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 TATTVARTHASUTRA WITH BHASYA 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 For Private & Personal use only

Page #2
A STUDY OF TATTVARTHASUTRA 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 ahamadAna dAbAda

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 Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya 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. Tattvarthadhigamasutra is accepted as an authoritative text in the Svetambara as well as Digambara tradition. And both the traditions agree that its autbor is Vacaka Umasvati(mi). But the Svetambaras maintain that he belonged to their tradition while the Digambaras maintain that he belonged to theirs. Again the Svetambaras contend that he himself is the author of the Bhasya while the Digambaras strongly uphold that the Bhasya is not his work. Moreover, Svetambara and Digambara scholars assign him to different periods of time. Hence the problem of the authorship and date of Tatt varthasutra with Bhasya 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 Svetambara canonical texts, Digambara texts, especially the Sarvarthasiddhi, and the works of modern scholars. She has traced the development of certain concepts in order to assign the Tattvarthasutra with Bhisya to a particular period of time. The historical evaluation of the Tattvarthasutra 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 Tattvarthadhigamisutra (abbreviated hereafter as T. S) of Umasvati 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 moksamarga as its guiding theme. This prakarana in some 350 sutras (the Svetambara Version counts 344 and the Digambara Version 357) along with its Bhasya was composed by Umasvati 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 svetambara 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 Svopajnabhasya was composed by Umasvati. This issue is somewhat odd in a way, because a mention that Umasvati or Umasvami is the author of the T. S. which is unanimously accepted by the two sects is found in the prasasti 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 Umasvami 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 Umasvati 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 Umasvati belonged to, i. e., the Agamic tradition which the Svetambaras uphold whole-heartedly, the Digambara tradition which came to compile its own pro-canonical texts, and the Yapaniya 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 Sabhasya 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 Sabhasya 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 Tattvarthasutra of Vacaka Umasvati 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 Sabhasya T. S involves three problems : (1) Which version of the text is the original ?, (2) Was the Bhasja composed by the aphorist himself ?, and (3) Was the Sabhasya T, S. composed by Umasvati? 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 prasisti to determine the authorship of the T. S. is approached by the metbod of a critical analysis of the existing pattavalis, and the testimony vouches for the fact that the Sabhasya T. S. is the original text composed by Umasvati. The second proposal to ascertain the date of the text (thereby the date of Umasvati 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 Mahavira's nirvana and the currently accepted date of Bhadrabahu 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) Umasvati's performance in composing the T.S., 2) Its capacity of influencing the post-Umasvati 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 Univati 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 Umasvati 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 Umasvati, how the concepts were handled by Uinasvati, and how they took the course of develop ment in the immediate post-Umasvati period in both traditions. In so doing, the obscure imports of ceriain aphorisms and their Bhas 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 Sarvarthasiddhi which is the oldest extant Digambara commentary

Page #9
[ viii) on the T. S. composed by Pujyapada are directly involved with the problemsn question, however the rest of numerous commentaries including the great commentaries such as Rajavartika and Slokavartika are excluded from the scope of major treatment. The Sabhasya T. S. is based on the Tattvarthadhigamasutram (Calcutta, 1903) ed. by K. P. Mody, the text of the Sarvarthasddhi 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 Bhasya and the text of Pujyapada by Svetambara 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 Bhaskaranandi'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 : Hemacindracarya Jnana 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 Parisahas IX:11 (11) 21-23 CHAPTER II IS THE BHASYA AN AUTOCOMMENTARY OR NOT? 24-53 Section IMSS evidences 24-26 II Sambandhakarika 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 Bhasya and the Sarvarthasiddhi 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 Agamic commentaries up to the 10th century A. D. 70-78 III Some problems in the T.S. 78-112 Part 1 Kevala jnana and darsana 78-83 2 Perceptibility of things 83-88 3 Treatment of dhyana 88-98 4 Jivasa masa, marganasthana and gunastbana 98-104 5 Treatment of caritra in moklamarga 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 Umasvati's date and works (1) His date (2) His works 3 Historical position of the T.S. APPENDIX I NOTES II BIBLIOGRAPAY I Tattvarthasutra - 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 TATTVARTHASUTRA 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 Bhasya are well preserved in the codices without damage, however curiously enough, the Svetambara copies unaccompanied by the Bhasya 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 Svetambara 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 Bhasya (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; Hemacandracarya Jhana Mandir (HJM), Pattan; San. ghavi Pada (SP), Pattan; Limbadi Jaina jnana 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 Svetambara 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 Sarvarthasiddhi) is reckoned, sometimes prasisti is enumerated in continuation of the upasamharakarika (up. karika), and so on. The following table may reflect a general feature of the MSS of the T.S. preserved in Sventambara 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. Karika Sloka 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. Karikas 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 karikas 1-31/1-32 (S.K.) (up k.) 1-9 s. karikas . 14 Numbered text with the Bhasya ... ... ... ... 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) sambandhakarika (s. karika) alone; (nos 2-3) text alone; (nos. 5-7) 1-9 s. karikas text; (nos. 8-9) 1-9 s. karikas + text up. katika + 4-6 prasasti verses; (nos. 10-11) mangalacarana + text; (no.12) mangalacarana + text + s. karika+up karika; (no. 13) mangalacarana text + 21 up. karikas 1-9 s. karikas (these 21 up. karikas 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 tattvarthadhigame' Jiva-nirupano nama pancamo'dhyayahiti tattvarthadhigame"srava-nirupano nama sasrho'dhyayah (no.15) tattvartha dhigame'rhad-vacana-sangrahe bhasyato dasamadhyayah samaptah (no 16) tattvartha dhigame jina-vacana-san grahe bhagyato dajamo 'dhyayah samaptah/ (no.17) tattvartha dhigame bhasyatah dvitiyo'dhyayah 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, 'moksamargasya netaram...... which belongs to the Sarvarthasiddhi. Nos. 12-13 push back the s. karika 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 Mahimaprabhasuri 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 Svetambara version or Digambara version. They tore up the Sabhsasya T.S. into pieces, mixed the svetambara 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-palyopamotkrsta-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 Ralavartika 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 Srutasagara of the 16th century. Virasena of the 9th century refers to the T.S. of Grddhapiccha, and the epigraphical evidence at sravapabelgola 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 Sabhasya 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 Umasvati. The convention of scribing the text portion alone was perhaps followed after the model of the Digambara version. Amrtacandra, although he is suspected to have resided in the West, might have very well quoted the up. karika 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 Svetambara 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 Sabhasya T.S. ought to be based on Siddhasena's 5

Page #19
Sec. 2. LINGUISTIC CHANGES Bhasyanusarini 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 aphorist 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 sutras 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 verambara 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: ... narake-devanam (21) ... deva-narakanam II:35 naraka-devanam.... (34) deva-narakanam. .. The Agamic 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 Sevetambara 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-kasayendriya-kriya ... . (5) indriya-kasayavrata-kriyah ... bhava viryadhikarana ... (6) ... bhavadhikarana-virya ... VIII:10 ... kasaya-nokasaya ... (9) ... akasaya-kasaya ... 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 samparayika asrava. In the canonical codes such as Sthana 5.2. 517 and Samavaya 16, asravadvara is mentioned as of five. i.e., mithyadrasina, avirati, pramada, kasaya and yoga, which are enunciated to be the causes of bandha in VIII:1. Pramada therein is generally included in the other items, i.e., avirati or kasaya, in the later works. The aphorist of VI:6 seems to bave thus followed the Agamic tradition. VI:7 expresses it rightly, firstly because bhava and virya constitute here a pair of psychical and physical factors of kriya and secondly because adhikarana meets its exposition in the immediately succeeding aphorism. The svetambara reading of VIII:10 exhibits grammatical accuracy. Nokasaya is a technical term used by the karma specialists, and akasaya in Sanskrit rendering may tend to mislead the meaning. 2, (0) [1] (3) IX:31(32) vedanayas.ca 32(31) viparitam manojnasya IX:31(32) pertains to amanojna, therefore the Southern version does not make sense. : 1, (), [0] 2 Compoundization V:22 vartana parinamah krija ... (22) vartana-parinama-kriyah ... VI:13 bhuta-vraty-anukampa danam saragasamyama ... (12) bhuta-vraty-anukampa-dana-saragasamyama ... 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-arambha-parigrahatvam ca narakasyayusah (15) narakasyayusah VII:4 ... ihamutra ca... .

