby exhibiting occasional reiterations of the same concept, for instance, four kasāyas occur again as the subdivision of jivādhikaranı, and ārambha is reckoned both in jivādhikarana aod in twenty-five kriyās. The third topic of kriyā, either good or bad, as the cause of sriva in binding mūla prakstis is directly concerned with the subject matter of Ch.VIII.
It should not be lost sight of that Unāsvāti changed the traditional sequence of three yogas, i.e., manis, vāc and kāya, into kāya, vāc and manas, probably because he attached more importance to kāyikakriyä which had been repeatedly denouned in tradition in relation to prāltipāta. The definition of āsrava was for the first time statei by Unīvāti. Yoga in threefold divisions is the fundumental cause of asrava, or yoga itself is conceived by him to be asrava. Yoga is classified here into śubha and aśubha, the former of which ensuing iryāpatha asrava belongs to those without kaşāyas and the latter ensuing sämparāyika ārava belongs to those with kasyas. It should be noted down that Umāsvāti deems yoga, which theoretically belongs to a neutral category, in terms of subha-asubha on the basis of the absence and presence of kaşāyas. Umāsvāti szen to have formulated this concept with the help of the Kasayaprabhyta Ch. VII, wherein Gunadhara conceives kasāyas in terms of upayoga which is altogether a new concept in that age. Threefold yogas are consciously or unconsciously derived by the operation of the soul's nature, upayoga. Therefore śubha upayoga necessarily ensues śubha yoga and aśubha upayoga does aśubha yoga. Susha yoga then activates punya asrava which brings forth punya bardha, and aśubha yoga prompts pāpa asrava which brings forth pāpa bandha.
The canonical texts such as Sthana 5.2.517 and Samava ya 16 list fivefold äsrvadvāras, i.e, mithyādarśana, avirati, pram:āda, kaṣāya and yoga, which are enumerated as bandhaavāras in the T.S. VIII:1. Theoretically speaking, there is no difference between āsrava and bandha as to their root causes, because bandha is the logical consequence of asrava promted by the same causes. Three!old yogas are universally present in all those on the stages of thirteen gunasthāpas with or without kasāyas, therefore Umāsvāti justified yoga to be the root cause of asrava, meanwhile classifying it into subha and aśubha, in the latter of which he included all the rest of the four kinds of asravadvāras reckoned in the canon. For among the four subdivisions of samparāyika ásrava, i.e., avrata,kasāya, indriya and kriyā, indriya is explained in the Bhāşya on VI:6, 'pañca pramatasyendriyāņi', and mithyātva is included in twenty-five krijās. Kriyā had repeatedly been propounded in the early caronical works to be the cause directly inviting asrava, so Umāsvāti must have wanted to lay emphasis on it by
62

Page #76

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S, AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
counting twenty-five in all in the place of mithyatva which is just a part of them. Fivefold asravadväras in tradition are thus in theory further systematized by Umāsvāti.
All these five causes of asrava are therefore enumerated as the causes of bondage in VIII: 1, which is certainly logical. However, he defines bandha in VIII:2, 'sakaṣāyatvāt...", which creates difficulty involving the treatment of iryāpathika bandha that is logically ensued by iryapatha asrava as so punya karmas are reckoned in VIII:26. Umäsväti obviously excluded here sayoga kevalis who are free from kasayas from the object of the treatment of bandba, perhaps due to the supposition that the duration of iryāpathika bandha is practically too short to be counted as bandha. The same assumption of Umasvati in respect of this point is again endorsed in the Prasamarati 142, 'granthaḥ karmaşta-vidham mithyat vävirati-duştayogas-ca". For this reason, he does not refer to prakṛti and pradeśa bandhas of iryäpathika type, which are surely noted down in the Sarvarthasiddhi under the sutra VIII (3). This bizarre performance of Umäsväti regarding the treatment of iryapathika bandha well explains the contradiction exhibited in the aphorism X.2 which has been discussed in the first chapter (see its Sec. II, 4.2)). His definition of bandha thus creates a logical contradiction in relation to sutras VI: 1-5 and VIII:26,7
Chapter VII
Three topics are of major concern in this chapter. i. e., vratas, vratis and the code of lay conduct (1) 1-2. five vratas 3-7. their bhāvanas and the other augmentary observances 8-12. definition of five vows; (2) 13-14. vratis consisting of ascetics and laymen; and (3) 15. five apuvratas- 16. seven silas 17. samlekhana18-32. aticäras 33-34. däna.
In the canonical sources, the five vratas and their bhāvanās are treated in the Aciranga II. 15 and Praśnavyakarana II, and twelve vows of laity and their aticăras are discussed in the Upasakadasa 1 and Sravakavasyaka, the latter of which also refers
Upāsakadaļā
to samlekhanā.
The Yogasutra enumerates five yamas called mahavratas in II: 30-31, niyamas and their bhavanās in II: 32-34, and their phalas in the succeeding sutras. The sūtras VII 5 and 6 are considered to be the modifications of the Yogasutra 1:33 and II:15.8
The definition of dana made in VII: 33 is not traceable in the canon, which seems to have been conceived after the Abhidharmakosa 4.113-4 'diyate yena tad-dānam puid nugrana kamaya kavik-Karma sotthanam [Lan-mahābhogavat-phalam ) ||113/ sva-pararthobhayärthaya nobhayarthaya diyate ad-viseto anapati-vastu-kşetra viseşatal)//114// The content expressed in the Bhagavati 7.1.263 could have been also
63

Page #77

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
consulted in this connection. The di isions of dāna stated in the sūtra 34 are vidhi, dravya, dātr and pātra, which are drawn from the Bhagavati 15. 540..
The condition of vratis as niņsalya does not find a mention in the canonical literature wherein threefold salyas, i. e., māyā, nidāna and mithyādarsana, are frequently talked about. It seems that Umāsväti laid down this condition on the ground that samyaktva is the primary proviso to be a vrati as so articulated in the dialogues in the Agama and as so emphasized in the beginning sūtras of the T. S. Mithyadarsana šalya is reckoned as the last one among eighteen vices and as one of five kriyās.
As to the list of bhāvanās, those of asteya conspicuously differ between the two recensions of the T. S. Umāsvāti's list in VII:3Bh. agrees with that of the Acārānga II.15. 1043-1044 in content but differs in sequence. The Samayāya 82 and Mülācāra 5.142 belong to the same group with some variations. On the other hand, the Digambara sūtra VII:6 and Kundak unda's Cáritrapähuda 34 broadly agree with the list made in the Praśnavyākarana (v. 1, p. 1230-31).' These indicate that there were two major trends in the practice of bbāvanās in the Jaina communities prior to the schism.
As already noted, Ch.VI is directly related to the subject matter of Ch.VIIT, and a smooth flow of discussion from Ch. VI (āsrava) to Ch.. VIII (bandha) in the sequence of tattvas is disturbed by the insertion of Ch. VII in the middle. This chapter deals with mahāvratas which fall in samvara tattva and aņuvratas which fall in asrava tattva. Umāsvāti's logical reduction of punya-pāpa from nine tattvas in tradition ensued difficulty in arranging in his scheme of seven tattvas the topics of aņuvratas which promise rebirth in svarga loka for laymen in the consequence of their good actions, thereby this chapter had to be created. And this chapter relevant to punya asrava as so Pūjyapāda conceives it was needed to be arranged immediately before the chapter of bandha tattva in order to explain the punya karmas derived therefrom. This problem has been fully discussed in the translator's introduction to Pt. Sukalji's Commentary on Tattvārthasūtra.
Chapter VIII
This chapter outlines the classification of karmas so far developed in the Agamic period: (1) 1-3. causes and definition of bondage; (2) 4. four divisions of karmas - 5-14. prakrti bandha - 15-21. sthiti bandha -- 22-24. anubhāga bandha - 25. pradeśa bandha; and (3) 26. punya karmas.
The Uttarādhyayana 33 called Kammappayādi deals with the same topics: 1-5. eight mūla prakrtis and their subdivisions --- 16. their bondage by pradeśa kşetra and bhāva - 17-18. pradeśa bandha -- 19-23. sthiti bandha - 24–25. anubhāga bandha,
64

Page #78

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
Chapter VIII is thus directly derived from the Uttarādhyayana 33 by slightly improving its structure and contents, to which the first three sūtras and the last aphorism are added at both ends. We have already referred to Umāsvāti's formulation of the definition of bindha that it pertains to those with kaṣāyas alone, which is not at all satisfactory. The latter portion of its definition, i. e., 'jivah karmano yogyān pudgalā 1-ā laite', which tersely expresses the Jaina concept of bondage, was likely formulated by the author himself, for its definition in this form of expression does not occur in the canonical texts. The last sūtra regarding punya karmas is mentioned in the sequel of the reduction of punya-pāpa tattvas, of which papa karmas are mentioned in the Bhāsya. Corresponding to pāpa asrava stated in VI:4. pāpa karmas should have been also mentioned in the sutra proper. The Southern version of the text duly improved this point.
Chapter IX
Here discussed is the disciplinary code of ascetics, which covers samvara and nirjarā tattvas: (1) 1-2. difinition of samvara and sixfold samvaradvāras --- 3. tapas as the cause of samvara and nirjarā; (2) their expositon: 4-18. samvara - 19-46. tapas47. process of nirjara; and (3) 48-49. classification of nirgranthas.
Samvara is not defined in the canonical body in the fashion as expressed in the aphorism 1. The term samvara and the term asrava are used by the Buddhists as well; therefore it was incumbent upon the author to confer the clear-cut Jaina definition of these terms. Sixfold samvaradvāras consisting of gupti, samiti, dharma, anupreksā, parişahajaya and caritra do not occur as a set category in the canon. Tenfold dharmas, which are listed in the Sthāra 10.145 and Samavāya 10, and twelvefold anupreksās do not quite fit in the context bearing the other older items; and it must be Umāsvāti himselt who formulated these six kinds of samvaradvāras by excluding mahāvratas and their bhāvanās which are dealt with in Ch. VII. Needless to say, mahāvrata constitutes an important samvaradvāra as Umāsvāti counts it in samvarānupreksā in IX:7Bh. Căritra is said to denote five stages of samyama such as sāmāyika, which finds a mention in the Bhagavati 25.7. Urtarādhyayana 28.32-33, and so on. The problem of caritra shall be considered separtely in Sec. III, pt. 5.
Anupreksās are partially enumerated in the canonical texts, for instance, in the Bhagavati 25.8.802, Sthāna 4.1.308 and Aupapātika 19, wherein ekatva, anitya, asarana and samsāra belong to dharma dhyāna, and anantavarti, vipariņāma, asubha and apāya to śikla dhyāna. Asarana, anitya and ekatva bhāvanās are mentioned in the Ācārānga I already, so these items had developed into the preliminary observances to these two types of dhyāna by the time of Umāsvāti. The Abhidharmakosa Ch. 6 entitled Mārgapudgalanirdesa deals with ārya satya and bhāvanā mārga, of which kārikā 6.1 reads, klesa-prahānam-ākhyātam satyadarsana-bhāvanāt / dvividho bhāvanā
65

Page #79

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S, AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
margo, darsanākhyās-tv-anāsravah and its 6.5. explains, 'votta-sthiḥ śruta-cintāvān bhāvanāyām prayujyate.' Its svopajñabhäşya on 6.17 expounds sixteeofold dharmasmrty-upastbānäbhyāsas, i.e., duḥkhadrsţi - duḥkham, anityam, sūıyam, anātmakam; samudayadrști – samudaya, prabhava, hetu, prutyaya; nirodhadssti-nirodha, śāntam, pranitam, nih saranam; and märgadrsţi mārga, nyāya, pratipati, nairyān kam. It seems that Umāsvāti formulated anupreksā items of āsrava through bodhidurlabha in the context of samudayadrșți through mārgadssti above, because duḥkhadrsti is somewhat covered by the items present in the Agama. Anyatva sounds to have been derived from anātmaka; aśuci occurs in the sukla dhyāna anupreksā as aśubha; the concept of loka is well suggested by the items anantavarti and vipariņāma therein; and asrava, samvara, nirjasă and bodhidurlabha (occurring in the Sūtrakta I.15.624, Uttarădhyayana 3.8, etc.) are comparable to the Buddhist items such as hetu, pratyaya, pirodha, mārga, nyāya and pratipati. Thus it appears that Unāsvāti expanded and systematized the Jaina concept of anupreksā in the context of the relevant Buddhist concept. He treated anupreksā as an independent samvaradvāra because his list of enlarged items deviated from the canonical list, and because these twelvefold items were conceived in the context of 'klesa-prahāram-ākhyātam satyadarsana-bhāvanāt' of the Abhidharmakosa 6.1 which is comparable to the simvaradvāra of the Jainas. The Prasamarati calls them twelve bhāvanās.
Parişahajaya is an old topic occurring in the Agama since its genesis, however it is a stray subject there treated somewhat independently. For instance, the Ācāränga 1. 9. 3 talks about pariş ahas in relation to Lord Mahāvira's wandering life at Ladha, and the Sūtrakrla 1.3.1 describes mental and physical hardships which a novice is to be prepared to face in his path. The Uttarādhyayana 2 is an independent chapter devoted to parishi and the Bhigavati 8.8,342 deals with it independently in relation to karmic bondage. In a broad sense, parisahajıya sounds to fall in the category of tapas for both are effective for nirjarā, however the distinction of the two seems to lie in whether it is a performance based on the endurance of what has faller on an aspirant's path or a planned out regular practice based on the prescriptions in the canon. The Rāiavārtika explains it under the sūtra IX : (19), 'buddhi-pūrvo hi kāya-klesa ity-uccyate, yadyochayopanipāte parişahah. Possibly for the same reason, Unāsvāti gave a definition, 'mārgācyavana-nirjarartham pari şodhavyāḥ parişahāh., and classed this stray item in the category of samvaradvāra together with the two other relatively new items, i.e., dharma and anuprekşā. But then, the aphorism 3, tapasi nirjurā ca, suffers, for the same concept is applicable to parişahajaya, too. The 22nd parişaha listed in the Ultarādhyayana 2 is darśana parişaha, which is replaced by adarsana parişaha in the T. S. The Bhagavati 8.8.342 brings into discussion how many parişahas occur at once, and how many of them occur to sarāga chidmasthas, vitarāga chad. masthas, sayoga kevalis and ayoga kevalis, which are likewise taken into consideration in the T. S.

Page #80

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
The materials for tapas are readily available en bloc in the canon, for instance, in the Bhagavati 25.7. 891-3, Uttarādhya yana 30 and Aupapātika 17-19.10 Among twelvefold Azmic subdivisions of tapıs, dhyāna mzets quite a different treatment in the T.S. which shall be discussed independently in the later section. The source of the classification of nirgranthas can be traced in the canon, for instance, in the Bhagavati 25.6. Chapter X
Moksa tattva is discussed in respect of the following topics : 1-4. two types of moksa, i.e., jivan mukti and videha mukti 5-6. ascendance of the liberated souls to siddha loka- 7. maintenance of siddhas' individualities. This chapter is short and the guide-line of its content could have been suggested by the Prajñāpanā 36. Aupapātika 41-43, etc. However, the treatment of moksa pada here is made on the theoretical line, and the Tattvārthasūtra jaināgamasamanvaya refers for its sources to various texts such as the Bhagavali, Uttarādhyayana, Prajñāpanā, etc.
The concept of moksa differs among various schools, and its Jaina concept has to be clarified that liberation is the state of a soul released from its entire karmas. The rise of kevalajnana in the penaltimate stage to moksa is admitted likewise by the Sarkhyas as expressed in the Sankhyakariki 64, 'evan tatt vādhyāsän-nāsmi na me naham-ity-apariseşam aviparyayād-visuddham kevalam-ut padyate jnanam'. Its kārikās 67-68 describe the states of jivan mukti and videha mukti, 'samyag-jñānādhigamāddhurmădinām-akāramı-präptau tiştui samskāra-vasac-cakra-bhramavad-dhrta-sarirah// prāpie sarira-bheile caritārthatvat-prudhāna--vinirrttau/ ekāntikam-atyantikam -ubhayam kaivalyai-āpnotil/'. Discussion has been already advanced as to the obscure position of the T.S. X :2 (see Ch. I, Sec. II, 4.2)).
The idea that the liberated souls ascend to siddha loka is peculiar to Jainism, which is aphorized along with its theoretical reasons for support. The reason of siddhas' refusal into aloka ākāsı due to the absence of dharmāstikāya expressed in X:6Bh. is new to the age, 11 for the Bhagavati which is familiar with th: concept of five astikāyas argues in its 16.8.585 that a deva cannot move his limbs in the aloka ākāśa for no jiva-ajiva exist therein, because motion is elsewhere incurred when a jiva tries to fetch matters to nourish his body. Likewise the Sthāna 10.931 says that motion occurs only when jivas and matters exist, therefore jivas cannot go beyond the loka ākāśa wherein no matter exists. The Southern version duly aphorized this Bhäsya exposition.
The maintenance of siddhas' individualities is insisted upon in the T.S. probably with a view to distinguishing the Jaina position from that of the Sankhyas, because according to the latter, pluralism of souls which is likewise acclaimed by them meets a contradiction, for the individualities of prakriis reflected in purusas disappear once for all when kaivalyahood is attained. The Nandi 21, prajītāpanā 1.7.7-10 and Jivaj. ivābrigama 1.7 classify the emarcipated souls into two types i.e., anantara siddhas and parampara siddhas, who are examined in terms of an uyogadväras such as tirtha.
67

Page #81

See. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION pratyekabuddha-bodhita, linga and sankhyā. Umāsvāti employs here twelve anuyogadvāras, and speaks of anantaca siddhas and parampara siddhas in terms of naya, i.e., pūrva-bhāva-prajñāpaniya-Daya and pratyutpanna-bhāva-prajñāpaniya-naya.
The Bhāşya to X:7 mentions a yogi's șddhi which is generally accepted by the rest of schools as expressed in the Yogasūtras, Sankhyakārikā, Abhidharmakosa, etc. Up.kārikās 24-27 classify sukha into four kinds, i.e., by visaya, vedanā-bhāva, vipāka and moksa, which seem to have been conceived in the fashion of duḥkhatrayas referred to in the Sankhyakārikā 1 that are known as adhyatmika, ādhibhautika and adhidaivika. CONCLUSION
The greatest achievement of the T. S. thereby its philosophical meaning of this text, lies in its systematization of the philosophical contents of the Jajna canon in terms of seven tattvas, and in its innovation of certain traditional concepts as well as the formulation of certain new concepts which are largely made in the cross current with the non-Jaina thoughts. The success of this work is doubtlessly due to the personal capacity of th: author, however its achievement was not possible without the existence of the later canonical texts (the texts most heavily used are : Bhagavati, Uttarādhyayana, Prajñāpanā, Jiväjivābhigama, Nandi, Anuyogadvāra and Sthana) which had in majority gone through the process of systematization to a greater extent and stood in the position to be ready to offer their en bloc for the composition of the
T. S. and without materials the existence of the non-Jain standard texts from which Umāsvāti imdibed the wider philosophical vision that enabled him to discern sharply the Jaina concepts from theirs and that enabled hin to cover most of the universal problems at current.
As to the distribution of the subject matters to len chapters the allotment of the topic of jīvas to Chs. II-IV is likely suggested by the Jiyāji vābhigama, of which broad outline might have been hinted at by that of the Abhidharmakosa III and that of the rest of chapters are automatically regulated by the themes of seven tattvas and three jewels. And as to the construction of each chapter, most of them must have been derived from the outlines made in the readily systematized portions of the Āgamic works, with the sole exception of Ch. V which was drafted by Umāsvāti on the independent line. Ch.X is made much under the sway of the Sankhyakārikā.
The non-Jaina standard works, such as Vaiseşikasūtra, Nyāyasūtra, Sankhyakārika, Yogasūtra and Abhidharmakośı, must have been thoroughly studied by the author not only to master the skill in composing the text in sútra style in Sanskrit which did not exist in the then Jaina practice, but also in order to distinguish clearly the Jaina tenets from theirs. Here he learnt how to define a concept which was foreign to the Agamic authors, and introduced some different types of thought pattern such as inferential method of approach into Jainism. Also it should not be forgotten that he took a good advantage of the rational thinking pattern of the then karma specialists, who came to be active in the later Āgamic stage.
68

Page #82

Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERTALS OF T.S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION
Various important traditonal concepts were improved or innovated by him, for instance, concept of seven tattvas (Cb.I), identification of five knowledges with pramāņa (Ch. I), Yugapadvāda of kevala jñāna-darsana (Ch, I), five states of souls in relation to karmas (Ch.II), reclassification of five-sensed beings according to the modes of birth (Ch.11), definition of cravya-guna-pāryāya (Ch. V), definition of käla (Ch.V), definition of āsrava (Ch VI), formulation of sixfold samvaradvāras (Ch.IX), formulation of twelve anupreksās (Ch. IX), concept of chyāna (Ch.IX), concept of sukha (Ch.X), etc; many of which were derived while discriminating the Jaina positions from those of the non-Jaina schools. Likewise the concept of sat (Ch.V), law of perceptibility of things (Ch.V), definition of dāna(Ch.VII), Dihsalya as the proviso of vratis (Ch. VII) etc., were formulated by Umāsvāli in the same background. These concepts proposed by him are distributed to all the chapters excluding Chs. II-IV and VIII of which materials he merely reproduced from the then existing canonical works. Most of these concepts came to be standardized in the post-Umāsvāti period, and particularly the Southern authors followed the categorical concepts standardized by Umāsvāti. Some of them met improvements, and some of them became the sources of further developoment, among which the most important is the concept of sat that came to provide the ground for the immediate arrival of the age of lagic in the two traditions.
While organizing the legacy of the tradition quite faithfully at large, he did it much in his own way. His contribution in inclusively representing the fundamental Āgamic subjects in all branches of knowledge in the concisely organized form, coupled with his innovation and formulation of numerous concepts by absorbing the outside philosophies, made the T. S. worthy to be the standard text of the Jainas for nourishing their thought world and worthy to be an epoch-making source for the further conceptual development in various fields including ontology, epistemology and logic, and so on.
All these demonstrate that Uuāsvāti was an excelled thinker of the days that the then Jainas could have produced, besides that he had a genius competence in organizing the canonical contents without losing the point. Certainly, the T. S. has its own deficiency. Umāsvāti's systematization of the canonical contents of jñāna (Ci. 1. )'2 and of kriyā (Ch.VI) is loose with redundant items, his presentation of the topics in Ch. V is disorganized, and equally unsatisfactory, are the definitions of pariņāma ( Ch. V), bandha (Ch. VIII), dhyāna ( Ch. IX), and so on. Likewise the Biāşya expositions of naya (Ch. I) and arpita-anarpita theory (Ch. V) are obscure. Umāsvāti himself improved some minor points in his Pras imarati and the Southern recension of th: T. S and the Sarvārthasiddhi made a major improvement on the deficiencies exbibited in the Sabhāşya T. S. Admitting all these defects, we could still count them as the mino: points in comparison with the amount and the quality of task accomplished by Umāvāti, who sioce remained unrivaled ia this attempt.
69

Page #83

Sec. 2. REFERENCES TO THE T.S. IN THE AGAMIC COMMENTARIES UP TO THE 10TH CENTURY A. D.
The T.S. found and established its position in the South from the very beginning of the literary activities therein, which shall become evident in our later study. But how did it come to be received in the Svetambara fold? As we have just observed, while systematically organizing the canonical contents, Umäsvati introduced some new concepts into Jainism and made radical improvements on certain traditional concepts, many of which were born in the context of the current theoretical problems of the other philosophical systems. Besides he wrote it in Sanskrit, which would have hardly escaped a strong resistance in the Svetambara tradition wherein Sanskrit had been deemed as a profane language as easily surmised from Siddhasena Divakara's anecdote that he was penalized to take pracika prayaścitta for having planned to translate. the Prakrit texts into Sanskrit.13 The following survey is couducted with a view to finding what kinds of reactions were advanced to the T.S. in the medieval Śvetambara eamp in order to make an appraisal of its position therein.
Since the bulk of materials to be examined is too vast, our inquiry is confined to collect the citations from and references to the T. S. made in the commentarial literature on the canon up to the 10th century A.D., for it is evident that the position of the T.S. became well established after the 10th century A.D. in the West from the frequent references to it by niming the author in the commentarial literature on the Agama thenceforth. The works examined, which are listed in Bibliography Il, include niryuktis, bhasyas, cruris and vectis that are available at L. D. Institute of Indology in the printed form during the period of this research. Ten Prakirṇakas are added to them as these are known as of later composition.
This survey has its own limitation and defects. Firstly, since its major attempt is to collect the express references to the contents of the T.S., it could not catch hold of the inexpress references but important concepts derived under the sway of the T-S such as the anekantavāda, of whi h rapid and forcible development in the post-Umāsvāti period was impossible without comprehending the nature of sat as so expressed in V:29 and its two succeeding sutras. Secondly, all the independent prakarapas composed by various authors, e.g., Siddhasena Diväkara, Jinabhadra, Mallavädi, etc., are excluded together with the works in the various other branches falling outside the Agamic commentaries. Thirdly, a commentary A-2 on A-I and A-1 on A generally repeat the contents expressed by the litter, hence the citations from the T.S. made by the former tend to overlap with those made by the latter. Lastly, the examination of the available. materials was performed somewhat hastily, thereby many references and quotations must have escaped the sight.
In view of all these dissatisfactory nature, the present survey is not expected to obtain the exhaustive data of the influences roused by the 7.S. on the post-Umāsvāti literature in the medieval West, but is hoped to be enough to grasp the general trend of its reactions. The superficial presentation of these citations in a tabular form by way of numerical series can hardly do a fair justice to the high potency that the
70

Page #84

Sec. 2. REFERENCES TO THE T.S. IN THE AGMIC COMMENTARIES UP TO THE 10TH A. D.
T. S. actually possessed in influencing the later thoughts. The deficiency of this section is hoped to be suplemented in the next section wherein some controversial aphorisms evinced in this survey are going to be independently discussed with further. penetration along with some other problems involved with the T.S.
The following table indicates the references to or the citations from the T. S. recorded in the examined works. Those texts which do not display any as such are not herein reckoned. The sequence of these works roughly follows the chronological order, however the relative chronology of the various Prakirṇakas may fall later. Some works of unknown authors which are ascribed to certain authors by some or by traditien are grouped under the ascribed authors. Many of the niryukti gathās and bhaya gaths are indistinguishably mixed in the cases of the Bhatkalpa and Vyavahara. In this table, the chapter and aphorism of the T. S. referred to are indicated first, which is followed by a citation made in the examined text by indicating gatha number or page number, when a citation is made by the word iti, uktam, etc., it is marked by a single asterisk; in case a quotation is made by the title work, i. e., T. S., it is marked by double asterisks.
PRAKIRNAKAS (after the 6th century A.D.)
Maranasamadhi
71
Sütrakta
1:1
NIRYUKTIS
Bhadrabahu (the later 5th century A.D.)
Avasyaka (based on Avasyakasütra-niryukter-avacārnih)
1:1
1:31 Bh.
IX:27

I:1
NIRYUKTIS
Ascribed to Bhadrabahu
Pinda
1:1
Ogha
I:1
BHASYAS
Sanghadasa
15
Bhatkalpa
I:1
910, 1082
979
1477ff.
112
69-70
740
1323

Page #85

Sec. 2. REFERENCES TO THE T S. IN THE AGAMIC COMMENTARIES UP TO THE 10TH A.D.
I:20
Ascribed to Sanghadāsa Vyavahāra 1:1
405 (v. 9, p.69) Jinabhadra (c. 650 V.S.) Visesavaš yaka with svopajñavštti (exclude Kottācārya's vịtti) 1:1
1036, 1050, 4003; vfiti on 1002*, 1171*
vrtti on 76*, 107, etc. 1:31 Bh.
3709 ff. I:33
3374; vrtti on 114*, 317 V:29
754, 2298, 2420, 4101, etc. V:31
2642 VIII:26, 26Bh.
2401 IX:27
366 ff. X:6
2299, 3760 X:6Bb. (illustrations of X:6) 3761 X:6Bh. (dharmāstikāyābhāvāt) 23: 5, 3782
CURNIS Agastyasimha (the 6th century A. D.) Dasavaikālika 1:1
pp. 1*, 193 1:13
d. 16'* V:29
pp. 10. 13 VII:4-5, 5Bh. IX:3
IX:27 Jinadāsa (650-750 V. S.)
Nandi 1:1
p.8 1:31Bh.
pp.46-47 Anuyogadvāra
p.85 p.19* p.16*
p.11
1:2
P.86
1:1 V:29
p.29
Daśavaikālika
I:1
V:29 1X:27
p. 215 p.16 p.29ff

Page #86

REFERENCES TO THE 7. S. IN THE AGAMIC: COMMENTARIES UP TO THE 10TH
Uttaradhyavana
1:1
VII:12
73
Sütrakṛta

Nisitha
VRTTIS
1:1
1:32
1:33
V:26
V:29-30
1:1
Haribhadra (705-775 A.D.)
Nand
1:2
1:31Bh.
1:33
11:17-18
VI:1
Anuyogadvära
1:28
VIII:4
Dasavikālika
1:1
V:29
V:30
Avasvaka
1:1
1:2
1:28h.
1:4
11:9
11:27
V:29
V:37
VII:18 VIII:15-21
pp. 181, 222, 229, 265 p.67:
pp. 240. 403 p.60
pp.322, 398
P. 12
P. 404
v.3. pp.60, 354. v.4, p.251
p.9
pp.47-50
p.53
p.23
p. 43%
P. 103
P. 122 *
pp. 179, 194, 233
P. 39
p-127
pp. 68. 527
P.S10
p.838
p.816
p.600
P. 17
p. 598
P. 590 * P.591 #
p.73

531. etc.

Page #87

REFERENCES TO THE T. S. IN THE AGAMIC COMMENTARIES UP TO THE 10TH
VIII:26, 26Bh.
p. 252 *
IX:8
p.656
IX:27
P.773
IX:36
p. 587 *
VRTTIS

Koṭṭācārya
V:18
V:22
V:29
V:31
VI:3-4
VI:9
VII:12
VII:33
VIII:1
IX:27
IX:36
X:6
Viseṣārasyakablaşya vṛtti by Koṭṭācārya, gāthā 2319 onwards
I:1
p.788, etc.
1:31
P. 746 #
1:31 Bh.
p. 740 ff.
11:7
P. 479
IV:2
p. 623
p. 480:
p. 462
p. 442, etc.
p. 505 *
p. 431 *
P. 431
pp.586, 589
p. 787 *
p. 436*
p. 370 1.
p. 588
p. 407
VRTTIS
Silanka (862 or 872 A.D.)
Acaranga
X:6Bh. (llustrations of X:6) p. 754 X:6Bh. (dharmästikäyäbhav) p. 408
I:1
1:2
[:4
11:27
II:32
V:37
"
etc.
p 70
p. 84
pp.42. 131, 178, 203*, etc. PP. 177, 179
pp. 17, 178, 181
p. 74 #
V:40 p. 84 V:42-43, 42-43Bh. p. 87 VII:12
p. 134
VIII:1
p. 178
IX:18
P. 68

74

Page #88

Sec. 2. REFERENCES TO THE T. S. IN THE AGAMIC COMMENTARIES UP TO THE 10TH
Sūtrakyla 1:1
v.1, pp. 1, 9, 77, 91, 170, etc.;
v.2, pp.42, 66, 131, etc. 1:2
v.2, p. 119 11:1-7
v.1, p. 122 11:31
v.2, p.88 * III:4
v.1, p. 123 * V:26
v.1, p.3 V:29
v.1, p.2. * ; v. 2, pp 83, 120, 154 * V:30
v.1, p.51; v.2, p. 119 VII:6
v.2, p. 133 * JX:18
v.2, p.119 These references are made to the sūtra text, Bhāsya, or to both. The citations accompanied by the word iti, etc., increase in accordance with the progress of time which may be an indication of the process of gaining a recognized position of the T.S. in this tradition. Sull Agastyasimha alone quotes a sūtra by title only once. The following table exhibits a distribution of the referred sūtras in each chapter. A Sūtra with a single asterisk indicates that the concerned sutra was directly derived from the Āgamic text in its original form or with a slight modification. A sūtra bearing double asterisks indicates that it is a succinct and systematic presentation of the canonical concept which is originally expressed in the elaborate and prolix passages. A sūtra bearing no mark involves a disputable problem. Chapters
Aphorisms 1, 2, 2Bb.*, 4, 13*. 20*, 28%, 314, 31 Bh., 32*, 33 1-7, 8*, 9%, 17-18*, 21**, 31*, 32*, 38-39 * * 4# #
IV
IX
18*, 22, 26, 29, 30, 31. 37, 40, 32-43 & 42-43Bh. VI
1., 3-4, 9 * * VII
4-5 & 5Bb. * *, 6, 12* , 18 , 33 VIII I, 4*, 15-21 * , 26 & 26Bh.
3.*, 8, 18, 27, 36 * 6* * , 6 Bh. (illustrations of X:6) * * , 6Bh. (dharmăstikāyābhāvāt )
( * 20, ** 7, 23 -- total cases 50) The aphorisms referred to in these works are thus distributed in all the chapters. Heavy references are made from Chs. I, II and V among which Chs. I and V contain many aphorism's involving disputable problems, Chs. III and IV are the descriptive summaries of the Jaina cosmography and mythology which had been already rounded off in the canonical period, thus they are barren to produce problems
75

Page #89

Sec. 2. REFERENCE TO THE T. S. IN THE AGAMIC COMMENTARIES UP TO THE 10TH
for futher development. These post-Umäsväti authors frequently quote the sutras from the T. S. instead of from the canonical passages even though the original forms. of these aphorisms are readily available in the canon itself, which suggests that the T. S. came to be well accredited in this tradition. The final table below shows a distribution of these debatable sutras according to the authors who referred to them. Authors/
I
1 2 4 31 Bh. 33
X
X
Prakirakas Bhadrababu
Sanghadāsa
Jinabhadra
Agastyasimba
Jinadasa
Haribhadra
Kolṭācārya
Śilanka
Prakirakas Bhadrabahu
Sanghadāsa
Jinabhadra
Agastyasimha
Jinadasa
Haribhadra
Koṭṭācārya
Sikanka
Chapters Aphorisms

X
X
X X
X X
X
X X X
V
37 40
X
X
X
X
42-43 & Bh.
X
X
VI
3-4
II
1-7 22 26
X
X
VII VIII
6 33

X
X
1 26 & Bh.
A
V
29 30 31
X X
X
X
X
X
IX
8 18
X
X
X X
X 27 6Bh.
X X X
X
The table above forcibly speaks that the sutra 1:1 on threefold pathways to liberation (although the concept was not formulated by Umasvati himself) gave an immediate and profound influence over the post-Umäsvati authors who commented on the canonical texts which generally advocate fourfold pathways to the final release. IX:27 on the definition of dhyāna also soon invited reactionary arguments on it. V:29, although herein referred to after Jinabhadra onwards, must have roused an instantaneous effect in the fields of ontology and logic. Likewise Yugapadvada of kevala jana-darśana opined by Umasvati in 1:31Bh. provoked further hot argumentation in the post-Umäsväti period. These are considered to be the immediate and important reactions to the T. S, which are pregnant with problems for further development.
X X
76

Page #90

Sec. 2. REFERENCES OF THE T. S. IN THE AGAMIC COMMENTARIES UP TO THE 101H
As for the rest, the function of käla stated in V:22 is an improvement made by Umāsvāti on the canonical concept by way of introducing the Vaisesika concept, which is likewise with the case of the definitions of dravya-guņa in V:37 and 49. VII:6 was formulated by Umäsvāti in the context of the Yogasūtra. We have already discussed about the definition of samyagdarśana expressed in 1:2, the defective nature of the sūtras V:42-43 and 42-43 Bn, and the problem or VIII:1 involving the cause of bandha. Discussion has been also advanced as to the definition of a jñana in 1:33, the definition of dāna in VII:33 and the definition of parişaha in IX:8, which were formulated by Umāsvāti. "Dharmāstikāyābhāvar' in X:6Bh. was still new to the age and the five states of souls in II:1-7 were explained by him in the context of karma theory. A reference to seven tattvas enumerated in 1:4 makes its appearance in the works of Haribhadra ard Silānka. It should be however noted that Haribhadra defends the canonical position of nine tattvas in his saddlar sana samuccura, 15 and Silanka refers to nine padārthas while enumerating seven tattvas. VIIT:26 with its Bhās pa pertaining to eightfold punya karmas is accepted by Jinabhadra and Haribhadra, even though it involves itself with a remark made by Siddhasenagani (see Ch. I, Sec. IV, Pt. 1, 8 )). V:26 concerning the production of skandhas involves a problem relevant to the perceptibility of things in V:28. V:30-31 pertain to the problem of V:29, and IX:18 shares a problem with the aphorism 1:1 regarding the content of caritra.
As this cursory analysis of these disputable sūtras evinces, their citations made in the post-Umāsvāti literature well reflect the important and controversial concepts brought about by Umāsvāti. It should be also taken note of that some defective apliorisms in the T. S. continued to be referred to in the commentarial literature as they are without receiving proper improvements. Quotations from the Prasamarati are found in Jinadāsa's Nisitha cūrņi (v. 3, pp. 5-6 from P.R. 145), in Haribhadra's
Trasjaka volti (p. 63 from P. R. 151) and in Kottācārya's Viseșāvas yaka rytit (p. 454 from P. R. 238). Among the works examined, Jinabhadra (in his svopajñavịtti to Viseșīvas yakabhāsya) and vittikaras wrote in Sanskrit. Quotations from the 4şādhyāyi are frequent in Agastyasimha's cūrni and in the vittis composed by various authors. It took some generations after Umāsvāti to see the establisbment of the medium of writing in Sanskrit. The examination of the non-Jaina doctrines and the attack on them began with Jinabhadra mainly with the vigorous tool of th anekāntavāda, which became severer as time went on. Likewise the exposition of karma doctrine became further elaborate in the course of time. These are some salient features noticed in these commentarial works.
It is not sure if the T.S. was consciously reckoned by the Svetambaras as the standard text of Jaina philosophy by the 10th century A.D., however it quarts evident from the above data that its accre lited position was hy that time well
77