Page #21
(9) ... ihamutra... ...svabhavau ca samvega VII:7 (12) va 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-paryayesu [V: 2Bh. uktam hi... dravyes v-asarva-paryayesu...] ...dravyesv-asarva-paryaye su ... danadi-labdhaya's ... .. labdhaya's ... jiva-bhavyabhavyatvadini ca ..jiva-bhavyabhavyatvani ca ... sabdas-tesam-arthah sabdas-tad-arthah ... 'dho'dhah 'dho'dhah prthutarah [Bh. ratnaprabha sapta adho'dhah] ... pravicarah dvayor-dvayoh .. pravicarah Sec. 2. LINGUISTIC CHANGES suryas-candramaso surya-candramasau... .. jaghanya tv-asta-bhagah ... tad-asta-bhago'para ..tivratma-parinamas... ...vra-parinamas ...sangha-sadhu-samadhir... ...sadhu-samadhir... ...adana-nik sepa... ...adana... ... nidana-karanani ... nidanani ... parinamac-ca tad-gatih ...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., kartrtva, bhoktrtva, 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, gunavattva, 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 svetambara 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 Svetambara reading The word parinama, lesya-parinama, yoga-parinama, etc. therefore atma-parinama in VI:15 expresses the purport more exactly. Sangha is an independent concept, which is required to be in the sutra VI:(24). Adana-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 nidana-karapani 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 ksayopasama-nimittah ity-arthah] (22) ksayopasama-nimittah... II:38 tesam paramparam suksmam (37) paramparam suksmam III:10 tatra bharata... (10) bharata... VI:22 viparitam subhasya (23) tad-viparitam subhasya VII:6 maitri-pramoda-karuny1--madhyasthani sattva-guna... (11) ca sattva-guna... VIII:7 maty-adinam (6) mati-srutavadhi-manahparyaya-kevalanam VIII:14 danadinam (Bh. antarayah pancavidhah / tad-yatha - danasyantarayah, labhasyantarayah...] (13) dana-Tabhu-bhogopabhoga-viryanam The Digambara sutras here convey the purport of the text more exactly either by adding the explanatory words used in the Bhasya, by dropping the unnecessary wording from or by supplying the minimum wording to the Svetambara 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 tasu narakah (Bh, ratnaprabhayam naraka-vasanam trimsac-chatasahasrani/ sesasu pancavimsatih ... narakasatasahasram-ity-a sasthyah] (2) tasu trimsat-pamcayimsati ...yarhakramam

Page #23
Sec. 2. LINGUISTIC CHANGES V:2 VII:27 ... opabhogadhikatvani (32) ... opabhoga-paribhoganarthakyani VIIT:8 ... Styanagrddha-vedaniyani ca (7) ... styanagrddhayas-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 satras expressed by a single sutra in either text. (1) Two Digambara sutras found in one in the svatambara recension dravyani jivas-ca (2-3) dravyani, jivas-ca VI:18 alparambha-parigrahatvan svabhava-mardavarjavam ca manusasya (17-18) alparambha-parigrahatvam manusasyal svabhava-mardavam ca The division of the sutra V:2 into (2) and (3) is justifiable in this context. VI:18 which adds arjava is all right as it is, for the difference of the two concepts, i. e., alparambha, etc., and svabhava-mardava, etc., is not so great. 0, (1), [11 (2) Two svetambara sutras found in one in the Digambara recension 1:21-22 dvi-vidho'vadhih / bhava-pratyayo naaka-devanam (21) bhava-pratyayo'vadhir-deva-narakanam V:7-8 asankhyeyah pradesa dharmadharmayoh / jivasya (8) asankhyeyah pradesa dharmadharmaika-jivanam VI:3-4 subhah punyasya / asubhah papasya (3) subhah punyasyasubhah papasya VITI:2-3 sakasayatvai-jivah... pudgalan-adatte / sa bandhah sakasayatvaj-jivah .. pudgalan-adatte sa bandhah IX:27-28 ... dhyanam / a muhuriat (27) ... dhyanam-antarmuhurtat X:2-3 bandha-hetv-abhava-nirjarabhyam, kytsna-karma ksayo moksah (2) bandha... nirjarabhyam krisna-karma-vipramokso moksah The Digambara sutras in this group exhibit an attempt to combine two aphorisms dealing with the same topic. I : 21-22 impart the meaning more lucidly. The Svetambara 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 dhyata, 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 sutra 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-abhavat as the cause of the rise of sayoga-kevalihood is thus not correct The Biafya on the sutra X:3 reads, "hetv abhavac-cottarasyapradurbhavah,' 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 sutra 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 Pujyapada 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 Svetambara 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 sparsadisu IV:49-51 grahanam-ekam naksatranam-ardham tarakanam caturbhagah IV:53 catur-bhagah sesanam V:42-44 anadir-adimans-cal rupisv-adiman yogopayogau jivesu IX:38 upasanta-ksinakasayayos-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 sutra 11:19 as a part of the Bhasya but Siddhasena treats it as a sutra. The Digambara version dropped it perhaps considering it to be a part of the Bhasya. IV:49-51 and 53 are of minor nature, the exclusion of which does not affect the context. The concept of parinama 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 Svetambara text is thus substantially well preserved in the Digambara version, however this does not testify that the Svetambara 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 Svetambara version (1) IV:(42) laukantikanam-astau sagaropamani sarvesam VI:(21) samyaktvam ca (2) II:(48) taijasam-api [49Bh. taijasam-api sariram labdhi-pratyayam bhavati] II:(52) sesas-tri-vedah [51 Bh. parisesyac-ca gamyante jarayy-anda-potajas-trividha bhavanti-- striyah pumamso napumsakaniti] VII : (4-8) [Bhavanas are explained in the Bhasya on sutra 3, although there is a slight disagreement between the two texts.] VIII : (26) ato'nyat-papam (26Bh. ato'nyat-papam] . X: (7) aviddha-kulala-cakravad-vyapagata-lepalabuvad eranda-bijavad-agni-sikhavac-ca (These are traceable in X:7 up. 12