Page #91

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S. established. We should also remember that Siddhasena took liberty in criticizing the Bhasya. After the 10th century, the commentators such as Santisuri, Abhayadeva and Malayagiri frequently quote the T.S. passages by citing the name of the author or the title of his positions, Vacaka. And Hemacandra's famous and well said illustration of Umasvati as 'upomisvātim sangrahitāraḥ under utkṛṣṭe'nupena in his Siddhahema 2.2.39 positivey confirms that the public recoginition of his authoritative position became immovable in the West by that time.
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
This section consists of the following independent articles on the problems involved with the T. S. P. 1) kevala jääa and darsana, Pt. 2) Perceptibility of things, Pt. 3) Treatment of dhyana, Pt. 4) jivasamāsa marganasthana and gupasthana, and Pt. 5.) Treatment of caritra in mokṣamärgs. The intention of the separate treatment of these problems here is twofold, i.c., firstly to supplement the foregoing study made. in the previous two sections by penetrating into the deeper strata of the problems, and secondly to provide for the sake of the succeeding section the internal data that the Digambara literature is in all cases the post-Umäsvati product with the sole exception of the kaşayaprabhṛta on the basis of the development of certain concepts under consideration. The relevant problems are therefore examined in relation to the canon and the inalite post-Unawat literature of the two traditions as far as possible.
Part 1 Kevala jana and darsana
In 1:31Bh. Umasvati proposes an understanding that a kevali's Juana and darsanal manifest themselves simultaneously (yugapadvada) due to the simultaneous destruction of these two avarapiya karmas, 'kin canyat matjänadişu courşu paryayeṇopayogo biti ni yuzip!/ sam'b'inni-jñāni-darśanasya tu bhagavataḥ kevulino yugapai-sarvabhara-grahake nirapakşe kevalajane kevala.sarsane canusamayam upayogo bhavall//kin canyat kṣayopasama jani catvari manāni pārvāni kṣayad eva kevalam tasman-na kevalinaḥ śeşani santiti.' His proposal came to be accepted unanimously by the Digambaras who do not shoulder the burden of the canonical literature. The yugapadvaja immediately invited another view represented by Siddhasena Divākara in his Sarmati II that jñana and darsina are identical in the case of a kevali (abhedavāda) on the ground that both upayogis can distinctly cognize all the objects. at the same time. The Bhagavati 18.8.640 and Prajapana 30.663 maintain that a kevali's upayogas occur in successive order (kramavāda), upon which ground the Avasyaka niryukti 979 disapproves the yugapadvada. Jinabhadra defends the canonical position in his Višeṣāvasyakabhāṣva 3709-55 and Viseṣaṇavati 186-244 that the two upayogas are neither identical in nature nor manifestable at the same time. Yasovijaya

78

Page #92

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T.S.
in the modern time offers a synthetic solution to this problem that all these views represent the different nayavādas. Umāsvāti's proposal thus invited a wider range of eactions both in time and space.
Umäsväti seems to have contributed here in effect in stimulating an epistemological interest as exhibited by Siddhasena Divākara in bis attempts of defining darsana. These three posicions differ pertaining to the nature and temporal manifestation of a kev ili's upayogas. And each ground held for their different theses seems to be sound in its own way logically or by scriptural authority, which suggests that this problem involves itself with the canonical stages wherein the relevant rules and concepts were formulated. The following is an attempt to understand this problem from this angle.
The Jainas claim as much as non-Jainas that avadhi, mana h paryava and kevala jirānas are due to yogic labdhi, for instarce, in the Dašāšrutaskandha Ch.v, and the successive occurrence of darśana after jñāna as expressed in jānai pāsai' in the earlier texts as well as in the Buddhist pitakas must have been derived from the common background of yogic practice. 16 In the earliest texts such as the Acaranga I and Surrakrta I, when jñana and darsana are mentioned in the same passage ( which are mostly nertaining to Lord Mahavira), their order occurs generally ifāna first and darśana second, for instance, in the Ācāränga 1.2.2.79, 1.5.6.329, 1. 9. 1. 472, etc., and the Sutrarkta 1. 2. 3. 22, 1. 4. 1. 4. I. 6.2, 1. 6. 3, 1.9.24, etc., wherein the Acārānga 1.9 1.472 is said in relation to meditation, and the Sutrakzia 1.2.3.2? refers to aņuttara-nāņi and aņuttara-damsi, its I. 6. 3 and 1.9.24 to anamta-nāni and anamta-damsi. The Sūtrakrta 1.6.5 mentions savva-damsi and a bhibhūva-nāni in due order, and its 1.15.1 reads, jam-aiam pad uppannam agamissam ca najao/ sauvam mannai tam 1āi dam sandvaranantae', which if darsana is taken in the sense of nirvikalpa cognition, the order of the occurrence must have been conceived as darsina first and jñāna second. The later canonical texts do not seem to have paid much attention to the order of their occurrence, for instance, the Bhagavati 18.8.640 reads,'...cram yuccai paramähohie nam manūse paramānu-poggalam jam samavam jānai no iam sanjam pasai, jam samayam pāsai no tam samayain jānai ? gojamā sagăre se nane bharai, anāgāre se dainsane bhavai, se tenattlienam java na tam samaram jānai, evam jāva anamta-presiyam kevali nam bhamte ! manusse paramánupoggalam jahā paramāhohie taha kevali-ri jāra anamta-paesiyam/l seram bhamte sevan bhante! 11: The Prajñāpanā 30.663 reads, ... hamtā goyama: kevali nam imam raya. nappabham pudhavim anāgārehim jāva pāsai na jānail se konatthenam bhamte ! evem vuccai — 'kevali nam imam ryvanappablıam pudhavim aņāgărehim jāve pasai na jänai'? goyama ! anagire se damsan. bhavai, sīgāre se nane bhavai, se tenatthenam eram luccai...'.
79

Page #93

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
The canonical authors insist here that the two upayogas of ordinary beings as well as kevalis cannot occur simultneously due to their different nature or function, i. e., anākāra and sākāra. Jāna or sakāra cognition necessarily follows darsana or anakara cognition in the case of an ordinary man's cognition. A kevali's cognition is not generated by the sense organs and mind, therefore this order is not possible to him. These passages are curiously silent about which cognition occurs first to a kevali. However the Dassrutaskandha 5.116-117 vindicate that a kevali's upayogas take place in the successive order of juana-darśana, upon the destruction of the relevant ävarapa karmas. Also the the later work like the Karmagrantha clearly mentions in its svopajñatikā 1.3 (Jaina Atmananda Sabha, v.1, p.5) that a kevali's jána precedes darśana, anyac-ca yasmin samye sakala-karma-vinirmukto jivaḥ saħjāyate Tasmin samaye jäänоpayogopayuktah eva, na darsanopayogopayuktah, darsdnopayogasya dvitiya-samaye bhāvāt... Therefore a reverse order of occurrence in the case of a kavali's upayogas, i. e., jana-darśana, was clearly understood by some, however it seems like that the canonical authors were in general not serious in giving consideration to the problem regarding which cognition occurs first to a kevali.
The Jainas had a peculiar notion about jivas such as the water beings and fire beings since the very beginning of their history, and it is not difficult to see that they soon came to grasp the world phenomena in terms of jiva-ajiva or jiva-karma, Upayoga (upa-yuj) is the differentia of the jiva from the ajiva, but the usage of this technical term does not appear in the earliest strata of the canon, ie., Acoränga I and Sutrakyta I. It makes its appearance in the Bhagavart side by side the other anuyoga items such as jääna, darśana and samja, for instance, in its 12.10.466, 19.8.658, 20.3.664, 25.6, 26.1 etc., and the Prajnapana 29 is devoted to the exposition. of upayoga, of which 30th pada takes up paśyatta an! 31st samji, each independently. The Bhagavali 2. 10. 119 which mentions,...uvaoga-lakkhane num jive...", fully enumerates eightfold joanas (five jüanas plus three ajanas) and fourfold darsinas. The Bhagavati 19.8.658 and 20.3.664 express upayoga in terms of sakara and anākāra. The Prajnapana 29 classifies upayoga into two, i.e., sākāra and anakāra, which are explained by way of eightfold jänas and fourfold darśanas. As already taken note. of the Sutrakyta 1.15.1 refers to darśanavarana, wherein the origin of the concept of darianavaraniya karma may be traced. It seems therefore that the concept of janadarsana along with their avarauiya karmas evolved independently from the concept of upayoga which consists of sākāra and anākāra types (which might have been derived by the non-Jaina influence), then they likely came to be coalesced into one. category because of their identical nature. Possibly for this reason, upayoga came to be dropped from the list of 14 mārgaṇāsthānas which include the items of jñāna and darsana.
The Kaşayaprabhrta is devoted to examine fourfold kasayas in the context of karma doctrine, the exclusive treatment of which finds no place in the canonical

80

Page #94

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE
literature. Gunadhara takes up kaşāyas in the 7th chapter as constituting upayoga, which is again a new concept. Upayoga is already explaind as the characteristic nature of the soul in the cinon. Th: Bhagavati 12 10.466 reckons the ātmā as of eight kinds, i.e., dravya, kaşāyā, yoga, upayoga, jñāna, darśana, cāritra and virya. Gunadhara seems to have ciught hold of this concept of kaşāya ātmā as the characteristic nature of the samāıi jiva, and expressed kaşāyas in terms of upayoga, the chiracteristic na-ure of the soul. Kundakunda follows the Kašā yaprābhrta on this matter, as he explains, for instance, in the Pravacanasāra II. 63ff. that kaşāyas constitute asuddha upayoga. And the later Digambara authors including Kundukunda seem to have widened the content of upayoga as the source of the conscious activities of wbich expressions take place in the form of threefold yogas of mind, speech and body. In another word, it came to be conceived as the source of cognitive, volitional, emotional and physical activities, or as the source of both conscious and subconscious activities, thus it came to include in its content the psychic attention and the sense reactions of the lower beings.
The canonical literature speaks of upayoga invariably in terms of sākāra-anākāra that are identical with jñāna-darsina, which is considered to be the characteristic nature of the soul. The T. S. II : 8-9 represent this canonical concept of upayoga. The karma specialists understood that jñā nāvaraniya karma categorically differs from darśanāvaraniya karma on the basis of their different nature. However, curiously enough, they did not establish darśanamohaniya karma and caritramohaniya karma as the two independent categories in the class of mūla prakstis. These two mohaniya karmas distinctly differ by nature inasmuch as jñānāvaraniya karma and darśanāvaraộiya karma do, and the former two are related within the context of mohaniya category inasmuch as the latter two are interdependent in the context of upayoga. Nay, the latter two types of cognition share much closer mutual relation than the former two types of delusion because darśana (faith) and caritra belong to entirely different categories. They could have in fact formulated a single category of upayogāvaraniya karma accompanied by the two subdivisions of jñāna and darśana inasmuch as they did for mobaniya karma. The later karma specialists abstracted kşāyika samyaktva as a siddba's guna in the sequel of the eradication of mobar iya karmas. Likewise they could have abstracted ananta upayuga by the destruction of upayogā varaniya karmas. Jhāna and darśana are identical-cum-different within the category of upayoga consisting of sākāra and anākāra types. Therefore if these two ävaraniya karmas were made in one in the form of upayogā varaniya karma, our problem in question would not have cropped up. The abbedavāda expressed by Siddhasena Divākasa seems to be perfectly logical in grasping the nature of the problem.
A catalogue of kırma prakstis was completed by the time of Umāsvāti. And the table of the g asthā 13 wis nearing to completion by the end of the Āgamic age.
81

Page #95

Sec. 3, SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
The list of karm is by itself does not mean much unless it finds its expression in a soul as the content of his life phenomena. Karmas tbus came to be expressed through The medium of guņisthāna. A riile was established at a certain time that one necessarily attains sayoga keyalihood when his jñānā varaniya, darśanāvaraniya and ant arāya karmas are simultaneously annihilated. The idea that a sayoga kevali is possessed of kevala jñāna and darsina at the same time was in all probability derived from the earlier texts wherein Mahāvira is described to have been endowed with aranta jñāna and ananta darśana at the same time during his preaching period, which must have been meant originally as all knowing and all seeing or a supreme knower and a supreme seer (anuttara-nāņi and anuttara-dam-i) by way of epithet. And it is important to note that this statement was made when the karma doctrine was not yet developed. The later canonical authors enunciated various rules and formulated varicus concepts on the basis of the earlier scriptural passages, which was incumbent upon them to do so, as these stood for them qua holy utterances.
The scheme of the karma theory works mechanically like mathematical computation according to the established rules without leaving any ambiguity. Karmas are the matters. And the doctrine of karma is maintained on an understanding that the removal of karmas reveals the transcendental nature of the soul at once like a lamp light stripped off its lamp shade. Therefore according to this doctrine, it is difficult to accept the position that the capacity of jñāna-Jarśana can be manifested to a kevali simultaneously upon the destruction of these karmas but their function Operates in successive order, because the soul's illuminating capacity of jñāna-darsina is no other than the soul's function or nature of jñāna-darśana itself. This position does not therefore go with the concept of karma theory itself. A kevali is possessed of the lower kinds of jñāna-dars ina which funcion through the sense organs and mind. But he does not need to use them for cognizing the objects. When he uses kevala jñāns-darśana, the rest of the lower types of jñāna-darśana do not occur. And according to the karma theory, all the objects are illumine i to him at the time when he employs his ātmā for cognition. The yugapadvāda expressed by Umāsvāti is perfectly sound according to the doctrine of karma.
If the kramavāda were insisted upon irrespective of the karma doctrine in the original sense of the earliest canon that anuttara darśana follows anuttara jñāna in the context of dhyāna, it certainly makes sense. And the kramavāda likely took its ground when the theory of karmi was not yet developed. But the problem in question is discussed in the context of karma doctrine. Or if a rule were established by the karma specialists that sayoga kevalihood reveals itself by the gradual removal of jñānāvaraniya, duršināvaraniya and antarāya karmas, the kramavāda expressed in the canon takes the upper hand. However in this case, the successive order of the manifestation of jõāna-darsina takes place to a kzvali only once, which cannot be repeated again,

Page #96

S... 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
because once these two āvaraniya karmas are andibilated, two cognitions should be functioning to him constantly according to the theory of karma. The kramavāda faces thus difficulty in maintaining its position.
Umäsvāti posed this problem in the context of karma theory developed in the later canonical age. The canonical authors likely maintained the kramavāda based on 11s earlier position, which cannot be insisted upon in the advanced stage of karma doctrine. And as long as jõina-Jarsina are identified with säkära-arākāra upayogas aj s) und in th: cao, buth are identical-cum-different. Siddhasena Divākara seems to offer therefore the most appropriate explanation on this matter which is ex.cted from the doctrine of the Jainas developed in that period.
Part 2 Perceptibility of things
The Jaina atomists in the Āgamic age discussed about their theory of atomic com. bination in asmuch as the non-Jaina atomists did, however unlike the non-Jaioas the Jaigas never both:red about inquiring into the cause of visibility of a thiog, possibly because the aspect of pradesa by which the theory of atomic combination is also viewed self-evidently explains it away. The non-Saina theoreticians like the Vais:sikas posit the problem of perceptibility of things. Umäsväti introduced this problem into Jainism and laid down a rule of the cause of perceptibility of skandhas in the T. S. V:28(28), 'bheda-sanghātābhyām cakşuşāh'. Toe Bhäsya imparts a brief exposition on this süira, 'acākşuşāstu pathokrāt sangharit bhedät sanghāta-bhedāc-ceti', which denies as the cluse of visibility the rule of the production of skandhas stated in the aphorism 26 (26), bheda-sanghätebhya utpadyante'. This sūtra 28 in relation to the sú ra 25 is difficult to b: co.npreheaded by the later students of Jainism who are tot acquainted with the Agamic method of approaching problems. Nay, all the cominentators on the T.S. who were well acquainted with the Agamic method of approach, in fact, failed to explain this sūira and its exposition, possibly because th: problem posited here itself was not fully comprehended by them for the question as such did never have a place in th: Jaiaa way of thinking.
For instance, under the sūtra (27), Pūjyapāda gives an introductory remark on the sūra (28), 'ahi, singhātā l-2v1 skan Thānā n-am alabhe siddhe bheda-sanghātagrahınan-anarthak im -iti tal-grarını.priyojana-pratipādanārtham-idam-ucyate -'. He seems to understand that the palpability of a thing arises by the sanghāta method mationd in the production of skandhas and by the bheda-cum-sarghā!a method discussed in the aphorism (28), but not hy bheda nor by sanghāta-cum-bheda as he commeats on the sūra (28), ...'a'ra yo' cāksusah sa katham cākșușo bhavariti ced.cyile - bh211-sanghitabhyam cākşuş ah/nı bedad-iti kä'tropapattir-iti cet ? brūmahsūksin i-pariņānisya skanluya bhe de squ'şmyåp irityāzā l-acāksus atvam-eval sauksmya
83

Page #97

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
pariņatah punar-aparaḥ saty-api tad-bhede'nya sanghai antara-samyogāt-saukṣmya-pari ņāmoparame sthaul yoipattau cākşușo bhavati'. However, the sarghāta method of skandha formation is plainly negated by the Bhāşya from being the cause of its palpability. Besides sūira 28 reads it in dual ending, therefore it is difficult to take it in the sense of simultaneous process of bheda-cum-sanghāta. Thus his explanation is not at all convincing. This aphorism is not only difficult to understand but also the problem raised by Unisvāci here is important in view of the Jaina concept of pudgala, therefore we shall attempt to tackle the problem to see what Umásvät! exactly meant to say in this aphorism.
The theory of atomic combination is taken up prominently in the Bhagavati and Prajñāpanā in the canon. The Jaina theroeticians in the Āgamic age developed a peculiar method of approaching a problem by way of certain anuyogadvāras or the points of inquiry, among which the most common set consists of dravya, kşetra, käla and bhāva. Io discussing a certain problem, the Jaina theoreticians as a rule specify which kind of anuyoga dvära is applied to the problem in question, and go on to say that this problem is considered in this way from this point of view but it is considered in the other way from the other point of view. In dealing with the subject of atomic combination, they likewise posited or must have posited the problein by way of the anuyoga meibod, which is usually expressly mentioned but sometimes not at all mentionel particularly in some Bhagavati passages wherein the discussion of atomic combination falls. Among these four viewpoints of inquiry, the aspect by kāla is not directly concerned with our problem under consideration. Thus from the aspect of dravya, the theory of atomic combination can be discussed as to the composition and decomposition of the paramāņus and skandhas. From the viewpoint of kşetra, the problem can be discussed as to the union and disunion of pradeśas. And from the aspect of bhāva, it can be dealt with in relation to the transformation of the degrees of properties of the atoms and composites. Sometimes avagānanā anuyogadvāra is added to these three, but we can at present neglect this view point in the context of our problem. We shall see below how the canonical authors handled the matter from these three standpoints, i.e., by dravya, kşetra and bhāva.
Firstly, from the viewpoint of dravya, the Bhagavati 12.4.444 (which develops the subject matter treated in 1.10.80) exhibits how many paran äņus are combined into what kinds of skandhas, and how such skandhas are to be decomposed into what kinds of constituents by way of arithmetic computation as follows:

Page #98

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE 7.5.
Combination
Division Number of Number of atoms in
Number Mode of loose atoms one composite
Jivisions reduction
1 + 1 1 + 2 1 + 1 + 1 1 + 3; 2 + 2 1 + 1 + 2 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 1 + 4; 2 + 3 1 + 1 + 3; 1 + 2 + 2 1 + 1 + 1 + 2
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 (Likewise up to the cases of sankhyeya, asankhyeya and ananta atoms.)
From the point of inquiry by kşetra, the Bhagavati 5.7.214 discusses that an atom has no half, no middle and no prades, that a composite of two atoms along with even numbered atoms has no middle but has balves and pradeśas, that a composite of three atoms along with odd numbered atoms has no half but has middle and pradeśas, and that a composite of sankhyeya through ananta atoms bas prads sis but may or may not have halves and middle. Thus a concept is deduced that an atom (one pradesin) tas no part, no parts, but has a whole, and that a composite of two atoms (two pradesin) has no parts, but has a part and a whole, and that a composite of three atoms onwards (three pradesin onwards) has a part, parts and a whole. And the Bhagavati 5.7.215 tries to show how the nine possible types of combination of pradesins (e. g., 1 pradesin + 1 pradesin) exbibit what kind or kinds of the mode of spatial combination considered in the nine possible ways (e. g., 'part + part' meaning 'by a part, a part is touched,' and 'part + parts' meaning 'by a part, parts are touched.'X indicates the occurrence of combination. pt-part, pts-parts, and w-whole) as follows:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
pt+pt pt+pts pt+w pts+pt pts+pts prstw w+pt w+pts w+w 1 1 + 1 2 1 + 2 3 i + 3 up
to ananta 4 2 + 1 5 2 + 2 6 2 + 3 up
to ananta 7 3 + 1 8 3 + 2 9 3 + 3 up
to ananta
85

Page #99

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE TS.
The Prajnapana Chs. 3 and 5 handle the problem of pradesins in order to express the relative numerical strength of the concerned substances made up of paramapus and pradesas. It should not be lost sight of that the Bhagavati 5.7.212 and 25.4 touch upon the motion and rest occurring in the atoms and composites as to their part, parts and whole (3 7.212) and by way of their fourfold aspects, i. e., dravya, kṣetra, kala and bhava (25.4). Then it is communicated in the Bhagavati 5.8.220 that an aton (davvao appadese) is n:o:ssarily oa: pradesin (khettao niyama appadese), that a composite of two atoms onwards (davvao sapadese) may be one pradesin or two pradesin onwards (khettao siya sapadese siya appadese,, and that the one pradesi substance (khetiao appadese) may consist of an atom or a composite with two atoms oawards (davvao siya sapadese siya appadese).
From the standpoint of bhäva, the Bhagavati 8.9.345 discerns three kinds of sadi vistasa baadna, i.e., bandhana, bhajana and parama, the first of which is explained to be caused by the various degrees of snigdha and ruksa gupas. The degrees of gunas such as snigdha are said, for instance, in the Prajnapana 5 to go through infinitefold transformations. The Bhagavati 20.5.667-668 show the possible modes of combination of the properties of skandhas by sukṣma (which include the case of paramaga also) and by badara. L.kewise the Bhagavati 25.4 and Prajñāpanā 3.7 discuss about the numerical strength of gupas possessed by the paramous and Skandhas. The Prajñāpanā 13.418 then enunciates a rule of atomic combination, "bamdhana-pariņāme nam bhamie: kai-vihz pannate? goyama: du-vihe pannattel tam-jahasiddha-bamdhana-pariname, lukkha-bamdhana-pariņāme ya sama-niddhayae bandho ya hoi sama-lukkhayde vi na hoi vemaya-ṇiddha-lukkhattanena bandho u khamdhāṇam// giddaassa niddhena dayahie nam lukkhassa lukkheya duyanie nam niddhassa lukkheņa uvei bam tho jahannavajjo visamɔ samɔ va', from which the rule of combination expressed in the T.S. V:32-36 was deduced.
The atomists in the canonical age thus expressed the concept of atomic combination and division by the number of atoms by way of arithmetic computation from the viewpoint of dravya. For instance, three discrete atoms are combined into one composite, which can be decomposed in two ways, i. c., either into three discrete atoms or oae loose atom plus one composite with two atoms. However the same composite consisting of three atoms is viewed differently from the aspect of kṣetra, for it can be one pradesin, two prades.a or three pradesin. And when the composite is one pradesin it is invisible as it is the size of an atom, and visibility arises in the case of a composite with two prades is onwards. From the aspect of bhava, an atom and a composite with one prades (called a sükṣma paripata skandha) are allowed to have the properties of one colour, one smell, one taste and two touches (either one of snigdharūks and either one of sita-uspa), of which degrees can be one up to infinite each. A composite with two pralesas oawards (called a balara paripata skandha) has full

86

Page #100

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THF T. S.
properties, namely, five colours, two smells, five tastes and eight touches, of which degrees can be likewise one up to infinite each. And the atomic combination proceeds according to the rule pronounced in the Prajnapand 13.418 above, for which the degrees of snigdha-1 üksa gunas play an important role.
In this relation, Abhayadeva quotes certain gathās in his commentary on the Bhagavati 5.7.217, 'samkoa-vikoena va, uvaramide vagahaṇāe-vil tattiya-mitiānam cla, ciram-pi davvaya' vatthanam samghaya-bheyao và, davvovarame punai samkhitte/ niamä tad-davvogāhaṇāe naso na samdeho// ogahaddha davve, samkoa-vikoyao a avabaddha na u davvam samcoana-vikoa-mittamni sambaddham'. In commenting the first and the last gathās above, Ratnasimhasuri explains the concept of sankoca-vikoca stated therein in the Paramāṇukhaṇḍaşaṭtrimsika (Atmānanda Sabhā p. 4), 'vivak şita-kşetrapradesa-vyapitvam nama paramürūnām-avagāhanā, tebhyo' Ipatareşu bahutareşu ca kşetra-pradese şu tavatām-eva pudgalānām sükşmi-bhhvanam sakkocaḥ, sphärt-bhavanam vikoch tatas-ca sankoca-vikoycābhyām-avagahanāyā uparamo bhavatiti... sakkocādvikocac-ca paramaṇānām sūkṣma-pariṇāmatayā 'nyonyānupraveśaḥ sankocaḥ sūkṣmaparinama-parinatānām tu bādara-parinamataya bhavanam vikocaḥ, tau sankoca-vikocau sama srityety-arthal.
We can interprete the concept stated herein in the following way. Ten atoms, for instance, can be combined together in one up to ten prade sas, but not in more than ten pradeśas. When these ten atoms are combined in one prades', the mode of their spatial interpenetration is called sükṣma pariplima, wherein. the entire spatial unit of each atom is penetrated by the entire spatial unit of the other atoms as so described in the Bhagavati 5.7.215. This mode of spatial interpenetration is expressed in terms of sankoca. When the same ten atoms are combined in two to ten skandha pradeśas, the mode of their spatial diffusion, in at skandha is called bädara pariņāma, which is expressed in terms of V.koca. Various. modes of their spatial diffusion have been already shown in the foregoing table of the same Bhagavati passage. In another word, X number of atoms can be combined in two ways from the standpoint of kṣetra, i. e., (1) X atoms are combined in one prades and (2) X atoms are combined in two to X pradeśas. X atoms are invisible in the former type of combination as the mode of their spatial combination is subtle, but they are visible in the latter type as the mode of their spatial combination. is gross.
The Jain canon is curiously silent about the function of sita-usoa gunas, either one of which is pronounced to be present in an atom along with either one of snigdharuksa gupas. It seems that sita-upa gupas play an important role in the theory of atomic combination of the Jainas as the causes of sankoca-vikoca or interpenetrationdiffusion of the spatial units of the atoms and composites, inasmuch as snigdha
87

Page #101

Soc. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THB T.S.
ruksa gunas serve here as the causes of the mutual attraction and actual coming together of the atoms and composites. It is not difficult to postulate that motion or vibration may occur to the atoms and composites when they are combined together to go through interpenetration or diffusion of their spatial units, which is assumed to be happening constantly in the natural phenomena. The foregoing Bhagavati statement of the motion aad rest pertaining to the atoms and composites seems to be expressing the concept as such.
Now going back to our problem, proper, Umāsvāti discusses the problem of atomic combination in the content of pudgala as follows :
V:23-24 nature of pudgala
(viewed from the aspect of bhāya) 25-28 components 25 aņu-skandha as components
(dravya 26 method of skandha formation
(dravya) 27 method of aņu formation
(dravya) 28 cause of the perceptibility of skandha
(kşetra) 32-36 process of atomic combination
(bhāva) It is indisputable that Umāsvāti posited the problem in the same manner as the Agamic theoreticians did. Thus from the standpoint of dravya, pudgala is considered in terms of its components, namely, atoms and composites. And the production of the atoms and composites is logically posited from the same standpoint of dravya. Therefore the atoms are produced by the division of a composite, and the matter composites are produced by the combination of atoms, by the division of composites, and by the combination-cum-division of both atoms and composites. However, the perceptibility of a thing depends solely upon the number of its pradeśas with which the number of atoms constituting a composite has nothing to do. This is the standpoint of kşetra, upon which ground Umājvāti clarified in the Brāşya that the three methods of skan ha formation do not apply to the law of the visibility of a thing. To explain the accout further, the one pradesi skandha is necessarily invisible. So the one pradesi skandha consisting of two to infinite atoms does not have the capacity of raising palpability to the eye. Therefore, sanzhāta, bheda, and singhāra-bheda of two to ananta atoms taken place within one pradeś is barren as to its potency of imparting perceptibility. Perceptiblity arises in the two pradeśı skandhi onwards, thus only the number of pradeśas of a composite is responsible for the rise of the palpability or the dimension of a thing. In another words, the sūtra V:28, 'bheda-sanghtābhyām cākşuşaḥ.' has to be understood in the sense that the visibility of a thing arises due to the division and combination of the pradesi components, i. e. atoms and composites. The union or disu nion of the pradeś13 of matter components alone is competent to manifest the visibility of a skidh to th: eye. It is sigoificant that the simultaneous process of
88

Page #102

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
sanghāta-cum-bheda in skandha formation is dropped here, because from the viewpoint of ksetra it is looked at as the two phenomena of sanghāta and bheda.
The canonical authors treated one and the same problem from the entirely different angles of dravya, kşetra, bhāva and kāla, And since theview point of kSetra
itself gives a solution to the problem of the origtnation of the palpability of a thing, they did not need to bother about positing this problem. But Umāsvāti (who was considerably affected in arranging the topics on pudgala and satsāmăpya by the contents discussed in the Vaisaşikasūtra 4.1) obviously considered it worthwhile to be aphorized in order to distinguish its Jaina view from that of the non-Jajoas, fur instance, the Vaiszsika view which maintains,' sankhyāḥ parimārāni pythakívam samyogavibhāgiu paratvāparat ve kırmı ci rūpi-dravya-samavāyāt cākşuşāni (Vaiseșika:ūtra 4.1.12),' Neither the number of atoms nor their size have ihe capacity to produce visibility of a thing according to tbe Jainas. And such a way of positing a problem, i.e., by dravya, kşetra, etc., must have been taken for granted as to any types of problems in the canonical tradition, and perhaps for this reason Umāsvāci did not feel the need of further exposition on this matter and thereby imparted a very brief commentary on it. All the commentators on the T.S. failed in their attempt of comprehending this aphorism and its exposition, because the ceed of positing the problem in such a way did not exist in the thinking pattern of the Jainas. This sutra V:28 is impossible to be understood without its Bhāşya exposition, which demonstrates that it was composed by the same aphorist.
Part 3 Treatment of dhyāna
The role of dhyana is weighty in the Jaina monastic praxis, because liberation is said to be impossible to be achieved without it, however having been subordinated to tapas it never gained an independent position in ihe monastic conduct of the Jainas in the canonical stage. This is precisely so because of the ontological ground of Jainism consisting of the two principles of the soul and the matter, wherein the disintergration of them aimed at for moksa is assumed to be achieved mainly by the rigorous practice of tapas, for which the last two stages of śukla dhyāna constitute a part, and dharma dhyāna and the first two subdivisions of śıkla dhyāna are the mere aids. The auxiliary position of dhyāna in the ascetic practice of Jainism thus differs greatly from its position held in Buddhism wherein the origioal teachings of Buddha of duḥkha-kşaya were formulated on the ground of the way of meditation practice.
The dependent position of dhyāna to tapas in the canon was likewise received by Umāsvāti. However be spared nearly 1/3 of the total aphorisms in Ch. IX for the exposition of dhyāna, and while brioging this subject matter into prominence, he added to it certain features which were previously unknown, i.e., the definition of dhyāna and the dhyātās' gradation in the scheme of guņasthāna. He did it in order to
89

Page #103

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
discriminate the Jaipa concept of dhyāna from that maintained by the other systems, and in so doing he introduced these new featutes into the Jaina system. A treatment on dhyāna made in the T.S. immediately attracted his successors, who made further efforts to develop what was worked out by Umāsvāti to the effect that Jaina yoga came to be established as an independent branch by the end of the medieval period. In view of this, his treatment of dhyana requires a critical examination, which is going to be attempted in the following.
The Jaina canon classifies dhyāna into four types, i. e., årta, raudra, dharma and sikla, which are each subdivided into four kinds. The first two types are exclu fed from the consideration of dhyāna in the non-Jaina systems, and the
last two subdivisions of sukla dhyāna i. e., sūkşmakriya and samucchinnakriya, which aim at the total karmic destruction by way of yoga-nirodha are peculiar to the Jainas alone, that do not again fall in the category of dhyảna in the normal usage of its term. Samucchinnakriyā is the state of dhyāna revealed in the immediate sequel of sūksmakriyā, therefore it is called dhyāna in the nominal sense alone, which does not involve in essence any effort for its performance. The content of Jaina dhyāna is thus very peculiar by itself jumbling together the non-dhyāna elements in its ordinary sense of term. The first two subdivisions of sukla dhyāna, 1. e., pfthaktva vitarka and ekatva vitarka, correspond to the beginning stages of samprajñāta samadhi in the Yoga system and to the rudimentary stages of the first dhyāna of 'the Buddhists. This indicates that the Jainas did not attach that much importance to the practice of dhyāna in the Agamic period in comparsion with the non-Jainas who developed the elaborate methods of meditation scheme.
It is not impossible to trace how these contents stated above came to be established under the category of dhyāna in the capon. The Sūtrakrta I. II. 26-28 read, 'te ya biyodagam ceva tam-uddissā ya jam kadam bhoccā jhānam jhiyāyamti akheyannasamāhiyā) jahā dhamka ya kamkā ya kulala maggukā sihil macchesanan ihiyāyamti jhāṇam te kaluşādhamam!! evem tu samaņā ege micch additthi anāriyāl visaesanam jhiyāyamti kamkā va kalusāhamā.' The mental activity of a sinful kind is here already expressed by the term dhyāna, which denetes nothing more than a manoyoga in the later term. This soon prepared the rise of raudra and ārta classes in the Sūtrakrta II.2.9, 'ahāvare atthame kiriya-tthāne ajjhatıha-vattie tti āhijjail se jahā-nāmae kei purise natthi nam kei kim-ci visamvādei sayam-eva hiñe dine dutthe dummane ohaya-maņa-samkappe cinta-soga-sagara-sampavitthe karayala-palhattha-muhe atta-jjhānovagae bhūmigaya-ditthie jhiyai...' In the course of time, these two dhyānas came to be considered in relation to avratas, and meotal activity brooding over the objects of parigraha and abrahma came to be called ärta dhyāna, and that over the objects of the first four avratas came to be called raudra dhyāna as their subdivisions evince. :: Sušukla-śukla dhyāna practised by Mahāvīra is described in the Sūtrakrta I. 6. 16-17 in connection with the total destruction of karmas, 'anuttaran dhammam-uiraitta
90

Page #104

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
anuttaram jhā:11-varam jhiyāi/susukka-sukkamapaganda-sukkam samkh-imdu-egamtavadāyasukkam anuttaraggam paramam mahesi asesa-kammam sa visohaittā/siddhim gae sāimarın'a-pilte nā?era sileri ya damsarana.' Hire is hovering a traditional belief that the fire of pure meditation burbs up the last karmas without residue, and the concept of the last two stages of śukla dhyāna must have been developed from these passages. Mahāvīra adopted dhyāna praxis along with the other severe penances, which were the common practices pursued in the then śramanic circles, and he is often narrated to have been engaged in contemplation in the earliest part of the canon, for instance, in the Ācārānga I. 9. 512 and 520. And when dhyana or yoga came to be sanctioned as the direct method of achieving moksa in the other religious systems, the Sutrak fta passages above must have won an invariable position in the Jaina scheme of dhyāna as the immediate cause for the final release.
Jumbling these elements together, the Jainas also developed their own classification of dhyāna. The fourfold divisions of dhyāna accompanied by the fourfold subdivision's each are enumerated in the Bhagavati 25.8.802, Sthāna 4.1.308 and Aupāpatika 19, the contents of the former two texts of which are exactly identical. These texts talk about laksını regarding the subdivisions of ārta and raudra dhyānas, and laksana, ālambana and anuprek$ā regarding the subdivisions of dharma and sukla dhyānas, which are disregarded in the treatment of dhyāna in the T.S. On the other hand, the T.S. adds in contribution two main new features, namely, the definition of dhyāna and the dhyātāts' gradation in the scheme of guṇasthāpas.
Dhyana is defined in IX:21, .uttama-samlananasyaikāgra-cintă-nirodho dhyānam', of wbich duration is stated in the succeeding sūtra 28, 'ā mubūrtāt'. These two aphorisms are combined into one in the text of Pujyapāda, 'uttama-smhananasyaikāgra. cintă-nirodho dhyanam ā antarmuhurtāt (27)'. The definition of dhyāna offered by Umāsvāti thus includes three different categories, i.e. its definition proper, the physical prerequisite of a dhyālā and the duration of dhyāna. The source of its time duration is difficult to be traced in the canonical code, and it was likely formulated by Umāsvāti against the different views held by the other schools. The requirement of the best joints for dhyātās is likewise absent in the Agamic source, which must have been again offered by Umāsvāti with the dhyātās of the highest stages in mind. The Bhāsya understands 'uttam 1-3amı inana' to mean the first two divisions of joints, i.e., vajra-rsubha-nārāca and ardha-vajra-nārāca, which is extended to the third division of joints called nārāca in the Sirvärthasiddhi. Dhyana is defined as 'ekāgra-cinta-oirodhaḥ' which is said in the Bhāşya to denote two separate contents, i, e., ekāgra-cintā and birodha, but to denote one content in all the other commentaries on the T. S. in both traditions 18. We shall see how this definition of dbyāna was formulated by Umāsvāti.

Page #105

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
The Urtarā Ihyayan? 29.25 reads, ezagga-mana-samni vesaniyāe nam bhamte : jive kim janiyai ? egagza-man 1-samnive sanayāe nam cittaniroham karei'. Its 29.56-58 then say, 'man 1-samāhāranıyāe nam bhamte ! jive kim janayai ? mana-samahāranayāe ņam jive egaggam jinayail egaggam janaitā nāra pajjave janayai/ nāna-pajjave jinailtā sammattam visohei, micchattam ca nijjarei //56/1 vaya-samālāranayāe jive kim janayai? vaya-samāhāranayãe nam jive vaya-sāhārana-damsara-pajjave visoheil vayasaharara-damsana-pajjave vis hitrā sulaha-bodhiyattam nivraitei, dullaha-bohiyattam nijjarei 1/57// kāya-samāhārarıyāe nam bhamte!jive kim janayai ? kāya-samāhāranayãe nam jive caritta-pajjave visoheil caritta-pajjave visohitta ahakkhāya-carittar visohei ahakkhaya-carittam visohettä сaltārı kevali-kamının se khaveil tao pacchā sijjhai bujjhai muccai parinivvāyai savva-dukkhānın-amtam karei 1/58// Thses passages say that kāya-samāhāra or the collection of physical activities alone leads to mokşa but not the collection of mental and vocal activities.
Then, sūksmakriyä and samucchinpakriya dhyānas are described in the Uttaradhyayana 29.71-72, kevala-nāna-damsoņam samuppādei) jāra sarogi bharai 1/71// aha äyuyam pålaittā amtomuhutt -addhavasesãe joga - niroham karemāne-suhumakiriyam appadivāim sukkhajjhāņam jhāyamāṇe tap-pad hamayāe mana-jogam nirumbhai vai-jogam nirumbhai, kāya-jogam nirumbhai, āņıpāņa-niroham kureid isi-pamca-rahass-akkharuccăranaddhãe ya nım arīgāre sam icchinnakiriyam aniyatti-sukkajjhāņam jhiyāyamāne veyanijjam āuyam nāmım gottam ca ee cattāri kammamse jugavam khavei 1/72]/ Here the performance of a siyogi kevali and ayoga kevali is identified with that of the last two stages of sukla dhyāna, which had never been so done in the other canonical texts such as Prajñāpinā 36 and Aupapātika that describe the final performance of these kevalis approaching towards the final release. The Uttarādhyayana 29.72 above describes sūkşmakriyā dhyāna as involving the performance of bringing the threefold yogas into cessation.
Two contents of dhyāna offered by Uināsvāti are 'ekāgra-cinta' and 'nirodba'. The Yogasū ra 1 2 defines yoga, yogas-citta-yrtti-nirodhaḥ,' from which the Jaipa concept of dhyana greatly differs. According to the Āgamic classification of dhyāna, the last two stages of sukla pertain to kevalis' yoga-nirodha, wbile the rest involve themselves with various mental activities, sinful or otherwise. Umāsvāti therefore discerned these two types of dhyāga in tradition, and offered the definition of 'ekāgre-ciptā' to the årta through the first two stages of śukla, and 'oirodha' to the last two stages of śukla. 'Ekagra-cintā' was apparently derived from the Uttaràdhyayana passage of ezagga-mani-samnivessaņa' or 'maņ1-samāhāpa' while replacing manas by cintā.
Then, ‘mirodha' which is meant as the definition of kevlis' dhyāna was derived from the Uttraradhyayana 29.28 and 29.72. In the T.S.IX:42, Umāsvāti specifies that sūk$makriyā is performed by a kevali possessed of kāya-yoga and samucchiopakriyā by an ayoga kevali. Samucchinnakriya is the stage wherein manifested is the state

Page #106

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
of an ayoga kevali who has just accomplished videha-mukti or the final release. Therefore the statement that its dhyātā is an ayoga ke vali precisely represents the canonical view of this dhyāna, which involves no problem. However the concept of sūksmakriyā expressed by Umāsvāti that it is the preformance of kāya-yoga-pirodha comes into conflict with the Uttaradhyayana 29.72 which says that it is the performance of yoga-nirodha in three forms. While formulating his own idea or sūksmakriya dhyāna, Umāsvāti seems to have taken recourse to the Uttarādhyayana passage of ‘kāya-samaharana' saying that collection of kāyayoga alone leads one to moksa but not the collection of mental and vocal activities (29.55-58). It should be reminded here that Univāli altered th: order of threefold yogas into kāya-van-manas in the T.S. VI:1 from the usual order of mano-väk-kāya. It is however difficult to widen the said concept of käya-yoga-nirodha as inclusively expressive of the nirodha of all the threefold yogas beginning with kāyayoga, because it invites technical difficulties involved with the other established concepts in this connection. According to Unāvāti, a sayoga kevali thus performs the third stage of sukla dhyāna immediately after completing the process uf bringing his subtle activities of mind and speech into cessation which takes place after the performance of samudghäta.
The Uttară shyay.na 39.35 reads, 'atta-ruddāņi vajjittä, jhā?jja susamāhie dhamma.Sukkāim jhānāmi, jhānam tam tu buhā vae', which finds an expression in the T.S. IX:30 (29) that the last two dhyānas alone are the causes of mok$1. And since dhyāna which is a part of tapas is here taken up in the context of samvara and pirjarā, ārta and raudra dhyānas do not fall in the context in question. The definition of dhyāna offered in 1X:27-28 which contains three different categories, i.e. the dhyātās' physical prerequisite of the best joints, the definition of chyāna proser and the duration of dhyāna, must be therefore primarily formulated in view of moksamārga But here he brought in all the four types of dhyāna in the canop, perhaps in order to distinguish the Jaina concept of dhyā ia from that of the other schools. This invited ambiguity by leaving an impression that the said definition is applicable to all the types of dhyāna. Or as we have previously understood and as so also understood by the later authors on dhyāna, Umājvāti might have desired to extend the said blanket definition to them all, because 'ekāgra-cinta' surely applies to ārta and raudra dhyānas also. And even if we exclude these two lower types from the said definition of dhyāra, the proviso of uttama-samanana (which certainly is over too narrow to be applied to the two lower types) is over narrow to be applied to the class of dhrama dhyāna, which led Pujyapāda to expand its content up to the third division of joints. Neither Umāsvāti lucidly expresses that 'ekāgra-cinta' is applicable to those in cbadmastha and 'kāya-nirodhi' to kevalis, as these are aphorized in one compound in singular ending. This obscure expression invited a misunderstanding as so evinced in the commentaries on the T. S. in both traditions. These unbappy points are therefore bound to fuo: in provenzats, of which task was vested in bis successors.

Page #107

Sec. 3, SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
In the Avasyaka niryukti 1477, Bhadrababu offers a definition of dhyans in chadmastha after Umäsväti by dropping the proviso of the best joints, 'amtomuhuttakalam cittass-egaggaya havai jhanam/tam puna ayam ruddam dhammam sukkam ca nāyavvam." In its gatha 1481 onwards, however, he expresses a dissatisfaction about Umāsvāti's idea of sukṣmakriya dhyana to be the performance of käya-yoga-nirodha in three kinds,tatthu bhanijja kol Jhanam jo manaso parinamol tam na havai jina-dittham jhanam tivthe-vi jogamni/1481// kde-vi-ya ajjharm vayai manassa ceva jaha hoi kaya-vaya-mmo-juttam tiviham ajjhappam-ahamu//: 484// jai egaggam cittem dharayao va nirumbhto vä-viljhanam hoi nanu taha iaresu-vi de em-eval/1485//. He emphatically explains then that väg-yoga-nirodha also falls in the domain of dhyana. His criticism in the first half of the gatha 1481 is obviously directed against Patanjali's definition of yoga, and a similar criticism against it pervades in the works of his successors.
Bhadrabahu is quite right in proposing this amendment by representing the canonical view described in the Uttaradhyayana 29.72. It is interesting to see however that his proposal faces a doom to be turned down by Jinabhadra who offers a full support to Umasväti's view in his Viseṣāvas yakabhasya, sudadha-ppayaṭṭa-vāvāraṇam nirodho va vijjamāṇāṇam! jhāṇam karaṇāņa matam na tu citta-nirodha-metra yam//3669// hojja na manomayam vayiyam va jhanam jinassa tad-abhave! kaya-nirodha-payatassa bhavam-iha ka niväreti? //3670// aha'bhave manaso chatumatthass-eva tam na jhanam sel adha tad-abhäve vi matam jhanam to kinna suttassa/3672// juttam jam chatumatthassakaraṇa-mettä nusari-nāṇassal tad-abhävammi payatthabhavo na jinassa so jutto//3675// chatumatthassa mano-metta-vihitajattassa jati matam jhanam/kidha tam na jinassa matam kevala-vihita-ppayattassa//3676// Jinabhadra explains this point again in his Jhanajjhayana 83-34, 'nivvaa-gamṇa-käle, kevalino dara-niruddha-jogassa suhumakiriya niattim. talam tanukaya-kiriyassal tass-eva ya selesim gayassa selesu va nippakampassa/vucchinnakiriamappadi-vaim jhanam parama-sukkam. Also he attempts to remove the ambiguity created by Umäisväti, thus he says in the Jhana'jhayana 2-3 in his own words that 'ekagra-cinta' applies to chadmasthas and 'nirodha' to kevalis, jam tthiram-ajjhavasãe, tam jhanam jam calam taya cittam! tam hujja bhavana và, aṇupeha va have cimla/ amonautta-mittam. clutavatthāyam-ega-vasthumni/ chaumatthäṇam jhanam, joga-niroho tu. He followed Bhadrabahu in removing the proviso of uttama-sambanana, and the definition of dhyana thus improved by Jinabhadra came to be generally accepted by the later Jaina authors.
jinan
Yet here is Agastyasimha who wants to say something about the Jhanajjhayana treatment of dhyana, because his curni on the Daśavaikālika (Prakrit Text Society ed., p.16) reads, 'idagim jhanam/tassa imam sāmaṇņam takkhaṇam egagg-ciqua-niroho jhanam ...egagzassa cimtā egagga-clmiä, etam jhanam chaumatihassa; niroho kevalino jogassa, cinta nahi ttl kevalin tan-niroho na sambhavati" tti keti, tam na, davvamaṇa-niroho tass1 bagato, jati egizza-cimia jhanam tato joga-niggaho sutaram-eval je puna
94

Page #108

See. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
bhanamti- "egaggo-cimtā-niroho jhanam' ti etam na ghadate kevalino, ābhinibohiyabhedo cimtă tri, tamhā "dadham-ajjh wv.isāņam jhārım"-iti, te avidita-viggaha-bhedā sutta-dūsaņenam buldhi-māhappam-abhilasımıi, paripheggu jampiyam, dad ham-ajjhavasão etam viseseņa cimtā-rūvam, ko etassa ajj havasāto ? yad-uttam kā cimtā ? takkādato savve āb'rinibohiya-nana-bheda padhită tattvārthel kala-nirohi à muhuttăto.... The point of Agastyasimha's criticism on the Jhānajjhayana is not quite clear, but from the way of his argument that kevali's yoga-nirodha involves dravya-mang-nirodha, he seems to suggesing that sūksmakriya is the performance of yoga-nirodha in three kinds (because their cessation proceeds in th: order of mind, speech and body). This he seems to be insisting on in suport of Uni;vāti's position la that case, his understanding of the T.S. treatment of sūksmakriya is confused. Also it is strange that Agastyasimha understand cintā in the sense of the synonym of ābhinibodbika jnana by way of quoting the T.S.
These are the immediate reactions expressed by the post-Umāsvāti authors to the obscure definition of dhyana proposed by Umāsvati and its improvement made by Jinabhadra came to be generally welcomed by his successors. The proviso of uttama-samhanana was naturally removed from its definition, but the time duration of antarmuburta was generally retained. These authors unanimously accepted the traditional classification of the four kinds of dhyāna after Umāsvāti, and gave the definition of 'ekāgia-cintā' to ārta and raudra dhyānas as well. Hemacandra was the first author who removed these two types from the category of dhyāna in his Yogašāstra, which is a sure improvement on Umāsvāti's treament that has been waited for too long.
The non-Jaina schools provide the stages of dhyāna or samadhi, for instance, the Yogasutra lists fourfold samprajñāta samādhis and asamprajñāta samādhi, and the
Abhidharmakośa enumerates upapatti and samāpatti of which steps and stages are therein elaborately worked out. The Āgamic classification and subclassification of dhyāna are made on the basis of the objects of concentration, excluding the case of sukla dhyāna wherein the first two stages are arranged in the progressive order towards the advancement of mental concentration, and the last two stages are arranged in the progressive order towards moksa. Perhaps for this reason, a necessity was felt by Umāsvāti to arrange them according to the stages of the progress of meditation as so done in the non-Jaina schools, and gunasthāna was seized for this purpose. As already mentioned, the Uttarādhyayana 29.72 already identifies the dhyālās of the last two stages of Sukla dhyāna with the sayoga kevali and the ayoga kevali who are the saints in the last two gunasthānas. This was so done because of the peculiarities of these dhyānas known to be performed by kevalis alone, but not due to the conscious attempt to arrange the meditators of these dhyānas in their specific gunasthānas. Umāsvāti performed this task of assigning the meditators of fourfold dhyānas to the proper gun asthānas by drawing the existent materials in the Āgama as we see below.
95

Page #109

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
We have earlier mentioned that the Bhagavati, Sthāna and Aupapātika to uchupon the laksıņıs of dhyāna subdivisions, which are dropped from Umāsvāti's treatment of dhyāna. These are as follows ; 1) ārta : kamdaņayā, soyaņayā, tippaņayā, paridevaņiya, 2) raudra: osanna-dose, bahula-d., annāņa-d., āmaranamta-d., 3) dharma : āpā-rui, nisaggi-r., sutta-r., ogādha-r., and 4) sukla:avvabe, asammobe, vivege, viussagge. The Prajñāpanā 1.74 classifies sarāga-damsanāriyās into ten types, i, e.' nisagga-rui, uvaesa-r., āli-r., sutta-r., biya-r., abhigama-r., vitthāra-r., kiriya-r., sam'sheva-r., and dhamma-r. The first three lakṣaṇas of dharma dhyāna find their corresponding types here in the classification of sarāga-darsana-āryas. The 4th laksanı called avagāui-ruci meining inclination towards the deep study of scriptures may correpond to type of ārya called abhigam 1-ruci above.
The Prajñāpınā 1.7 ; further classifies vīyarāya-damsanāriyā into two, i.e., uvasamta-kasāya and khi 11-kasāya, of which the latter is further divided into two i.e., chaumattha-khiņakasāya and kavali kşīņakasāya. Herein chaumatiba-khiņakasya is again of two types, i.e, sayambuddha and buddha-bohiya; and kevali-khinakasāya is also of two types, i.e., sayogi-kevali and ayogi-kevali. The four laksaņas of sukla dhyāna enumerated in the texts such as Bhagavati do not fiod here the corresponding four types in vitarāza-darsina-āryas, nevertheless these lak$anas are self-explanatory that these belong to the class of vitarāga-darsina-āryas alone, but to no others. The Prajñāpanā 1.76 continues to say that sarāga-caritra-āryas are of two types, i.e., sūksma-samparāya and bādara-samparāya, who belong to the 10th and 9th gunasthāsa in the list of 14 stages. Summing up all these accounts, the performers of dharma dhyāna according to these Āgamic texts fall in the 9th and 10th stages, and those of sukla dhyāna in the 11th stage onwards.
The compass of the stages of dharma dhyāna above does not exactly agree with that offered by Umāsvāti who might have used some other materials which escaped our sight or which are no more available to us. The source materials used for allotting the stages of ārta and raudra dhyātās are difficult to be traced, but these are logically assignable with the basic knowledge of avratas and guṇasthānas. Systematizing the, Āgamic literature on this subject, Umāsvāti assigns the meditators of raudra dhyān to the 1st through the 5th stages, those of ārta to the 1st through the 6th stages those of dharma to the 7th through the 12th stages, and those of śukla to the 11th through the 14th stages, of which the performers of the first two subdivisions to the 11th and the 12th stages, those of the 3rd subdivision to the 13th stage, and those of the 4th subdivision to the 14th stage. The 11th and 12th guṇasthānas are thus shared by the meditators of dharmı dhyāna and by the meditators of the first two stages of śukla dhyāna, who are necessarily the pūrvavids. (Umāsvāti does not know the full list of 14 stages, neither he calls them in terms of numerical series, therefore the corresponding stages of meditators expressed here for the sake of convenience and clarification).
96

Page #110

Soc. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T.S.
The text of Pujyapāda drops the portion of dhyātā from the sotra 37 along with the succeeding sūtra 38 of the Svetāmbara recension. Consequently, no statement is made in the Digambara text as to the authorized performers of dharmya dhyāna, of wbich explanation must be supplied by the commentaries. The Sarvārthasiddhi on the aphorisms (36-37) explains that the meditators of dharmya dhyāna belong to the 4th through the 7th stages prior to the ascendance of śreņis. Here arises a discordance between the two recenions of text, which however does not mean the doctrinal divergence between the two traditions, because the Dhivala 13/5.4.26/14/10 is in perfect agreement with the view held by the svetāmbara tradition.19 Pūjyapāda, who is thoroughly familiar with 14 guṇasthānas and the concept of karanas involving two śreņis, insists that dharmya dhyāna cannot be performed in the stages beyond the ascendance of $reņiz. However it is not at all clear what is the exact reason underlying this rule of prohibition, because commenting the sūra (37) he permits the performance of dharmya dhyāna to the possessors of the pūrras in the 11th and 12th stages, "ca' sabdena dh armymapi samucciyatel tatra "vyākhyanato visesa-partipattih" iti srenyāroh indt-prāg-dharmyam, srenyoh sukle iti vyakhyayate.' His statement is doubtlessly confused and contradicted. His position is defended by Akalarika urder the sūtra (36), 'kaścid - āha-upasānta-kşiņamoha-kaṣāyayos-ca dharmyam dhyānam bhavati na pūrveşam eveti; tan-na; kim kāraṇam ? suklābhāva-prasangat/14/ syād-etat-ubhayam dharmyam suklam copasanta-kşiņakaṣāyayor-astiti? tan-na; kim kåranan ? pūrvasyänişğatvāt / pūrvam hi dharmyam dhyānam srenyor-nesyate ārse, pūrveșu cesyate /15/ (36).' The defence is made in a miserably poor manner. This obviously explains that Akalanka was also unable here to find a logical reason for the creation of the border lice of śrenis beyond which belongs to the domain of sukla dhyātās.
Umsāvāti utilized the existing canonical materials and systematically arranged the respective dhyātās in the corresponding gunastbānas after the model of the treatment of dhyāna made in the non-Jaina circles. His table can impart a general idea as to which type of dhyālās falls in approximately which collective stages of gunasthāpa. However, the canonical classification and subclassification of dhyāna are on the whole schemed according to the objects of meditation, therefore the gradation of dhyānas and dhyātās in the orderly stages as so worked out by the non-Jainas requires the total reclassification of dhyāna itself in the canon. Haribhadra approached this problem from the entirely different angle and established his own scheme of the stages of dhyātās under the influence of the non-Jajna yoga. Some authors solved this problem by way of introducing the four steps of pada, piņda, lūpa, and arūpa to dharmya dbyāna under the influence of the Saiva yoga.20 The treatment of the stages of dhyāna thus gave rise to new approaches in the post-Umāsvāti period. .
As we have observed in the texts like the Bhagavati dhyāna had already met a semi-systematic treatment regarding its laksaņa, ālambana and anupreks in the later Āganic stage, which Unāsvāti did not adopt. Jinabhadra revived this canonical
97

Page #111

sec. 9. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T S.
treatment of ajambana 'to dharma dhyāpa in his Jhānajjhayaņa, the first elaborate prakarna on the Jaini dhyāna, which intiated its further developrnent. This subject matter attracted the Jainas in both traditions, which continued to develop while much assimilating the non-Jaina elements until it finally established itself as the scheme of Jaina yoga which is represented by the works of Haribhadra, Subhacandra, Hemacandra, and so on. The theoretical development of the concept of yoga must have given a considerable impact on the actual methods of yoga practice. Umasvati's treatment of dayāna mide in th: T.S. prepared for this direction, and his performance, even though exhibiting som: defective treatments, should be evaluated as a whole highly meritorious in this historical purview.
Part 4 Jivasamāsa, mārgaņāsthāna and gunasthāna
14 jivasamāsas, 14 mārgaņāsthānas and 14 gunasthånas by which media the karma doctrine'is expounded make their first appearance in the Șaskhandāgama in the standardized form. These three sthānas are reckoned at the outset of its first book called Samtap.irūvanisuttāri which are planned to be explained in the beginning several books from the viewpoint of eight anuyogadvāras, i. e., sat, dravya (sankhyā), kteira, sparśana, kala, antara, bhāva and alpa bahutva. Umasvati does not know the designations of these three Sthānas nor is he acquainted with their complete lists. However the T. S. exhibits a good knowledge of them, and it may not be idle to inquire bow far these 14 sthānas had been developed by the time of Umāsvāti in order to estimate the temporal distance between the T. S. and the Șațkhandāgama (and between the
Kaşāyaprabhrta and the T. S. at the same time). - Jivasamāsa is a classification of samsāri jīvas who are arranged from the lowest order to the highest according to the number of their sense organs. The list thus consists of the subtle one-sensed beings (1), gross one-sensed beings (2), two to foursensed beings (3-5), five-sensed heings without mind (6), and five-sensed beings with mind (7), who are each classified into the underdeveloped and the developed. The classes of jivas as such are known to the later Āgamic texts, for instance, the Jivājivābhigama, wherein the crystallization in this form is not yet attained. The T.S. Ch. II shows a similar classification of jivas, which however does not adopt paryāpta-áparyāpta divisions that are extensively used in the canon. Umāsvāți must have represented in T.S. the then most advanced and prevalent classification method of the beings, from which the final formulation into 14 jivasamāsas expressed in the Şarkhandāgama is a matter of time.
The T. S. 1:8 Bh. enumerates 13 mārgaņāsthānas which are called by the name of anuyogadvāras, i, e., gati (1), indriya (2), kāya (3) yoga (4), kaşāya (6), veda (5), lesya (10), samyaktva (12), jñāna (7), darśana (9), caritra (8), ābāra (14), and upayoga
98

Page #112

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THF T. S.
(13). Bhavya or the 11th marganästhāna is missing in this list, and upayoga or the 13th sthana here is replaced by samja in the Satkhandagama. Umāsväti's list is thus. short of the 11th sthana and exhibits some difference in the arrangement of items. The 7. S. 1:8 counts eight anuyogadvāras which are employed in the beginning books of the Sarkhandagama in the same order (Anuyogadvara 102 counts nine with the addition of bhaga). Umásväti directs the readers to apply these thirteen märgană sthānas to samyagdarśana from the standpoint of these eight anuyogadvaras, of which exposition is called sadbhütapadaprarüpapadi inasmuch the Satkhandagama designates it samtaparuvana and so on. It is thus undeniable that the crystallization of 14 märganästhānas took place well-nigh soon after the completion of the T. S.
It has been already shown that Umasvati employed gunasthanas in order to express the gradation of the stages of dhyatas as so done in the non-Jaina circles. This is a sure indication that the concept of gunasthana had been well developed by that time," even though its designation and the numerical identification of its stages were not yet known. Gunasthanas are reckoned in the T. S. in relation to paritahajaya, dhyana and nirjara of karmas. IX: 10-12, 35-38 and 40 count the following stages: avirata (4), deśavirata (5), pramattasamyata (6), badarasamparaуa (9), sükṣmasamparaya (10), upasantakasaya (11), kṣinakasaya (12), (also chadmasthavitaraga, 11-12), kevali or jina (13-14). IX 47 lists samyagdrati (4), śrävaka (5), virata (6-7), anant nubandhiviyojka (4-8), darśanamohakṣapaka (8-10) mohopaśamaks (8-10, 11; on the śrepi), upasātamoha (11), mohakṣapaka (8-10, 12; on the śreni), ksinamoha (12) and jino (13-14), wherein karmic purge is said to increase by innumerable times more in each. stage in comparison with that in the preceding one. The Kaşayaprabheta 1.14 lists; sa nyaktva, disavirati, samyana, dariinamohopaśimina, caritramohopašamana (i. e., bafararags and suks misamparaya. 14.121-122), darsina mohaktapana and caritramohakṣapana. This clearly demonstrates the proximity of distance between this text and the T. S.
The first stage of mithyärva and the third stage of samyagmithyatva had since long existed in the canon. However the 2nd stage of sasvadana was perhaps not at all known to Umäsväti together with certain karanas involving śreņis such as the antara karana. Sankramana which involves the concept of irenis is mentioned in the T. S. Thus excluding sasvadana stage, all the rest of the gunasthanas must have been known to Umasvati. The Samayaya 14.48 imparts a full list of 14 items, i. e., micchaditṭhi, sasayaṇasammaddiṭthi, sammamiechadittbi, avirayasammadditthl, virayaviraye, pamattasamjae, appamattasamjae, niaṭṭibayare, aniyaṭṭibayare, suhumasamparãe, (uvasamae or, khavae or), uvasamtamohe, khiņamohe, sajogikevali and ajogikevali.
Stages 1-7 excluding the 2nd are found in the Agama like the Bhagavatt, for instance, its 18.1.6 lists samyagdṛṣṭi (4), mithyadrști (1) and samyagmithy adṛṣṭi (3). Its 18,1.7 has the list of samyata (6-7), asamyata (4) and samyatasamyata (5), and
99

Page #113

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T, S.
its 1.1.16 asamyata or avirati, pramattasamyata (6) and apramattasamyata (7). These classifications are based on the types of darśana and samyama, both of which are the important ethical topics discussed since the time of the Acāränga I and the Sutrakrta I. The Prajāpanā 1.65-77 impart a full classification of āriyas as follows: āriyā 1. iddhipattāriyā arahama, cakkavatti, baladevā, vasudevā, cāraṇā, vijjābarā 2. an ddaipattāriyā kbettāriyā, jālāriyā, kulāriyā, kammāriyā, sippāriyā,
bhāsāriyā, nāņāriyā, dam sanāriyā, carittäriyā damsāņāriya 1. sarāga d.
nisaggarui, uvaesa r., āņā r.. sutta 1., biya r., abhigama r.,
vitthāra r., kiriyā r., samkheva r., dhamma r. 2. viyarāga d. 1. uvasamtakasāya v. by time division : (1) padhamasamaya u. v, apadbama.
samaya u. v., (2) carimasamaya u. v., acarimasamaya u. v. khiņakasāya v. 1. chaumattha k. v. 1. sayambuddha e. k. v.
each by two time divisions. 2. buddhabohiya c. k. v. 2. kevali k. v. 1. Sayogi k. k. v.
each by two time divisions. 2. ayogi k. k, v. Carittàriya (1) 1. sarāgacarittāriyā 1. bāyarasamparāya s. c. [9th stage] (1) by two time divisions.
(2) padivāi, āpa divāi 2. subumasamparāya s. c. [10th] (1) by two time divisions.
() samkılissamānā, visujjhamānā 2. viyarāgacarittāriyā .: 1. uvasamtakasāya v. c. (11th)
by two time divisions. 2. khiņakasāya v. c. 1. chaumattha k. v. c. [12th1
1. sayambuddha c. k. v. c. each by two time divisions, 2. buddbabohiya c. k. v. c.
100

Page #114

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
2. kevali k. v. c. 1. sayogi k. k, v. c. [13th]
each by two time divisions. 2. ayogi k. k. v. c. [14th] (2) 1. sāmāyiyacarittäriyā ittariya s. c., āvakahiya s. c.
2. chedovatthāvaniya c. säiyāra c. c., niraiyāra c. c. 3. parihāravisuddhiya c. nivissamāņa p. c., Divitthakāya p. c. 4. suhumasamparāya c. samkilissa māņa s. c., visujjhartana s. c. 5. ahakkhāya c.
chaumattba a. C., kevali a. c. The classification of these two types of äryas is primarily tased on the modes of eliminating rāga or kaşāya. The classification of viyarāgacarittäriyä which is identical with that of viyarāgadamsaņāriyā contains the gunasthanas 11-14, and sarāzacarittäriyā are expressed in terms of the 9th and 10th guņisthāvas. This indicates that by the time of the Prajñāpani all the stages excluding the 2nd and 8th (apūrvakaranı) were ready. And the subclassification of the 9th stage by pad või and apadivāi and that of the 10th stage by samkilissamäņā and visujhamāna adumbrate the direction towards the formulation of the concept of śrenis. It is curious to note here that carittariyā are explained by way of the two different types of classification, namely, by guṇasthānas and by the stages of samyama. These five stages of samyama or cãritra later came to constitue the 8th mārganāsihāna together with asamyama and deśasamyma. The Bhagavati 25.7 is devoted to the exposition of these five types of samyatas in terms of thirty-seven anuyogadvaras. And in company with the Uttara lh yayana 28, Umāsvāti refers for the content of caritramärga to these five types of samyama. This classification of äryas based on these fivefold samyatas seems to have been developed when these items were taken up in the Chedasūtras. For instance, the Brhaikalpa 6 enumerates six types of kalpa, i.e., sāmāyika-samyata, chedopasthā. paniya-samyata, nirvisamāna, nirvistakāyika, jina and sthavira; and the Vyavahāra 1 discusses about cheda ard parihārae in relation to the mooks' performance of prāyaScitta. And it is likely that these five types of aryas came to stand in the capacity of monks' guņisthāna in the later monastic disciplinary jurisprudence.
The Buddhists were also ready with the classification of āryas known by the name of eight arya pudgalas. It is informed that only four śramanya pbalas were discussed in the old text like the Samyuttanikaya, i.e., srotāpanna, sakņdāgāmi, anāgāni and arhat. It is said that each of these four stages of āryas came to be considered later in terms of those who are on the way to the stage and those who have arrived at the stage, thus furoisihing the eight classes of aryas.21 Attention has been early drawn to the resemblance of this Buddhist concept of the śrāmanya phalas and the Jaina concept of guņisthāgas, 22 It may be worth while to summarize fore the e;szatial features of their resemblance. Firstly, the stages in both systems
101

Page #115

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
are primarily based on the classification of aryas arranged in the ascending order towards liberation. Secondly, the order of these stages in both systems imparts the conceptual indication of the stages of spiritual attainment, but not the empirically chronological one. Thirdly, in both systems the beginning stages are concerned with the attainment of darsina (srotapatti or the stage prior to sroläpanna in Buddhism) and the rest of the stages pertain to the attainment of caritra by way of the removal of mobaniyakarmas or kl:sis. Fourthly, both schemes provide a chance of death in the deva loka in order to take up a spiritual stage once again (sakrdagami in Buddhism and the 11th stage in Jainism). The Abhidharmakoś Ch. 6 called Märgapudgalanirdesa is devoted to this classification of aryas, which was certainly known to the Vibhasa authors.
It appears that the Jainas had been since long attempting to classify the aryas into the ascending stages towards liberation, one of which classification based on the modes of eliminating kasayas (Prajñāpanā above) developed into scheme of 14 gunisthanas by way of assimilating the old standing classification based on darsana and Samyama (e. g., Bhagavati 18.1.6-7 and 1.1 16), and thereby the other kind of classification based on the five types of samyama was set aside and came to be absorbed in to the list of 14 märganasthanas. And the early karma specialists are doubtlessly responsible for the final formulation of the schemes of these 14 sthanas.
The stages of aspirants are provided in the other schools also in conformity with their own dogmis. Ganasthana likewise represents an ethical feature typical of the Jains based on their karma theory. The Prajñapant classification of these stages of carittariya is worked out in terms of the removal of mohaniya karmas. It suggests. that this classification belongs to the period when kasayas became the point of focus in the field of karma doctrine. Between the time of the Prajñāpana and the T.S., the concept of two śreini involving the 8th stage of apurvakarana must have evolved, and the 2nd stage of sasvaiana must have been formulated in the post-Umasväti period. The provision of śrenis, a fall from upašama śreņi and a device of sasvadana stage for the falling aspirants to the bottom-these are the peculiar features in the concept of gun isthana. The concept of bhava anuyogadvara in five or six types (five) plus sannipatika) may be a comparatively later product as it is located in the Anuyogadvara 127. However the concept of a soul's operation called kṣaya (kammam khavei occurs in the Sutrakyta 1.2.1. 15) and upasama must belong to much older period. The idea of kşaya sounds to be an ontologically logical deduction, while that of upasam appears to be an empirical deduction. If their combined operation called kṣayopasama. is considered to be much impurer than the upasama operation, it is quite logical to assume that upasama and kṣaya types alone can advance an aspirant to the further spiritual ascendance, of which paths are expressed in the forms of two śreņis. And since the total eradication of karmas alone can lead him to the final release according to the Jainas, it is imperative to postulate that kṣapaka śreņi alone is competent to achieve his end. Then it is again imperative to assume that the ascendant on upasama śreņi
102

Page #116

Sce.3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
must sometime fall by the end of this freni in order to take up the ladder of the ksapakas. This also fits in explaining the empirical phenomena in the actual practice wherein the monks often relax in the middle and fail in their spiritual paths. A similar idea likewise prevails in the Buddhist texts as evinced by their frequent usage of the term avinivartaniya in the antonymous sense. The karma specialists regulated the time limit of his stay at the end of the śreņi within one samaya up to antarmubarta, and gave two choices for his mode of departure from this śreņi, namely, either by way of death or by way of fall. By way of death, he is destined to be an Anuttarasura deva, of which idea is comparable to that of sakrdagami in Buddhism. By way of fall, he is destined to fall below the 6th stage of pramattasamyata due to the rise of karmas. A creation of sāsvādana stage was possibly made on the basis of a logical assumption that the saint on the 11th stage cannot fall straightway to the bottom stage of mithyatva. It thus seems that the concept of guņas hāna was on the whole worked out on the rational ground.
The above examinations evince that jivasamasa and märganastbana were crystallized soon after Umasväti's time, more than the time of which must have been required for the final formulation of gunastbana. The classification of karmas shown in the T.S. Ch. VIII is no more than the deduction from the canon, for instance, from the Uttara lhyayna 33. Following suit of the canonical authors, Umāsvāti engages himself bere in the discussion of karmic bondage alone, while the Şaškhandagama further takes up the problems of vedana in its Books 10-12, which is considered from the viewpoint of niksepas. Its Book 9, touches upon karanas such as upakrama, sarikrama, niddhatti and nikacana, a mention of which also occurs in the gatha to the Bhagayati 1.1.12. Umasvati refers to karanas such as sankramaņa (VIII: 22Bh.) and a pavartana (II : 52Bh.), and explains anubhāva in terms of udaya. Taking all these into consideration, the temporal distance between the T.S. and the Satkhaņdāgama is not too far away, say, at the most ten years.
The list of guņasthānas reckoned in the Kaşa yaprabhria and the T. S. is quite alike. Likewise the classification of kasāyas into four types with subdivisions made in the Kaşa yaprabhyta Cb. 8 is located in the Prajñapana Ch. 14 and the T.S. VIII : 10Bh. The synonyms of these four kaşāyas enumerated in the T.S. VIII: 10Bh., and those of rāga-dveļa listed in the Prasamartai 18-19, which are dispersed in the canonical texts and not provided in one place en block, are again located at large in the Kaşāyaprabhyta Ch. 9. Its fifth chapter takes up the concept of sankramaņı from the standpoint of various anuyogadvāras, and it is also taken up in most of the later chapters which are arraaged according to the guṇasthānas. The concept of sarikramana likely came to the focus of the then karma specialists' attention, of which discussion is however conspicuously absent in the canonical texts. As already taken note of, Umājvāti likely took a help of the Kasay?prbhrta in formulating the concept of yoga
103

Page #117

Bec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
as subha and aśubha. Naya in the Kaşayaprabhyta is explained by Yativrsabba as of five kind;. In all probobility, the Kaşāyaprabhyta was in front of Umāsvati. And it appears that the relevant concepts of karma doctrine were formulated and developed by the group of these early karma specialists who began to be active in the later classical period.
Part 5 Treatment of caritra in mokşamārga
The concept of the threefold pathways to liberation, i. e., darśana, jñāna and căritra, may be even traced in the Sūtrakrta 1.6.17 which reads, 'anuttaraggam paramam mahesi asesa-kamınım sa visohaitta/ siddhim gde säim-ananta-patte näneņa silena ya damsaņeņa', and the Satrakrta 11.7. 812, ...āgamitta nāņam damsaņam agamiita carittama pavaram kann 1779 akaraiyio se khilu para-loga-palimimthatta citthai...' However the conscious attempt of discussing moksamārga in threefold ways (Uttaradhya yana 23.33 and Rs brāșitan C1.211 or fourfoli wys, i. e., triplet plus tapas (Uttaralhyayana 28), came in a considerably later canonical stage, to which Vaţtakera augmented virya (which was a prevalent category in the context of acaras or gunas in the later Agamic age) as the fifth pathway in his Mūlacăra. The monastic conduct or ca itra is as old the thens as the history of the sect, but the concept of caritra in the context of mokşımarga is thus a new problem arisen in the later classical period.
The T.S. is a prakarana which represents the contents of the canon within the scheme of seven tattvas guided by the theme of mokşamarga. Therefore, even though tattva essentially express the ontological principles, the first five chapters of the T.S. can be considered in the sease of jñanamimāmsā, the last five chapters in terms of caritramimamsa, and the belief in the entire tattvas in terms of darśanamimamsă. Among the last five tattvas, bandha (Ch. VII) is purely an ontological item and moksa (Cn. x) is merely manifestation of the accomplished state of a soul, by which the actual disciplinary code of ascetics is not expressed. Asrava tattva (Ch. VIII) represents the householders' discipline. Umāsvati opens up the topic of mahāvrata in this seventh chapter while discussing aņuvrata, which was better if it were handled in the section of samvara tattva because the ascetics, conduct is necessarily directed towards mokṣa whether it is attainable or not in this life. (Moksa is not attainable without the knowledge of the fourteen Purvas, thus no one after Jambū is said to be capable of attaining it. When I visited nuns at Rukdi near Bihubali at Kolhapur Dist., Pūjyasri Ajitamati Annä replied in reference to this problem that one can be born in malāvidehi to achieve mok$a in the future. Svarga is attainable even by remaining as a layman, therefore a serious initiation into an ascetic's carrier must be necessarily based on the faith that at certain future birth, he is able to be released from samsāra ) Thus in the schema of tattvas. samvara-nirjarā represent the disciplinary code of ascetics that must constitute the content of caritramārga. However Umāsvāti,
104