Page #26
Sec. 2. OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS karikas 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) dharmastikayabhavat [6Bh. and up. karika 22 dharnastikayabhava] (3) III : (12-32) [Description of Jambudvipa. The Digambara sutra (24), 'Bharatah sad vimsati-panca-yojana-sata-vistarah sad-caikona vimsati-bhaga yojanasya', and (25), 'tad-dviguna-dviguna-vistara varsadhara-varsa videhantah', are found in UI:11 Bh., 'tatra panca yojana-satani sad vimsani sat-caikona-vimsati-bhaga bharata-viskambhah sa dvir-dvir-himayad-dhaimavatadinam a videhebhyah'. Sutra (27), 'bharatairavatayor vyddhi-hrasau sat-samayabhyam-utsarpiny-avasarpinibhyam', is located in IV:15Bh., 'ta anuloma--pratiloma avasarpiny-utsarpinyau bharatairavatesv-anady-anantam parivartante ho-ratravat'.] (4) V:(29) sad-dravya-laksanim 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 Bhas ya, some in exact agreement in wording. Prior to the exposition of bhavana, VII:3 (3) rends, 'tat stheir partham bhavanah panca panca.' The word yathakramam 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 bhavanas is not expected to be made. This attests that th: Dizinir sucra VII:() is not th: original, which is likewise with the case of the aforementioned sucra III:(2) that does not further expound narakas enumerated therein (see Sec. II, 3.4). As to the 3rd series, the Digambara sutras 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 Bhasya on VII:11 and IV:15, although their wording is not in exact agreement. The number of missing sutras 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 Jambudvipa 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 su: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 samasa, another prakarapa attributed to Umavati, 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 Jambudvipasamasa. III:(16) is also found in the 4th ahnika, vapi-kundahrata dasavagahah. Similarly, III:(26) and (32) can be traced in the same ahnika, meruttarasu viparyayal and rupadi dvigunarasiguno dvipavyaso navati sata-vibhakto bharatadisu 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 svata 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-laksanam' 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-parinama, 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/laksanatah. 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 Umasvati. The Vaisesika sutra text of Cindrananda, Chapter IV ahnika I reads, 'sad-akaranavat tan-aityam 1 tasya karyam lingam /2/ karanabhavad-dhi karyabhavah /3/ anityam-iti ca vises a-pratisedha-bhavah [4] mahaty-aneka-dravyavattvat-rupac-copalabdhih [6] adravyavativat piramaniv-an palabdhih/7/ sankhyah primanani prthaktvam samyoga-vibhagau paratvaparatve karma ca rupidravya samavayat caksusani /12/ arupisv-acak susatvat /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 rupi-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 caksusaacaksusa are herein posed, and it is exactly in this milieu of paramaou-mahat that our topic of satsamanya 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-laksanam' 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 bhavana items of VII:3Bh. to the sutra proper (group 2), and by supplementing sutras 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 Svetambara version was offered by the sutra 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, vyavahara, rjusutra and sabde. --The source supporting the view : Avas yakaniryukti 144 (33) They are of seven kinds, adding samabhirudha and evambhuta to the above five. - Anuyogadvara 953, Avas yakaniryukti 754 Six nayas are also upheld by Siddhasena Divakara, 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 sthavaras are of three kinds, i. e., prthivi, ap, and vanaspati. Tejas and vayu are the trasas. --- Sthana 3. 3. 215, Jivajivabhigama 1. 22, etc., Uttaradhyayana 36. 60-73, etc. (13) The sthavaras are of five kinds, i. e., prthivi through vanaspati. ---- sthana 5. 1. 488, Prasamarati 192 (3) II:31 The jiva's anabara in transit path is up to three instants. - Bhagavati 7. 1. 259, Sutrakrtaniryukti 147. (30) It is up to two instants. - Prajnapana 1175 a (Dixit : Jaina Ontology, p. 87) (4) 11:49 Aharaka sarira belongs to a caturdasa purvadhara. 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 Svetambaras 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 abaraka sariras. (5) IV:2 Jyotiskas are of tejo lesya, 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 acarya 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 astikayas 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 karikas 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-samye sadrsanam Ta theory of atomic combination is treated in V:32-36 (33-37) as follows: 32 (33) snigdha-ruksatvad-bandhah 33 (34) na jaghanya-gunanam 34 (35) guna-samye sadrsanam 35 (36) dvy-adhikadi-gunanam tu 36 bandhe samadhikau parinamikau (37) bandhe adhikau parinamikau 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 Tattvarthasutra, 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 suras 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 Svetambara tradition, but are in discordance with those in the Digambara tradition. The Bhasya to these sutras 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 sutras 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 sutras ? An investigation shall be made on this point below according to the exposition of the Sarvarthasiddhi, because the Raiavartika and Slokavartika do not say beyond what has been covered by Pujyapada. Pujyapada defines the word sadrsanam in V:(35) as tulya-jaliya, which shows no discrepancy with the Svetambara definition of this term. The purport of this sutra (35) which bans combination between the similer atoms with the same degrees is illustrated as follows (s - snigdha or smooth, r- ruksa 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 sutra statement. Therefore a question is raised, 'yady-evam sadrsa-grahanam kim-artham ?,' to which a reply is mida. 'gu 11 -vaisim ye sadrsanam-api bandha-prat ipatty- artham sadrsa-grahanam kriy.te'which is obviously drawn from the Bhasya on V:34. An inquiry into the obscure position of 'sadcsanam' is not further pursued in the Sarvarthasidhi. According to Pujyapaja, 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 sutra. As the commentator himself admits the word sadrsanam in the sutra 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 sutra (36) lays down a rule for permitting the combination between atoms with the difference of two degrees. The word dvy-adhikadi is said to mean here dvyadhikata. The purport of this sutra in permitting combination is illustrated by Pujya 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 sutra (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 sutra (36) invalidate the statement of the sutra (35) which is utterly insignificant and unwanted. Pujyapada quotes a verse from the Satkhandagama 5. 6. 36 in testifying the Digambara concept of the rules of atomic combination, 'niddhassa niddhena duradhiena lukkhassa lukkhena duradhiena / niddhassa lukkhena havadi bamdro jahannavajje visame same va'. 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 sutras (34) and (35), which indisputably proves that the sutra (35) is undesirable. Since 'gunasanye' 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 'sadrsana n' in V: (35) has no place in these rules, which clearly explains why the explanation of this word is so bewildering in the Sarvarthasiddhi. The defective nature of the sutra (35) which does not convey but upsets the Digambara theory of atomic combination demonstrates that these concerned aphorisms in the text of the Sarvarthasiddhi 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 Pujyapala's exposition elucidates it. The earliest source that tangibly exhibits its Digambara position is the Satkh.indaguma, fof which authority Pujyapada 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 Sarvarthasiddhi. This tends to suggest that the revisor of the text was Pujyapada 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 Pujyapada is here trying to establish this concept of the Satkhandagama as the Digambara position of the theory of atomic combination to strike a difference from their rivals' position. Part 3 Parisahas - IX: 11 (11) 'ekadasa jine - Sutra 18:11(11) reads, 'ekadasa jine' that to a jina occur eleven parisahas due to vedaniya karinas, i. e., ksut, pipasa, sita, usni, damsa-masaka, carya, sayya, 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 Bhasya and the Sarvarthasiddhi down to Srutasagara's vitti, are all silent about it. The Bhagavati 8. 8. 342 mentions that these eleven parisahas 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 parisahas 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 Sveta 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 aghatikas, therefore what is stated in the above aphorism is in perfect harmony with their concept. As for the Digambaras, the content of the same sutra is however not the same but reverse, or only acceptable with a proviso of 'upacara.' The Digambaras argue that parisahas such as hunger cannot arise to a jina because mohaniya karmas which are the concomitant causes (sahaya) for the rise of asala-vedara 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 bhava do not exist, thus no asata-vedana arises to him. The Sarvarthasiddhi proposes a limited clause of 'upacara' upon which it concedes to accept the logical ground of this aphorism, 'nanu ca mohani yodaya -sahayabhavat-ksud-adi vedanabhave parisahavyapadesa ni yuktah? sit yam-evam-etat-vedanabhave' pi dravyakurma-sad--bhavapek saya parisahopacarah kriyate, niravasesa-nirasta-jnanavarane yugapatsakalapadarthavabhasikevaljnanalisiye cinta-nirodhabhave pi tat-phala-karma-nirharana--phalapeksaya dhya. nopacaravat' The rest of the Digambar commentators follow and develop Pujyapada's explanation. This discordance of the view on the same sutra is needless to say generated by the dogmatic divergence between the two sects as to admitting or otherwise of a kevali's kavalahara. And according to the Digambaras, this sutra cannot be tolerated in the way as it stands. In fact the sutra should be better read with the word of negation as the Sarvarthasiddhi comments, 'athava-ekadasa jine "na santi" iti vakya-sesah kalpaniyah; sopaskaratvat-sutranam.' 21

Page #35
Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS Then bow the provis) of 'upicara' or a figurative view point should be understood in this context ? Pujyapa la proposes a thesis that parisahas are non-parisahas to a jina because the meaning of parisaha as hardship does not apply to him as there is no rise of bhara-velaniya-karmas (asata-vedana) in the absence of mohaniya karmas, but these are figuratively called parisahas because dravya-vedaniya-karmas are present in him: just so suksmakriya and samucchinnakriya are non-dhyanas because the definition of dhyana as cinta-nirodha does not apply to them, but these are figuratively called dhyanas because the effect of karma-nirharani is present. Suksmakriya and samucchionakriya are the last two divisions of sukla dhyana which are so acknowledged by the two traditions. Therefore if these are admitted to be a part of dhyana, one is compelled to accept, Pujyapada seems to urge, the Digambara position of parisahas upon the basis of the same logic. Now, it is quite doubtful that these two final divisions of sukla dhyana are called dhyanas on the ground that they yield karmic destruction, for the Jajna dhyana includes arta and raudra dhyanas which cause inauspicious karmic inflow. The middle term herein is thus vitiated, hence Pujyapada's thesis does not work. Suksmakriya and samucchinnakriya are loosely called dhyanas possibly in the conventional sense in relation to moksa, because in most religious schools liberation is believed to be achieved by means of dhyan or samalhi. In real sense, the definition of dhyana does not apply to a sayoga kevali who performs suksmakriya dhyana at his final stage with subtle kaya-yoga alone and to an ayoga kevali who is released from all the threefold activities. At any rate, since the basis of upacara is vitiated, the proposer's attempt of bringing in this dhyana 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 mohaniya 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 aghatikas, e. g., "Bhavagotru-kirnis do not arise to a jina, because the concurrent mohaniya karmas are already exhausted in him." Then Pujyapada insists that bhavavedaniya-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 bhava, 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-Sariranani-karma is present in a jina, but its bhava-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 bhava-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 sutra 11(11) without alteration, of which purport had to be however amended by the comwentary in accordance with their dogmatic belief. Pujyapada tried to amend it by employing the dialectics of upacara 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 Pujyapada 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 Svetambara 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 'yatbakramam' (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 Bhasya and the Jambudvipasamasa or vice versa (see Sec. III, 2.3)), is auromatically answered. 23

Page #37
CHAPTER II IS THE BHASYA AN AUTOCOMMENTARY OR NOT Sec. 1. MSS EVIDENCES The original text is accompanied by the Svopajnabhasya. The word Bhasya 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 Bhasya 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 Sabhasya 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 sutra designated in the title. For the Bhasya clearly mentions that the title of the text is Tattvarthadhigama-sastra (prasasti 5), which is sometimes called Tattvarthadhigami (prasisti 6) or Tattvartha-sangraha (puspika to Chs. 4-5). The textual commentary refers to the text as sastra (e. g., 1:1 Bh.) and sutra (e. g., 1:11Bh.) as well. Thus the term sutra likely became customary after the Sutra text of the Digamb:ras won its popularity in the South. The Bhas va consists of the sambandhakarika (s. karika), prasisti and textual commentary, which are annexed to the text at the beginning, end, and middle, respectively. S. karika or an introductory verse conveys what the text is and why it was written. Prasasti or a colophon informs us who the author is. Bhasya or a textual commentary is made for and arranged after each sutra, and each chapter is appended by a puspika indicating its end. The physical outlook of the work is thus well planned and even modern. The s. karika prasisti are composed in verse in arya metre, the text in sutra 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 prasisti 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 sabhasya T. S. was composed by Umasvati 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. karika 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 Blasyanusarini. It is unknown. why Devagupta commented on the s. karika alone, however his benediction evinces that his original intention was to compose 'tattvarthasya... ika, which was obviously not fulfilled for some reason or the other. The Bhasyanusarini 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 Bhasyanusarini. Hence the doubt raised regarding the Ms. no 1. has been removed. The palm leaf MSS (nos. 8-9) at Sanghavi Pada, 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 upasamhara karikas (up. karikas), 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. karikas alone at random and attach them to the text. And some others copy the text along with the mangalacarana which belongs to the Sarvarthasiddhi. 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 Bhas yanusarini, the oldest commentary on the Sabhasya T. S. Siddhasena never raised a doubt about the common authorship of the text and its Bhisy.1. Therefore the statement that Umasvati was believed to be the author of the Sabhasya T.S. is correct within the time-limit of the Bhasyanusarini, 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 Bhasya must be again made on the basis of the internal evidences alone, which shall be taken up in the following sections. Sec. 2. SAMBANDHAKARIKA Some scholars are of the view that the s.kacika, prasasti and puspika must have been composed by Unavati himself because these portions are left uncommented in the Sabhasya T. S. and because a puspika 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 Svopajnabhasya, i.e., B/A, and the Sarvarthasiddhi, 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 Bhasya 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 Umasvati or Umajvami 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.karika 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 prasasti. The puspika 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.karika exhibits within itself and in relation to the text, textual commentary and prasasti. - The s katika consists of two major portions, i.e., the former 2/3 relevant to the life of Lord Mahavira 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) Moksamarga as the theme of the work (31). Kariks 21-22 and 31 alone are herein essential, which satisfy the primary requirements for a mangalacarana 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 Mahavira to the kacia 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. SAMBANDHAKARIKA plots leading to the theme of Lord Mahavira, for whose biography's sake 1/3 of the total karikas is spared. The essential three karikas read, 'kriva tri-karana-suddham tasmai paramarsaye namaskarm/ pui yatamaya bhagavate yiraya vilinamohayal/21/1 fattvarthadhigamakhyam bahv-arthem sangraham laghu-grantham/vaks yami sisya-hitam-imamarhad-vacanaikadesa sya|/22// na rte ca moksamargad-dhitopadeso'sti jagati krtsne'smin/ tasmat-param-imam-eveti moksamargam pravaksyami //31//. The first karika 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-vacanaikadesa, which echoes in the puspika at the end of each chapter (excepting Ch. III), ' tattvarthadhigame'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 moksamarga is used as a guiding theme. Since the Bhasya portions are altogether dropped from the Digambara version, Pujya pada and the following commentators on the T. S. in the South, even though having duly emphasized the theme of moksamarga, 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. karika and puspika alone in the Sabhasya T. S. but in no other place. The author of the s. karika 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 karika expressing the author's private world is worthy, because this is an exceptional place in Sabhasya 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. Umasvati 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. karika 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 Samyagdarsana 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 moksi, 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 Mathura. The karikakara seems to be loudly appealing to the then Jaipa communities for the common objective of transmitting the tradition of Mabavira, the motivation of which is likewise reflected in the karika 28 and prasisti 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 Agamas. 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 Vaisnavism and saivism came into power in the florescence of the Hindu revival movement, which finally drove the Jainas away from Mathura. The first message is obviously announced to the then Jaina communities, a similar aspiration of which is sung in the s.karika 28, 'tasmat-tat-pramanyat samasato vyasatas-ca jina-vacaniml sreya iti nirvicaram grahyam dharyam ca vacyam 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.karika and prasisti a coherent spirit for the ultimate aim in composing the work. Thus all these karikas 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. Pujyapala dropped fron the Sarvarthasiddhi 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. karika 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.karika 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 sutra 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' 'ekacarya', '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-adhigamah Bh. tatra pramanam dvi-vidham... catur-vidham-ity-eke -Fourfold pramapas are enumerated in the Anvyogadvara 131, 'pamane cau-vvihe pannattel tam-jaha na na-ppamane thavana-ppamane 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 anumane o amme agame... which reflects an influence made by the Nyayasutra 1.1.3. 1:31 ekadini bhayal yugapad-ekasminna caturbhyah 30

Page #44
Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY Bh. atha kevalajnanasya purvair-matijnanadibhih kim saha-bhavo bhavati' nety ucyatel kecid-acarya vyacak sate nabhavah/ kim tu tad-abhibhutatvad-akt mcit-karani bhavantindriyavat.../ kecid-apy-ahuh/ apaya-'adravyataya matijfanam tat-purvakom srutajnanam-avadhijnana-manahparyayajnane ca rupi-dravya-visaye tasman-naitani kevalinah santiti II:43 sarvasya Bb. eke tv-acarya nayavadapek sam vyacaksatel karmanam evaikam-anadi sambandham/ tenaivaike na jivsyanadih sambandho bhayatiti/ taijasam tu labdhy-apeksam bhavati sa ea taijasa-labdhir-na sarvasya, kasya-cideva bhayati/ - The Bhagavatt 8.9.349-50 hold that both are anadibaddha.. A majority of these views quoted in the Bhasya 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 sangrahakara as so demonstrated in the sutra V:38, wherein he attempts to give a fair representation of the then available view3. The Sarvarthasiddhi ignors all these citations inade in the Bhasya. Pujyapada 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. Pujyapada 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 matijoana by way of its synonyms, 'matih smrtih sanna cinabhinibodha ity-anarthantaram', which is an Agomic method of exposition called ekarthika. buyoga.The same method of explaining words by way of their equivalents occurs consistently in the Bhasya, e.g, nisarga (1:3)., avagraba, iha, apaya and dbarana (1:15), naya (:35), vigraha (II:29), apara (IV:39), upagraha (V:17), hima (VII:8), krodha, mana, maya and lobha (VIII:10), ksama (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 Avas yaka niryukti 12. This is the major method of explaining words in the Bhasya which rarely adopts the nirukti method of derivation, and the case is reverse in the Sarvarthasiddhi 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 Agamic 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 Bhasya as so done in the sutra 1:13, whereas the Sarvarthasiddiri knows how to define a concept, and the key words among those listed above are all clearly explained by Pujyapada. The T. S. employs various anuyoga methods in approaching problems, for instance, five jnanas in the first chapter are merely distinguished or classified one after the other by way of anuyogadvaras such as karana, adhikarana, kala, svami, alpabahutva, ksetra, tathajnana-atathajnana, 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), asrava 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 bhasyakara in elucidating aphorisms. The explanation of technical terms in the Bhas 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 Sarvarthasiddhi. On the other hand, the Bhasya 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 Bhasya is as a whole unbalanced, which is duly improved in the Survarth. siddhi. These evidences well suggest the later position of the Sarvarthasiddhi. (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 sutra, 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 Bhasya and the Sarvarthasiddhi, of which illustration shall be given below: I:1 samyag-darsana-jnana-caritrani moksa-margah Bhasya: General import of the sutra (samyag-darsanam samyag-jnanam samyag-caritramityesa tri-vidho moksa-margah)-their definition and subdivisions are to be given later (tam purastal-laksinato vidra natas-c1 vistarenopadeks yamahl sastranupurvi-vinyasartham tu ldesa-matram-idam-ucyate) three pathways together constitute moksamarga (etani 32