Page #118

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
following suit of the Uttaradhyayana 28.32-33, identifies caritra with simsama in five types, i. e., sā nāyika, chedopasthapanā parihäravisuddhi, ūksmasamparāya and yathākhyāna. Besides he formulated sixfold simvaradıāras excluding mahäviata. Umāsvāti's performance as such exhibits that many concepts relevant to cār tramárga were yet taking the course of development in the late canonical stage. The fol owing is an attempt to understand how the relevant concepts of caritiamārga came to ci olve in the canoaical period, how they were handled by Umāsvāti and how they were treated in the immediate post-Umāsvāti authors in the two traditions.
The categorical items of jñāna-darsana-caritra occur in the canon in reference to various concepts such as ārādhara (Bhagavati 8.11.354), viradhana pratikramana (Avasyaka 4.6), jiva guna (Anuyogadvära 145), bodhi and buddhi (Sthana 3.2.207), prajñāpa: a (Sthina 3.4.256), samklesa (Sthani 3.4.258), prāy: Ścita (Sthana 3.4.264), gani pidhi (Stha 11 3 4.277), and so on. This set category also occurs in various contexts in the Āzamic texts, for instance, as one of the guņas of Lord Mahavira (Bhagavati 2.5.107), as one of the properties of a mä (Bhagavati 12.10 466), as one of the subdivisions of nirgranthas (Bhagavati 25.6.4), as one of the subdivisions of ārya (Prajña pana 1.1.72-77), as one of he subdivisions of vinaya (Aupapărika 19), as one of the divisions of jiva pariņāna (Prajñāpana 13.414-15), and so on. It appears that this tr plet had originally be?n conceived in reference to an ideal monk's virtuous qualities, which later came to be applied to many other concepts including mokşamārga. The Bhagavati 8. 10. 354 above classifies three kinds of aadhara in threefold degrees each, i. t., the highest, medium and lowest, and sbows the possible modes of their combinatiens. The highest degree of caritra is said necessarily to go with the highest degree of darśana āradhana. It then discusses three grades of each arādhana in relation to rebirth, and says that he who is possessed of the highest degree of each ārā ihanā attains liberation or rebirth in kalpatita, from which the deduction of the concept of the threefold pathways to liberation is a matter of time. We should also remember the aforeinentioned pass ges of the Sufrakra 1.6.17 and 11.7.812 as the possible sources of the threefold paths to liberation. The designation of them as triratna is a poit-Umāsvāli phenomenon, which occurs, for instance, in the Tandulavaicārika 118, but not yet in the niryukti literature.
A description of Lord Malāvira and his elder disciples often ends with such an idiomatic expression as stated in the Bhagayati 1.1.7, ....samjamenım tavasa appāņam b'avemane vihai.' The Bhagavati 2.5.111 reads, ... paccakkhāne kim phale ? samjamaphale, se non blu.ne! sanjarne kim phale ? anınhaya-phale, evam aņaņhae tava-phale, tave volana-phile, vdoine akiripa-pale, sa nun bhante! akiriya kim phala ? siddhipajj av.ts 217 phila p iitta guy.lini.' These passages discern samyama from tapas. The Jainas in tradition thus seen to have expressed the ascetic conduct as a whole in
105

Page #119

Sec, 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
terms of samjam i-tapas. Therefore when the Dasavaikalika 6.1 says, 'nāņa-damsanasampannam samiame ya tavarayam/ ganim-agama-sampannam, ujjänammi samosadham' it must be conveying the picture of a monk endowed with ideal gunas. And mok$amarga in fourfold pathways expressed in the Uttarddhyayana 28 must bave been directly derived from this traditional concept.
The Sthāna 2.3.120 reads, 'duvihe ayar2 p-o tam-o ņāņayare ceva nonana yare ceva, noņaņāyāre duvihe p-o tam-o damsaņāyāre ceva, ņodamsaņāyāre ceva, ņodamsaņdyare duvihe pannatte, carittāyāre ceva, ņocaritāyāre ceva, nocaritāyare duvihe p-o tam-o tayāyare ceva, viriyāyare ceva.' Again the Sthana 5. 3. 526 enumerates fivefold ācāras, i e., jñāna darśana, caritra, tapaz and virya. The Uttaradhyayana 29.59 discerns cāritra from tapas and vinaya, 'naņā-vinaya-tava-caritta-jogae sam paunai, sasamaya-parasamiyavisārae ya asamgha yaņijje bhavai.' Since vinaya is a part of internal tapas, its separate enumeration is rather strange. But it likely gained an important position as an independent category of acara or guņi in the later canonical stage, for its subdivisions include jñāna-Jarsina-caritra. Virya which is a quality required for the performance of tapis is said as of twofold in the Sūtrakrta 18.1-2, duhā veyam suyakkhyāyam viriyam ti pavuccail kim nu virassa virattam kahan ceyam pavuccais/ kammam-ege Pavedenti akamman vā vi suvvayal eehim dohi thāņehim jehim disanti macciya.' The Bhagavati 1.8.70-71 also touch upon this matter, and the Utrarädhyayana 3. 10 says that virya is difficult to obtain. These independent categories, i, e., vinaya and virya came to be added to fourfold guņas or acaras of ascetics expressed in the canonical texts and in the Niryuktis, from which fivefold pathways to moksa (basic four plus virya) of the Mūlacāra must have been derived.
In the earliest strata of the canon wherein the main focus of discourse falls in prāņātipāta and parigraha, samyama is used in terms of the control of senses or indriyasamvara including samiti and gupti. For instance, samyama is discussed in reference to himsā in the Ācārānga 1. 5. 3. 298 and the Sūtarkąta I. 7. 389, in reference to parigraha in the Sūtraykta 1. 10. 474, in reference to apramatta in the Acaranga 1. 1.4. 30, in reference to madhyastha in the Sutrakyta 1. 2. 87, in reference to the threefold yogas in the Sūtrkaçta I. 8. 486, in reference to kriya in the Sütrakta 1.10. 489, and in reference to five vows in the Sūtrakyta l. 3. 4. 232. Gupti is taken up, for instance, in reference to vāc in the Ācāranga I. 8. 2. 409, Sutrakia I. 2. 2. 122 and 10. 487, in reference to ātmā in the Sūtrakyta I. 3. 8. 431, 11. 512 and 520, and in reference to samiti in the Sutrakrta I. 14. 584. The usage of samiti occurs, for instance, in reference to sparsa, etc., in the Acaranga 1. 6. 4. 354, 9. 2. 492 and 498, in reference to pasca-samvara-samvude in the Sutrakta 1. 2. 1. 88, in reference to eşaņā in the Sūtrakrta I. 11. 509 and in reference to gupti in the Sūtrakyta I. 14. 584. The concept of gupti (manas, vāc and kāya) and samiti
106

Page #120

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T.S.
(iryā, bhāsā, eşiņā, āšānaniksepa, and utsarga) are herein not yet distinguished. And the Bhagavati 2. 1. 91 also exhibits the stage wherein gupti apd samiti are on the way for discernment, 'tae nam se kham.dae kacc yanissa-gotte anagāre jate iriyasamie brāsāsamie esanżsamie āyāna-bham! 1-mitta-nikkhevaņāsamie uccāra-påsavaņā-khelasimghari-jılla-piritthāvariyżsamie mirisimie vayasanie kāyasamie managutte vaigutte kayagutte gutte guttim lie gutta-bambhayāri ...'
Simyama is classified into four kinds, i. e., manas-vāk-kāya-upakarana, in the Sthāna 4. 2. 385, five kinds, i. e., the earth-being through the plant-being, in the Sthāra 5. 2. 524; seven kinds, i. e., sthāvaras, trasas and ajivakāya, in the Sthana 7. 705; ten kinds, i. e., the five one sensed beings up to the five--sensed beings plus ajivakāya, in the Sthana 10.937; and seventeen kinds, i.e., ten kind plus 'pehasamiame uvehāsamiame ayahattusamjame pamajjaņāsamiame miņa samiame vaisamjame ka yasamjame' in the Samarāya 57. These items cover the domain of indriyasamvara, samiti and gupti.
Samvara is classified in to five kinds, i.e., mithyātva, avirati, pramāda, kaşaya and yoga in the Sthana 5. 2. 517; six kinds, i. e., śruta up to sparśa plus no-indriya, in the Sthāna 6.553; eight kinds, i. e., śruta up to spars plus manas-vāk-kāya in the Sthana 8. 759; and ten kinds, i. e., eight plus upakarana and Sūcikušāgra, in the Sthāna 10.939. The categorical items listed in the Sthāna 5. 2. 517 is relevant to vrata, indriyasamvara, gupti and samiti, those in the Sthana 6.558 to indriyasamvara, and the rest to indriyasamvara and gupti.
Thus the concept of samyama which includes samiti-gupti and indriyasamvara connotes the concept of samvara which is primarily an ontological term. It seems therefore that a concept-couple of samyama-tapas which represents the monastic code of conduct came to be expressed by an ontological concept-couple of samvara-nirjarā when the doctrine of tattvas came into vogue. Indriyasamvara denotes the control of seoses over their objects and gupti-samiti denote the means of control as such. Thus the latter concepts which specify the methods as such while covering the concept of the former likely came to remain as the content of samyama and the former was destined to disappear in the later time.
Samiti-gupti and indriyasamvara, which constitute the content of samyama and samvara, are the antidotes of himsā and parigraha as so clearly indicated by their bhāvanās. The category of fivefold vratas (i.e., ahimsā, satya, asteya, brahma aod aparigraha) is dealt with in the Uttarādhyayana 30. 2 as the cause of anāsrava along with rātri-bbojanavirati (its 30.3 mentions samiti-gupti to be the same cause), in the Samavāya 16 as one of the fivefold anāscavadvāras or samvaradvāras and in the same Samavaya 16 as nirjarästhāna. And fivefold avratas are treated in the Prajñapana 22. 584 and 594 in relation to kriyās (of which 22. 585 and 595 take up ahimsā and abimsasatya respectively in reference to karma bandha). The Acaranga II. 15 takes up the
107

Page #121

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
topic of five vratas independently along with their bhāvanās, and likewise the Dasavaikālika 4.5-10 offer an independent treatment of it along with rātri-bhojanavirati
This evinces that the category of five vows, among which ahimsā and aparigiaba (which is used in the sense of a synonym of ahimā in the Ācāränga I and Sūtrakyta I) must have evolved first (as these constitute the integral part of the Jaina doctrine), 2 3 had occupied an independent position apart from the other ethical principles, which came to be later recognized as one of the anäsravadvāras or samvaradvāras when these ontological categories became prevalent. Umāsvēti includes mahāvrata in the category of samvara in IX : 7Bh. which pertains to samvarānupreksā ,samvaräms-ca miartādi-gupty-ādi paripälanād-gunatas-cintayet ...'. However he discusses the topic of manavrata in ihe context of asrava in Ch. VII, possibly because he found it more convenient to haudle it together with anvrata for he was likely coastrained by th: conpact form of compostion in Sūtra style. Vrata seems to have thus occupied no clear-cut position in the context of samyama in the canonical period even though the aforementioned Surakyta 1.3.4..32 talks about samyama in reference to five vows. The post-canonical author like Kundakunda expressly places vrata in the category of samyama, for instance, in the Caritrapāhuda 27, ‘pamc-imdiya-samvaruņam pamc.l-vayā pamcavim sa-kiriyāsu/pamca-samidi taja-zu'li samjama-caraṇam nirājāram', and in the Bür.isāņuvekkhả 76, 'vadi-samidi-pålaņāe damdaccäena in liya-jaenal parinamanāņussa puno samiami-dhammo have niyama'. Likewise the Mulācāra V counts vrata, sam ti and gupti as constituting of the content of cāsitramārga.
The Sthana 5.2.524 absve enumerates another list of fivefold samyamas, i. e., sāmāyika, chedopasthäpanā, piribāravśuddhi, sūksinasamparāya and yatbākhyāna, which are ca led samyamas as well as caritras in Bhagavati 8. 2. 319, 25.6 and 25. 7.785. They should be compared with six kalpas expressed in the Byhatkalpa 6, i. e., sā nāk1-519/ati, ci dopastna janiyā -sim,ita, nirv.śamāna, nirvişțakāyika, jina and stbavira. It is evident that the content of caritra was formulated after the composition of the Chrdasūtras. These five stages of cār:tra were later absorbed in the 8th mārgaņā. sthāna, however they were likely in full swing in the capacity of gunasthāna in the monastic practice, under the authority of the Chedasūtras. Cāritra is therefore clearly discerned from the concept-couple of samyama-tapas in the Bhagavati 1. 1. 17, "goyama ! iha-bhavie câritte no para-bhavie cariste no tad-ubha yacarittel eram tave samiame'. Likewise when the Sthina 2. 3. 120, etc., distinguish caritra from tapas, cāritra must have denoted samyama in five stages in as much as it denotes so in the Uttarādhyayana 28, for the term samyama used in a concept-couple of samyam 1-tapas seems to have never been called by the name of cāritra. The term caritra was likely preferred to samyama in this context by the later Agam.c authors in order to avoid ambiguity.
108

Page #122

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
In the context of fourfold mokşamārgas, the asectic conduct is expressed by cāritra-tapas which ought to be equivalent to samyama-tapas in terms of ethiecal conduct or samvara-nirjară in terms of karma theory. However the Uttarādhyajana author indentifics cāritra with samyama in five types such as sāmāyika. This category of caritra which represents the pragmatic stages or types of ascctic conduct belongs to a different category from samyama-tapas (i. e, equivalent of samvarapirjaia) which represent the general theory and practice of ascetic conduct. Therefore when caritra in the former sense which necessarily embraces the disciplinary code of samyama--tapas within its practice is coupled with tapomārga, it doesn't make much sense. It seems that the Uttaradhyayana author identified caritramärga with its equivalent samyama in five stages much under the sway of the circumstances in the monastic praxis. Umās āti followed its suit as he says in the T.S. 1:33Bh., 'Uktom jñānam/ caritram navame'dhyāye vak ş yāmah', which the Pasamarati 228-229 articulate in more precise expression.
It is as clear as crystal however that caritramārga is equivalent to samvaranirjară in the scheme of tattvas. Moreover he formulated sixfold samvaradvāras which consist of gupti, samiti, dharma, anupreksā, parisa hajaya and cāritra. Samyama in tradition does not generally include in its content dharma, anupreksā and pyişa hajaya, among which parişah ajaya is an old stray item since the time of the Acârānga I. Umāsvāti perhaps thought that since these are the important items they should also find a place in the disciplinary code of the Jaina ascetics. Then samvaradvāra is the only category that can absorb these items in the scheme of seven tattvas. Mahāvrata is invariably an important samvaradvāra as Vāmsvāti counts it as a part of the content of samvara ajupreksā, however its treatment was unfortunately made in the seventh chapter, and he did not even take a trouble of recounting it in this particular context, which he could bave done.
Now, let us see how the post-Umāsvāti authors handled these problems raised in the TS. (The following order of the post-Umāsvāli authors is not necessarily chronological.) Siddhasenagani follows Umārvāti's exposition that caritra mārga denotes sānāyika, etc., of five stages, which is clear also from his explanation of samyakcăritra made on I:1B'. (c. f. Kapıda's edition, v.l., p.25). The commentators of the Agamic literature generally follow the themes and concepts expressed in the concerned canonical texts, therefore cāritramārga continues long to be explained in terms of the fivefold stages of samyama, for instance, in the Viseşārasyakabháşya 1257-1277,3159, etc. and the Sūtrakrtangarriti [ 5.1. Bhadrabāhu follows fourfold mokşamārgas in dealingwith the Uttarādhyayana(cf. Niryukti gathā 499), however the position of threefold mokşamārgas is upheld in his Āvas yaka niryukti 910. He explains cāritra dharma in terms of samyamatapas in the Daśavaikālika niryukti 45-48, and takes recourse to the same concept-couple of samyama-tapas in explaining the aspirants' practice toward mokļa, for instance, in
109

Page #123

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T.S,
the Daśavaikälika niryukti 344 and Āvašyaka niryukti 1081. The content of samyama is to be indriyasamvara in the Dasavaikäaikla niryukti45-46, and samiti-gupti in its gāthā 185. Bhadrabāhu seems to be in support of includingsamyama-tapas under the category of caritramārga, however his performance here is traditional and it is difficult to see if he were at all coascious about the problem under consideration.
In the D.is avaikālika niryukti 181 (the chapter is called Kșudrakācāra), Bhabrabāhu enumerates the fivefold categories consisting of tapas and vīrya in addition to three jewels, Also he touches upon an her set of the five gun is of monks wherein virya is replace by vinaya, for instance in the Āvasyka niryukti 207 and Dasāšrutaskandha niryukti 2.8. Tasse'set items of five already exist in the canon, which are reckoned irrespective of məkşamārga in both canonical and niryukti literature. Bhadrababu calls fivefold vinayas by the name of mok$ivinayas in the Dasavaikälika niryukti 314, possibly on the apalogy of moksamārga for they contaia jñāna-darsini-cāsitra vinayas. And it seems that emphasis laid by Badcabāru on these set item of five influenced the southern authors to utilize them in the context of moksa mārga,because the Mülācāra V takes up fivefold moksimārgas inclu ling virya, and the Mulārādhanā spares pages for the exposition of vinaya.
As aforementioned, Kundikuda identifies samyama with vrata, samiti, gupti, etc. Pujyapā li seems to have rec)gnized Umājvāti's uasatisfactory identification of caritramārga with samyama in five stages, because the Bhāşya exposition on the sūtra 1:33 in question completely disappears from the Sarvärthasiddhi. Unfortunately, he did not come out with a positive amendment of this Bhāsya statement. The Rājavătika does not substantially add much to the Sarvärthasiddhi on this matter.
The Mulācāra V entitled Pañcācāradhikāra outlines mokşamārga by way of fivefold ācāras, i.e., darśana, jñāna, caritra, tapas and virya, of which content is as follows: (1) Introduction: 1-2. mangala verse and enumeration of five ācāras: (2): Darsana: 3-4. eigbt angas of darśana - 5. mārga and mārgaphala - 6-51. nine padārthas as the objects of faith and their exposition — 52-54. threefold kāńksās - 55-58. twofold vicikitsas (twenty-two parişahajayas are counted as its bhāva type) - 59-63. tourfold drsţimohas - 64-67. darśana śuddha -- 68. definition of samyagdarśana: (3)Jñāna: 69. jñāna ācāra for the destruction of eightfold karmas – 70-71. definition of jõāna72-89. exposition of svādhyāya in eight divisions: (4) Caritra : 90-97. exposition of five vratas-98-99. abstinence from rätri bhojana- 100-139. exposition of five samitis and three guptis- 140-146. bhāvanās of five vratas: (5) Tapas : 147-214. exposition of twofold tapas with six subdivisions each: (6) Virya : 215-220. definitions and exposition: and (7) Conclusion:221. five ācāras leading to the attainment of siddhahood.
The overall construction of this chapter is based on that of the Uttaradhyayana 28. Căritramärga includes in its content five vratas plus rätri-bhakti-virati along with their bhāvanās and eight mātskās. While utilizing th: structure of the Uttarādhyayana
110

Page #124

Sce, 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE 7. S.
28, Vattakera did rot follow the Uttaradhi ajora author in explaining the cortart of cărittamärga; he explained it by the concept of samyama in terms of the earlier canonical tradition. This is an amendment made on the Uttaradhyayana 28. Then, against the enlarged contest of sixfold samvaradvāras formulated by Umāsvāti, Vattakera came out with a proposal to the effect that the content of samvaradvāra should be confined within the domain of samyama by clarifying it to include vrata, samiti and gupti. Possibly he followed after Kundakunda on this matter. Since Vattakera revived the canonical treatment of samvaradvära by including vrata, samiti and gupti as its content, parişabajaya, anupreksā and dharma which were absorbed by Umāsvāti in this category had to go astray again. In consequence, Vattakera classed parişahajaya under the category of darśana as the bhāva type of vicikitsā, which in effect sounds more strange than what Umásvāti actually did. The five items of anupreksās, i. e., ekatva, anitya, aśarana, samsāra, and aśuci, are enumerated in the Agama as the observances of dharma dhyāna (the first four items) and sukla dhyāna (asuci which appears in the canon as aśubha). In addition to them, Umāsıātı formulates the rest of the seven anupreksa items after the model of the subdivisions of dharma-smrty-upasthāpābhyasas in the Abhidharmakosa VI, and treated these twelve items as an independent samvarad våra (for the details, see Ch. III, Sec. 1). Vattakera again took recourse to the Agamic treatment of anupreksās and placed all of them under the last subdivision of dharmya dhyāna. The nature of these anupreksās is predominantly conformable with the observance of dharma dhyāna, therefore Vattakera's performance is quite reasonable and commendable, thus it became standardized in the later works on dhyāna and yoga. (We should however note that the Malacāra VIII takes up twelve anupreksās as an independent category.) Tenfold dharmas are totally ignored in the Mulācāra V (which appear in its Ch. X called Silaguņādhikära). The Mūlācāra V thus offered certain positive amendments on the treatment of cāritra made by the Uttaradhyayana 28 and the T. S.
Unlike the Mülacāra which is a compendium of the Jaina ethical doctrines possibly composed by plural authors, Sivakoti's Mularādhanā is a detailed expository work on Jaina etbics made by a single hand. Virya which is the quality required for karmic destruction in the performance of tapas is a redundant item in the context of mokşamärga, and probably for this reason sivakcţi resorted to the traditional position of fourfold paths to liberation. In dealing with the concept of moksamārga, however, Sivakoti advances a step further in theory by sayirg that jñāna is included in darśana and tapas in cāritra (verses 3-6), of which the former is ultimately reduced to the latter category of cāritra (verses 8, 11, 14, etc.). The traces of the concept as such are not impossible in the canonical tradition, for instance, the inclusion of jñāna in darśana is adumbrated in the Avas yaka niryukti 1179, damsaņa-pakkho sävaya caritabhatthe ya mımda-dhamme ya damsana-caritta-pakkho samaņe paraloga-kamkhimmi." That caricra is the direct cluse of mokşa is also expressed in the Āvas yaka niryukti 1178,
111

Page #125

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S. 'sutthu-vi sammadd:ttht na sijjhat caraṇa-karaṇa-parihtno jam ceva siddhi-mudho tam ceva nisi. The Uttara lhyayana 29.59-61 likewise read, ...nāṇa-sampannayãe nam ilve save-bhāvāhigimin janayail nina-sampanne nam jive caur-amte samsara-kamāre na viņassai...damaṇa-sampannyā: nam Jive bhava-micchatta-cheyanam karei, param na vijjhayai.....caritla-sampannayae nam jive selesi-bhavam janayat/selesim padivanne ya anagare cautari kevali-kumm ime kazeiltas paccha sijjhai bujjhai muccai parinivvaya! savvadukkaan-aman kiral. Herein tapis is embraced in the category of cäritra. However the express statement of Sivakoti that daigina and caritra constitute the primary pathways to liberation which can be finally represented by caritramarga alone is never found in the previous literature. This logical abstration seems to have been made in the context of gunasthana which begins with the stage of darsina and ends with caritra.
Lastly, Kundakunda is also an early Digambara author who composed his prakaranas by adopting the theme of mokṣamarga. He receives the traditional threefold moksamärgas, sometimes along with tapas and virya, and spares pages for the exposition of caritra, for instance, in the Pravacanasära 111, Niyamasara and Satprälla. However his treatment of this subject matter as a whole deviates from the trail of the Jaina tradition due to his peculiar viewpoint. In the Pañcastikaya he persistently pursues the theme of dravya-guna-paryaya and satsamanya expressed in the T.S. while analyzing. the contents of jaana and jñeyas, in view of ascertaining what is the transcendental nature of the soul and what is not, which are epistemologically established by him. in the form of niscaya and vyavahāra nayas. In consequence, he arrives at conclusion that since suddha upayoga, the transcendental nature of a soul, cannot subject itself to destruction by nature, various pathways enunciated in tradition stand in the position of vyavahara alone, which the Samayasara 294 expresses, 'ayäräd-nāņam jivādi-damṣaṇam ca vineyam Ichaj-jivaram rakkhi bhaṇadi cari:tam tu vavaharo. From the corollary of his analysis, despite of his attempt in laying emphasis on the traditional pathways to the final release, jäänamärgs alone is deduced to be the sole road to moksa inasmuch as certain non-Jina authors maintain. Ethically helpful is therefore the way to strengthen the soul's purity. For this reason, the treatment of dhyana is brought out on the front stage in the Niyamasara and Satprabhṛta, which is intended for the sake of the soul's purification and for the purpose of discriminating the self from the non-self by meditating upon the paramātmā, but not for the purpose of yoga-nirodha. It is not that Kundakunda as a Jaina does not accept the traditional concept of getting rid of karmas by śukla dhyana as he discusses it, but he does not much bother about this aspect. For the same purpose of promoting ätma-suddhi, the Niyamasara proposes the practice of pratikramana, pratyakhyana, prayaścitta and samayika. Kundakunda adopts the theme of mokṣamärga propounded in tradition, but he does it rather in the fashion. of formality, and the road to liberation that he vindicates is in essence jñānamārga alone. He looks at cäritramarga from vyavahāra standpoint, which certainly went away from the main course of the tradition.

112

Page #126

Sec. IV HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
Part 1 The Jainas in Gupta age
The following are the topics included in the final section of our study: Pt. 1) The Jainas in the Gupta age, Pt. 2) Umāsvāti's date and works, and Pt. 3) Historical position of the T, S.
As the foregoing analysis of the T. S. evinces, Umāsvāti belonged to the 5th century, sometime after the Abhidharmakośa, and sometime before the Niryukris, Şatkhandā gama and Sarvårthasiddht. The Gupta age to which Umasvati belonged maintained long stabilized peace and prosperity, thereby it brought out the most creative period in the history of India in all the fields of its cultural activities as often called the golden age of the Hindus. However, for the Jainas the Gupta age was one of the most unhappy periods, wherein the social impact of the days drove them to the other parts of India from the North, which ultimately became, together with the accidental factor of the natural calamity of long famine inviting the call of the Third Valabbi Council the cause of the great schism into the present day Digambaras and svetambaras.
In order to ascertain the historical position fo the T. S. in the two traditions, it is incumbent upon us to have a clear-cut view of the history of the Jainas in the Gupta age involving their literary activities. In view of this, we shall make inquir es into the following historical accouot in the first part of this section : (1) Historical bickground of the Gupta age, (2) Migration of Jaina communities, and (3) Great schism. The first introductory portion summarizes the cultural bistory of the Gupta age, which is expected to shed some light on the problems relevant to the T. S. The descriptive accounts here are made, unless specified, on the basis of Majumdar's The History and Culture of the Indian People v. 3, in consultation with The History of Ancient India v. 2 by Nakamura and Life in the Gupta Age by Saletore.
(1) Historical background of the Gupta age
The Gupta empire was established by Chandragupta I (320 A. D. accession to the throne), and expanded by his son Samudragupta (330 A. D. acc.) and his grandson Chandragupta II (330 A. D. acc.) The empire stretched from the Bay of Bengal to the Arabian Sea, and under its strong political unity and prosperity the golden age of the Hindus blossomed. The Gupta dynasty of the 5th century (Kumāragupta I, 415 A. D. acc.-Purugupta, 455 A D. acc. - Skandagupta, 455 A. D. ace. --Budhagupta, 477 acc.-495 A. D.) saw and enjoyed the consolidation of the empire, which however was gradually advancing towards decline at the end of this century. For we are told that King Kumāragupta I who performed the aśvamedha sacrifice already met an invasion led by Pasyamitra of an unkown race wbom he defeated, and another lod by
113

Page #127

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL FOSITION OF THE T.S.
Toramana of the Hūras whose conquest was entrusted to his son Skada gupta. When Skandagpta returned from his victorious war, King Kumaraguta I was dead and his legitimate son Purugupta was on the throne, thereby the former likely userped the seat of the latter. Skandagupta was then succeeded by the sons of Purugupta, i. e., Budhagupta and Narasimhagupta. This civil war of the struggle for the throne is explained by the historians to be the main cause which invited the later disintegration of the empire, because soon we learn that the suzerain states in the remote district such as Valabbi were on the way to set up independent kingdoms. Meanwhile the Hüqas whose advancement was once checked by Skandgupta enhanced their power as they just defeated Persia, and advanced to the heart of the Gupta empire, Pāțaliputra. It was around 500 A. D.,24 and with the destruction of this capital, the empire passed away in effect, even though the dynasty still lingered on.
Fa Hien who travelled around the Gupta empire during 405-411 A. D. briefly gives us an idea of the goneral peace, prosperity and contentment of people prevailed in the country. Currency was controlled by the central Government and the unit of gold was dipära which corresponded to denarius of Rome, suggesting a huge international economic block established in this hemisphere. No doubt the former ball of the 5th century enjoyed the political unity and economic prosperity, which bowever gradually want dowowards as it is corroborated by the numismatic evidence that the gold coins issued in the later part of this century suffered deterioration.
The Guptas patronized Sanskrit learning, which brought out the florescent age of the Sanskrit literature in all its branches. Sanskrit was established as the official, language, making a striking contrast to the previous Mauryan and Kusban. periods wherein the inscriptional documents spoke themselves in Prakrit or in the mixed dialect of Prakrit and Sanskrit. Responding to the social needs, the Buddhists had already adjusted themselves in writing in Sanskrit whereas the Jainas still continued to write in Prakrit. Umāsvāti's adoption of the Sanskrit language was doubtlessly a, responce to the call of time. North India in this age produced Kalidasa in literature, Varahamihira and Buddhagupta in astronomy, and Aryabhatı in mathematics. The purānas are mostly the products of this period, deliberately attempting to achieve reconciliation of the then flourishing heterodox cults such as Vaisnavism and Saivism with the orthodox Vedic rituals. The manner of displaying the long gencalogies of kings and dynasties as elsewhere noted in the puranas was not observed in the previous age, with which probably goes the practice of attaching a prajasti to the literary work as so done by Umāsvāti for the first time in the literary history of the Jaidas, The caste system based on heredity began to be rooted in during this Gupta age, and the commentarial activities on the Dharmasastra and Arthasastra were welcomed with a view to standardizing the social order on the basis of their principles.

Page #128

Sec. 4. HISTORICAS POSITION OF THE T.S.
Under the long standing peace and strong patronage of learning, various phlosophical systems which had long cumulated their own sacred literature and developed their thoughts into maturity, entered tbe stage of systematization. The Nyāyasūtra, Sankhyakārikā, Brahmasūtra, Yogasūtra, Abhidharmakosa (which were all composed before the T S.) and Prasastapadabhāsya were all brought out in this period. The commentarial works such as Vyās's Yogasūtrabhāşya (which is a pre-Umāsāvti work), Sabarasvāmi's Mimāmsāsūtrabhåşya and Uddyotakara's Nyāyavārttika belong to this dynasty also. The organizing activities of the doctrinal tenets of a school in order to transmit the bulk of its literary legacy and the succeeding commentarial activities were therefore the common phenomena evinced in the then systems of thought. And the Jainas could not remain behind without possessing their own standard text which the other philosophical schools had come to possess by the time of Umāsvāti. The need of the T.S. for the Jainas was hence the call of time, which was allegedly a product of this historical trend.
Vaişnavism was the official religion of the Guptas, therefore the Buddhists and the Jainas must have most suffered from the loss of royal patronage which they had enjoyed in the Miuryan aod Kushan dynasties. However the kings of this dynasty are said to have taken a tolerant policy towards all the religions. During this period, the Buddhists were quite active in exchanging scholars with China, inviting Fa Hien and the others from China and sending Kumārajiva, Paramartha and many other Kashmirian Buddhist scholars to China. Fa Hien who saw countless Buddhist monks and monasteries on the way to Mathura tells us that the kings paid due respect to the Buddhist monks and some of the kings offered land grants to them for the maintenance of their monasteries. According to him Hinayāna Buddhism was still holding its sway all over North India and Mahāyānism was just rearing its hand here and there.
Vasubandhu was an outstanding figure among the Buddhists in the 5th century in the North, An account is told that Viadhyavāsa of the Sankhya system challenged disputants of all the schools at Ayodhya, against whom Buddhamitra was invited by king Vikramālitya to challenge, for his disciples Manoratha and Vasubandhu were out of station. He was defeated. Having heard of this humiliating news, Vasubandhu refuted the Sārkhya view by composing the Paramaytha saptati, thereby he won the favour of the king, who then entrusted to him the education of his crown prince Bālāditya. The same story is related by Hiuen Tsiang in a modified way; it is said that Vikramaditya lost bis kingdum soon after this debate, and was succeeded by a monarch who widely patronized those distinguished in literary merits, under whom Vasubandhu defeated his rival, Sinha identifies this King Vikramaditya of Ayodhya with Purugupta, Bila liya with Narasimagupta, and the monarch succeeded by Vikramaditya with Skandagupta (475 acc.496 A. D. according to Sinba's proposal) on the numisa mtic
115

Page #129

to. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
evidence, while Majumdar places Buddhagupta (477 acc.- 495 A. D.) prior to Narasimhagupta. Vasubandhu is said by Paradārtha to have died at the age of eigbty. Exactly when the Abhidharmakosa was written is not yet known.
Royal favour if not patronage that the Buddhists enjoyed during this dynasty is not recorded as to the Jainas. Fa Hien refers to the nirgranthas in Kapiša, Lanpo and Simhapura (700 miles from Taxila), but does not record as to the area of North India proper. Hiuen Tsiang who came to India in the middle of the 7th century saw nunerous nirgranthas in the North, e. g., Mt. Vipula in Magadha, Vārānāsi, Vaiśāli, Pundravardhana and Sanataţa in Bengal.25 Not many Jaina inscriptions during the Gupta age are available, for instance, we have only a few belonging to the 5th century which record the activities of the Jainas in the North : 1) Udayagiri cave (near Sanchi) inscription of 426 A. D. mentioning the erection of a statue of Pārsva, 26 2) Mathurā inscription of 432 A. D. made by a lay disciple of Koţika gali V.iyathiri sikhi registering a dedication to an image of Jina27 3) Kahāum pillar inscription of 460-61 A. D. referring to the dedication of five images of Tirthankaras, and] 4) A copp?r-plate inscription of 478–79 A. D. at Pahārpur Rajishahi Dist. of Beagal) stating a Brah nin couple's land donation for the sake of - maintaining worship in a Jaina vihāra.28 This phenomenon of the paucity of inscrip:ion in th: Gupta age is coatrastin to the previous Kushan dynasty wherein the Jaina inscriptions at Mathurā are abundant What does this phenomenon signify and how did it happen? These questions remain to be invesigated.
(2) Migration of Jaina communities
Behind the seeming silence of the Jaina activities 'evinced by the paucity of inscriptions during the Gupia age, a monumental series of the historical events seems to hive taken placo-the gradual miss migration of the Jainas from the North to the South and th: West, and the greit schis n into the present day Digambaras and Svetāmbaras. These are the vital issues in the history of the Jainas, however the existent literature and inscriptions of both traditions do not speak of them in clartiy which have thus sunkea into obilvion and been burried in darkness. The following is an attempt to explain and reconstruct these bistorical events from the available archaeological and literary evidences in the background of the Gupta age.
The migration of the Jainas to the South must go back to a considerably ancient time, for instance, the Aśokan period, if śramaņi mentioned in Kalsi Rocķ Edict XIII at Malakālmuru, Mysore, is taken in the sense of both Buddhist and Jaina monks.29 A tradition also exists in the West that Samprati, grandson of Asoka, sent the Jaina missionaries to the non-Aryan countries meaning to the South 30 Hatbigumphă inscriptions of Kharavla, the 2nd century B. c., reveal that the king was an adherent of Jainism.31 Kalugumalai hill inscription
116

Page #130

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
of the 2nd-Ist century B. C. records the dedication of monasteries to a monk Kaņi Nauta by lay Jainas, one of whom is Kalitika, son of Antai and the merchant prince of a moreantile guild (nigami) of Velarai. 32 Mattupatti cave inscription at Madurai, goes back to the Ist century B. C.,33 und the cave inscriptions near Pala Poona belongs to the 2nd century B. C.34 However the succeeding histortca) 1ecords of the Jaipas after these early inscriptions are dead blank in all these areas until the 4th-6th centuries A.D., which shows that the prominent activities of the Jainas did not continue until the next stage. From the 4th-61b centuries onwards, the Jaina activities came to be continuously recorded in the inscriptions in most of these areas which went on increasing in number with the march of time, and side by side their literary activities came to be dynamic up to the present day. We shall see below when and how the early references to the Jainas make their appearance after the long blank period in various parts of India from the available data at present.
The earliest reference to the Jainas in Karnataka area is found in the Kudlur plate of Märasimha, in which it is said that Kongunivarman or Madhava I (c. 350-400 A. D.), the founder of the Western Ganga dynasty, "obtained great power by favour of the doctrine of Arbad-bhoțțäraka," and it is added that "by favour of Simhanardi Acarya be (obtained) strength of arm and valour.':36 Madhava II (c. 400-435 A. D.) made a donation to Viradeva Ācārya in favour of a Digambara (Nirgrantha ?) temple. 35 Most of the Ganga kings patronized the fainas, including Avinita (c. 500-540 A.D.) and Durvinita (c. 540-600 A D.). 3/ The earliest Kadamba inscription referring to the Jainas is of Kakusthavarman (c. 405-435 A.D.), grandfather of Mrgesa varman (c 475-- 490 A.D.), registering a land grant to a Jaina Ācārya called śrutakirti.38 Three copper plate charters of Mrgesavarman of the Kadamba dynasty are available to us, which record is land donation to the Arhats for the purpose of abhiseka, pūja etc., in bis 3rd regnal year (c. 477 A.D.),39 to the holy Arhat, the Svetapatas aod Nirgranthas in the 4th regnal year (c. 478 A.D.)40 add to the Yāpapiyas, Nirgranthas and Kūrcakas in the 8th regnal year (c. 482 A.D.), along with an ordinance of the construction of a Jaina temple." The Kadamba kings continued to donate lands to the Jainas. Early Chalukya king Jayasimha, grandfather of Pulakesin I (c. 535-566 A. D.) also seems to have patronized the Jainas.92 Sravanabelgola inscription begins with the year Šaka c. 522 (c. 600 A.D.) recording the history of the migrated sarigha and the samadbi marama of Prabhācandra.43 Sravanabelgola inscriptions in the 7th century mostly pertain to the death fast of ascetics.44 Many kings of various dynasties in Mysore during the 6th to the 12th centuries patronized the Jainas, of which inscription: are numerous, however the earliest epigraphical evid-r.ce of the Jainas does not go beyond the latter half of the 4th century A.D.45 By the beginning of the 6th century A.D., dynamic literary activ.ties seem to have commenced.
BO
117