Page #46
Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ca samastani mok$a-sadhanani / ekatarabhave'py - asadhananity - atas - trayanam grahanam) -- their order is made according to the causal sequence (esam ca purvalabhe bhajaniyam-uttaram / uttara labhe fu niyatah purva-labhah) - the modifier samyak is explained (tatra samyag iti prasamsartho nipatah, samancater-va bhavah) explanation of the words darsana and samyag-darsana (darsanam-itidiser - avyabricarini sarvendriyanindriyartha praptiretat samyag-darsanam/ prasastan darsa, nam samyag-darsanam sangatam va darsanam samyag-darsanam) - application should be likewise extended to the rest (evam jnana-caritrayor-api). Sarvarthasiddhi : Explanation of the word samyak (samyag-itis avyutpannah sabdo vyutpanno va/ ancateh kvau sainancatiti samyag-itis asyarthah prasamsa) - three pathways modified by the word samyak - their brief explanation, of which detailed definition and subdivisions are to be followed later (etesam sva-rupam laksanato vidhanatas-ca purastad-vistare?, nirdeksyamah/ uddesa-matram tv-idam-ucyate) - their etymological derivations - their arrangement made according to the causal seqnence (jnanasya samyag-vyapadesa - hetutvat/ caritrat purvam jnanam prayuktam, tat-purvakatvaccaritrasya) - exposition of moksa and marga - general purport of the sutra (atah samyag tat-purvakatvac-caritrasya) -- exposition of moksa and marga -- general purport of the surra (atah samyag-darsanam samyag-jnanam samyak-caritramity etat tritayam samuditam moksasya saksan-margo 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 Bhasya and the Sarvarthasiddhi throughout maintain each unique pattern of the mode of exposition as such. The bhasyakara'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 Pujyapada'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 Bhasya 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 sad-vikal pah sesanam' 1:(22) 'ksayopasama-nimittah sad-vikalpah sesanam' Aphorisms 1:21-23 discuss two types of avadbi jnana generated by two different causes, which read, 'dvi-vidho'vadhih/21// bhava-pratyayo naraka-devanam //2211 33

Page #47
Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY yathokta-nimittah sad-vik alpah sesanam!/23//'. 'yathokta-nimittah' mentioned in the sutra 23 is impossible to be understood from these aphorisms alone. The Bhasya on the aphorisms 21 cun pents, 'bhiva -pratyayah ksiyopisana-ninittas-ca', and the B'asya on the aphoris n 23 elucidits the poiat, 'ya!hokta-nimittah ksayopasama nimitta ity-arthah. The said phrase, 'yathokta-gimittah', in the sutra 23 indisputably refers to the Bhasya on the sutra 21, which proves that Umasvati was composing this text portion along with its commentary. This bears witness to th? fact that the concerned aphorisms and their Bhasya expositions were written by the same hand. The same sutra is read in the text of Pujyapada, 'ksayopasami-nimittah sadvikalpah sesanam (1: (22)), an improvement of which reading could not have been made without referring to the Bhasya on the sutras 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) Sarpitanarpita-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 Vaisesika. sutra 4.1. These sutras read, 'utpada-vyiya-dhrauvya-yuktam sat (29), 'tad-bhayayyayam nity.in (35),' and 'a-pita irpita-siddheh (31)'. The concept expresssed in the aphorism 29 does not yet occur in the extant canonical corpus. Sutra 30 is directly derived from the concept expressed in the sutra 29.4 V:31 offers the ground of reasoning for the sutras 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 dravyanuyogas 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-vavahara arappio ceval ikk-ikko puni ti-viho attari pare tad-ubhae ya' (three characteristics here denote ksayika, aupasmika and ksayopasmika). Umasvati posited the problem of sat-nityavta in the context of pudgala wherein the matter substance is discussed from the standpoint of bhava as to its nature (2324), dravya as to its components (25-27), koetra as to its perceptibility (28), and bhava 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-paryaya and parinama, as these can be treated from the standpoint of bhava (37,40-44). [The topic of kala expressed in the aphorisms 38-39 is absolutely misarranged in this context ] The Nyayasutra 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 Nyayasutra 4.1.25-40 then investigate various views on the nature of things, 'saryin-antiya'n-utpatti-vinasa-dharmakatvat (25)', 'sarvam nityam panca-bhutanityatvat (29)', 'sarvam prihag-bhava-laksana-prthaktvat (34)', and 'sarvam-abhavob havesy itaretarabhava-siddheh (37), which represent the positions of the Ksanikavada, Brahmnism, Sautrantika-Vaibbasika and sunyavada respectively. The first two schools herein assume the nature of things to be anitya or nitya on the basis of utpatti-vinasidharmakatva or panc-bhuta-nityatva. The Vai sesikasutra 1.2.18 (text of Candrananda) refers to the nature of sat that it has no specific mark of its own, 'sal-lingavisesadvisesa-lingabhavac-caiko bhayah iti'. The Agamic 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 bbava 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 bhava, 'paramanu-paggale nam bhamte: kim sasae asasae ? goyama: siya sasae siya asasae, se kena-ttheram bhamle: evam vuccai siya sasae siya asa sae ? goyama: davvatthayae sasae, vanna -pajjavenim java phasa-pajjivehim asasae, se tena-tthenam java siya sasae siyi asas.de. Neither the Ksan kuva la's view of sarve-anityatva nor Brahmavada's view of sarva-nityatva expressed in the Nyayasutra above are acceptable to the Jainas. Umasvati thus caught hold of the causes of anityatva upheld by the K$anika vada, i. e., utpatti-vinasa, and the Brahmavada's nilyatva which can be expressed in terms of dhrauvya and proposed the Jaina view of sat from the standpoint of dravya-cum-bhava 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 parinama-nityata is already implied in the Uttaradhyayana 28.6 wherein the definition of and the relation held among dravyaguni-paryaya are expressed, 'guraram-asao davvam, ega-darva-ssiya guna / lakkhanam pajjavanam tu, ubhao assiya bhave.' And in this very context of the Nyayasutra discussion of the nature of things, Umasvati proposed the Jaina view of nityatva to be paripama-nityata in the sutra 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 Umasvati 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 Bhasya 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 arpitavyavaharika and anarpitavyavaharika. 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) matska matska amatska is not (3) utpanna utpanna anutpanna is not (4) paryaya sad-bhava paryaya asad-bhava paryaya is not tad-ubhaya paryaya avaktavya What is expressed here is more obscure than cryptic. The Bhas 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 sutra 29 about which no exposition is made, instead the Bhsaya 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 Bhas ya is thus out of tune here in every respect. The Sarvarthasiddhi defines the terms arpita-anarpita, then briefly and clearly elucidates the purport of the sutra V: 31 (32) with an appropriate illustration. Modern scholars follow the Sarvarthasiddhi in explaining this su'ra, solely giving up the obscure exposition offered by the Bhasya. The later commentator like Siddhasenagani says that the bhasyakara is elucidating the aphorism by way of the nayavada consisting of dravyastika and paryayastika and by way of the syadvada. This is farfetching, because this sutra 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 nayavada and saptabhangi are not yet clearly grasped by the canonical authors nor by Umasvati, 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 aneka tavada could not have been developed. These sutras 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 Sthana 4.2.372 reads, 'cattari ekka pa. tam. davie-ekkae mau-ekkae pajjaeekkae samgaha-ekkae, cattari kai p. tam. daviya-kai mauya-kai pajjava-kai sam. 36