Page #131

Sec. 4, HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
A cavera inscription in Tamil on the Arunattar hill, Karur Taluk, Tirucchirappalli Dist., of the 3-4th centuries A.D., registers the order of a stone abode to be built for a Jaina monk Cenkayapan by Ilankatunko, son of King Peruńkatunkon son of Atan Celliru nporai.45 Siminali conposed the Lokavibhaga after Sarvanandi's Prakrit work written in Saka 350/455 (458/538 A.D.) which is not available to us. The Lokavibhaga quotes from the Tiloyupannatti and the latter from the former, therefore it is assumed that both were derived from Sarvanandi's work.47 Pallaḥkōvil copper-plate charter (Kanchi) of Simhavarman, father of Simhavisou (c. 560 A. D.) documents a land grant to Vajranandi of Nandi sangha. At Singavaram, Gingee Taluk, South Arcot, remains a record of sallekhana of Candiranandi Asirigar in the 6th centnry A. D. Mahendravarman I (c. 600-625 A. D.) is known as a Jaina adherent. and Hiuen Tsiang who visited Kanchi around 640 A. D. says that the Jaina monks were numerous there. Jaina epigraphs in Tamil land increase in bulk after the 8th century A. D. As to the date of the Manimekalai and Silappadikaram which are well acquainted with Janism, opinion is divided from the 2nd century to the 8th century A. D. Keralan inscriptions pertaining to the Jainas are said to be found during the 9th to the 11th centuries, and Jainism there is suspected to have been spread from Tamilnadu. In Andhra, the earliest inscription seems to begin with the 7th century A. D., which records a land grant of Ayyana Mohadevi, queen of Kubja Visnuvardhana, td a Jaina acarya, thenceforth Jaina incriptions increase in number.
East Indian archaeological firds of the Jainas in the Gupta period are reported to be very poor. Bihar owns two rock-cut caves of the 4th century A. D. at Rajgir, one of which came to be requisitioned by the votaries of Visņu. (Likewise a Jaina monastery at Paharpur was converted into a Buddhist vihara by Dharmapala in the 8th century). Paharpur copper-plate inscription of 479 A. D. refers to Nirgrantha Acarya Guhanandi. And some stone and metal images of Gupta era are available from Rajgir and Chause. North Bihar likely became the deserted area for the Jainas after the destruction of Pataliputra, however Hiuen Tsiang of the 8th century informs us that the Nirgranthas are numerous in Bihar, West Bengal as well as in Orissa 35, Mahārāja Raja Jhiraja Dharmadhara of the 3rd century A. D. whose gold coin was found at Sisupalagarh, Orissa, is suspected to have been a Jaina king of Mathura family, which, however appears to be a mere speculation. In the Darha yamsa it is stated that Gahasiva of c. 400 A. D. was converted to Buddhism from Jainism.54
No report seem to have been male as to the pre-Guptan archaeological remains of the Jainas in Central India. Three Tirthankara images during Ramagupta's reign, the 4th century, were discovered at Durjanpur, Vidiśa Dist., M. P, and some more Jaina images during his reign are available. Also Udayagiri caves near Vidisa record the setting up an image of Pärśva in the period of Kumaragupta I. A group of Jaina sculptures in the Gupta period is available from Sira Pahari, Panna Dist.,

118

Page #132

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
M. P., and two rock-cut reliefs at Gwalior are said to belong to the end of this period. The Jaina specimens of art and architecture continue to exist in the succeeding ages. A tradition maintains that Vaira, Mahāgiri, Subatthi, Camdarudda, Rakkhiya, Bhaddagutta, Kālaga and Āsādha visited Ujjain wbich was the capital of King Samprati. Siddhasena Divākara's legend of breakaing śiva lingam is said to have occurred in this city. 56
A bronze image of Pā, svanatha preserved in the Prince of Weles Museum. Bombay, is from West India, which is said to be assignable to the 2nd century A. D. by a scholar and not later than c. 100 B. C. by the others. 57 Caves of Bāvā-Pyara's math near Girnar belongs to the period of the grandson of Jayadāman, the 2nd century A. D., where Ācārya Dharasena taught, according to the Dhavalā; scriptures to Puspadanta and Bbūtabali. No Jaina antiquities of the 3rd-4th centuries are reported to have been known yet, Dnoti clad Jaina bronzes began to be available after the late 5th century A. D. onwards from Akota and Valabbi.58 The dated inscription in Rajasthan seems to begin witb 687 A. D. wbich is incised on a pair of the images of R$abha at BasapiagadhaJaisa temples must bave existed at Akota, Valabhi, Vasantagadba and Bhilla māla during the 6-7th centuries, for the Jaina images were discovered at these sites. After the 8th century onwards kings in various dynasties in West India patronized the Jainas in constructing or endowing temples.59 Two Canonical Conventions were held at Valabhi during the 4th and 5th centuries. Valabbi, Bhillamāla, Malavā were the centres of culture and commerce in those days.co śyānācārya, author of the Prajītāpanā, and Aryarakṣita, author of the Anuyogadvara, belonged to Mālavā, likewise Jinabhadra seems to have engeged in composition in Saurastra." As narrated in the Kuvalayamālā of Uddy otana (779 A. D.), a traditico maintains that Acārya Harigupta was the preceptor of Toramāņa. After the Gupta age, West India became the stronghold of the svejāmbara Jainas.
All the Jaina antiquities in North India are reported from Mathurā, the ancient cosmopolitan city and dynamic centre of commerce, which was at the junction of the trade routes from Pataliputra to Texila. Mathurā inscriptions of the Jainas which commence with 150 B. C. arrive at a peak in the Kusban dynasty, pariicularly during the reigns of Kanishka and Huvishka who were the adherents of Buddhism. A number of Jaina inscriptions exist during Vasudeva's tegin also. And it is reported that out of 159 inscriptions from Matburā listed by Lūders in his List of brahmi Inscriptions, 87 are Jaina, 55 Buddhist and the remaining 17 non-sectarian, from which it is inferred that the Jaina community was likely larger than the Buddhist community during that period.02 The Jainas at Mathurā were, as we have previously observed, from all over the Northern parts of India including East, West and Central India, which suggests that the majority of the Jainas in those days had already migrated to Mathurā, Mathurā inscriptions were largely made by the lay Jainas including many women,
119

Page #133

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE 7. 5. mostly in memory of the dedication of images. Among them, it is reported, there is a class of the late Kushan and post-Kushan Tirthankara image identified with Neminatha who is flanked by Balarama and Vasudeva Krsna holding a plough, mace and wheel.63
With the advent of the Guptas in the 4th century, the number of Jaina sculptures [at Mathura suddenly decreases. Archaeological Museum at Mathura, and State Museum at Lucknow which house the bulk of Mathurā antiquities possess only 38 and 21 Jaina sculptures of the Gupta age respectively. Not a single Jaina architectural piece of any interest in this age is said to be existent in the Museum at Mathura and Lucknow, nor are there any Guptan terracotta figures. Mathura inscriptions similarly decrease by number with the entry in the Gupta age. Also Jaina monuments and sculptures in North India including Mathura are reported to be very scarce during 600 to 1000 A.D. We should also note that the Vyavaharasūtrabhāya refers to a quarrel among the Jainas and the Buddhists about the ownership of h stupa which was likely constructed in the considerably earlier time, and that the Avasyakacurṇi informs us about the marital relation of a Mathura merchant made with the other at Southren Mathura.66
All these data evince that the Jaina activities at Mathura which had been continuously recorded since the 2nd century B. C. suffered a sudden blow with the entry in the Gupta era beginning with the 4th century A. D., and that the places of their activities suddenly shifted thenceforth to various parts of India, the South and the West in the main, which have continued to be the centres of Jainism up to the present age. This powerfully speaks that the Jaina communities, both ascetic and lay, migrated en masse to all these places from Mathura with the advent of the Guptas.
No record in both Jaina and non-Jaina sources seems to exist as to how and why the migration of the Jainas took place during this period, that has to be explained on the basis of these data. Notable characteristics found in the above data are as follows: Mathura inscriptions mostly register the donation of images made by the lay Jainas who were engaged in various trades and commerce. A majority of the Southern inscriptons of the 4-6th centuries documents the land grants of the rulers to the Jainas and the samadhi marana of ascetics. And a majority of the Jaina archaeological specimens during this period in the Eastern, Central, Northern and western parts of India which were under the control of the Gupta empire consists of the Jaina images. Literary activities began remarkable by the beginning of the 6th century in the south, which commenced with Second Valabhai Council in the 4th Century in the West. And many cities to which the Jainas, both monks and householders, emigrated were the well-known commercial centres of the days. Now what are these facts speaking of themselves?

120

Page #134

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
The lay Jaipas generally belong today and also belonged in the past to the business class which consisted of śreşthis (bankers), sārthavābas (traders) and kulikas (merchants). They organized guilds (sreņis or nigamas) which functions as banks, courts and as the administrative centres of the social and communal activitics such as constructing temples, aiding the poor, and so forth. Beside śrenis which were the guilds of craftsmen and merchants, there existed the other corporate bodies such as pūgas which consisted of different castes and occupations in the same area and giņas which functioned as the local political governmental bodies of a popular type. The representatives of guilds were co-active in the higher bierarchy of bese administrative bodies in the towns and cities, therefore they must have exerted an influential power over the municipal affairs. The Gupta kings administered, in order to maintain the stabilized peace of this huge empire, a strong central government control over the economic, political and social matters after the policies advised in the Arthasāstra and Dhurmusastra. It is reported however that in the Smrtis of the Gupta age, there is no trace of the strict official control or political exploitation of śrenis and sarighas as such evinced in the Arthasāstra, but on the contrary, there is a remerkable tendency to safeguard the property and strengthen the constitution of these bodies.67 Taxes paid by the guilds were counted as one of the most important sources of kings' revenue. And during this age of economic prosperity and peace, the guild and corporations seem to be gradually growing into a larger system like a trust organisation pacing with the rooting in of the caste system which giew in!o complexity in the course of time. This is the general picture of the corporate bodies in the Gupta age, that of which in the Kusban period seems to be not clearly known yet, however it must have been advancing towards the same stage described above. Then the position of the huge and prosperous Jaina communities at Mathurā was likely most powerful over the other castes during the reigns of Kanishka, Huvishka and Vasudeva.
The Gupta rulers who were the Vaisaivas and supported the Hindu act vities in all respects are known to have taken a tolerant policy to the Saivas and non-Hindus as well. However Mathurā where a majority of the Jainas had likely settled down by this time is the birth place of Lord Kršņa. Hence in the florescence of Hindu revival movement, the city was probably soon handed over to the Vaisnavas wherein the Buddhists seem to have survived better than the Jainas. The Jaina inscriptions at Mathură are still available in number during the reign of the Hindu King Väsudeva (202-226 A. D.: he was likely a śaiva despite of his name) in the Kushan dynasty. And as we have aforenoted, here appears a class of the late Kushan and post-Kushan image of Nominatha aitended by Balarama and Krsna. Krşņa theme creeps in the canonical texts such as Uttaradhyayana 22, Antakyddasa, Natadharmakatha
121

Page #135

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
16, Vahnilasa 1 and Disavzikāliki. Tas th:m: oft welve cakravartis including Vasudeva and Baladeva also occurs in the Sthāna and samavāya, for instance.
Some features of Kršņa stories in the Jaina canon are reported as follows (1) Only a part of the Kršņa story is incorporated in the form of an inserted tale to serve as an illustration in explaining the Jaina doctrines such as the principle of transmigration, (2) Krşņa, no doubt a mighty king, figures as a secondary personality in the biography of Neminātba, (3) He is not a divinity but a person who suffers karmic consequences, and (4) A mention is made about the exodus of the Pandavas, their populating Pandu -Mathurā in the South and their perishing on the Satruñjaya hill by sallekhana.68 The last feature herein must be speaking of the migration of the Jainas from Mathura to the South. It is also remarked that the name of Nemi and Aristanemi appear in the Yajurveda as well as the Prabhāsa purāna, who are however not at all relevant to Tirtbankara Neminātha. The Hindu purāņis describe R$abha to some extent but not Nemi who appears in the Harivamsa (also the name Aristanemi, occurs) that Daksa gave four daughters to Aristanemi, who gave birth to sixteen sons.69 By the time of the composition of these canonical texts, therefore, tbe Jaipas began to adopt Krşņa theme which was gaining general popularity among the Hindus. The Jaina puranas in the post-canonical stage fully took an advantage of the Hindu epics to propagate the Jaina dogmatics.
The Mahabharata which tells the story of Krşņa is suspected to have existed in the present form by the 4th century A. D., of which original form is speculated to go back to the 4th century B. C. And it is also postulated that there were several traditional Krşņas who were merged into one deity in the later time.70 The early Parasurama worship in western India is indicated by an inscription of the 2nd century A.D., and avatāra worship is amply attested by the growing number of the relevant epigraphic evidences during the 4th through 8th centuries. The Hindu pulāņas of the Gupta age began to accept Buddha as an avatāra of Vişnu. And by absorbing the Buddhist doctrines of ahimsa, vegetarianism, etc., which are more sternly upheld by the Jainas, the Vaişpavas attempted to attract the masses of the followers of Buddhism, that is considered to have played a substantial role for the decline of Buddhism.72 The purāņas like the Bhagavata likewise absorbed the first Jaina Tirthankara Rşabha as one of Vişnu's avatāras. And it should be also remembered that a Rajgir cave of the 4th century A. D. cane to be requisitio..ed by the Vaişnava votaries
All these suggest that during the late canonical and post canonical periods there were aggressive propagation and counterpropagation among the Hindu and the non-Hindu sects including the Jaina school to dominate over the other in order to absorb the followers of the other or in order to defend their own followers to be enticed by the other. The Buddhist adoption of Krsna theme is, it is remarked, rather
122

Page #136

S 4. HIS TORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
insignificant. However the case of the Jainas' counterattack against the Vaisnavas took a persisten and vigorous course, probably because it involved with the survival of the heavy Jaina communities at Mathura.
The history of the late Kushan dynasty is still in darkness, but it is said that it was fastly changing into Hindunization in contrast to the florescence of Buddhism in the cosmopolitan atmosphere at the beginning period of this dynasty. We do not know when Krsna worship began to gain power. However avatara worship is already attested in the epigraphical sources from the 2nd century onwards, and the mechanism of the theory of avatara can easily absorb the deities of the other religions. The Vaisnavas must have therefore started to absorb the deities of the other religions including the first Tirthankara of the Jainas. The Jainas who were lealing the power at Mathura must have faced this new religious movement with the sense of disgust, but since its growing popularity centred round Mathura became innegligible, they likely retorted them in turn by subordinating Kripa to Neminatha. However this religious fight did not stop there, grew into the socio-economic struggle of the Jaina communities at Mathura, which became decisive by the turnover of the dynasty. For with the advent of the Guptas, the city must have become the centre of the Hindu revival movement, particularly of the Vaisnavas, which went on accelerating into the intensive and large scaled force patronized by the then rulers. The Jainas must have resisted at best to maintain their position at Mathura, however they could not stand out for too long.
The arrival of the age of eclipse for the Jainas must have been sensed by the alert businessmen already at the early stage of social change, and gradually they started to desert Mathura to the places where such social pressures would be less and where their business activities would be more promising. It is thus plausible that the structure of the huge Jaina business communities which constitued a hierarchy or some hierarchies of corporate bodies came to be shaken up and confronted a menacing socio-economic set-back. This must have further accelerated their migration until the majority of the Jaina communities vacated the city. The exodus. of the lay Jaina communities from Mathura naturally caused the migration of the ascetic sanghas as well, because the latter had to depend on the former for their material needs. The change of the power structure at Mathura seems to have thus taken place during the Gupta period. The Jaina puranas in the post-canonical period kept on developing Krig1 theme in the Jaina context, which was perhaps the conti nuation of the persistent counterattack against the Vaisnava movement which drove the Jainas away from Mathura as symbolized in the pandavas' migration to the Southern Mathura.
It appears therefore that the lay Jainas began to desert Mathura at the beginning of the Gupta age and migrated to the West and the South. The Western area
123

Page #137

Scc. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE 7. S.
under the suzerains of the Guptas, and the South was completely outside the hand of the Gupta empire. Ujjain, Valabhi, Kānchi, Madura, etc., were well known for the tben commercial centres; and Surat in Gujarat and Mangalore in Mysore were famous for the international trades with Egypt, Rome, China and Southeast Asian countries during this period; also Kolar gold mine in Mysore is suspected to have been exploited around this time. The internal trade routes for caravans bad been well developed by this tim, and the overland route through Ujjain, Paithan, Tamil land to Kashi, and the sea routes between Surāştra and Madură were well known.75 It is not at all surprising therefore that the lay Jainas at Mathura who were well acquainted with these business worlds chose, guided by their keen business sense, and migrated to these promising trade centres as their futur ehomelands.
It is evident from Mathurā inscriptions wherein lay doners inscribed the names of their preceptors along with their gaņa, kula, etc., that the laymen or lay communities were under the guidance of the particular spiritual teachers. In another word, monks came to have stood by this time for the lay Jainas as their spiritual guides, who in turn depended for their material needs on the lay communities. Corroborating this fact, Katugumalai hill inscription of the 2nd to the 1st century B. C. records that the Jaina merchants donated monasteries to a Jaina monk. The canonical texts themselves which prescribe the householders' duties attest this strong tie-up of the lay and the ascetic sanghas in those days. Where the ascetic sanghas moved, there they were likely followed by the lay votaries in the earlier period. However the migrated Jainas, both lay and ascetic, from Mathurā in the Gupta age chose the commercial cities for their future homelands. This alludes to the fact that the lay communities invited their preceptors for their spiritual guidance after their migration and that the ascetic sanghas which could not go without their support welcomed it and joined them.
The Jaina antiquities under the dominion of the Gupta empire mostly consist of the images of Jinas inasmuch as Mathurā antiquities of the Jainas in the Kusban age do. This implies that the doners were mostly the wealthy merchants who likely constructed temples at the sites of their finds. The Jaina emigrants to the West did not seem to have enjoyed an imperial support at their beginning stage. On the contrary, those migrated to the South were backed up by the rulers as the early Southern inscriptions of the 4-6th centuries attest. This alludes to the fact that these migrated Jainas who previously enjoyed the highly organized corporate life at Mathura and were well acquainted with the know-how in organizing business communities immediately commenced to invite the royal favour in order to settle down in these new places. The total absence of the record of an image donation in the epigraphical sources indicates that they did not yet possess or just began to construct their own temipes which functioned as the centres for community activities. Lands granted by kings were free of taxes. Therefore, for the sake of establishing a community centre
124

Page #138

Sxc. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
with a view to beginning a new settlement life, the wisest step to take was to win the royal patronage, for which the capable monks endowed with scholarship and excelled conduct were indispensable. The lay communities had to thus invite the ascetic sanghas not only for their spiritual guidance but also for gaining the imperial favour. The record of Simhanandi Ācārya's aisistance of Malhava I (c.1350 400 A D.) in founding the Ganga dynasty, which is the earliest Jaina epigraphy available in Karaataka, clearly evinces that the Jaina monk was attempting to win an influence over the king.78 Likewise śrutakiri who is called senāpati in the inseription" obviously assisted Kakusthavarman in founding the kadamba dynasty.
Lay communities thus required the assistance of ascetic sanghas and ascetic sanghas also needed the support of lay communities. And the monks practising nudity must have naturally preferred to go to the South, and those wearing clothes likely migrated to the West at large. The waves of the mass exodus of the Jaina communies from Mathurā to all these places seem to have thus happened. Therefore Sauraser i became the language of composition in the South ; whereas the 3rd Valbbi Convention redacted the Mathurā version instead of the Valabhi version of the previous century, which was likely due to the strengh of monks newly emigrated from Mathurā. Then the Mathura vacanā is expected to show the characieristic features of Saura:cti, however the present Agama is characterized by the Mahārāştri elements. No doubt, some canonical texts were composed in the West, the number of which is however small. This phenomenon must be largely due to the gradual change of the language of the canon in the process of the adjustment of the language of the authors into Mabārastri in the West, because the recension of the canonical texts used by the cūrņi authors is said to show the archaic Mahārāștri, while that used by the Sanakrit commentators shows the classical Maharastri.18 (As to this point, the linguistic analysis of the canonical recensions used by the cūini and vitti authors is urgently awaited.)
In the 4th century, Ithe Canonical Convention was held at Matbura and Valabbi. This indicates that a number of monks still remained at Mathurā, but a number of monks had already moved to Valabbi In the 5th century, the Convention was held at Valabhi, which signifies that Valabbi became the centre of the Jainas in the West. Śravanabelgola inscription no. 1 of c. 600 A. D. which is so far the earliest available Jaina epigraphy therein tells that Bhadraba ausvāmi, of the lineage of Gautama, Lobārya ..... Bhadrabāhu, Visakha ...... Buddhila and the other teachers, predicted a twelve years' famine at Ujjain, therefore the entire sangha set out from the North to the South and reached a country filled with bappy people, wealth, gold, cun and domestic animals; then Prabhācandra Ācārya, separating himself from the sangta fasted to death attended by a single disciple on the Katavapura mountain; and in the course of time 700 rsis accomplished samadhi maraņi likewise. The inscriptions at
125

Page #139

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T.S,
Sravanabelgola during the 7th century mostly record the death fast of ascetics. This sangha likely migrated to Sravanabelgola in much earliar time than 600 A. D. and its members gradually demised by this time.
All these evince that the mass migration of the Jaina communities, both lay and ascetis, took place gradually during the Gupta period beginning with the 4th century A. D. Sporadic migrations must have occurred from time to time in the pre-Guptan era as apparent from the foregoing data, which however did not at all become a force to change the geography of the Jainas. The waves of the mass exodus of the Jaioa communities in the Gupta age from Mathurā to all these places which are concentrated in the South and the West bad largely determined the geography of the present day Jainas, that was a monumental event in the Jaina history.
The seemingly silent activities of the Jainas in the North during the Gupta age can be thus well explained by their gradual mass migration, who were spending their energy for the settlement in the new places. The schism took place around the time when the Canonical Council was held at Valabhi, thenceforth notable literary activities began in the Soutb, and the unbroken canonical tradition continued in the West. Tnus despite of this revolutionary change of the Jaina communities caused by the social impact of the days, the literary activities of the Jaina monks seem to have continued from the previous period in a flow without a break in both Southern and Western India. Ascetic Sinhas owe for it to the constant care and suport of the laity, to won the formir likewise a nply responded by taking up th: role of spiritual leadership. (3) Great schism
When and how the great schism into the present day Sveta nbaras and Digambaras came into being is shrouded in mist. The absence of the essential doctrinal discor. dances between these two major schools however suggests that the schism arose in the comparatively recent time. Had the schism occurred in the 3rd century B. C, for instance, both schools would have developed substantially different doctrinal systems, event not to th: extent of Mahāyāaism and Hinayānism in the Buddhist schools. However the fact stands that the Jaina dogmatic concepts which evolved since Mahavira's time up to the 5th century AD. and were represented in the TS in essence were basically received by the two sects. This implies that the schism took place after the stage when the Āgimic concepts grew into a full maturity.
The Viseșāvas yakabhäş ya 3032-3092 refer to śivabhūti's nihnava which is not men. tioned in the previous literature in the Āgamic tradition. The story goes that Śivabhūli, who was unhappy about his guru's disapproval of his possessing an ornamented stawl donated by a king on the ground of parigraha, quarreled with him about the matter of purirani a3 to th: jiankilpi's possessio i of upadhi, i. e., a broom stick and a
126

Page #140

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
mouth-piece, thus he finally left his guru by establis bing bis own party of naked monks. This nihnava is called the Botika (Digambara) issue. The cardinal claims of the Digimbiras are three, 79 that nudity alone leads to mokşa, that women are thereby not eligible to attain mokşa, and ibat a kevali does not eat food tbrough his mouib. T1232 points are accounter in the Servārıhasiddhi, therefore Pūjyapāda was a Digambara, before whom the "chism must have occurred. Pujya pada and Jinabbabra belong to the 6th century A. D., therefore both traditions agree in asserting that the schism took place sometime before their time.
The aforementioned copper-plate inscriptions of Mrgeśavarman (c. 475-490 A. D.) register land grants made to 1) the Sveta pațas and Nirgranthas (c. 478 A. D.), and Yapanïyas, Nirgranthas and Kūrcakas (c. 482 A. D.). This vindicates that among the migrated ascetics 10 the South by the end of the 5th century, there were at least four different conmunities, i. e., the Svetapata, Nirgrantha, Yapaniya and Kūrcaka. The designation of Svetainbara-Digambara seems to be of a later origin, and they were likely calling themselves the Svetapatas and the Nirgranthas at the beginning period in the South. Pujyapă la also describes Umāsvāti as Nirgrantha Ācāry in the Survarthasiddhi. Since these four sanghas were called by those distinct names, the schism must have occurred before c. 478 A. D. The Yāpatiyas practised nudity but maintained the Agamic tradition by admitting strimukti and kevalibhukti. Numerous inscriptions referring to the Yapaniya sarigha exist from the 5th century up to the 14th century, which was however absorbed later into the Digambara fold.80 Not much is known yet about the Kūrcaka sangba which does not have many inscriptions, nor bas left us so far any literary works.Si
Hariş gives the earliest Digambara explanation of the schism account in his Brhukuhakos 2, Sec. 131 called B'adrabahukathānaka. According to him, Bhadrabäbu in the reign of Candragupta at Ujjain predicted a famine lastiog for twelve years. Upon hearing this, Candragupta received dikşā from Bhadrabahu, who soon became the head of all sanghas and called by name Višakba Ācārya. By the order of Bhadrabāhu, Visakha led the sangha to Punnata kingdom in the South, while Bhadrabāhu and the others led their sanghas to Sindbu. In the course of time when they returned to Ujjain, the famine was still persisting though less severe, wherein monks were allowed to use a piece of garment for alms collection. After the famine was over, these monk; did not stop this robe wearing practice even though advised by the elders. The schis n started thenc: onwards. A prevalent belief of the later day Digambaras is that the schism occurred at the time of Bhadrabāhu I who led the sangha along with Candragupta Maurya to Sravanabe!go!a due to the twelve years' famine in the North. Upon their return to the North after the end of the famine they fuond that the monks who had remained there slackened in discipline by wearing
17

Page #141

Sce. 4. HSTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
rɔɔ:i, therebyr: they left them and established the sanzhi according to the orthodox tardition of nudity.
These legends along with the others told in the later time82 were derived undeniably from the aforeintroduced Sravanabelgala inscription no. 1 of c. 600 A. D. This inscription clearly informs us that Bhadrabahusvāmi who predicted the twelve years' famine at Ujjain is a different saint from Bhad as āhu I whose immediate disciple is recorded as Visakha. The inscription is totally silent about the migration of this certain nimittajña Bhadrabahu, which must mean that he did not at all come to the South. Prabhācandru whose death fast was followed by many other saints in the course of time was likely an outstanding figure in the migrated san zha, but he had nothing to do with Candragupta Maurya.
Yativrşabba (between 473 and 609 A. D.) mentions about Candragupta in his Tiloyapannatti 4.1481 that he was initiated into the Jaina faith. Verse 4. 1482 then speaks about five śrutake valis including Bhadrabahu, which therefore suggests that Candragupti referred to above is identical with the Maurya King by this name. Śravanıbelgola inscription no. 31 (17-18) of c. 650 A. D. refers to Bhadrabahu and Candragupta, who are however not at all said to have visited bere 83 This Bhadrabahu--Candragupta theme the developed into the existence of their foot-prints impressed on the summit of the Candragiri around 900 A. D.84 Harişeņa (931-932 A. D.) tells that Candragupta alias Viśākha led the sangha to the South. Since Visakha Ā ārya is the direct disciple of Bhadradabu I, Har:sena identifies him with Candragupta Maurya.
From this it is apparent that Bhadrabahu I-Candragupta Maurya legend gradually got into shape on the basis of the mention of Bhadrabahusvāmi and Prabhacandra in the scavanabelgoli inscription, which fatally determined the pontiffical liceage of of the Digambaras. This Śravanabelgola inscription no. 1 which record in Kannada script the past history of the migrated sarigha was likely made when the sangha came to be firinly rooted in this area, because the inscription at Śravanabelgola went on increasing thenceforth indicating that it became the stronghold of the Jainas in the South The inscription is completely silent about the schism which must have occurred before c. 478 A, D, the date of the copper-plate ordinance of Mrgeśavarman. The recorded content of this inscription is that the sangha migrated to this place from the North due to the twelve years' famine predicted by Bhadrabahu at Ujjain. This is a matter of fact history known to this migrated sangha. A iweive years' famine is reported in the Jaina source in reference to the cause of the Third! Valabhi Council held in 453 or 465 A, D. but no record of a long famine during the 6th century A D in the North seems to be found in the Jaina source. Also it is quite reasonable to assume that over a century of time was required for this migrated sangha to establish itself as th: centre of the Jainas in the South. It is therefore
128

Page #142

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
not unreasonable to infer that this sangha migrated from the North before the date of the schism, Taen the content of this memorial inscription which is not obsessed by the schism issue involving sectarian claims should be treated as a valuable common historical document of the Jainas of the two traditions.
Bhadrababu at Ujjain who foretold the twelve years' famine was uudoubtedly excelled in nimittavidya. The Avasyaka niryukti 778 alleges the occurrence of seven nihnavas in the past, "bahuraya paesa avvatta-samuccha-duga-tiga-abaddhiyā ceval sattee nighaga khalu titthammi u vaddhamaṇassa', while its gathā 781 adds Rathavirapura as the place of the eighth nihnava, sävatthi usabhapuram seyavlya mihila ullugatiram purimamtarami dasapura rahavirapuram ca nagaraim.' Admittedly here is a confusion in statement. The Uttaradhyayana niryukti 164 Likewise enumerates seven nihnavas, 'bahuraya-paesa-avvatta-samuccha duga-tiga-abaddhiga ceval eesim niggamanam vucchami ahanupuvvie', wherein 'sattee' of the Avasyaka niryukti 778 is obscurely stated by way of 'eesim'. The Avasyaka niryukti gatha 781 is dropped from the Uttaradhyayana niryukti which inserts the Viseṣavasyakabhasya 3034 as its niryukti gāthā 178, rahavirapuram nayaram divagam-ujjana ajjakanhe al sivabhuiss-uvahimmi puccha therana kahana ya.' These Niryuktis were originally acquainted with seven nihnava issues alone, to which the account of the eighth issue was interpolated obviously by Jinabhadra himself.85 Niryuktikara Bhadrabahu II thus does not seem to know anything about the schism yet. This suggests us to reassign the date of Bhadrabahu If prior to the date of the schism, if this niryuktikāra is identical with nimittaja Bhadrababu.
Bhadrabahu II, author of the Niryuktis and nimittajña, has been assigned to c. 500-600 V. S. on the basis of the traditional belief that he was the brother of Varahamihira (505-587 A. D.) who was born near Ujjain 86 The authenticity of this legened is dubious, because niryuktikara Bhadrabahu II was an orthodox Jaina who was not at all likely a Brahmin convert from the contents of the Niryuktis and Varahamihira was a staunch Hindu. In all probability, the later Jainas made up a story of Bhadrabähu at Ujjain who was excelled in nimittavidyä in relation to Varahamibira, a celebrated astronomer and astrologer. Neither the ground of the assignment of his date, c. 500-600 V. S., on the basis of the date of Varahamihira, 505-587 A. D., is at all clear. Suppose his date is accepted as of c. 500-600 A. D. on the basis of Varahamihira's date, it invites difficulty pertaining to the dates of the authors such as Siddhasena Diväkara, Pujyapada and Jinabhadra who are assigned in the 6th century A. D., because a good temporal distance exists between the Niryuktis and the Saint-Sarva-thasil Li-Vis riyakabasya. It is better therefore to reassign the date of Bhadrabahu II before and around the time of the famine which was followed by the great schism. A twelve years' famine can be interpreted as a long years' famine which was severe enough to take away many persons' lives, and surmising from the present day condition of natural disasters, even a few years' duration of a
129

Page #143

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
horrible fanine would make it. It is difficult to say if niryuktikāra Bhadrabāhu and nimittajña Bhadrabāhu were the same person or not. But since both Bhadrabābus do not know the schism, they must have belonged to the same period. Then we can still retain the accepted view that these two Bhadrabāhus are the same person, unless and until strong evidences against it are produced.
The Digambara legend that the schisn cin: ints being due to the slackened practice of robe wearing of those who remained in the North during the famine is diff cult to accept, because the two types of monks, i. e., acelaka and sacelaka had been existing side by side since Mahāvira's lifetime as so cvinced in the Ācāranga I. Likewise the nihnava issue described by Jinabhadra is hardly acceptable as the cause of this great schis n. All these clains agree in one point that the vital issue of the schism involves the matter of robe wearing or not. From the archaeological evidences we learn that the first knowa dhoti clad Tirthnkara image makes its appearance in the late 5th century A. D. From the inscriptional soarces we learn that the schism took place before the 4th cegul year of Mrześlvirnui, c. 475-197 A. D. The schism must have thus occurred sometime by this time, trusting that the date of Mrgesavarman (assigned in The History and Culture of the India. Peop!?, v. 3) is reliable, Then a certain grave event which was crucial enough to divide the Jina church into two must have taken place before this tim. And sure enough, th: Third Valabhi Canonical Comel too's plase in 453 or 451 A. D. 20:ording to tradition. Then we have to ex inn th: relevant interials and explain how this Canonical Council came to be the cause of the great schism.
According to the Dhavală (v. 1, pp. 65-57), the complete knowledge of the angas and purvas was lost by the iine of D11132n2, teacher of Paspadinta and Brūtabuli. Tas Dig inbiras nevertheless accept the twelve argas as their sacred literature. Th: Slvārthasid thi explaias "Dis zvazikālika, etc." as the content of the an zabāhyas under the sūtra 1 : (2), and the Rijavīrtik a propounds "Uttara lhyayana, etc.” as such, while the Dhzvalā enumerates 14 texts (i. c., Sāmāyiya, Cauvisatthao, Vand ınī, Padikkamaņa, Venziya, Kidiyamını, Dasaveyāliya, Uttarajjhayana, Kappayayaharo, Kappakappiya, Mahakappiya, Pumdariya, Mahäpumdariya, Nisihaya) which likely constituted the common heritage of the angabāhyas in the Agamic tradition before the split of the church.87 The later Digambaras count the Kasāyaparābhrta of Guradhara, the Satkhidāgimt of Paşpalanta and Bū'abali and th: Tiloyapannatti of Yativrsabha (author of the Cūrnisülra on the Kasāyaprābhyta) as their angabāhya texts, which were, excluding the first named text, directly derived from the later camaical tradition in the innslate post-Umāsvāti period. Their pro-canon is classified into four types : i) Prathamānuyoga, namely, Padinapurāņa, Harivansapurāņā Maripararı ani Uttarariri which are the works of the 7th to the 9th century A. D.; 2) Karaņānuyoga, namely, Jayadhavala of the 9ih century, including the
130

Page #144

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE 7. S.
Süryaprajiapil and Candraprojapti which scund to be derived from the ujingas Ly these names: 3) Dravyänuyoga, namely, the works by Kundakunda, the revised version of the T. S. and Aptamimamsā, which are the post-Umasvati products, and 4) Caranianyogi, namely, Malacara and Trivarṇacara of Vattakera, Rainakaranda śrävakācāra of Samantabhadra and Bhagavati aradhana of Śivakoti, which again belong to the post-Umäsväti period. The works other than the twelve angas, 14. angabahyas and the Kaşayaprabyla are the post-Umäsvāti products extending up to the 9th century, therefore the present pro-canonical list must have been formulated after the 9th century A. D.
The Digambara list of the sacred literature clearly evinces that they did not disapprove the Agamic tradition but they flatly refused to accept the later canonical texts redacted at Valabhi. And the Digambara literature as well as the Svetambara literature after the Valabhai Council patently exhibit that there was a free flow of materials between these schools. Curiously enough, the Mūlācāra, Bhagavati aradhan, etc., which are suspected to be of the Yapaniyas are sanctioned as the authoritative texts inspite of their nature coming into conflict with their basic creeds, because the Yapaniyas upheld the Agamie tradition in all respects. The Digambaras were obviously against the robe wearing monks alone and took the side. of the non-robe wearing Yapaniyas who were in the fold of the Svetambaras by creeds. The Yapanlyas were, as alleged by their inscriptions, in the South in majority together with Nirgranthas, while only a minority of the Svetapatas settled down in the South. Thus a majority of robe wearing monks must have moved to the West. The cause of the schism is thus entangled with the nature of the Third Canonical Convention at Valabhi which was likely held by the robe wearing monks.
We are informed that Devarddhigapi presided over the Council at Valubhi in 453 or 466 A. D. immediately after the ending of the twelve years' famine in fear of the further loss of the sacred texts which had been handed down through the memory of morks. According to tradition, the previous Canonical Councils were convened under the similar condition that the monks who memorized the sacred scriptures were expiring due to long famines. It is said that a twelve years' famine occurred at the time of Bhadrabahu, Aryasuhasti and Vajrasvami respectively. The first famine was terrible, which caused all the munis except Bhadrabahu to forget the Drṣṭivada, thus the First Canonical Council was called. The other two famines did not seem to have affected the knowledge of the Jaina scriptures memorized by the survivors. A twelve years' famine occurred again at the time of Skandila, and it happened that all the principal anuyogadharas except Skandila died in the North. So he summoned a council of Jaina monks at Mathura and redacted the canon by taking notes of whatever could be gathered from them. A similar attempt was made by Nagarjun at Valabhi almost simultaneously,90
131