Page #50
Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY gaha-kai, cattari savva p. tam. nama sayvae thavana-savve aesa-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 Disavaikalika niryukti 8.7 reads, 'namam thavana davie maugapada samgahekkae ceva/ pajjava bhava ya taha satteta ekkaga bhaniya'. [Its curni explains matskapada by utpada, dhruva and vigama as the coo cept existed in the Dustivada, which is of course impossible ] Sangrahapada here is replaced by utpanna in the Bhas 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 Sthana above by making the said alteration as to sangrabapada. The canonical authors used to posit problems from various points of investigation such as dravya, ksetra, kala and bhava, and the canon exhibits the concept that guna is always found in dravya but paryaya is found in both. However, these four items in the Sthana, i.e., dravya, mairka, utpanna and paryaya, which are said in the Dasavaikalika niryukti to be the contents of sat, constitute the closest concept to threefold natures of sat formulated by Umasvati, j.e., utpada, vyaya ard dhrauvya. The commentator's performance as examined above is indeed a strange kind, bringing in the inferior Agamic 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 parinama-nityata 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 suira. 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) '... ekagra-cinta-nirodho dhyanani' IX : 27-28, futtama-samhananasyaikagra-cinta-nirodho dhyanam a muhurtat,' are made in one sutra in the text of Pujyapada, 'uttama-samhananasyaikagra-cintanirodho dhyanam a antarmuhutat (27).' Herein dhyana is defined as 'ekagra-cintanirodhah,' which is explained to denote two different contents in the Bhasya, 'ekagracinta-nirodhas-ca', but is commented to denote one content by all the other commentarial works on the T. S. in both traditions. Pujyapada explains it, 'nanarthavalambanena cinta parispandavati, tasya anyasesa-mukhyebhyo vyavartya ekasminn-agre niyama ekagra-cinta nirodha ity-ucyate.' As the examination of Umasvati'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, ekagra-cinta and (kaya-)yoga-nirodha, of which the former defines dhyana of those in chadmastha and the latter of kevalis. This is the concept of dhyala maintained in the Agamic tradition, of which position is also clearly reflected in the argument on this matter exhibited in the immediate post-Umasvati literature in the svetambara tradition. It is difficult to read the definition of dhyana as of two different contents from the sutra text proper, and the aphorist's commentary alone elucidates it as such, which corroborates the joint authorship of the sutra and its commentary. In fact, the aphorism should have been expressed in dual ending, 'ekagra-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 sutra 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 Sabrasya T.S. never suspected that it was composed by Umajvati. However Siddha sena raised bitter criticisms against the Bhasya in his Bhasyanusarini, most of which were likewise reproduced by Haribhadrasuri and his disciples in the Laghvitika. 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 Bhasya on the following aphorisms :8 1) 11:17Bh. The twofold divisions of upakaranendriya mentioned by Umasvati are not supported by the Agama. 2) III:3Bh. "The height of the bodies of nairayika in Ratnaprabha is seven dhanus, three hastas and six angulas, which is doubled for those in other bhumis." This statemeat finds no mention in the canon, - Jivaiivabhigama 3. 2. 86 endorses the description made in the Bhasya. 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 pradesas occurs even within the measure of one angula, therefore the statement of "pradesi paribani at every 1/11 unit" is out of sense. Also Umasvati does not mention its occurr. ence below and above these vanas.

Page #52
Soc. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY - Umasvati must have given here a mathematical formula of the pradesa parihani 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. Umasvati 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 Jivajivabhigama, etc. Siddhasena concedes a point that the source used by Umasvati might have been lost. - Prajnapana 2.105 also counts fifty-six antaradvipas. 5) IV:26, sutra & Bb. The divisions of Lokaotika which are told as of eight by Umasvati are counted as pine in the canon, - Sthana 8.790 enumerates eight, but its 9.894 lists nine. The nature of difference here is interpretational, whether to count the central Rstavimana or not. 6) VIII:12Bh. The name of the second samhanana is vajranaraca as so called in the Karmaprakrti, but not ardhavajrarsabhanaraca. - Sthana 6.572 calls it usabhanaraya, likewise Samavaya 242, Jivajivabhigama 1.38 and Prajapana 23.615. 7) [X:6Bh. Caturdasa and ekavimsati ratrikya pratimas of ascetics are called in the canon under the name of dvitiya sa piaratriki and tftiya saptaratriki. - Samavaya 42 and Dasasrutaskardha 7 use the terms padhama sattaraimdiya, docca sattaraimdiya and tacca sattarajmdisa. 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 Agama. 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. Pujyapada agrees with Umasvati as to 1, 2, and 5, but goes with the side of Siddhasena as to 6, while he describes 4 differently from the Bhasya 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 Bhasya. 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 Sarvarthasiddhi 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 Sarvarthasiddhi. 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 parinama 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 Satkhandagam, Pujyapada knew 14 gupasthanas, 14 marganasthanas and 14 jivasamasas which Umasvati was not fully acquainted with. Aphorirm I: (8) is systematically expounded from the technicality of these sthanas, Having come in the age of logic which was propelled by Siddnasena Divakara, 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 dravyarthike and paryayarthtka. Kala in V: (22) is elucidated from the mukhya-vyavaharika viewpoints. A dichotomous anuyoga couplet of dravyaa bbara, which is taken into account in the T.S. in explaining indriya (II :-17-18(17-18)), adhikaraga (VI:8 (7) ) and sanvara (IX: 1 (1) ), is furthered in the Sarvarthasiddhi wherein its application is extended to manas (II (11), lesya (II : (6); vac (V: (19), etc.. Later, work like the Dravyasangraha applies it to all the tativas.) . . On the other hand, Pujyapada 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 sutra 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 dhxaoa. He overlooked the unwanted nature of the sutra V :(35), thereby his exposition of the aphorisms V:(35-36) is ambiguous and confused. He likewise failed in clarifying the Digambara position of parisahas occurring to a jina in IX:(11), and his exposition of the sutras IX: (36-37) pertaining to dharma dhyatas and their gunasthanas is puzzling. IV: (19) which enumerates sixteen kalpas is in confict with IV: (3) which counts kalpopapannas as of twelve subdivisions. The Sarvarthasiddhi 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 Saryarthasiddhi 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. Umasvati refers to the nonJaina systems by way of the generic term tantrantariya, for instance, in I: 35 Bb (non-Jainas in general), III : 13h, (Buddhists), V :22Bh. (Buddhists), etc., against whom no critical attitude is held. Pujyapada challenges them by naming the opponents or otherwise, for instance, pertaining to moksamarga in utthanika, pertaining to pramana 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 sallekhana as non-suicide in VII: (22), etc. We have already pointed out a few instances which suggest or demonstrate that Pujyapada 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 Jainendravyakarana was composed prior to the Sarvarthasidd hi' again lend support to the above testimony that the revisor of the text was the grammarian Pujyapada himself.10 As the revisor of the text, Pujyapada rather tried to preserve the original text as much possible as It is. However he composed the Sarvarthasiddhi primarily from the Digambara point of view. His sectarian viewpoints are noted in the exposition of argabahya (1 : (20)), atomic combination (V :(34-36)), kevali kavalahara (VI : (13)), parisaha (IX :(11)), distinction of siddhas by linga (x: (9)), and so on. 41