Page #145

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T..
The traditional accounts above convey us that the Canonical Councils were summoned under a critical condition in peril of the loss of the sacred knowledge due to long famines, but not under a normal peaceful condition. And under such circumstances, the Councils were held immediately by the survivors who gathered around the same area. The Second Council was thus summoned both at Mathurā and Valabbi at the same time, and under a critical condition no attempt was made to hold a joint council of all Jaina monks. In another word, there existed no conventional practice of calling a Canonical Convention attended by the entire Jaina monks.
Toe schism did not arise at the Second Canonical Councils held at Mathurā and Valashi in the 4th century. It must mean that these Councils were or at least Mathurā Council was attended by both robe wearing and naked monks. The Third Valabhi Convention was called under the similar critical condition. By this time, however, the majority of monks practising nudity had already been migrated to the South, and the geography of the Jainas was largely divided into the South and the West. The Coavention must have been therefore held by the robe wearing monks in majority. And since it was the customary practice in the history of the Jaipas to hold a Canonical Council by the survivors who gathered around the area bit by the famine, Devarddbi and the others who summoned the meeting under emergency would not have thought about extending an announcement of this matter to the Southern bretberen. Thus the Council immediately took place according to the past rule by those who remained at Valabhi. And the Southern Jainas came to know about it sooner or later.
A Canonical Convention is a vital concern for any co-religionists, for the basic canonical texts are authorised thereby, according to the holy utterance of which their religious activities are directed. Therefore when the Council announced the final redaction of the texts without the consent of those in the South, they were not at all happy. They were not affected by the famine, and many migrated saints must have carried a good number of canonical texts with them including the Kaşāyaprābhrta, $atkhandāgama and Tiloyapannatti (which was likely finalized in the 6th century A. D.) which the bretheren in the West did not possess. They thus came out with a decision to disclaim the authority of the canonical list made at Valabhi by saying that the complete knowledge of the sacred texts bad been already lost before the time of the Satkhandagama, and upon orgaoizing the Nirgrantha sect they attempted to compile their own canonical texts inasmuch as the Sveta pațas did. If the Svetapatas' action were legitimate, the Nirgranthas' action should be likewise legitimate, inasmuch as the two Canonical Conventions were authorized in the 4th century A. D. The Nirgranthas thus came out with the principal three creeds in order to distinguish themselves from the Svetapățas. The later Digambaras then attempted to build up their history by
132

Page #146

Sce. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
bringing in Bhadrabāhu I and Candragupta Maurya, the theme developed from the Sravanabe!gola inscription no. 1, for the sake of establishing the authority of their tradition. (Likewise the Digambaras' claim that the Kaşāyaprābhrta, T. s. etc., are derived from the Drộtivāda is obviously concocted in relation to Bhadrabābu I who alone is said to have memorized the Dust väda.)
If the migration of the Jaina ascetic communities had rot divided the robe wearers in the West and the naked ascetics in the South, the Third Valabbi Council must have escaped to be the cause of the schism. The great schism thus came into being because time bad played a fatal role for it by changing the map of the Jainas into the South and the West. Unaware of this fact, the Western groups of monks performed their duty of preserving the sacred knowledge by summoning the Convention according to the past rule. This invited an emotional issue of the Southern brethered. Their attempt of compiling their own canonical texts is quite legitimate inasmuch as the two Canonical Councils were accepted in the past century. Also the Kaşayaprabhyta, etc., which were obviously studied by and handed down to the groups of early karma specialists who happened to have migrated to the South, should have their places in the final list of the canon. Therefore the Southern monks' protest against the list of the canon made at Valabbi is not at all unreasonable. Unfortunately, between these two remote areas there seems to have existed no attempt to have a following-up joint meeting for reconciliation or adjustment of the Valabhi redaction before they decisively split into the two church organizations.
Since the mobility of the Jainas in the Gupta age was as such, the news that the Valabhi Council redacted the final list of the canon must have reached the South rather soon. However how soon the Southern monks responded to the Western monks by organizing an independent sect is difficult to know. No record exists that all the Southern monks met at one place together to discuss about this matter. Msgesavarman's copper-plate charter refers to the Svetapațas in c. 478 A. D. and at least one dhoti wearing Akota bronze of the late 5th century A. D. is available. It seems therefore that the atmosphere of general dissatisfaction with the Valabhi decision soon came to prevail among the naked monks who were spread in various parts of the South, wherein the robe wearing monks were just a minority. Grouping into the Sveta pațas and the Nirgranı has seems to have occurred under some beavy pressure of this awkward and obscure atmosphere, which was soon conveyed to the Western monks, who retorted the South by producing the dhoti clad Tirtharkara images.
Among the basic creeds of the D gamaras, the proviso of nakedness for liberation must have been therefore declared at once. Women's ineligibility for liberation is its logical consequence. However the claim of the refusal of a kevali's kavalahāra must have been gradually developed by the time of the Sarvärthasiddhi, because the Digambara recension of the T. S. which accepts the Svetāmbara reading
133

Page #147

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T.S
.
of the sūtra IX : 11(11) evinces an obscure position regarding this matter. Pūjyapāda could have revised this sūtra, which somehow he hesitated to do. Under the circumstances, the Digambaras had to likewise establish some other minor matabhedas to strike differences from the Svetämbara positions. For instance, Kundakunda follows the Kaşāyaprabhta as to the concept of upayoga. Pūjyapāda follows the Satkhandagama as to the theory of atomic combination. Vattakera takes the Niryukti position as to the treatment of acāra. From these pro-canonical authors' performance, it appears that they attempted to compose their texts from the following traditional sources : 1) Twelve angas, 2) Angabahyas belonging to the old tradition prior to the schism, e. g., those listed in the Dhayalā, 3) T. S., Niryuktis, etc., which are by nature outside the category of the canon, and 4) Kaşa yaprabhrta, Satkhandagama, etc., which were handed down to those who migrated to the South.
This list excludes the later canonical texts redacted by the final Valabhi Convention. Since the Kaşa yaprābhrta, etc., which happened to have gone to the South together with the circle of karma specialists, are worthy to be included in the list of the later cibaisal te is, the leading maks in this circle in particular must hivo feit strong di3, teatnent with the recent Valahhi lis!. Toerefore the Southern Jainas came out with a decision to count them as their una bahyas and rejected the later canonical texts authorized by the Western groups. Heuce, by the ume of the composition of the pro-canonical texts, a certain agreement seems to have been made among the leading Southern monks that they should compose their own pro-carionical texts representing all and every branch of knowledge from the caminoil traditional Agimic sources above, which include the Kaşayaprābhyta, etc., and which exclude the later canonical texts redacted in the West. This seems to have determined the position of the pro-canonical authors, thereby minor costrinal disagreements came to be born. It thus likely took for some time untill the Digambaras came to be prepared with their owa characteristic features.
The schism came into being among the communities of monks, which had nothing to do with the lay society. Nor the ascetic sanghas of both schools probably stood in the sharp aatagonistic positions towards each other at the very beginning. Therefore it is not at all surprising from the content of the inscription of Mrgesavar. man that the same image of Arhat in the village was likely worshipped by both the Nirgranthas and the Svetapatas even though they lived in the different quarters, The situation was likely the same in the West at the beginning stage of the schism.
Unlike the Buddhists, the Jainas seem to have taken a closed-door policy and maintained a stong tie among themselves as a minority group in India throughout the history; and even though various nihaavas ard dissentient events must have happened in the long course of time, they did not become explosive forces to split the church. The schism came into being faially due to the migration of the Jainas of the South and the West where the naked monks and the robe wearing mouks were largely divided, coupled with the accidental factor of a long famine which invited the call of the Canonical Convention at Valabhi. The cause of the great schism has long been shrou lej in mist, because the bistory of the Jainas in the Gupta age was in darkness.
134

Page #148

Sec, 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T, S.
Part 2
Umāsvāli's date and works
(1) His date
Among the works cited by Umāsvāti, the Vaiseșikasūtra, Nyāyasūtrā, Sankhyakārtkā and Yogasūtra were composed before the Yogasūtrabhāşya and Abhidharmakosa. And it is clear from the above study that the T.S. precedes the date of the Niryuktis and Satkhandagama. A distance between the T.S. and the Satkhandagama is pretty close, and we have also proposed that at least half a century of a temporal distance should be allowed between the T.S. and the Sarvāri hasiddhi. Umāsvāti's date has to be thus deter nined somewhere between Vasubandhu, Vyāsa and Bhadrababu II.
Bhadrabāhu Il foretold a long years' faminc at Ujjain, after which the Third Valabhi Council and the great schism took place in succession. The tradition assigns the date of the Third Canonical Council in 453/466 A. D. (980/693 V.N.) on the basis of Mabāvira's nirvāṇa which accepted as of 527 B.C. by both traditions. His date of nirvana is in conflict with the established fact that he was a contemporary of Buddha whose date of birvāņa is widely accepted in 487-477 B.C.93
As aforementioned, Mrgesavarman, c. 475-490 A.D., donated lands to the Śveta patas and Nirgranthas. Since this is the first inscriptional evidence available in relation to the schism, and since Mrgesavarman's date is established on the basis of the Southern local history which has nothing to do with the Jaina tradition, this inscriptional document is of highly historical value. This copper-plate charter discovered in Dharwar Dist, registers that Mrgesavarman in his 4ih regoal year, c. 478 A.D., divided the village of Kālavargā into three porticns and granted them to 1) the holy Arhat and the great god Jinendra, who inhabit in the supreme and excellent place (called) “the hall of the Arhat", 2) the “veta pața sect, and 3) the Nirgrantha sect. The same temple was likely shared by these two sects, which clearly indicates that the ordinance was made not too long after the division of the church. In the previous year, c. 477 A.D., Mrgeśavarman gave a land to holy Arhats for the purpose of worship, and in c. 482 A D. he ordered to construct a temple in devotion for his dead father Säntivarman, and donated lands to the Yāpaniyas, Kūrcakas and Nirgranthas. His grandfather Kākusthavarman (c. 405-435 A.D.) donated a land to a Jaina ācārya, but no inscription pertaining to the Jainas seems to exist as to his father. W. are not sure when and how the Yāpaniyas and Kūrcakas originated. However since the royal land grants were made to these distinctly independent sects, we have to be conviaced that the schism had already occurred sometime before c. 478 A. D.
The tradition claim that the Second Canonical Councils were synchronically cnved at Mithura ani Valahi in 390/313 A.D. (827/840 v.N.) and that the
135

Page #149

Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S.
Third Council was summoned in 453/466 A.D. (980/993 V.N.). We do not know in wbat way the Jainas kept the calender after the death of Mahāvīra and what kinds of efforts were made to maintain its accuracy. Neither do we know in what way the difference of 153 years between the Second and the Third Canonical Councils wis memorized. Unfortunately, these dates seem to be untraceable in the external sourcess. Also the Hindu purāvas and astronomical sources do not expressly record the dates of long famines occurred in the 4th and the 5th centuries, which are neither locatable in the inscriptions of this period.
The traditional date of Mahāvira's death comes into conflict with the widely accepted date of Buddha's death. Also not until the Guptas came into the stage fully supporting the Hindu revival movement, the Vaisnava movement would have become that mich intensive force to be able to drive the huge Jaina communities away from Mithurā. And the Jaina inscriptions and archaeological remains endorse this fact hy showing a sudden decline of their number with the entry in the Gupta period and by evincing their sudden appearance in the various places of the migration of the Jainas which began after the middle of the 4th century A.D. Candragupta I came to the throne in 320 AD, and Samudragupta in 330 A.D., Some Jainas might have migrated earlier than that time, but their number cannot be large. And since the Jainas must have been skilled in administering business matters and organizing business com munities they had likely enjoyed highly organized corporate systems at Mathurā, they could have embarked in their business enterprises (which they might have even well planned previously) immediately after their migration to the new place.3. Under the historical circumstances as such, both dates of the Second Canonical Councils in tradition are difficult to ascept, which must have taken place allegedly after 320 A.D. Then we can likewise doubt about the accuracy of the traditioul dite of th: Tari Valabhi council which must have occurred before c. 478 A.D.
Since Mrześavarnin's inscription evinces that it was made in the comparatively early stage of the schism, the traditional date of the Valabhi Convention as of 453 A.D. is too far away and improbable. We may at present propose here a wider possible range of the date of the Third Canonical council as of c. 466-478 A.D. until some other historical evidences are discovered in the future to determine it accurately. A long famine which Bhadrababu II predicted might have been a matter of a few to several years. Then Bhadrababu's date falls in sometime before c.460-472 A.D., which can be taken as the lower limit of the date of the T. S. From his reactions advanced to the T.S., a temporal distance between the T.S. and the Niryuktis is pretty short.
The upper limit of the date of the T.S. is to be determined by the dates of the Yozsūtrabris yi and the Abhidharmakosa. Vyāsa's date is not at all setttled down
136

Page #150

Sce. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
among th: scholars yet, for instance, the 4th century A.D, is held by Radhakrishnan, 400 A.D. by Dasgupta, c. 450 A.D. by Ui (History of Indian Philosoyhy), c. 500 A.D. by Kanakura and Nakamura (Hisory of Ancint India, v. 2), 650-850 A.D. by Woods, and the 7th century A.D. by Strauss.93 It is thus difficult for us to utilize his date for assigniag the upper limit of the date of the T.S.
Vasubandu's date is likewise still controversial, for instance, 283-360 A.D. maintained by Smith, 320-400 A.D. by Ui, 400--80 A.D. by Higata, 420-500 A,D. by Takakusu, 320-400 A.D. as of Mahāyānist Vasubandhu and 400-480 A.D. as of the author of the Abhidharmakośa by Frauwallner, and 470-500 AD. by Dasgupta.94 However from the aforegoing description of the historical accounts involving Vasubandhu, it is evident that he was flourishing in the middle of the 5th century A.D. The date of the composition of the Abhidharmakosa is unknown, which however comes before his conversion to Mahāyānism that took place in his later time.
Considering all these relevant factors, we may under the circumstances, assign the date of the T.S. somewhere in the late middle of the 5th century A.D. It was con): so netin: after the completion of the Abhidhırmakasa and sometime before the date of the Niryuktis. Vasubandhu, Umāsvāti and Bhadrabāhu II were thus contemporaries in the 5th century.
(2) His works
The tradition informs us that Umāsvāti composed five hundred prakaranas (for instance, Haribhadrasūri mentions it in his commentary on the Prasamarati) He seems to have written more than a few texts handed down to us because it is pointed out that what the later work like the Uttaradhyayanavrtti of Bhāvavijaya says that Vācaka said so and so is not traceable in his extant works.95 The Prasamarati, Jambūdvipasamāsa, Pūrāprakarana and Savayapannatti are ascribed to him in tradition, of which the first two are generally accepted to be his works, but not the last two. None of them bears his name. It seems that he imposed upon himself the composition of the T. S. alone to be his prime task in life. The nature of these works shall be briefly discussed below.
The Prasamarati takes up the theme of rāga-dveşa (rāga defined as mamakāra of which content is said to be māyā-lobba, and dveşa as ahamkāra of which content is said to be krodha-māna) as the causes of the karmie bondage in sam āra and their vairāgyamārgas which consist o five vratas, twelve anuprekşās (said as blāvanās), ten dharmas, threefold pathways to liberation and dhyāna. Unlike the T. S. which is a stiff philosophical treatise, the Prasamirati is an ethical verse of more popular nature addressed to the monks ani laynen, of which content does not go much beyond what is covered by the T. S. The parallel lines between the T. S. and the Prasamayati are found as follows:
137

Page #151

Sce. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T.S.
T. S.
Prašamarati
230-231 222-223 189 224-225 226-227 196-197 194-195 190-192
287
212
212
I:1, 1Bh.
2-3, 3Bh. 1:4
10-13, 11Bh., 12Bh.
31-32 II:1
8-9, 9Bh. 10, 12--15
28, 28Bh. III:1 IV:20 V:1-4
5-6, 5Bh. 9Bh. 11 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24
29-31 VI:3-4
24 VII:16 VIII:1
207 214 213 208 215
217
218
216
5-6
26, 26Bh. IX:1-2
204-206 220 100 303-304 33, 56, 142, 157 36 34-35 219 220 159 167-178 149-162 228 246
6, 6Bh. 7, 7Bh 18
37
X:5
287
294 296-301
7Bh.
138

Page #152

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
Instead of seven tattvas, nine tattvas are expounded in verse 189 onwards in the Prasamarati, thereby it adds the topic of a promise for laymen to attain svarga loka in reward of their good conduct in this life (verses 302-308). Also the process of kevali samudghāta up to sūkşmakriyā dhyāna which is not explained in the T. S. is described (verses 273-82). Certain minor improvments are also made on the T. S., for instance, the sthāvaras are counted here as of five kinds (verses 190-192 against T. S. II:13-14) and samyaktva, jñāna, caritra, virya and śikṣā are enumerated to be the jīva laksaņas (verse 218 against T. S. V:21). The Prasamarati 3-4 read, 'yadyapy-ananta-gama-paryayārtha-hetu-naya-sabda-ratnādhyam/ sarvajña-śāsana-puram pravestum-abahusrutair-duḥkham//śruta-buddhi-vibhava-parihinakas-tathā'py-aham-asaktim-avcintya/dramaka ivävayavonchakam-anvestum tat-pravesepsuh', which echo the s. kārikā 23–26 expressing a difficulty in epitomizing the canon. The Prasamarati is doubtlessly a post - T. S. product, for it quotes the concept like satsāmānya which was formulated in the particular context in composing the T. S.
The Jambūdvipasamāsa is a systematic treatise on Jambūdvipa, of which first two abnikas describe the geography of Jambūdvipa, the third explains the world oceans and continents, and the fourth discusses about mensuration formulae and recapitulates the characteristic features of Jambūdvipa. The Digambara edition of the T. S. revised its third chapter largely based on this work, probably with a view to attaining the validity of revision based on the original author's text. The names of antatradvipas listed in the T. S. III:15Bh. are identical with those in the third ahoika, 98 which so far do not exactly coincide with the other lists, either Āgamic or non-Agamic. These speak in support of the traditional belief that the Jambūdvipisamisa was composed by Umāsvāti. In its 4th ahnika and the T. S. III: 11 Bn. imparted are the mensuration formulae to find out the chord, arrow of an arc, arc, and diameter in a segment of a circle, which are all identical in both texts excluding the method of measuring the arrow of an arc (the 4th series below) as follows:
AC = arc = a AC = chord = c BD = height or a row = h EA = EC = ED = d/2
139

Page #153

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE. T. S.
T. S. DI:11 Bh. formulae
(1) c= Viod? (2) A = 1/4 Cd (3) c = 4h(d - h) (4) h = 1/26d - Vde-ca) (5) a = V6h2 + c (6) d = (ho + co/4) /h
In the place of series 4, the Jambūdvipasamāsa gives a formula h - Vla? -c)/6, which is based on approximations and does not yield a correct result. Umāsvāti improved this formula in the T.S. This demonstrates that the Jambūdvipasamāsa was composed sometime before the T.S., most likely as a provisional preparation for the composition of its third chapter called Lokaprajāapti. Perhaps for this reason, the third chapter of the T. S. turned out to be extremely summaritical and short.
The Pūjāprakarana in nineteen verses describes twenty-one methods of Pūjā for the laity. The Prasamarati 305 refers to pūja by enumerating gandha, mālya, adhivāsa, dbūpa, pradipa, etc., but not more than that. The mention of such an elaborate ritual has no place in the known works of Umāsväti, which makes it doubtful to be his composition. It is also remarked that the methods of pūjā described here are almost identical with those noted by Cāritrasundara in his Ācāropadeśa, and the work is speculated to be scarcely older than the 14th century A. D.98
The Sävayapannatti is a prakrit work which expounds twelve sūvaka dharmas (guna-śikṣā vratas) along with their aticāras and the other relevant duties. The verses quoting the passages from the T. S. are as follows: 64-II:10-14, 69-II:31, 74-II: 52, 79—VI:1-4, 80–VIII:2-3 and 81-82--18:1-3. The essential subject matter treated in this Sāyayapannatti is found in the T.S. Ch.VII, however the former differs from the latter as to the major treatment of twelve guņa-śikṣā vratas and their aticāras, which go with the tradition of the Upāsakadašā but not with the T.S. The methods applied for distinguishing siddhas in verses 76-77 corrrespond to those of the Prajñāpanā 1.7.7-10 but not to those of the T. S. Besides the Sāvayapannatti is composed in Prakrit. These points make difficult to ascribe it to Umāsvāti, and many scholars are of opinion that Haribhadra is likely its original author.99
The Jambūdvipasamäsa and Prasamarati are the minor works of Umāsvāti. The T. S. is certainly not a work possible to be completed within a year or two, A considerable length of time must have been consumed for the critical examination of the source materials, both Jaina and non-Jajna, and for their systematic organization. And it is quite plausible that Umāsvāti composed some more provisional works for the T. S. on the line of the Jambūdvipasamāsa.
140

Page #154

See. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
Part 3 Historical position of the T. S.
Vacaka Ācārya Umāsvādi composed the T. S. at Pataliputra sometime in the late middle of the 5th centuary A. D. when the migration of the Jainas to the South and the West was nearing to the end. About his personal background, we know no more than what he informs of himself in the prasasti. Pūjyapāda in his Sarvārthasiddhi delineates him as a saintly figure in a lonely āśrama attended by the order of monks. The tradition invented a legend that Umāsvāti, a wandering mendicant, composed the T.S. by the entriety of a layman. The Southern Jainas in the later age invented another story that when Umāsvāti was flying in the air to Videha by his miraculous power, his peacock-feather-bunch fell down, so he caught hold of the feathers of a vulture flying in sky, thus he came to be known as Grddba piccha Ācārya.100 No anecdote is otherwise known to us about him. He was no doubt an orthodox Jaina ācārya, but was never a rigid and narrow-minded man of tradition. Being a free and mature thinker, he could posit the essential problems of Jainisni with insight from the wider philosophical vision of the days, without falling from the middle path in dealing with the pros and cons of the Jaina and non-Jaina views. Experiencing the depression of the Jaiaus araidst the florescence of the Hindus, Umāsvāti seems to have firmly determined to complete the T. S. and calmly devoted to this task.
The T. S. or the essential outline of tattvas is the standard text of Jaina philosophy. It was born in response to the internal need that demanded further organization of the contents of the canonical texts which had already to a large extent gone through the process of systematization. The same trend was commonly happening to all the than other systems of thought, and each of them had come to possess its own standard text by the time of Unāvāti. The standard work of Jainism was thus the need of hour urged by the internal and external call of time, and fortu nately the Jainas had a genius capable of accomplishing this task.
Umāsvāti was a pioneer who was keenly aware of the circumstances at current. Being fully conscious of the social change wherein Sanskrit became the common language of the days, he tried to respond to this call of time, in which he was probably confident as he was likely from the Brahmanical background. Non-Jaina standard texts must have undergone the gradual stages of systematization until they were finally crystallized in the present form. For iostance, Vasubandhu bad Dharmatrāta's Abhi tharmahydayasā sira before him, upon which he could develop his own treatise. Umāsvāti seems to have had none as such. He therefore took a full advintage of the readily available non-Jaina standard works that are composed in prakaranı form in sūtra style, of which contents, structure and concepts he must have scrutinized with a view to representing in the T. S. the clear-cut Jaina positions relevant to all the philosophical problems at current in the best organized form. He
141

Page #155

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
was thus able to achieve his aim of composing the standard text for the Jainas, which in quality and value falls behind none of the other schools. The existence of these non-Jaina texts thus played an important role for the birth of the T. S., which would not have been derived immediately from the semi-systematized canopical works of the later age alone. The Agamic texts he used were obviously the Mathurā versions which came to be soon penned down in the Third Valabhi Council.
As the migration of the Jaina communities was still on the way in the middle of the 5th century, the T. S. must have been carried by the emigrants and dissemi. nated to the places of migration soon after it was completed. Bhadrabāhu II immediately reacted to some problems raised in the T. S., and the scholastic information as such likely reached quickly the academic circles diffused in various places. Due to the mobility of the Jaina sanghas in this age, the events occurred in one place must have spread to the others in a good speed. And by the time of the Third Canonical Council at Valabhi, the geography of the Jainas was largely divided in the South and the West,
In the sequel of the schism, the Southern Jainas had to face to compile their own pro-canonical texts. Under the circumstances, the T. S. evidently came to the focus of the Southern scholars' attention as the first-hand source book of Jainism in the capacity of the later Āgamic texts which they refused to accept. It therefore had to go through a revision in order to meet the quality to be a pro-canonical text, upon which the Sarvärthasiddhi was composed from the Digambara point of view. The pro-canonical authors drew their materials from the Āgamic stock which excludes the later canonical texts authorized in the West and which includes the Kaşayaprābhrta, T. S, Nityuktis, etc. The T. S. thus stood as one of the fundamental sources for the composition of the pro-canonical works, and the revised version of the T. S. came to stand in the position of the standard work of Jainism since the beginning stage of the literary activities in the South. The categorical concepts established by Umāsvāti thus came to be generally received and standardized. Many Digambara authors early adopted to write in Sanskrit in the form of Prakarana often accompanied by a svopajñabhäşya after the model of the T. S., of which form was obviously more suitable for the purpose of composing the pro-canonical texts, and of which language was not only the need of the days but also effective in showing the point of departure from the practice in the West.
Pujyapāda revised T. S. at the beginning of the 6th century A.D., however it is difficult to say anything definite about it without a thorough study regarding the relative chronology of the pro-canonical authors involving Pujyapāda. Kundakunda's Dame makes its appearance in the inscriptions in the late 11th century, i. e., 1075 A.D. (Śaka 997)201 onwards, even though Kundakundänvaya is recorded in 466 A. D. (Śaka 388) in Merkara copper-plate, of which script is however said to belong
142

Page #156

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
to the 9th century A. D.102 Kundakundānvaya is then recorded in 797 A. D. (saka 718)'03 onwards. Kunda kunda's style of writing is surely archaic, and 'sad-dravyalaksanam' (V: 129)) which is added to the text of Pujyapada and appears in the Pancāstikāya 1.10 can be well born in the context of the Pañcāstikāya 1.8-9 wherein he analyzes the nature of sat in relation to dravya.'o* Pūjyapada's revision of the T. S. clearly reveals his mastery skill in editorship, thus this sūtra V:(29) must have been drawn from the other source, namely, the Pañcāstikaya. Pūjyapāda was thus acquainted with the Pañcastikāya at least, even if not with his later works such as Sam zyasara. So Kundakunda and Pujya pada were likely the contemporaries. The Southern inscriptions generally record the lineage of Kundakunda-Umāsvāti-Pujyapada. Since the later Southern Jainas believed Umāsvāti to be the author of the revised version of the T. S., this sequence is not insensible. Samantabhadra quotes mangalācarana of Pujya pada in bis Āptamimāmsā, and Pūjyapāda refers to Samantabhadra in the Jainendra vyakarana while enunciating a rule, 'catusțayam samantabhadrasya' (5.4.140) which refers to jhayo hah' (5.4.136) and which does not exist in the Astådhyāyi. Therefore both authors are speculated to have been the contemporaries. 105 Samantabhadra in lead wie in proficient Sanskrit, however it can be suspected if this logician was the same grammarian or not. His name occurs in the epigraphical sources after 1074 A. D. (Śaka 996)106 onwards. At present we are not getting into the ascertainment of the relative chronology of these early Southern authors including Vattkera and Sivakoti, which is a big problem by itself. However from the fact that all these pro-canonical authors were well acquainted with the Agamic tradition, they cannot belong to too late period. They must have lived in the earlier period after the schism, before the Agamic tradition started to fade away in the South. And their late registration in the epigraphical records does not offer a decisive clue for the determination of their chronological sequence as is evinced in the case of the relevant inscriptions of the T. S. which make their appearance only after 1077 A.D.107 Pūjyapāda's name occurs after 729 A. D. (Śaka 651)'08 in the inscriptions.
After the finalization of the canon at the Third Valabhi Council, the Western Jainas entered the stage of the commentarial period in continuation of the niryukti literature. Niryuktis, which likely had existed side by side the canonical texts prior to Budrabāhu 11,109 pinpoint only the important concepts in the canon by the method of anuyogadvāras and therefore differ from the so-called canonical commentaries in nature. The commentarial anthors in the medieval period well responded to problemi raised in the T. S. by way of criticism and affirmations. And the T. S. gradually came to win an authoritative position by the time of Hemacandra in the West wherein the canonical tradition continued to subsist. Sanskrit came to be adopted after Haribhadra, although writing in a prakaranı form accompanied by a svopajñabhāşya commenced earlier.
143

Page #157

Sec. 4, HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S.
The adoption of the Sanskrit language started by Umāsvati was the call of time, which ensu:d the Jainas to open their closed door to the other systems of thought, Likewise the adoption of the prakaraņa form of composition started by Umāsvāti created a lively academic atmosphere which never happened in the canonical period. For uolike the commentarial composition, the prakarana composition is a form of a system atic treatise guided by a definite theme and plan,10 whereia required are the author's initiative judgment upon and critical attitude towards the pros and cons of the geaeral knowledge of the concerned subject matters, along with his original capacity in mathdically leading ta: public to convince his thesis. Siddhasena's Sinm iti, Jinabhadra's Jhānijjhzyını, Millavādi's Nayacakra, etc, in the West, and the procanonical works by Kundakunda, Samantabhadra and the others in the South are the prakaranas which came out with various original problems and proposals to stimulate the academic interests and to conrtibute to the later conceptual development. In the South particularly, while engaging in the composition of the procanonical texts, the Digambara authors were compelled to concretize and systematize the so far developed traditional concepts, which ensued in effect in producing many doctrinal innovations and formulations, as for instance, in the case of $rävakācāra.111
Another important contribution that Umāsvāti made to the literary history of the Jainas is that he provided the basis for the immediate arrival of the age of logic which commenced after the Third canonical Convention in both traditions. He did it firstly by representing pramāņa and naya as the Jaina theory of knowledge so far developed in the later canonical stage, secondly by revising the Agamic concept of dravya-guna-paryāya, and thirdly by enunciating the non-conflict theory in simultaneously predicating the nature of sat with its mutually contradictory chara. cteristics in three kinds. The anekāntavāda is based on the theoretical understanding, both ontological and epistemological, that reality consists of mutually contradictory elements at the same time (V: 29), that the nature of reality as such is constant (V: 30), and that the different characteristics of reality arise by arpita-anarpita viewpoints (V: 31). These theoretical formulae were soon developed into the nayavāda and saptabhangi by Siddhasena Divākara and Jinabbadra in the West, and by Kundakunda and Samantabhadra in the South. The Jaina theory of knowledge came into maturity by the efforts of the succeeding logicians such as Mallavādi and Haribhadra in the West, and Akalarika and Vidyānandi in the South. It is noteworthy that the titanic logicians such as Akalanka and Vidyānandi, to whom the Western tradition owes for its later development of logic, were the commentators of the T. S. Anekānta dialectics came to be the sole tool for the Jainas to challenge the rival schools in the medieval period, wherein an atmosphere open to the other philosophical tenets came to prevail in their literature, which never happened in the classical age. 112
Sankara in the 8th century came out with criticisms on the Jaina doctrines with which he was probably acquainted through the T. S. and Mādhava in the 14th centary
144

Page #158

Sec. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T.S.
wrote the section of Jainism in his Sarvadarsanasangraha on the basis of the T. S. The dissemination of Jaina philosophy to the non-Jainas started earlier in the South much owing to the existence of the T. S. and is commentaries which were composed in the common language of Sanskrit.
The T. S. tbus stood at an intersecting point in the literary history of the two traditions which began immediately after the canonical period. Here the South began with the prakarana period and the West entered the commentarial period, and the age of logic commenced in both traditions. The T. S. thus contributed itself as one of the substantial works for the composition of the pro-canonical texts in the South, and it contributed to preparing for the arrival of the age of logic in the history of the Jainas. Its value in the context of the Jaina literary history would become self-evident if we reflect upon the case of its absence. If Umāsvati did not compose the T. S. at the end of the classical age, the literary activities of the Jainas would have taken a different course: the arrival of the age of logic in both schools would have been much delayed, and the composition of the procanonical works in the South would have greatly suffered. And if Umāsvati wrote the T. S. in Prakrit in the form of composition other than a prakarana by merely epitomizing the contents of canon without consulting the non-Jaina texts, its value and position in the literary history of the Jainas would have been totally different.
The basic value of the T. S. remains in its nature as the standard text of Jaina philosophy, which is ever capable of nourishing and developing the thought-world of the students of Jainism. As such it his caused the Jainas in both traditions throughout ages to write numerous co.nmentaries on it, and as such it has attracted the religious minds of the Jainas as their Bible.
145

Page #159

APPENDIX I
NOTES
Introduction
2.
The earliest mention of the T. S. in the South appears in the inscription made in 1077 A. D., of which author is said to be Āryadeva (E. C. VIII, Nagar Tl. no. 35), Umāsvāti or Grddhapiccha (also spelled as Grdhrapisicha, etc.) qua 'padārtha-vedi' which suggests him to be the author of the T.S. occurs in the Sravanabelgola inscriptions of the 12th century A. D. onwards (J. S. L. S., v. 1, nos. 40, 42, 43, 47, 50, etc.). Umāsvāti alias Gțddba piccha is mentioned as the author of the T.S, in the Sravanabelgola inscription no. 105 of 1398 A. D., and Umāsvāti as the author of the T.S. occurs in the epigraphy of c. 1530 A.D. (E. C. VIII, no. 46), Sravanabelgola inscriptions of the 12th century and 1398 A,D. record that Umāsvāti alias Grddhapiccha was a disciple of Kondakunda. Grddhapiccha as the auther of the T.S. is mentioned in the Dhavalā of the 9th century A. D. in the literary source. The name Umājvāmi appears in the Digambara source after Śrutasāgara's commentary on the T.S. in the 16th century A. D. (Sec also Jugalkishor's "Purāni vātom kā khoja" in Anekānta, varsa 1, kirana 5)
Premi : Jaina sahitya aur itihāsa, pp. 521-547 3. Various dates of Umāsvāti are suggested as follows:
Pre-Christian age : Datta (c. 150 B. C.) 1-2 century A. D. Phulcandra (100 A. D.) 2-3
J. L. Jaini (135-219 A. D.) 3-4
Premi 3-5
Sukhlal
Woods (later than 500 A. D.) Chapter I
1. MSS catalogue no. should be referred to the following works excluding
tbat of B. O. R. I. which is not yet published: Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrit Manuscripts, Muniräja Sri Pun yavijayaji's Collection, pt. 1 Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Jain Bhandars at Pattan. Catalogue of Manuscripts in Shri Hemachandrāchārya Jain Jñanamandira, Pattan, pt. 1. Limbadi Jaina Jñana Bhandarani Hastalikhita Prationum Sūcipatra,
146

Page #160

APPENDIX i
2. See Introduction, n. 1
3. Pannalal suggests that Amṛtacandra and many post-Akalanka authors drew their materials specifically from Akalanta's Ra'avārtika. See his introduction to the Tattvärthasara of Amṛtacandra, p. 7
147
4. Haribhadra's Laghvitika, of which latter half was completed by his disciples, does not serve for the reconstruction of the original text of the T. S.. as it preserves the text as well as the Bhasya imperfectly. For instance, the Laghvitikā cuts off the aphorisms IV :24-26 and 36-39, with which their Bhasya expositions are totally lost. (See also a remark made in Ch. II, n. 4) To give a cursory observation of the Laghvitika, its first six chapters are devoted to the summaritical exposition of the major purport of the Bhasya but not its exegetic explication, som: portions of which are the total or the partial duplication of Siddhasena's Tika, and the rest of the chapters show virtually the total duplication of the Bhaṣyāṇusāṛini. As such, the Laghvitika must have been produced from the Bhāṣ yanusarini, but not vice versa. (See also remark made in Pt. Sukhlalji's Commentary on Tattvarthasutra, Introduction, pp. 60 ff.) Hence the restoration of the Sabhasya T.S. must be made from the Bhaşyānusāriņi.
Chapter II
Siddhasena's commentary on the s.kārikā begins with, 'ri vardhamānasvamine namah atha sri siddhasenagaṇi-praṇitā dvitiya țikā prārabhyate', and ends with, iti svopajña-sambandhakārikāḥ ṭikā-dvaya-sametāḥ samaptāḥ'. 2. viram praṇamya sarvajam, tattvärthasya vidhlyate/
tika samksepatak spasta, manda-buddhi-vibodhini
3. Namdisuttam and Anuogaddāraim, Introduction by D. D. Malvania, p.54 (English)
4. In this connection it should be mentioned that the bracketed portion of V:29Bh. in K.P. Mody's edition (also in the Bombay edition of Rayacandra sastra māla) which appears in Haribhadra's Laghvi tattvärthațika cannot be the original paragraph, but the later accretion. Its teleological reasoning in support of the threefold natures of sat does not go with the ontological proof attempted in V: 31 Bl.. Neither its dialectical tone is congenial with the writing of the Bhaṣya,
5.
Sihana 10.972. dasa-vihe daviyaṇuoge p-o tam-o daviyaṇuoge mäuyaṇuoge egaththiyanuoge karamäṇuoge appiyaṇappie bhaviyabhävie bahirabahire sasayasäsae tahanane atahaṇāne

Page #161

APPENDIX I
6. All the three characteristics of sat enumerated by Umasvati make their appearance in Nägärjuna's Madhyamakasastra 7.33 in the totally different context, 'upada sthiti-bhangdnam-a siddher-nästi samskytam, samskṛtam, and it is not likely the source of Unasvati's formulation of the nature of reality. Similar concept seems to be traceable in the Anguttara nikaya I. for which refer to N. J. Shah: Akalanka's Criticism of Dharmakirti's Philosophy, p. 4, n. 8
7.
This is opined by D. D. Malvania.
8. See also Ch. I, Sec. IV, Pt, 1, 8)
9. See Birwe's introduction to the Sākaṇāyaṇavyākaraṇa, pp. 35 ff.
10. Some scholars maintain that the Digambara version of the T. S. existed before Pūjayapada's time as he notes some variant readings in the Sarvärtthasiddhi. Pujyapada notes two variants, i. e., 'kṣipraniḥsrta' for the reading 'ksiprāniḥsṛta' in I: (16), and 'caramadeha' for 'caramottama-deha" in II (53). The original text reads them, 'ksipraniśrita' in 1:16 and 'carama-dehottama-purusa' in II:52. 1:16(16) has many other variants, and II:52 shows redundancy in statement which therefore can be improved at any time. Since these two variant readings occur in the original aphorisms, it is difficult to support the thesis proposed by these scholars.
11. Various dates suggested for Pujyapāda are:
3rd century A. D.
4th
5th
Motilal Ladha (308 V. S.)
J. L. Jaini (before 308 Śaka)
Sukhlal, Jugalkishor, Kailascandra
Latter half of the 5th
to the latter half of the 6th century V. S. 7th century A. D.
Phulcandra
Birw (after 661 A.D.), Bhandarkar (678 A.D.) See also A.N. Upadhye :Śri Kundakundācārya's Pravacanasara, Introduction p. 21, n. 1; Winternitz: History of Indian Literature, v. 2, p. 478 & n. 3 12. Prasasti reads as follows:
vacaka-mukhyasya sivasriyaḥ prakasa-yasasaḥ prasisyena/ sişyena ghoşanandi-kşamaṇasyalkādasāngavidaḥ || 1 vacanaya ca mahāvācaka-kşamaya-munḍapada-si syasya sisyeņa vācakacārya-mula-nämnaḥ prathita-kirteḥ | 2 nyagrodhika-prasutena viharata pura-vare kusuma-nämni | kaubhişanina sväti-tanayena vatsi-sutenarghyam / 3 arhad-vacanam samyag-guru-krameṇāgatam samupadharya | duḥkhartam ca duragama-vihita-matim lokam avalekya 1/4

148

Page #162

APPENDIX I
idam uccairnågara-väcakena sattvānukampaya dybdham / tattvārthādhigamäkhyam spaștam umäsvätinā sastram 1/5 yas--tattyadhigamakhyam jñāsyati ca kariş yate ca iatroklam/
so'vyābādha-sukhakhyam prāpsyaty-acireņa paramartham // 6 13. Būhler's Introduction to E.I., v. 1, XLIII and v. 2, XIV; also his Indian
Sect of Jainas, pp. 46-47; S. B. Deo : History of Jaina Monachism from
Inscriptions and Literature, p. 515 ff. 14. E.I., v. I. XLIII, Nos. 1, 4-5, 13-14, 16: v, 2, XIV, nos. 34, 37, 1. A.,
XXXIII, Nos. 5, 14. Bühler notes that the name occurs four times in A. Cunningham's Collection and once perhaps twice in A. Führer's Collection
of 1889. (E. I., v. I, p. 379) 15. E.I., v.I, XLIII, Introduction, ft 32 16. I. A., XXXVI, no. 14 17. E. I., v. I, XLIII, n.. 13; v. 2, XIV, no. 34 18. J. C. Jain : Life in Ancient India. p. 345 ani p. 352; A. Cunningham :
Archaeological Survey of India, Report, v. 14, p. 147 19. J. C. Jain: ibid., "Geographical lexicon" 20. That Umāsvāti is known by name Nāgara Vācaka is mentioned by C. J.
Shah in his Jainism in North India, p. 240 and by B. C. Law in his Some Jaina Canonical Sūtras, p. 157, n. 1. Their sources for it are not mentioned,
which must have been taken from tradition. 21. E. I., v. 1, p. 378
22. See also Pt. Sukhlalji's Commentary on Tattvārthasūtra, Introduction, p. 19,
n. 1 23. This is according to the views of R. N. Mehta and A. N. Jani of Baroda. 24. Monier-Williams : Sanskrit-English Dictionary 25. Gunākarasūri expresses the same idea taht Umāsvāti was a convert from
Śnivism in his Bhaktāmarastotravrtti composed in 1426 V. S. (Śri Jinadattasūri Jñanabhandara, pp. 11-12), 'tato'nyatra sivadau virakto jinadharma-darśanāsakto'bhūd-umāsvātir-dvija-sünur-atta-vratah sūri-padam apa, kramāt-pūrvagata-vettā vācako'bhavat.
Chapter III
1. As to the evoiution of the concept of tattvas, see K. K. Dixit : "Evolution
of th: Juina treatment of Ethical problems", pp. 28 ff.; also his Jaina Ontology, pp.5-6
149

Page #163

APPENDIX I
2. K. K. Dixit : Jaina Ontology, p.7 3. KK Dixit : ibid., p.7 and p.85 4. J. H. Woods : The Yoga System of Patañjali Introduction, p. 19; Pt.
Sukhla'ji's Commentary on Tattvārthasūtra, lotroduction, pp.27-28 5. Pt. Sukhlalji's Comnentary on Tattvārthasūtra, Introduction, p.26 6. ibid., p.25 1. For the discussion of this matter, see also K. K. Dixit's introduction to
Pt. Sukhlalji's Commentary on Tattvārthasūtra 8. Jacobi : "Eine Jaina-Dogmatik”, p.523 9. Asteya bhāvanās : Bhasya - anuvisy-avagraha-yācana, abhiksna-a.-Y., etāvad-ity-a.-dhārana,
samāna-dharmikebhya-a.-y., anujñāpita-pāna-bhojana Acaränga — anuvīi-miuggaham-jäi, uggabamsi uggahiamsi abhikkhana,
etāvatāva uggabaņa-silae, sāhammiesu anuvij-mitoggaha-jai,
aņuņņaviya-pāņa-bhoyaņa Sam žvā ya - uggahıņuņņıvamıyā, uggaba -simajāņaņiyā, sayam-eva ugga ham
aņugiņbaņayā, sāhammiya-uggaham anuņņaviya paribhumjaņayā,
sābāraņi-bhatia-pāņam anunnaviya padibhumjanaya Mūlācāra -- jāyaṇi-padisevi, samaņuņņāmaņa-p., anangabhāva-p., sādhammi
ovakaranissa-ņuvici-sevana, catta-p. Prasnavyakar.iņi -- vivitta-vāsa-vasabi, uggaha-3., sejja-s., vinaya as to
āhainmi, uvakarami..., sālāraņa-pinda-vāya-labhe-s. Sarvarth zsildhi and Caritrapāhuda | Sūnayā zāra-vāsı, vimocitāvāsa, paropa
rodhā-karani, sādharmāvisamvāda, bhaikşya-suddhi 10. Se also Scru'yriag's discussion on this subject in his Doctrine of the Jainas
Secs. 178-180 11. K. K. Dixit: Jaina Ontology pp. 27-28 12. Kinakura: "A Study of the Jaina Theory of knowledge – on Matijñāna
in the Subhās ya Tattvärthadhigamasutra" 13. See Sukblal's introduction to Sanmaritarka 14. It is bisel on : Juinz sāhit ya bthat itihāsa v. 3: Schubring The Doctrine of
the Jainas; Winternitz: History of Indian Literature v. 2; and introductions
to the works examined, 15. Haribidra : Sarvadarsanasamuccaya, under karika 47
150

Page #164

APPENDIX 1
iarhi punya-pāpasrayadinām-api tataḥ Pythag-upadanam na yukti-pradhanam syat, rāśi-dvayena sarvasya vyāptatvád-iti cetl na punyadinām vipratipattinirāsārtharvāt, isravādinām sakārana-samsāra-mukti-pratipādana-paratvadvå prthag--upädänas yādustatal yathā ca samvara-nirjarayor-mokşa-hetura äsravasya i bandhana-nibandhanatvan-punyapunya-dyi-bheda-bandhasya ca
samsāra-hefutvam tathāgamāt-pratipattavyam// 16. N. J Shah "Some Reflection on the Problem of Jñāna-Darsana" 17. See also N. J. Shah. ibid. 18. This point has been early brought to attention by D. D, Malvania.
See Pt. Sukhlalji's Commentary on Tattvārthasūtra, p. 345, n. 1 19. Dhavalā 13/5.4.26/14/10 (Jainendra siddhanta kośa, v. 2, p. 481)
asam jadasammāditthi-sam jadasam jada-pamattasamiada-appamatlasam jada - apuvvasämjada-aniyattisamjada-suhumasām parāiya-khavagoyasāmaesu dhamma
jjhanassa pavutti hodi tti jiņovadesado / 26. A. N. Upadhye considers that these four sthas such as pada were imported
from the Saiva yoga, and brings our attention to Abhinavagupta's
Tantrāloka X. 241, etc. 21. Dictionary of Buddhology (Bukkyðgaku jiten), Kyoto, Hozokan, 1961, pp.
189-190 22. Sukhlal: Cautha karmagrantha, Introduction, pp. 53-55; Malvania: "Jaina
gunasthāna aur bodhicaryābbūmi" 23. K. K. Dixit "The Probleins of Ethics and Karma Doctrine as Treated in
the Bhagavati Sūtra”, pp. 3 ff. 24. Sinha : The Decline of the Kingdom of Magadha, p. 106 25. S. Beal : Buddhist Records of the Western World 26. 1. A., X, p. 125 27. E. I., v. 2, no. 39, p. 210 28. E. I., v.20, p.61 29. Asoka Inscriptions, p.47 (I), as referred to by S. R. Sharma in his jainism
and Karnataka Culture, pp. 6-7 30. Brhatkalpabhäş ya III 3275-3289; also I. A., XI, p.246 31. E.I., v.20, pp. 71 ff.; Jaina silā lekha sangraha (JSLS), v.2, no.2 32. K. V. Ramesh : "Jaina Epigraphs in Tamil" Appendix to A. Chakravarti's
Jaina Literature in Tamil, pp.139-141, nos. 1-3 33. J. S.L. S, v.5, p.4, no.2
151

Page #165

APPENDIX I
34. ibid, v.5, p.3, no.1 35. Krishna Rao: "Kudlur Plates of Mārasimha" in Mysore Archaeological
Report, 1921, pp.19 and 16, as referred to by S. R. Sharma, ibid., p.15, 0.54 36. Seshagiri Rao: Studies in South Indian Jainism II, pp.87-88. The original
source is not mentioned here to recheck the content of this statement. The
word "Digambara" used here cannot be probable. 37. See J.S.L. S., v.2, nos.90, 94, 95, etc. 38. J.S. L. S. v.2, no.96; I. A. VI, no.20 39. ibid., v.2, no.97; 1. A., VII, no.36 40. ibid., v.2, no.98; I. A., VII, no.37 41. ibid., v.2, no.99; 1. A., VI, no.21 42. S. R. Sharma, ibid., pp.21-22 43. J. S. L. S., v.1, no. 1; E. C. II, pp.35 ff., pp.70-71, pp.1-2(translation) 44. ibid., v.1, no.2 onwards 45. For Karnataka inscriptions, see J. S. L. S, vols. 1-3; S. R. Sharma: Jainism
and Karnataka Culture; K. V. Ramesh: “Jaina Art and Architecture of
Tulunādu", in Aspects of Jaina Art and Architecture; etc. 46. K. V. Ramesh : "Jaina Epigraphs in Tamil", p. 142, no.4 47. A. N. Upadhye's introduction to Tiloyapannatti, pt. II 48. For Tamilnadu inscriptions, see L. G. Krishnan : "Jaina Monuments of
Tamil Nadu"; R. Nagaswamy: "Jaina Art and Architecture under Pallavas" K. V. Soundara Rajan: “Jaina Art and Architecture in Tamilnādu"; These articles are all in Aspects of Jaina Art and Architecture. Also see P. B. Desai: Jainism in South India; T. N. Subramanian: “Pallankövil Jaina
Copper Plate Grant of Early Pallava Period" 49. A. Ghosh, ed. : Jaina Art and Architecture, v.1, ch.9, p.95 50. H. Sarkar: “Jaina Art and Architecture in Kerala", in Aspect of Jaina Ar
and Architecture 51. P. B. Desai : Jainism in South India, p.19 52. A. Ghosh, ed.: ibid., ch.11 53. For East Indian archaeological evidences, see A. Ghosh, ed. : ibid.,
chs.7, 11, 15; U. Takhur: Studies in Jainism and Buddhism in Mithila, pp.97-98, 146; B. C. Sen : Som? Historical Aspects of the Inscriptions of
Bengal, p.xii, no.7; etc. 54. Jain Journal III, 4, pp. 170-171
152

Page #166

APPENDIX 1
55. For Central Indian archaeological evidences, see A. Ghosh, ed.: ibid,
ibid., chs. 12, 16; G. S. Gai: “Three Inscriptions of Ramagupta"; R. C.
Agrawala: "Newly Discovered sculptures from Vidiša" 56. Prakrit Proper Names, pt. I, p. 113, ‘ujjeņi” 57. A. Ghosh, ed.: ibid., ch. 8, pp. 87-88 58. U. P. Shah: "A Unique Saina image or Jivantasvāmi"; his “An old Jaina
Imige from Khed-brahmā (North Gujarat)"; and his "Age of Differen
tiation of Digambara and svetāmbara Images.' 59. For West Indian archaeological evidences, see A. Ghosh, ed : ibid., chs. 8,
13, 17; K. C. Jain: Jainism in Rajasthan; etc. 60. K. M. Munshi: "Ancient Gurjaradeśa and Its Literature" 61. Namdisuttam and Anuogaddarāim, Introduction by D. D. Malvania. pp.
17-18 (English) 62. G. S. Gai: "Mathura Jain a Inscriptions of the Kuşāņa Period - A Fresh
Study", in Aspects of Jaina Art and Architecture 63. The image described here belongs to the Archaeological Museum at
Mathurā (no. 2502). See A. Ghosh, ed.; ibid., ch. 6, p. 66 64. For North Indian and Mathurā archaeological evidences, see A. Ghosh,
ed.: ibid., chs. 6; 10, 14 65. Jain Journal III, 4, p. 186 66. Prakrit Proper Names, pt. II, p. 590, "mahurā" 67. Cultural Heritage of India, v. 2, p. 673. For the economic and political
background in the pre-Guptan and Gupta ages, see Mookerji: Local Government in Ancient India; R. C. Majumdar: Corporate Life in Ancient India; R. N. Saletore : Life in the gupta Age; S. K. Maity:
Economic Life of Northern India in the Gupta Period; etc. 68. M. K. Vaishakhiya: "Krsna in the Jaina Canon”; A. N. Upadhye
"Krishna Theme in Jaina Literature" 69. M. K. Vaishakhiya: ibid. 70. M. Winternitz; History of Indian Literature, v. 1. 455 ff. 71. The History and Culture of the Indian People, v. 3, pp. 416 ff. 72. P. V. Kane: History of Dharmasastra, v. 5, pt. 2, sec. 5 73. M. K. Vaishakhiya; ibid. 74. S. K. Maity; ibid., pp. 124, 130, ets,
153

Page #167

APPENDIX I
75. Motichandra; Särthavāha chs. 8-10 76. The popular legend seems to convey that Simhanandi came across Padma
natha's two young princes who were sent away to the South for the sake of safety from the attack of Mahipāla, ruler of Ujjain. Simhanandi sympathized with them and took them under his protection, educated them, and procured a kingdom for them by bis miraculous power. Sea
M. S. Ramaswami Ayyangar: Studies in South Indian Jainism, pt.1, p.109. 77. I. A., VI, no.20. His account in highly praising term appears also in the
inscription no.22 78. Nam disuttam and Alluog iddārāim, Introduction by D. D: Malvania, pp.18 ff
(English) 79. For the further minor claims developed in the later time, see Darsanavijay
Svetambara-digambara 80. For the Yäpaniya sangha, see A. N. Upadhye : "Yāpaniya sangha – A
Jain Sect"; and his "More Light on Yāpa niya sangha; A Jain Sect"; N. Premi : Yāpaniyom kā sāhitya", in his Jaina sāhitya aur itihāsa, pp. 56-73; Sākațāyana : Strimukti-kevalibhukti-prakarana, bound with Sākajāyana-vy
akaranam 81. N. Premi : "Kūrcakom kā sampradaya", in his Jaina sahitya aur itihāsa,
pp. 559-563 82. For more legends and discussion on this matter, see R. Narasimhachar's
introduction to E. C., II, pp. 35 ff. 83. E. C., II, no. 31 (17-18) 84. E. C., III, Serigepatan 147 and 148, as referred to in the introduction to
E. C., II, p. 36. 85. D. D. Malvania is of this view. 86. Caturvijaya add Punyavijaya, ed. : Brhatkalpabhas ya, v. 6, Introduction;
M. Mehta : Jaina sähit ya kā byhad itihāsa, v. 3, pp. 68 ff. 87. Namdisutiam and Anuogaddārăim, Introduction by D. D. Malvania, pp.
21-22 (English) 88. The nature of the Süryaprajñapti and the Candraprajñapti which are said
to have been derived from the Drstivāda is not at all clear. See Jaina sāhitya kā brhad itihäsa, v. 1, Introduction, p. 53; Jai nendra siddhanta kosa
v. 4, p. 68, (2) and p. 70, (2) 89. The list of the Digambara canon and pro-canonical texts is based on
Winternitz; History of Indian Literature, v. 2, pp. 473 ff, and A. N. Upadhye : Brhatkathākosa, Introduction, p. 33.
154

Page #168

APPENDIX I
Jainimes Pendice
90. Kapadia : The Canonical literature of the Jainas, pp. 61-62 91. 1. A., VII, no. 37; U. P. Shah: "Age of differentiation of Digambara
and svetāmbara images ...", pp. 4-5 92. For various views regarding the dates of nirvāņa of Mahāvira and Buddha.
see Winternitz : History of Indian Literature, v. 2. Appendices 1 and 6; H. L. Jain and A. N. Upadhye : Mahavira : His Times and His Philosophy of Life (portion of His times by H. L. Jain). H. Nakamura assumes Buddha's date as of 443-383 B. C. in his Ancient History of India, v. 2,
p. 429. ff. 93. Information here is vited, unless specified, form Kanakura's History of Indian
philosophy, p. 124, n. 3 94, Information from Kanakura : ibid., p. 91, n. 2 95. Kapadia : Tattvārthādhigamasātra, v.1, Introduction, pp. 20 ff. 96. T. S. III:1 $Bh., 'gajamukhānām vyāghramukhānām-adarśamukhānam gomu
khānām-iti', has another reading, 'adarsana-mesa-haya-gajamukha-nāmānah'.
The Jumbūdvipa samāsa agrees with the latter reading. 97. I am indebted to Mr. Ramesh D. Malvania in understanding the technica
lities involved with these formulae. For the mathematical interpretation of these formulae, see Bibhutibhusan Datta : "The Jaina School of Mathe
matics", pp.124–25. 98. R. Williams : Jaina Yoga, pp.14, 219. 99. For instance, V. K. Premchand suggests Haribhadra or Umāsvāti to be its
author (Sava yapannatti, Introduction ; Haribhadra is suggested to be its author by H. D. Velankar (Jinaral nakosa, p.393) and by H. L. Jain (Bhargava: Jaina ethics, pp. 241-242); another Umāsvāti in the śvetāmbara tradition is assumed to be its author by R. Williams (Jaina Yoga, pp. 2-3. Williams
postulates the author of the T. S. as a Digambara). 100. A. N. Upadhye remarks that this tradition is of a doubtful nature because
of its indiscriminative attribution to Kundakunda, Umāsvāti and Pūjyapāda.
See his Sri Kunda Kundācārya's Pravacana sära, Introduction, p. 8. 101. J. S. L. S., v. 2, no. 209 102. E.C., I, no. 1 103. E.C., 1X, no. 60 104. Pañcastikāya I 8 sattā savva-payatıha savissa-rūvä anamta-pajjāyā /
bhamg-uppada-dhurata sappad ipakkha bhavadi ekka //
155

Page #169

APPENDIX I
9 daviyadi gacchadi idim taim sabbhāva-pajjayāim jam
daviyam tam bhannamti aạnanna-bhūdam tu sattādo // 10 dayvan sal-lakkhaniyam uppāda-vvaya-dhuvatta-sam juttam /
guna-pajjayā sajam vā jam tam bhannamti savvaņhū // 105. Premi : Jaina sahitya aur itihasa, pp. 44-45 106. J. S, L. S., v. 2, Do. 207 107. See Introduction, n. 1 108. E. I., VI, p. 81; I. A., VII, p. 112, no. 39 109. Namdisuttam and Anuogaddaräim, Introduction by D.D. Malvania, p. 41
(Englisb) 110. Schubring: The Doctrine of the Jainas, pp. 58 ff. 111. See R, Williams : Jaina Yoga , Introduction, p. 18 112. For the development of the concepts and evaluation of the works in the
age of logic, see K. K. Dixit : Jaina Ontology, Ch. 3.
156

Page #170

1. Tattvārthasūtra A selected bibliography
(Texts, major commentaries, and about 7. S.) Akalanka: Tattvärthavartikam [Raiavārtikam] of Akalanka, ed. by M. K, Jain 2 vols. Bharatiya Janapitha, Banaras, 1953 & 1957. (J. M. J. G. Sk. nos. 10 & 20) Amṛtacandra Tattvarthasara of Amṛtacandrasuri, ed. by Pannalal. Ganesaprasāda Vari Granthamälä, Banaras, 1970. (G. V. G. no. 21) Atmārāma: Tattvarthasutra jaināgamasamanvaya Lālā. Bacanalala Jaina, Malerkotla, 1941.
APPENDIX II
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bhaskaranandi Tattvarthavetti or Sukhabodha of Bhaskarunandi, ed by A. Śantiraja. University of Mysore, Mysore, 1944. (University of Mysore Oriental Library Publication, Sk. no. 84)
Bhatt, B. and Tripathi, C. : "Tattvärtha Studies". In The Adyar Library Bulletin 38i 1974 Ghatage, A. M."The Text of the Tattvärthadhigamasutrani". In Journal of the University of Bombay, 4-3, Nov. 1935
Haribhadra Srt tattvarthasutram svopajñabhāṣyānusäri śrimad Haribhadrasuri sutravettiyutam, ed. by Anandasägara. Jainanand P Press, Surat, 1936. Jacobi. H., tr.: Eine Jaina-Dogmatik: Umåsväti's Tattvärthadhigama Sutra." In Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig. Band 60, 1906,
Jain, A. A Comparative study of the Major Commentaries of the Tattvärthasutra (Commentaries by Umasvati, Pujyapada, Haribhadra, siddhasenagani, Bhatta Akalanka and Vidyanandi). University of Delhi, 1974. Dissertation.
Jain, G. R. Cosnology old and New, Being a Modern Commentary on the Fifth Chapter of Tattvärthadhigama Sutra. Bharatiya Jñanapitha Publication, Delhi, 1975. (J. M. J. G. Eng. ser. 5)
Jaini, S. A., tr. Reality of Shri Pujyapada's Sarvärthasiddhi. Vira Sasana Sangha, Calcutta, 1960.
Jain, J. L, ed. & tr.: Tattvärtha thigina sutra (A Treatise on the Essential Principles of Jainism) by Sri Umasvami Acharya, ed. with introduction . . . Central Jain Publishing House, Arraḥ, 1920. (The sa cred Books of the Jainas v. 2),
157

Page #171

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kailāścandra, ed. : Tautvārthasülra. Bhäratavarşiya Digambara Jaina Sangha, Mathura
1950. (B. D. J. S. 7)
Kanakura, Y., tr. : Tait vårthudhigam zsūtra of Umisväli (Teigi-shotoku kyo,) with
introduction ... together with "Study of the Jaina Theory of Knowledge -- on Matijñāna in the Sabhāşya Tattvärthadhigama sutra." In his Study of Indian Spiritual Civilization - Jainism (Indose ishin
bunka no kenkyū). Baifukan, Tokyo, 1944. Khūcandra, ed.: Sablāşv.1 tatsä-thithiganisūra of Unā spāti, with Hindi translation.
Manilal, Revashankar Jagajivan Jhaveri. Bombay, 1932. (Rayaca
ndra Jaina Šāstramālā) Lâdhā, Vötilā), el. : Tati vārtā lhig im Isūtrāli bhāsyisalitāni.Poona, 1927. (Arhata
mata Prabhākara no. 2) Mody, K, P., ed. : Tattvārthadhigama sūtram, with Pūäprakarana, Jambūdvipasamāsa
and Prasamaratiprakaruni. Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta 1903. Pūjyapāla : Survã thasiddhi of Pūiya på ta, ed. by K. B. Nitave. Jainendra Press,
Kolhapur, 1917. Pujyapāja : Sarvärthasiddhi of Pūivapāda the Commentary on Ācārya Grddhapiccha's
Tattvärthusūtra, ed. by Phūlcand:a. Bhäratiya Jõānapitha, Banaras,
1955. 2nd ed., 1971. (J. M. J. G. Sk. ser. 13) Sāgarananda: Śri tattvarthakarir-tan-muta-nirnaya yāne sri tatt vārtha-sūtrake karttā
Svetämbara hai yā digambara ? Rishabhadevji Kesbarimalji Shveta
mbar Sanstha, Ratlam, 1936. Śirma, Vidyābhūsan : Tultvārtha sūtrakā alocanätin ik-adhyayana. Vikrama Visvavi
dyalaya, Ujjain, 1973. Dissertation, Siddhasena : Tattvärthathiquin isūtriz (A Treatise on the Fundamental Principles of
Jainism) by His Holiness Sri Uinäsvari Vācaka, together with his Connective Verses Cominented upon by Sri Devaguptasūri and Sri Siddhusenagini, ed, with introduction ... by H. R. Kapadia. 2
vols. Jivanachand Sakerchand Javeri, Bombay, 1926 & 1930. Śrata jāgıra : Tattvārthavrtti of Śri Srutasāgarasūri, the Commentary on Tattvārtha.
Jūra of Sri Umā svāmi, with Hindi tr., ed with introduction ... by M. K. Jain. Bharatiya Jñanapitha, Banaras, 1949. (J. M. J. G.
Sk. no. 4) Sukhlal, S.: Pl. Sekhilji's Connentary on Taltvārthasūtra of Vacaka Umāsvāti, tr.
by K. K. Dixit. L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, 1974. (L. D. series 44) (Original in Gujarati; also in Hindi]
158

Page #172

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Vidyānandi : Tattvārthaslokavārtikam of Vidyānandi, ed. by Manoharalál, Ramacandra
Nātha Rangaji, Bombay, 1918. For "about T. S.”, see also entries with asterisk under Bibliography IV. Many articles on the T. S. are found in the Anekānta, varsas 3, 5, etc.
2. Bibliography for Chapter II, Section 11
Ācārängasūtra, with Niryukri by Bhadrabahy, and Voli by Silanka. Āgamodaya Samiti,
Mehesana, 1916 Ācāranga-cūrnih. Rishabhadevji Kesharimalji Shvetambar Sanstha, Ratlam, 1971, Anuyogadvärāņām cūrnih, with Vitti by Haribhadrasūri. Rishabhadevji Kisharimalji
Shvetambar Sanstha, Ratlam, 1928. Āvassaga-nijjutti-cuņni, 2vols. Rishabhadevji Kesharimalji Shvetamba: Sanstha, Ratlam,
1928-29. Āvas yakasūtram, with Niryukti by Bhadrabahu, ani Vilti by Haribhadrasūri. Āgamodaya
Samiti, Mehesana, 1916--17. Avašyakasūtra-niryukter-avacūrnih. 2 vols. Matichand Maganbhai Coksi Surat, 1965.
(D.L.J.P. 108) Brihat Kalpa Sūtra and Original Niryukti of Sthavir Arya Bhadrabahu Swami, and a
Bhashya by Shri Sanghadasa Gani Kshamashramana there on, with a Commentary Begun by Acharya Malayagiri and Completed by Acharya Shri Kshemakirti, ed. by Chaturvijaya and Punyavijaya, 6 vols. Ātmā.
nanda Jaina Sabhā, Bhavnagar, 1933-42. Catuhsaranadi-maranasamādhy-antam prakirnaka-daśakam. Agamodaya Samiti, Mehesana,
1927. (A. S. grantha 46) Siyambhavz's Daskali yasuttam, with Bhadrabāhu's Niryukti, and Agastyasinha's Curni,
ed. by Punyavijaya. Prakrit Text Society, Binaras. 1973. (P. T. S.
series 17) Dasavaikalika-cūrnih Rishabhadevji Kesharimalji Shvetambar Sanstba, Ratlam, 1933. Dasavaikālikun, with Nirvukii by Bhadrabāu, au: Vytli by Haribhadrasūri. (Devchand
Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar, Bombay, 1918) (D. L. J. P. 47) Duszśrutaskandha nūla-niryukti-cūnik, Bonhay, 1918. (Minivijayajigani granthamala
14) Jitakalpasūtr.im > Jinab drigir, with Svopnji brasya, ed. by Palayavijaya.
Babalchand Keshavlal Modi, Ahmedabat, 1937. Nandisitranwith Cūrni by Jina lāsagani, and Vyhli by Haribhadravūri. Rūpchand &
Navalmal, Indor, 1931.
159

Page #173

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Niśith isūrin wit. Bhāşya and Viseşicūrni, by Jinadasagani, ed. by Amaramuni and
Muni Kanhaiyalal. 4 vols. Sanmati Jnanpith, Lohamandir, Agra, 1957-60.
(Agama Sahitya Ratnamala 3-6) Ogh iniryuktiḥ, with Bhāṣyı by Pūrvācārya, and Vrtti by Dronācārya. Āgimodaya
Samiti, Mehesana, 1919. Pindaniryuktih, with Bhasya, an! Vrti by Miliyagiri. Devchind Lalbhai Jain
Pastakoddhar, Bombay, 1918. (D. L. J. P. 44) Sutrakrtāngım, with Niryukti by Bra trabāhu, Vrtti by Silānka, and Dipikā by
Vijayadevasūra. 2 vols. Sangha Pedhi, Bonubay, 1950-5j. (Gopi Pārsva
Jaina granthamālā 4 & 7) Sūtrakytäng 1-cūrnih. (Printed by M. M. Badami, Surat), 1941. Uttaradhyayanāni, with Niryukti by Bhadrabāhu, and Vrtti by Säntisūri 3 vols.
Devchand Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar, Bombay, '1916-17. Uttrrā lhyayan1-cūrni”. Rishabhadevji Kasharimalji Shvetambar Sanstha, Ratlam, 1933. Acārya Jinabhadra's Visesanas yakabrāşya with Auto-commentary, ed. by Dalsukh
Malvania. 3 vols. Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyamandir,
Ahmedabad, 1966-68. (L. D. series 10, 14, 21) Vytvahārasūtran with Nirvukii by Bhidra'in, Bhisya, and Vitti by Malayagiri. 12
vols. Jaina Shvetambara Sangha, Bhavnagar, 1926-[29]. 3. Bibliography -- General (In Sanskrit and Prakrit) Abhidhāna -rājendra, ed. by Vijayarājendrasūri. 7 vols. Samasta Jaina svetāmbara
Sangha, 1910-34. Bhagavatisūra (Vyzkıyaprujñ apti) with Connentary by Abhiyadeva. Jinagamprakashak
Sabha, Bombay (Publisher varies, v. 4 by Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad),
1917-33. Canli ijhya Citrofurtiva, edition critique, traduction, commentaire, by Collette
Caillat. Institute de Civilization Indienne, Paris, 1971. (Publications de
I. C. I. 8) Catalogue of M uscripts in Shri Hemic indrācharya Jain Jñanamandira, Patian, pt. 1
Paper Manuscripts, ed. by Punyavijaya. Hemacandrācārya Jaina Jñānamandira, Pattan, 1972.
Catalove of Sanskrit and Prakrit Minuscripts. Muniraja Sri Pun yavijayaji's Collection.
pt. 1, comp. by Punyavijaya. Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharatiya Sanskriti
160

Page #174

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Vidyamandira, Ahmedabad, 1963. (L. D. series 2)
Darsanavijay, ed.: Pattavali samuccaya, v, I. Mafatlal Manekchand, Viramgam 1933. Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Jain Bhandars at Pattan, compiled from the notes of the Late Mr. C. D. Dalal, with introduction, indices and appendices by L. B. Gandhi, v. 1-Palm-leaf MSS. Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1937. (Gaekwads Oriental Series 76)
Devasena Darsanasura, ed. by N. Premi. Jaina Grantha Ratnakara Karyalaya, Bombay, 1917.
Devendrasuri: Karmagrantha. 2 vols. Jaina Atmananda Sabha, Bhavnagar, 1938 &
:
1940.
Epigraphia Carnataka, v.2, rev. ed. by R. Narasimhachar. Mysore Government Central Press, Bangalore, 1923.
Epigraphia Indica, vols. 1-2, ed. by J. Burgess. The Superintendent of Government Printing of India, Calcutta, 1892 & 1894.
Gotra-pravara-nibandka-kadambam, ed. by Krsnadasa. Kalyana, Bombay, 1917. Gunadhara Kaşaya Pähuda Sutta by Guṇadhara with Churni Sutta of Yativṛsabhacharya tr. and ed. by H. L. Jain, v.1. Vira Sasana Sangha, Calcutta, 1955. (V. S. S. series)
Haribhadra Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya and Yogabindu. Jaina Grantha Prakasaka Sabha, Ahmedabad, 1940. (J. G. P. S. granthamāja 24-25)
Harisena: Brhatkathakoś 1, ed. by A. N. Upadhye. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1943. (Singhi Jain series 17)
Isibhäsiydim, A Jaina Text of Early Period, ed. by W. Schubring. L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, 1974. (L. D. series 45)
Jaina sila-lekha-sangraha. 5 vols. Majikchandra Digambara Jaina Granthamälä Samiti, Bombay, 1928-71. (M. D. J. G. 28, 45, 46, 48, 52)
Jainendra siddhanta kosa, ed. by Jinendra Varni. 4 vols. Bharatiy Janapitha, Delhi, 1970-73. (J. M. J. G. Sk. 38, 40, 42, 44)
Jinabhadra Visel anavari, with Svopajñatika. Rishabhadevji Kesharimalji Shvetambar
Sanstha, Ratlam, 1927.
161
Jinavijaya Kharataragaccha pattevali sangraha. Babu Puranacandra Näbar,
Calcutta, 1931.
Karmagrantha. 4 vols. (v. 4 ed. by Sukhlal) Atmanand Jain Pustak Praçarak Mandal,
Agra, 1918-22.
Dhyanasataka, with Haribhadra's Commentary. Jamnagar, 1939. (Vinaya Bhakti Sundara Carana granthamālā 3)

Page #175

Karmagrantha-karmaprakṛti-pañcasangraha. A. J. P. P. M.. Agra, 1924. Kirttik:ya (Swani Kumāra): Kärttikeyanupreksa, ed. by A. N. Upadhye. Rajacandra Asrama, Agas, 1960. (R. J. sastramālā)
BILIOGRAPHY
Kundakunda: Ni yamsara. Jain Granth Ratnakar Karyalay, Bombay, 1916. Pañcāstikāyasamayasara, ed. by A. Chakravarti The Central Jaina Publishing House. Arrah, 1920. (The Sacred Books of the Jainas 3).
Sri Kundakundacārya's Pravacanasara, A Pro-canonical Text of the Jainas, el. by A. N. Upadhye. Rajacandra Asrama, Agas, 1964.
The Pravacanasara of Kunda-kunda Acarya, together with the Commen tary, Tattva-dipika by Amytacandra Suri, tr. by B. Faddegon, and ed. with introduction by F. W. Thomas Cambridge University Press, London, 1935. (Jain Literature Society series 1)
Samayasara or the Nature of the Self. English introduction etc. by A. Chakravarti. Bharariya Jnanapith, Banaras, 1950. (J. M. J. G. English series 1 )
Sat prabhyadisangraha, ed. by Pannalal. Manikchand Jain Granthmala Samiti, Bombay, 1920. (M. D. J. G. 17) Limbadi Jaina Jana Bhandarani Hastalikhita Prationum Sucipatra, comp. by Caturvijaya. Saha Jivanacanda Sakarreanda Jhaveri, 1928, Bombay. (Agamodaya Samiti 58)
Madhava Sarvadarsanasangraha, ed. with an original commentary in Sanskrit by V. S. Abhyankar. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, 1924. (Govt. Oriental (Hindu) series 1)
Manatunga : Bhaktāmarastotra, with Guṇākurāsūri's Ţikā. Jinadattasūri Jñānabhaṇḍāra,
Surat, 1933.
Nagarjuna Madhyamakasastram of Nagarjuna (with the Commentary Prasannapada by Candrakirti), ed. by P. L. Vaidya. The Mithila Institute of Post-graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, Darbhanga, 1960. (Buddhist Sanskrit text 10)

Nandisutra, with Malayagiri's Tika Raya Dhanapati Simha Bahaduraka. (Agama
sangraha, v. 45)
Nandisutra curni, with Haribhadra's Vetti. Rishabhadevji Kesharimalji Shvetambar Sanstha, Ratlam, 1928.
Nemicandra Dravyasangraha, ed. by Mohanlal Saitri. Saral Jaina Grantha Bhandar,
Jabalpur, 1961.
Gommatasära :jivakända. The General Jaina Publishing House, Lucknow, 1927. (The Sacred Books of the Jainas 5)