Page #55
Soc. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI The prime contribution of the Sarvarthasiddhi 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 Bhasya. 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 Bhasya was the call of time along with a revision of the original text. Pujya pada performed this task commendably well. And since he wrote a new commentary on the T.S., the rest of the Bhasya portions, i. e., s.karika aad prasisti, disappeared also. The revised vers: ion of the T. S. came to be circulated popularly along with the Sarvarthasiddhi in the South, thereby the latter prepared the ground for the arrival of the Rajayartika and Slokavartika which would not have been derived immediately from the Bhasya. The contribution made by Pujyapada should be evaluated highly in this historical context. Pujyapada'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 Umasvati and Pujyapada. Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI -AUTHORSHIP OF THE T. S. The testification of the authorship of the Sabhasya 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.karika 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: Ghosanandiksamana (ekada sargavid) Grand-preceptor : Sivasri (vacakamukhya) Preceptor for education : Mula (vacakacarya) Grand-preceptor : Mundapadaksamana (mahavacaka) 2. Father : Svati of Kaubhisana gotra Mother: Vatsi (Siddhasena comments that bis mother's name was Uma ond her gotra Vatsa) place of birth: Nyagrodhika 3. Author: Umasvati Position: Uccairnagara Vacaka Title of the work: Tattvarthadhigamasastra 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 Kaubbisana which finds no mention in the Gotrapravaramanjari 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, Umasvati refers to or dist. inguishes the Jaina concepts from those of the non-Jainas expressed in the VaisesikaSutra, Nyayasutra, Sankhyakarika, Yogasutra and Abhidharmakosa. All the works up to the Yogasutra are known to have been composed before the date of Vasubandhu. Thus it is certain that Umasvati's date falls between Vasubandhu and Pujyapada, 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 Agamic tradition in the North. If therefore there are any early resources around this period onwards in the Svetambara tradition which refer to Umasvati and/or which bear witpess to any prasasti statement, e. g, the name of his teacher, parent, gotra, sakha, work, etc., they are extremely valuable for us to tackle our present problem. Fortunately we are in possession of such materials. The Kalpasutra theravali records Uccairoagara sakha which is according to the prasasti the legitimate sakha of our author, but it is silent about Uma vati as it lists the gurus' lineage up to Skandila, president of the Second Canonical Convention. The Nandisatra theravali speaks of Svati as a descendant of Harita gotra which is followed by many other pattavalis, however this gotra is denied by his autobiography. The biographical record claimed by himself and the one offered by the Nandisatra thus shows a conflict. This Nandi pattavali 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 Kalpasutra, for nearly 1/3 of the ganas, kulas and sakhas mentioned in the latter are identified by the former, by which some of the readings in the Kalpasutrz were improved and the actual relation of a partcular sakha to the particular kula and gana which is not coordinated in the Kalpa theravali became

Page #57
Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI patent.13 On behalf of this historical authenticty, we shall be allowed to use this Kalpasutra 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, Uccenagari, Ucenagari, Uccenakari, etc.), which is a sakha belonging to Brahmadasika kula of Kotika (Kottiya) gana as so endorsed by the Kalpasutra, 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 Buhler 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 sakha 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 sakha1 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 vacaka' 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 Kalpasutra are derived from the place names of Northern India ranging from Bengal through Rajasthan as follows: Antaranjika (Atranji-khera, on the Kalinadi), Bhadariyaka (Bhaddilapura, identified with Bhadia. Hazaribagh Dt.), Bhrahmadasika (Bambhalijja, Bambhadiva, island, unlocatable), Dasikhabatika (Bengal), Indrapuraka (Indore, Bulandashashar Dt.), Kakandika (Kakandi, Kakan, Monghyr Dt.), Kamiyaka (Kampillapura ? a city on the bank of the Ganges), Kausambika (Kosam, Allahabad), Kotivarsiya (Dinajpur, Bengal), Madhyamika (Nagari, Rajasthan), Masapurika (Masapuri, the capital of Purivatta, not identifiable), Pundravardhaniya (Mahasthana, Bogra Dt., Bengal), Sravastika (Sravasti, U. P.), Tamraliptika (Tamaluk, Midnapore Dt., Bengal), Vaniya' (Vaniyagama, a city near -Veil), Varanas (Varap, or Varuna, Bulandashahar, U. P.), Vatsaliya' (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, Uccairnagan sakha was founded by Arya Santisenika, a disciple of Arya Datta. Kolika gana to which Uccairnagari sakha belongs was instituted by Susthita and Supratibuddha. Umsvati is not referred to in the Kalpasutra theravall, a brief table of which pertaining to the later discussion is provided below (based on the Kulpasutru in the S.B.E., V.22) : ... 8. i Mahagiri 1. Uttara Founder of Uttarabalissaha gana from which Candanagari sakha derived. 2. Balissaha ] i Suhasti 5. Sugupta of Harita gotra Founder of Varana gana Ifrom which Vajranagai sakha derived. 7. Susthita 1 Founder of Kotika gana from which 8. Supratibuddha S Uccairnagani sikha derived. 10. Indradatta 11. Datta 12. Santisenika Founder of Uccairnagari sakha 25. Kalaka 33. Sanlilya ... 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 ... Mahagiri - Subatthi Bahulassa sarivvaya (Balissaba: Kosia) Sai (Hariya) Samajja (Hariya) Samdilla ... it. Nandisutra carni (Nandisutra curni with Haribhadra's retti, pub. by Sabhadevaji Kesarimalagi Svetambara Sanstha, pp. 6-7 ... Mahagiri - Suhatthi Suglhita-Suppadibadha 45

Page #59
Sec. 4. verificatiON OF PRASASTI Mabagiri Balissaba (Kasava) Sai (Hariya) Samajja (Hariya) Samailla (Kosita) ... ui. Haribhadra's vytti on Nandisutra (ibid. pp. 14-15) ... Mahagiri Balissaha (Kausika) Svati (Harita) Syamacarya (Harita) sandilya (Kausika)... iv. Malayagiri's tika on Nandisutra (Raya Dhanapati Simha Bahaduraka: Agama sangraha, v. 45) ... Mahagiri Balissaha (Kausika) Svati (Harita) Syamacarya (Harita) sanailya (Kausika) ... 1. 2. Dharmasagaragani : Tapagaccha pattavali. 1646 V.S. (1589 A. D.) p. 46 ... Mahagiri (his disciple) Balissaha (his disciple) Svati, author of the texts such as Tattvartha (his disciple) syamacarya, author of Prajna pana (d. 376 V. N.) (his disciple) sanoilya ... 3. Sriguru patravali author and date unknowo. p. 165 ... Mahagiri - Suhasti Susthita - Supratibuddha of Kotika gaccha (etad-varake) Pal'ssaha

Page #60
Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI (his disciple) Svati Vacaka of Tattvarthasangraha (his disciple) Kalakacarya of Prajitapana (d, 376 V. N.) Indradiona ... II, 4. Dharmaghosasuri : Duhsamakala sramana sangha staya. c. 1300 V. S. p, 23 Prathamodaya yugapradhapas ... Mabagiri Suhasti Ghanasundara syamacarya Skandila Revatimitra ... p. 24 Dvitiyodaya yugapradhanas ... Revatimitra Simhasuri Halila Jinabhadra Umasvati Puspamitra ... P. 24 also offers the account of Umasvati's life: grhavasa 20 years, vrataparyaya 15 years, yugapradhana 75 years, total age 110 years, 2 months and 2 days. Avacuri p. 17 ... Revatimitra Arya mungu Svami (Svati) Harina Syamarya sandilya ... p. 18

Page #61
Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI * Harila 54 (yugapradhana) (Here a verse is inserted, pamasde parasie vikkamakala udaljhanti atthamio' haribhaddasuri suro, bhavianam disae kallanam') Jinabhadra 60 Umasvati 75 Pusyatisya 60 ... II. 5. Vinayavijivagani : Srirugipradhana. 1651 A. D. p. 140 Lokaprahusa sarga 34. These repeat the accounts of prathamodaya and dviliyodaya yugapra dhanas as above. III. 6. Ravivardhanagani : Patralisirouldhira. 1682 A. D. p. 152 ... Yakinisunu Haribhadrasiri Viraprabhastri Umasvati (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 vacaka Umasvati vacaka, author of Prusimaruli Devinda vacaka Jinabhadragani ksamasramana (980 V. N. or 453 A. D) ... p. 26 Govinda Sambhutidinna Lauhityamuni Pausva mukhya Umasvati vacaka (bhayadyesu vidhayakani munivara! Janabhadrastri...