162

Page #176

BIBLIOGRAPHY Nyäyadarsana of Sri Gotama Muni, ed. by G. Damodar. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series
Office, Banaras, 1929. Nyāyasūtram (Nyāyasūtra of Gautaina : A System of Indian Logic with Vätsyå yana's
Njāyabhāşya and Vācasparimisra's Nyāyasūcinibandha), ir. by G. Jhā.
Oriealal Book Agency, Poona, 1939. (Poona Oriental series 58) Puspadanta & Bbūtabali : Satkhandagama of Puşpadanta and Bhūtabali with the
Commentary Dhavalā of Virasena, ed. by H. L. Jain and A. N. Upadhye,
16 vols, Seib Laxmichandra Shitabrai, Amraoti, Vidisba, 1939-58. Ratnasimhasüri: Paramāņukh and trimsatikā-pudgalaşaţirimsikā-nigodașathimsikā. Ātma
nanda Sabha, Bhavnagar, 1912. sākatāyanı : Sa'atayına-vyākaranam (with the Sropajña Cominentary, Amoghavrtti),
ed. by Shambhunath Tripathi, with English introduction by R. Birwe. Appendix Il : Strimukti-keralibhukti-prakarana-yugmam. Bharatiya Jana
na pith, Delhi, 1971. (J. M. J. G Sk. series 39) Samantabhadra : Devāgama of Aptamināmsā, tr. by Jugalkishor Mukhtar. Viraseva
Mandir, Delhi, 1967.
Sanicira-dharinasastra or Ratnakaranda upāsakādhyayana, ed. by Jugalkishor Mukhtar. Viraseva Mandir, Delhi, 1955. (V. S. M. grantha
mala 13) Sankara : The Bramasūtra Sankara Bhasja with the Commentaries Bhāmati, Kalpataru
and Parimala...., ed. with notes etc. by M. Avantkarşņi sastri. 2od ed.
Pandurang Jawaji, Bombay, 1938. The Sankhyakārikā of Mahamuni Sri Isvarkrsna, with the Commentary Sarabodhimi
of Pandit Sivanārāyani Sāstri, with sankhya Tuttvakaum di of Vācaspatimisra.
Pāņd'ırang Jāwaji, Bombay, 1940. The Sankhyakärikā of Isvarakąsna, ed. by S. S. Suryanarayan Sastri. 2nd ed.
University of Madras, Madras, 1935. (Publications of the Department of
Indian Philosophy 3) Siddha sena Divākara : Saunztitarka, a critical introduction and an original commentary
by Sukhlal Sanghavi and Bichardas Dosbi. Jain Shwetambar Education
Board, Bombay, 1939. Simhasūri: Lokavibhāga, ed. by Bilchandra Shastri. Gulabchand Hirachand Doshi,
Sholapur, 1962. (Jivarāja Jaina granthomālā 13) sivakoti: Mülara:Ihana (or Bhagavati ārādhanī) of Sivakoti, with Vijayodayaţikā, by
Aparājita, Mülārādhanā darp ına by Āsādhara, and Bhāṣā by Amitagati. Dharmavira Rävaji Sakha:āma Dośi, Sholapur, 1935.
163

Page #177

BIBLIOGRAPHY
śubhacandra : Jñānårnava, tr. into Hindi by Pannadal Bakalival. Rājacapora Asrama
Prakāśana Samiti, Agas, 1961. (Rājacandra Jaina śāstramālā 4) Suttågame, ed. by Puppbabhikkhu. 2 vols. Sūrāgama Prakāśaka Samiti, Gurgaon,
1953-54 Tandulaveyalia, Ein Painrıyı des Jain 7-Siddharta, Textausgahe, Analyse und Erklärung,
by W. Schubring. Akademie der Wissenschaften under Literatur, Mainz, 1969. Umā;vāti : Praśamarati with Haribhadra's Țika, ed. by J. S. Jhaveri. Seth Devcband
Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar, Bombay, 1940. (D. L. J. P. 88) Prasamaratiprakarana with Haribhadra's Țikā, ed. by Rājakumāra. Parama Śruta Prabhāvaka Mandala, Bombay, 1950. Rayacandra Jainn sastramāla) Prasamaratiprakaraṇa. See Tattvārthādhigamasūtram, ed. by K.P. Mody, under Bibliography I. Jambūdvipasamāsa. See ibid. Pūjāprakarana See ibid Savayapannatti, ed. by V. K. Premchand. Nirnayasagara Press, Bombay,
1905. Vuises:kadarśanın (The Aphorisms of the Viiseșika Philosophy by Kanāda, with the
Conimentary of Prasastapāda and the Gloss of Udajanācharya), ed. by
V. P. Dvivedi, Vidya Vilas Press, Banaras, 1919. Vaiseşikasūtra of Kanāda, with the Commentary of Candrānanda, critically ed. by
Jambuvijaya. Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1961. (Gaekwad's Oriental
series 136) Varāhamihira : Brhatsamhitā, ed. by J. N. Vidyasagara. Saraswati Press, Calcutta, 1880. Vasubaadhu : Abhid rarmakośı of Vasubandhu, ed. by Rāhula Sankstyāya. Kasi
Vidyā pitha, Banaras, 1931.
Abhidharmakoś zbhāş yam of Vasubandhu, ed. by P. Pradhan. K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1967. (Tibetan Sanskrit Works
series 8) Vattakera : Mulācāra with Țikā by Vasunandi, ed. by Gajadharalal, 2 vols. Māņik
candra Digambara Jaina Gran hamālā Samiti, Bombay, 1920 & 1925.
(M. D. J. G. 18 & 23) Velankar, H. D.: Jinaratnakośa, v. 1. Bhandarkar Oriental Research lastitute, Poona,
1944. (Government Oriental series, C-4) Yativrsabha: Tiloyapannatti, ed. by A. N Upadhye and H. L. Jain. 2 vols. Jaina
Samskrti Samraksaka Sangha, Sholapur, 1951-56.
164

Page #178

The Yogastra of Patanjali, with the Scholium of Vyasa and the Commentary of Vacaspatimi śra, ed. by R. Bodas. 2nd ed. Government Central Press, Bombay, 1917. (Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit series 46) For the canonical commentaries, see also Bibliography II. For the Tattvärthasutra and its major commentaries, see Bibliography I.
Bibliography General (In the other languages)
Agrawala, R. C.: "Newly Discovered Sculptures from Vidisä", in Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, XVIII-3, 1969.
Aspects of Jaina Art and Architecture, ed. by U. P. Shab & M. A. Dhaky. Gujarat State Committee for the Celebration of 2500th Anniversary of Bhagavan Mahavira Nirvana, Ahmedabad, 1975.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beal, S. Buddhist Records of the Western World. Trübner & Company, London, [no date). (Trübner's Oriental series)
Bhandarkar, D. R.: "The Nagara Brahmanas and the Bengal Kayasthas", in Indian Antiquary, LXI, 1932.
Bhandarkar, R. G. The Early History of the Dekkan Down to Mahomedan Conquest, Bombay, 1895.
Bhargava, D.: Jaina Ethics. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1968.
Bhattacharya, H. S.: Reals in Jaina Metaphysics. Seth Santi Das Khetsy Charitable Trust, Bombay, 1966.
Buhler, J. G.: The Indian Sect of the Jainas, ed. and tr. by J. Burgess. Susil Gupta, Calcutta. 1963.
Caillat, Colette: Atonements in the Ancient Ritual of the Jaina Monks. L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, 1975. (L. D. series 49)
Chakravarti, A.: Jaina Literature in Tamil, with an introduction, footnctes, appendix and index by K. V. Ramesh. Bharatiya Jananapith Publication, Delhi, 1974. (J. M. J. G. English series 3)
Charpentier, J. ed.: The Uttaradhyayanasutra, Being the First Mülasutra of the Svetambara Jainas, ed. with an introduction, critical notes and commentary. J. A. Lundell, Uppsala, 1921-22, (Archives D'etudes Orientales 18: 1-2) Chaturvijaya & Punyavijaya Bhatkalpasūtra, v. 4, Introduction. Atmanand Jain
Sabha, Bhavnagar, 1942.
The Cultural Heritage of Ialia v. 2. Th: Rimakrishna Mission Institute of Culture,
Calcutta, 1962.
Cunningham, A. Archaeological Survey of India, Report, v.14. Indological Book House.
Banaras, 1970.
165

Page #179

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Darsvijaya: Svetanbara-digambara, pts.1-2. Maphatlal Manekcand, Ahmedabad, 1943 (Caritra-smäraka granthamala 30)
Ditta, B.: "The Jaina School of Mathematics", in Bulletin of the Calcutta Mathematical Society, Calcutta, XXI-2, 1929.
Dalu, Jorf: Vyapaanti (Brazaval), The Fifth Anga of the Jaina Canon, Intro duction, crytical analysis, commentary & indexes. De temple, Brugge 1970. D:0, S B. History of Jina Machian fron Inscriptions and Literature. Deccan College, Poons, 1956 (Deccan College Dissertation series 17)
Desai, P. B. Jaini m in South India and Som: Jain Epigraphs. Jins Samskrti Samrak aka Sangha. Sholapur, 1957. (Jivaraja Jaina granthamala 6 Dictionary of Buddhology (Bukkyögaku-jiten), ed. by Raishun Taya and others.
Kyoto, Hozokan, 1961.
Dixit, K K. Jaina Ontology, L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, 1971. (L. D.
series 31)
"The Problem of a Historical Evaluation of the Ancient Jaina Text", in Sambodhi, I-1, Apr. 1972.
"Evolution of the Jaina Treatment of Ethical Problems", in Sambodhi II-1, Apr. 1973.
The Problems of Ethics and Karma Doctrine as Treated in the Bhagavati Sutra", in Sambodhi, 11-3, Oct. 1974.
Frau wallner, E.: History of Indian Philosophy 2 vols. Motilal Banarsidas, Delhi, 1971, Gai, G. S. Three Inscriptions of Rämagupta", in Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, XVIII-3, 1669.
Ghosh, A., ed. Jaina Art and Architecture, v. 1 Bharatiya Jnanapith, Delhi, 1974. Glas napp, H. V. T: Detrine of Karman in Jain Philosophy. Bai Vjibai Jivanll Panalal Charity Fund, Bombay, 1942.
Guerinot, A. Repertoire D'E'pigraphie Jaina. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris, 1908. Indian Antiquary, vols.6-7. Bombay, 1877-78.
Jacobi, H., tr.: Jaina Sütras. 2.vols. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1964. (S B.E. 22 & 45) Studies in Jainism (Bring a Collection of Three Original Important ard Informative Articles on Jainism). J. S. S. P., Ahmedabad, 1916.

Jain, H. L. and Upadhye, A. N: Mahavira: His Times and His Philosophy of Life. Bharatiya Jnanapith Publication, Delhi, 1974. (J. M. J. G. English series 2) Jain, J. C. Life in Ancient India as Depicted in the Jaina Canons. New Book. Company Ltd., Bombay, 1947,
Jain J. P. The Jaina Sources of the History of Ancient India (10 B. C.-A. D. 9 0.) Munshi Ram Manohar Lal, Delhi, 1964.

166

Page #180

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jain, K C.: Jainism in Rajasthan J. S S. S., Sholapur, 1963. (1. J. G. 15) Jainagami nirdesikā, ed. by Kanhaiyālal Kamal. Agama Anuyoga Prakāšana, Delhi,
1966. Juzal kishor, Mukhtar : Jaina sähitya aur itinās par visad prakāśa v. 1, chs. 7-11, 17.
Vira Saana Soraha, Calcutta, 1956. Srāmi sam intabha Ira. Bud with Ratnakaranda-śrāvakācāra. Minikcandra D. Jaina
Granthamālā Samiti, 1925. (M. D. J. G. 24) Juin Journal, III-4, Mahävira Jyanti Special. Jain Bhawan, Calcutta, April 1969. Kalghatgi, T. S. : Some Problems in Ja ina Psychology. Karnatak University, Dharwar
1961. (Karnatak University Research series 2) Kanak ura, Y. : History of Indian Philosophy (Indo tetsugaku shi). Heirakuji Shoten
Kyoto, 1965.
Philosophy of Nature in India (Indo no shizen tetsugaku). Heirakuji
Shoten, Kyoto, 1971. Kine, P. V. : History of Dharmaśāstra, v. 5, p. 2. Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, Poona, 1962. Kipa dia, H. R.: A History of the Canonical Literature of the Jainas. Surat, 1941. Katre, S. M. Intro luction to Indian Textual Criticism. Deccan College Post-graduate
and Research Institute, Poona, 1954. Keith, A. B. : Indian Logic and Atomisia : An Exposition of the Nyāya and Vuiseșika
System. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1921. Law, B. C. : Some Jaina Canonical Sūtras. Bombay Branch Royal Asiatic Society,
Bombay, 1949. (B. B. R. A. S. monograph 2) Lüders. H. : A List of Brahmi Inscriptions from the Earliest Times to about A. D. 400
with the Exception of Those of Asoka. Indological Book House, Delhi, 1973. Maihurā Inscriptions, unpublished papers, ed. by Klaus L. Janet Hubert
& V Co., Gottingen, 1961. Maity, S. K. : Economic Life of Northern India in the Gupta Period (Cir. A. D. 300
550). The World Press Private Ltd., Calcutta, 1957. Majumdar, A. K. ed.: The History and Culture of the Indian People, v. 3, the classical
age. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1962. Majumdar, R. C : Corporate Life in Ancient India. Calcutta University, Calcutta, 1922. Malvania, D.D. : Jaina gunasthāna aur bodhicaryābhūni", in Sambodhi, I-2, July 1972.
Jaina sāhitja kā brhad itihāsa, ed. by D. D. Malvapia and M. L. Mebta, vols. 1- 1. Päiśvanātha Vidyāśrama Śdha Sansthāna, Banaras, 1966 68.
167

Page #181

Namdisuttam and Anuogaddäräim, ed. by Punyavijaya, Malvania and Bhojak, Introduction (by D. D. Malvania). Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, 1968. (Jaina Agama series) Nyāyāvatāravārtikavetti of Sri Santisuri, ed. by D. D. Malvania, Introduction. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1949. (Singhi Jain series 20). Pannavanasutim, ed. by Punyavijaya, Malvania and Bhojak, pt. 2, Introduction (by D. D. Malvania). Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, 1971. (Jaina Agama series)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mehta, M. L. Jaina Psychology. Sohanlal Jaindharma Pracharak Samiti, Amritsar, 1957. Prakrit Proper Names, ed. by M. L. Mehta and K. R. Chandra. 2 pts. L. D. Institute of Indology, Ahmedabad, 1970 & 1972. (L. D. series 28 & 37)
Mookerji, R. K.: Local Government in Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1958. Motichandra Sarthavaha. Bihar Rasthtrabhasha Parishad, Patna, 1953. Munshi, K. M.: "Ancient Gujaradeśa and its Literature", in All India Oriental Conference, 15th Session, Bombay, 1949. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1949.
Nakamura, H. History of Ancient India (Indo kodal shi), v. 2. Tokyo, shunjusha, 1966. Okuda, K. Eine Digambara-Dogmatik, Cas fifie Küapitel von Vaṭṭakeras Mūlācāra herausgegeben. Übersetzt und Kommentiert von. Kommission bei Frarz Steiner Verlag, Wiesbaden, 1975. (Ali-und Neu-Indische Studien 15).
The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary, ed. by T. W. Rhys Davids and W. Stede. Luzac & Company Ltd., London, 1959.
Patil, D. R.: The Antiquarian Remains in Bihar. Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1963. (Historical Research series 4)
Prakash, Buddha: "The Genesis of the Digambara-Svetambara Split", in The Teachings of Lord Mahavira. Bhagavan. Mahavira 2500th Nirvana Mahotsava Samiti, Bombay, 1976,
Premi, N. Jaina sahitya aur itihasa. Hindi Grantha Ratnakara Ltd., Bombay, 1956. Ramaswami Ayyangar. M. S. and Seshagiri Rao, B.: Studies in South Indian Jainism. Vizianagram Maharaja's College, Madras, 1922. (V. M. C. Publication 1) Saletore, R. N. Life in the Gupta Age. Popular Book Depot, Bombay, 1943. Sankalia, H. D. Studies in the Historical and Cultural Geography and Ethnography of Gujarat (Places and People in Inscriptions of Gujarat: 300 B C.-1300 A. D.). De.can College, Poona, 1949. (Deccan College monograph series 3) Sathianathaier, R.: A Political and Cultural History of India, v. 1. 3rd ed. S. Viswanathan, Madras, 1952.

168

Page #182

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Schubring, W.: The Doctrine of the Jainas. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 1962. Shah, C. J. : Jainism in North India (800 B. C.-A. D. 526). Longmans, Green and
Co., London, 1932. Shah, N. J. : Akalanka's Criticism of Dharmakirti's Philosophy: A Study. L. D Insti
tute of Indology, Abmedabad, 1967. (L. D. series 11)
"Some Reflections on the Problem of Jñana-Darsana", in Journal of
the Oriental Institute, Baroda, XXIV-1/2, Sept.-Dec. 1974. Shah, U. P. : "Age of Differentiation of Digambara and svetambara Images and the
Earliest known svetāmbara Bronzes", in Bulletin of the Prince of Wales Museum of Western India, no.1, Bombay, 1950-51.
"The Jaina Monk Kāla kācārya: A Historical Figure", in Adyar Library Bulletin, XXXVIII, 1974.
"An Old Jaina Image from Khed-brahmā (North Gujarat)", in Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, X-1, Sept. 1960.
Suvarnabhūmi mem Kalakācārya. Jain Sanskrit Sanshodhana Mandal, Banaras, 1956.
"A Unique Jaina Image of Jivantasvāmi" in Journal of the Oriental
Institute, Baroda, 1-1, 1951. Sharma, R. C.: "Mathurā sangrahāly ki kuşan-kālin jain mūctiyam", in Bhagavān
Mahavira Smrti Grantha, Mahāvir Nirvāṇa Samiti, Lacknow, 1975. Sharma, S. M.: Jainism and Karnataka Culture. Karnatak Historical Research Society.
Dharwar, 1940. Sen, B. C.: Sone Historical Aspects of the Inscription of Bengal. University of Cal
cutta, Calcutta, 1942. Sinha, B. P. : The Decline of the Kingdom of Magadha (Cir. 455-1000 A.D.). Motilal
Banarsidass, Patna, 1954. Smith, V. I.: The Oxford History of India 3rd ed. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1964. Sohoni. S. V. Kalidasa's Description of Ujjaini", in Journal of the Bihar Research
Society, LVI-1/4, Jan.-Dec. 1970. Srikantha śāstri, s. : Sources of Karnāțaka History, v. 1. University of Mysore,
Mysore, 1940. (Mysore University Historical series) Subramanian, T. N. : “Pallankūvil Jaina Copper-plate Grant of Early Pallava Period".
in Transactions of the Archaeological Society of South India, 1958-59. Takakusu, J.: "A Study of Puramārtha's Life and the Dite of Vasubandhu”, in
Journal of Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1905. Tatia, N.: Studies in Jaina Philosophy. Jaina Cultural Research Society, Banaras, 1951.
169

Page #183

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Thakur, U.: Studies in Jainisin and Buddhism in Mithila, Chowkbamba Sanskrit Series
Office, Banaras, 1964. (C. S. S. 18) Tripathi, C. : “The Bārasanuvekkha of Kundakunda", unpublished paper, Freie Uni
versitāt, Berlin, 1974. Ui, H.: History of Indian Philosophy (Indo tetsugaku shi) Iwadami Shoten, Tokyo, 1944. Upadhye, A. N. : "Krishna sheme in Jaina Literature", (unpublished ?) paper read
at Symposium on the Krishna Theme in Literature, Cultural Forum held by the Ministry of Education.
"Yapaniya Sangha - A Jain Sect", in Journal of the University of Bombay, 1-6, May 1933.
"More Light on the Yāpaniya Sangba : A Jain Sect", in the Annels of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, LV, Poona, 1974.
Nyāyāvatāra of Siddhasena Divākara, ed. by A. N. Upadhye with an introduction, bibliography, indices etc...... Introduction. Jaina Sabitya
Vikāsa Mandala, Bombay, 1971. Vaisbakhiya, M. K.: "Krşņa in the Jaina Canon”, in Bharatiya Vidya, Oct. 1946. Winternitz, M.: History of Indian Literature, vols.1-2. University of Calcutta, Cal
cutta, 1972. Woods, J. H.: The Yoga System of Patañiali. Harvard University Press, Massach
usetts, 1929: (Harvard Oriental series 17) Williams, R.: Jaina Yoga : A Survey of the Medieval Śravakacāras. Oxford Universit
Press, London, 1963. (London Oriental series 14) For the T. $. and its commentaries, see Bibliography I..
701

Page #184

GENERAL INDEX
abhedavāda 78-83 Abhidharmakosa 59-60, 65, 68, 102 Acārānga 63-66, 79, 91, 106-108 agama 130-131 ābāraka sarira 16-17 akaşāya 7 amanojña 7 anāhāra 16 anekāntavada 36 aņu 15, 61 apupreksā 65-66, 111 aņu-skandha 14-15, 18-21, 83-89 anuyogadvāra 58, 68 Anuyogadvāra 16, 57-59. 99, 102 apavartana 103 arpita-anarpita 34-37 ārya 100-102 āsrava 61-63 asravadvāra 62 Aşžādhyāyi 59 atomic combination see anu-skandha Aupapātika 65, 91-92 Avasyaka niryukti 16, 31, 78, 94,
109-112, 129 bādara pariņāma 87 bandha 62-63, 65 Bhadrabahu at Ujjain
(alias Bhadrabābu II) 125, 127, 129 Bhadrabāhusvami
(alias Bhadrababu I) 125, 127 Bhagavati 16, 60, 64-67, 78-81, 84-87,
91, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107-108
Bhäsya of 'T.S.) 4-5, 24-26, 39-42 Bhāşyānusāriņi 6, 17, 25-26, 36, 38-39 bhāva 58-59 bhāvanā 63-64 Botika (nihoava) 127 Bșhatkalpa 101, 108 Brhatkatbakosa 127 cākşuşa-acākşuşa 15, 83-89 Candragupta 127-128 canon 130-131 Canonical Council, 1st 131 Canonical Council. 2nd 125, 132, 136 Canonical Council, 3rd, 125, 126, 130
133, 136 căritra 104-112 Caritrapahuda 64, 108 dāna 63-64 darśana 111-112 darśanāvaraniya karma 80-82 Daśāśrutaskandha 39, 79-80 Daśavaikālika 106 Dasavaikālika niryukti 37, 109-110 Dasavaikälika cūrņi 94 Devagupta 25 dharma 65, 111 dharmāstikāya 13, 67 dhyāna 37-38, 89-98 Digambara see also Nirgrantha
127, 131, 133-134 dravya 14-15, 60-61 dravya-kļetra-kāla-bhava 34, 84-84 Dravyasangraha 41 Drsțivada 37, 131, 133
171

Page #185

ekarthikanuyoga 31 gati 6
Grddhapiccha 5, 1461
gupasthana 99-103 gupti 106-108, 111 iryapatha asrava 63 iryapathika bandha 63 Jainendravyakarana 41
Jambudvipaprajñapti 58 Jambudvipasamāsa 14, 139-140
Jhanajjhayana 94, 98,
Jiväjlvabhigama 16, 38-39, 58, 67-68
jivanmukti 11
jivasamāsa 98
jana 111-112
jäänävaraniya karma 80-82
käla 17, 30, 34, 41, 60-61 kalpa 17
Kalpasūtra 43, 50-52
karma 64, 80-82
Karmagrantha svoрajñațikā 80
kaṣāya 62, 80
Kaşayaprabhṛta 62, 80-81, 99, 103-104
karana 103
Kaubhisana (gotra) 43, 53
kevala jääna-darśana 67, 78-83
kramavada 78-83
kriya 62
kra 120-123
kṣayopasama 102
Kürcaka 117
Kusumapura 53
Laghvitika 38, 147 (Ch. I, n. 4) lesya (of devas) 17
mah vrata 65
mangalacarana (mangalaśloka) 2,4, 27, 30 märganästbāna 98-99

Mathura 44, 116, 119-121, 123-126
Mathura vacanā 125
mohaniya karma 21-22
mok 10-11, 67
mokṣamarga 55-56, 104-106, 109-112 Mrgesavarman 117, 127, 134
Mulacara 55, 104, 108, 110-111
GENERAL INDEX
Mülaradhana 111-112
Nagara gaccha 53
Nagara vācaka 51
Nagari sakha 50-53 Nandisutra 31, 43, 49-52 Nandisutra curni 50-51 Nandisutra vetti 46, 54
naya 16, 57, 68
nayavada 36, 40-41
niḥśalya 64
nirgrantha 67
Nirgrantha (later Digambara sect) 117
nirjara 104, 107, 109
nokasaya 7
Nyagrodhika 53
Nyayasutra 34-35, 57, 61
Pancastikaya 55
praramāņu see anu
paratva-aparatva 60
pariņama 12, 40
parioäma-nityată 35, 37 pāriņāmika bhāva 59
parisaha 21-23
parisahajaya 66, 111 pradeśa 85-88
Prajnapana 16-17, 39, 50, 60, 67, 78, 80, 84, 86-87, 92, 96, 100, 102-103, 107
pramana 57

172

Page #186

GENERAL INDEX
Prasamarati 16, 55, 59-60, 63, 66, 69, 77, 103, 109, 137-139
prasasti 4, 29, 42-53 Prasnavyakarna 63-64 Pravacanasara 81, 112 pudgala 61, 83-89 Pujaprakarana 140 Pujyapada 23, 41-42, 127, 148
punya karma 17
pu pika 4, 27-28
Rajavartika 5, 66, 97 rddhi 68 Rşibhäṣitam 55
Samavaya 39, 62, 65, 107 sambandhakärikā 4, 5, 25-30
samiti 106-108, 111 samparāyika asrava 7, 62 samvara 65, 104, 107-108 samvaradvaia 65, 108-109, 111 samyama 101-102, 105-111 Sankhyakarika 67-68
sankoca-vikoca 87-88
sankramana 99, 103 Sanmati 78
saptabhangi 36
Sarvarthasiddhi 4-5, 18-23, 31-33, 40-42,
127, 142
sat 14-15, 34-37
Satkhandagama 20-21, 57, 98, 103
sat-nityatva 15-16 sat-samanya 15
sayoga kevali 11 Savayapannatti 140 siddha 13, 67-68
Siddhasena Diväkara 16, 70, 81, 83 Siddhasenagani see Bhasyanusāriņt
ita-upa guna 86-87
śramanya phala 101 Śravanabelgola
(inscriptions at) 5, 125-126
śreņi 99, 102-103
Sthana 16-17, 34, 36-37, 39, 55, 58, 62
65, 106-108
173

sthavara 16 sukha 68
suksma pariņāma 87
Sutrakṛtänga 66 79-80, 102, 104, 106, 108
Sütrakṛtanga niryukti 16, 90
Sutrakṛtänga vṛtti 109 Śvetapata 117
syadvāda 36 Syāmācārya 49-50
tapas 67, 106-112 tattva 55-56, 104
Tattvärthadhigamasutra (T.S.) 24, 68-69
141-145
Tiloyapannatti 128
Uccairnagara vacaka 44
Uccairnagar fakha 43-45, 50, 52-53 Umāsväti 5, 28, 42-53, 68-69, 78, 136, 141-145, 149
upacara 21-22 Upāsakadasā 63 upasamhārakārikā 4-5
upayoga 62, 80-81, 83, 112 Uttaradhyayana 16--17, 55-57, 60-61, 64-67, 92-95, 103. 106-110 Uttaradhyayana niryukti 34 Vacaka 47-48, 78
Vai setikasutra (Text of Candrananda) 15, 35, 60-61, 89 Vaisnavas 121-123 Vasubandhu 137
vedaniya karma 21-22 vinaya 106, 110
virya 106, 110-111
Visesarsyakabhagya 78, 94, 109, 126 vrata 107-108, 110-111
vrati 64 Vyasa 137
Vyavaharasutra 101 Yapaniya 117, 131 yathakramam 13-14 yoga 62, 93, 103 Yogasutra 52, 63, 92 yugapadvada 78-83

Page #187

STRA INDEX
(In this index, discussions made on Chapter I are found in pp. 55-57, for instance; disscussions made on I.2(2) are found in pp. 55-56 and pp. 72-77, and those made on I. 2. Bh. are found in p. 73 and p. 75. The sūtras in Digambara tradition are in parentheses.)
Ch./Sūtra
Page
Ch./Sūtra
Page
73. 75
Chapter 1 1 (1) 2 (2)
55-57 55-56, 71-77 56-56, 72-77, 73 (2Bb.), 75 (2 Bb.) 55-56 55-56, 73-77
28 (27) 29 (28) 30 (29) 31 (30)
3
(3)
୫ ଓ
40
୮ ୭
32 (31) 33 (32) 34-35 (33) Chapter II 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3)
40, 58 (8Bb.), 99
74-75, 71-76 (31 Bb.), 78-83 (31Bb.) 73, 75 72-73, 75, 77 16, 57 (35Bb.) 58-59, 68 75-77 75-77 75-77 75-77 8, 75-77 75-77 8, 74-77
4
(4)
57 (12Bb.) 72, 75
13, 75
9 (9) 10 (10) 11 (11) 12 (12) 13 (13) 14 (14) 15 (15) 16 (16) 17 (17) 18 (18) 19 (19) 20 (20) 21-22 (21) 23 (22) 24 (23) 25 (24) 26 (25) 27 (26)
57
57
72, 75 6, 10, 34 (21Bb.) 9. 33-34
9 (9) 10 (10) 11 (11) 12 (12) 13 (13) 14 (14) 15 (15) 16 (16) 17 (17) 18 (18)
16
59 (15Bb.)
38 (17Bh.), 73, 75 73, 75
174

Page #188

SUTRA INDEX
12
9-10 38 (3Bh.) 75
8-9
19 20 (19) 21 (20) 22 (21) 23 (22) 24 (23) 25 (24) 26 (25) 27 (26)
38 (9Bh.)
73-75 (misprinted as 21** on p. 75)
8 (8) 9 (9) 10 (10) 11 (11)
(12)
13-14
13-14
16, 75 74-75
59 (34 Bb.)
39 (15Bh.)
28 (27) 29 (28) 30 (29) 31 (30) 32 (31) 33 (32) 34 (33) 35 (34) 36 (35) 37 (36) 38 (37) 39 (38) 40 (39) 41 (40) 42 (41) 43 (42)
(32) 12 (33) 13 (34) 14 (35) 15 (36) 16 (37) 17 (38) 18 (39) Chapter IV 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3)
59, 68
17, 74-75 17
4
(4)
44 (43)
8-9
12 16-17
45 (44) 46 (45) 47 (46) 48 (47)
(48) 49 (49) 50 (5) 51 (51)
(52) 52 (53) Chepter III 1 (1)
8-9
(9) 11 (10) 12 (11) 13 (12) 14 (13) 15 (14) 16 (15) 17 (16) 18 (17)
12 59 (52Bb.), 103 (52Bh.) 4, 59, 68 8-9
175

Page #189

SUTRA INDEX
10
12
19 (18) 20 (19) 21 (20) 22 (21) 23 (22) 24 (23) 25 (24) 26 (25) 27 (26) 28 (27) 29 (28)
39 (26 & 26Bh.)
60 60, 74-75
30
60
60
7, 41, 60, 74-77
34-35 (29) 36 (30) 37 (31) 38 (32) 39 (33) 40
6 (7) 7-8 (8) 9 (9) 10 (10) 11 (11) 12 (12) 13 (13) 14 (14) 15 (15) 16 (16) 17 (17) 18 (18) 19 (19) 20 (20) 21 (21) 22 (22) 23 (23) 24 (24) 25 (25) 26 (26) 27 (27) 28 (28)
(29) 29 (30) 30 (31) 31 (32) 32 (33) 33 (34) 34 (35) 35 (36) 36 (37) 37 (38) 38 (39) 39 (40) 40 (41) 41 (42)
42 (34) 43 (35) 44 (36) 45 (37) 46 (38) 47 (39) 48 (40)
61 (25Bh.) 73, 75-77, 83-89 83-89 83-89 13-15, 76 13-15, 34-37, 72-77 34-37, 73, 75-77 34-37, 72, 74-77
12
18-21
12 8-9
52 (41)
12
61, 73-77 17, 30
12 60-61
61, 74-77
(42) Chepter V 1 (1) 2 (2-3) 3 (4) 4 (5) 5 (6)
10
12, 74-77 (42 & 42Bb.) 12, 74-77 (43 & 43Bh.)
176

Page #190

SUTRA INDEX
12 61-63, 68 63, 73, 75 63 10-11, 63, 65, 74–76
63
1
41
74-75
8-9
44 Chepier VI 1 (1) 2 (2) 3-4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7) 9 (8) 10 (9) 11 (10) 12 (11) 13 (12) 14 (13) 15 (14) 16 (15) 17 (16) 18 (17-18) 19 (19) 20 (20)
(21) 21 (22) 22 (23) 23 (24) 24 (25) 25 (26) 26 (27) Chapter VII 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3)
(4)
7-8
10
6 (11) 9, 63. 75-77 7 (12) 8 (13) 9 (14) 10 (15) 11 (16) 12 (17) 73-75 13 (18) 14 (19) 15 (20) 16 (21) 17 (22) 18 (23) 73, 75 19 (24) 20 (25) 21 (26) 22 (27) 23 (28) 24 (29) 25 (30) 26 (31) 27 (32) 28 (33) 29 (34) 8-9 30 (35) 31 (36) 32 (37) 8-9 33 (38) 63, 74-77 34 (39) 64 Chapter VIII 64-65 1 (1) 62-63, 74-77 2-3 (2) 10, 63 4 (3)
73, 75 5 (4) 6 (5) 7 (6) 8 (7)
12
10
63-64
64 (3Bh.)
12
10
4 5
(9) (10)
-7-8, 72, 75 63, 72 (5 & 53h.), 75
9
8)
177

Page #191

SUTRA INDEX
7, 103 (10 Bh.)
39 (12Bh.)
21 (21) 22 (22) 23 (23) 24 (24) 25 (25) 26 (26) 27-28 (27)
10 (9) 11 (10) 12 (11) 13 (12) 14 (13) 15 (14) 16 (15) 17 (16) 18 (17) 19 (18) 20 (19) 21 (20) 22 (21) 23 (22) 24 (23) 25 (24) 26 (25)
73, 75 73, 75 73, 75 73, 75 73, 75 73, 75 73, 75 103 (22Bh.)
10-11, 37-38, 71-72,
74-76, 91-93 96 93
29 (28) 30 (29) 31 (30) 32 (32)
33 (31)
(Misprinted as 31 (32) on p. 7) 7 (Misprinted as 32 (31) on p. 7) 7
17, 63, 72 (26 & 26Bh.), 74-77 (26 & 26Bh.) 12 65-67
96 74-75, 96 96-97 12, 96 96-97 96
(26)
Chapter 1x 1 (1) 2 (2)
41
96
92-94
66, 72, 75
5
(5)
34 (33) 35 (34) 36 (35) 37 (36) 38 39 (37) 40 (38) 41 (39) 42 (40) 43 (41) 44 (42) 45 (43) 46 (44) 47 (45) 48 (46) 49 (47) Chapter X 1 (1) 2-3 (2) 4 (3-4) 5 (5) 6 (6)
39 (6Bh.) 65-66, 108 (7Bh.) 66, 74-77
4, 67-68
21-23
10-11, 63
7 (7) 8 (8)
(9) 10 (10) 11 (11) 12 (12) 13 (13) 14 (14) 15 (15) 16 (16) 17 (17) 18 (18) 19 (19) 20 (20)
8-9, 72 (6 & 6Bb.), 74-77 6 & 6Bb.)
(7)
12
74-77
(8)
7
(9)
178

Page #192

ERRATA
[Figures before the point refer to pages, and figures after the point refer to lines]
INCORRECT
CORRECT
1.30 7.20 7.21 7.22 9.6
text IX: 31 (32) 32 (31) IX : 31(32) The word par
9.25
»» , ca sattva-guna....
text of IX: 32 (32) 33 (31) IX : 32(32) The word pariņāma is used in the senses of kaşāya-parmaitri-pramoda-kārunyamadhyasthäni ca sattva-guna.... аге 36.69-70, etc. 174 - Tiloyapannatti 8.114 counts 52 kalpas. kriyate, niravašeşa-nirastaiñānātiśaye
11.28 16.27 16.31 After 17.15
is 36.60–73, etc. 147
21.31-32
24.22 28.38 33.18-19
kriyate, niravesesa-nirastajñānāvarane yugapatsakalapadārthavabhasikevalajñānātisaye praśasti be imitated samyag tat purvakat vāc căritrasya)- exposition of moksa and mārga- general purport of the sūtra (ataḥ samyag-darsanan) sākşan doubled for those in other bbūmis."
and prasasti be easily imitated samyag-darśanam
33.20 38.29
mokşan double the height of those in the preceding bhūmi in the other earths.” induced to be authentic. patřāvali, Author disau Syami
43.12 46,25 48.4 49.9
authentic. pattavali author disde Svāti
179

Page #193

ERRATA
conflict
are
50.20 56.5 57.27 59.9 60.13 63.33
conflict with is ajñana karma yoga than a VII : 33
68.19 68.20 71.14 72.13 72.16 75.25 75.28
jñāna karma, yoga han at VII : 33 is not traceable in the canon, which their without materials number when 366 ff. 235 21** 32-43
their materials without number. When 3669 ff. 2305 27** 42-43
76.6-28 Authors
Chapters Aphorisms
1 2 4 31Bb. 33
1-7
22 26 29 30 31
Prakirņakas Bhadrabābu
Sanghadāsa
Jinabhadra Agastyasimha Jinadāsa Haribhadra Kottācārya śīlānka

Page #194

ERRATA
VI 3-4
VII 6 33
VIII
1 26 & Bh.
IX 8 18 27
X.. 6 Bh..
37 40 42-43
& Bh.
Prakirņakas Bhadrababu Sangbadāsa Jinabhadra Agastyasimha Jinadāsa Haribhadra Kottācārya silanka
77.37 86.19 90.25 92.35 92.37 94.29 95.7 96.39 104.10 104.29 105.18 105.36 106.30 107.16 110.2 112.1 115.25 116.14 117.3 117.25 118.19 118.29 118.31
it quarts 3. 7 Sūtrakyta I. II. 26-28 'mapa-samābana' 29.28 have seems to here nanan ascetics, 13.414-15 vdoane Sutrkarta 1.8.486 6.55 to be siddhi-müdho band dedication to mercantile record is Mobādevi Orissa 36 Mathura
it is quite 3.27 Sūtrakrta I. 11. 26-28 mapa-samāhārana' 29.58 a have seems to be here is nānam agamitta ascetics 13.414-15 vodane Sūtrakyta 1.8.416 6.558 said to be siddhi-mülam mūdho head dedication of mercantile record his Mabādevi Orissa 53 Murunda
181

Page #195

ERRATA
118.38 121.3 122.1 123.15 126.29 127.11 127.11 135.10 135.13 135.14 137.6 140.8 153.13 150.35
up an functions Vahnidasa grew event Yāpaniyas, vindicates Vasubandhu, Vyasa (980/693 V. N.) which 283-360 A. D. hmiuggaham Sarvadarśanasamuccaya
up of an functioned Visnidasa but grew even 2) the Yāpapiyas, indicates Vasubandhu-Vyāsa (980/993 V. N.) which is 280-360 A. D. is h= miuggahanam Şaddarśana samuccaya
182

Page #196