Page #62
Sce. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI The geneological tables of these patlavalis pertaining to Umasvati 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 pattavalis in the Group I unanimously place Svati before Syamacarya, those in the Group II after Jinabhadra, and those in the Group III before Jinabhadra. Svati is thus spoken in close connection with syamacarya and Jinabhadra. Group II offers the genealogies of prathamodaya and dvitiyodaya yougapradhanas. Herein the lineage of prathamudaya yugapradhanas follows the table of the Group I, which refers to Syamacarya but drops a mention of Svati (Syati is mentioned in its avacuri p. 17), and the lineage of dvitiyodaya yugaoradhanas places Umasvati after Jinabhadra. Group II is evidently attempting to shift Unasvati's chronological position to the later period. In IIT. 6, Umasvati comes much later than Haribhadrasuri 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, avacuri 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 pattavalis in the first group consists of (1) Nandi pattavali 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. Svati who has no place in the Kalpasutra finds a seat in the Nandisutra onwards bearing Harita 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 theravali. (1) Gotra The Nandisutra and its commentaries ascribe Harita gotra to Svati as well as to syamacarya, while the other two pattavalis do not refer to it. Umasvati speaks of his gotra as Kaubhisana. Syamacarya, if he is identified with Kalakacarya, is said in the Kalpasutra as of Gotama gotra. The Kalpa theravali assigns Harita gotra to Srigupta alone, who is the founder of the Varana gana (said to be Carana in the Kalpasutra, which has been corrected into Varana by Buhler on the inscriptional evidences.) (2) Relative position (a) Predecessors (1) Mabagiri -- Balissaha --- [Svati] all except I. 3 Suhasti Mahagiri -- Balissaha -- (Svati) I. 3 (Sriguru pattavali) [etad varake] Suhasti ---- Susthita--Supratibuddha 49

Page #63
Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTF Svati 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 Nandisatra is doubtlessly responsible for formulating the lineage of [Svati]--Syama--Sandilya, to which the rest of the texts take recourse. The tradition ascribes Mabagiri and Suhasti to be the contemporaries of Samprati, which may be an open question. Even then, Svati's position assigned herein as his grand-disciple is an improbable fact. Also his position as the predecessor of syama, author of the Prajna pana, is incredible, for the content of the T. S. cannot be succeeded by that of the Prajnapana. Sandilya whom Jacobi identifies with Skandila can neither be acceptable as the grand-disciple of Vacaka, for the content of the T. S. stands later than the period of th: Canonical Convention at Mathura. 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 Harita gotra comes into conflict the prasasti record. So we shall go back to the Kalpasutra and review how the acaryas involved in this scene are informed of themselves : (1) Balissaba (his gotra not mentioned)--the founder of Uttarabalissaha gana, from which Candanagari sakba derived. (2) Susthita and Supratibuddha (of Vyaghrapatya gotra-the founder of kotika gana, from which Uccairpagari sakha derived. (3) Srigupta of Harita gotra--the founder of Varana gana, from which Vajra nagari sakha derived. It strikes us to find that the acaryas coming in this scene are all related in one way or the other to the sakha salled Nagari, i. e., Candanagari, Vajranagari and Uccairnagari, to the last of which our author claims to belong. It appears that his entry in the Nandisutra, after which the rest of the texts followed, was made in some connection with these three Nagari sakhas which are the only sakbas bearing the name Nagari in the Kalpasutra. 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 curni and the other commentaries do not raise any doubt as to why the Nandisutra assigned Harita gotra to Svati. We shall propose a probable archival 50

Page #64
Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI error occurred in the Nandisatra in the following way. Uccairnagara is, as already mentioned, known also as Varana, 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 Varana as the place of sakha where Svati belonged, Svati was thet assigned to belong to Varana gana which was founded by Srigupta of Harita gotra. Thus by the second confusion of the place name and gana, Vacaka's gotra came to be fatally recorded as Harita, which was likewise extended to Syamacarya. The confusion seems to have thus happered accidentally. (2) Relation to Balissaha The Nandi verses 25-26 read, 'elavaccasa-gottam vam tami mahagirim suhatthim cal tatto kosia-gottam bahulassa sariv-vayam vamde/ hariya-guttam saim ca vamdimo hariyam ca samajjam/ vande kosiya-gottam sam lillam ajja-iiyadharam// (Bahula's twin brother is Balissaha) It is patent from the Kalpa theravali that Balissaha is the direct disciple of Mahagiri, 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 curni, And in tbis Nandi curni, Svati is plainly stated as the pupil of Balissaha, 'balissahassa amtevasi sati hariyassagutte.' The curni author least bothers about our problem, why Svati's seat was all of a sudden allotted under Balissaba. But why did the Nandisutra reckoo Svati after Balissaba ? In the previous genealogical table of the Kalpasutra it is noted that all the three Nagari sakhas are derived from the ganas established by the disciples of Mahagiri and Subasti alone. Also it has just been suggested that Umasvati's identity to be an Uccairna gara was likely muddled with a Vajranagara (whose sakha branched off from varana gana) in connection with the assignment of his foreign gotra. This tends to support a surmise that he was popularly identified with the Vacaka of Nagari sakha who might have been known to people as Nagara Vacaka.20 If his specific Nagari sakha were already confused with the other or forgotten, but if he were popularly identified with Nagara Vacaka, it is most desirable for him to be placed in the spot wherein some way all these three Nagari sakhas are conveniently found together in the established patriarchal Jineage. And sure enough, such a spot is ready in the Kalpa theravali in the circle of Mahagiri-Subasti whose disciples are responsible for branching off of all these Nagari sakhas. Then this is the exact place where Nagara Vacaka ought to be assigned - under one of the organizers of the three ganas who are each responsible for the origination of their own Nagari sakha. It appears that this is the picture bow Svati came to be allotted under one of the disciples of Mahagiri-Subasti. It is dud. $1

Page #65
Sec. 4, VERIFICATION OF PRAGASTI not known why the Nandi author proposed Balissaba as the predecessor of Svati instead of Srigupta or Susthita-Supratibuddha. It may be that the Nagari sakba 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 pattavali epters Balissaha and Sustbita-Supratibuddha as the rivals (varaka: hostile, opposiog). The addition of this abrupt information seems to have an intriguing attempt to assert that Svati does not belong to Susthita-Supratibuddha line, namely, Uccairnagari sakba, for this party is said to have stood hostile against Balissaha party of which Svati is placed as a member. It may allude to a fact that there were some prestige struggles for the prerogative over our eminent Vacaka among the Nagari sakhas. This pattavali is undated, but from the manner of its description it may stand close to the period of the Tapagaccha pattavali of Dharmasagaragani, 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 curni which comments upon the Nandisutra. Then the implication made in the Sriguru pattavali should not be counted seriously for the consideration of our problem. It is sufficiently convincing that the Nandi author created a seat for Svati in the genealogy of the Kalpasutra wherein all the Nagasi sakbas branched off from the disciples of Mahagiri-Subasti. Arya Santisenika, the founder of Uccairnagari sakha, was totally forgotten in the context because he stood outside this Mahagiri-Suhasti circle. A doubt may arise as to how his gotra Harita 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 yanusarini. 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 Svati referred to in the Nandisutra is identical with Umasvati who belonged to one of the three Nagari sakhas recorded in the Kalpasutra, 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 Svati after Balissaha by way of bringing in the line of Syama-sandilya who belonged to much earlier date than Umasvati, 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 pattavalis in the Groups II and III faced difficulty in accepting Umasvati'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 Umasvati. 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 sakha ? Mathura inscriptions list all the three Nagari sakhas recorded in the Kulpasutra. The seat of Uccairnagari saka is Bulandashahar, U. P. Vajranagari (Pk. Vajjanagari) should be, according to Buhler's proposal, corrected into Vrijinagari which is derived from Viji country of Bihar.21 The location of Candanagasi saka is not traceable. It is likely that a Nagari sakha means the sakha derived from a place name bearing the word 'nagara 22 inasmuch as the later Nagara gaccha was derived from Vadanagara. The relation between the Nagara caste of Brahmanical system and the Jaina Nagara sect is denied by the scholars.23 His gotra 'Kaubhisana' is not listed in the Gotrapravaramaniari. 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, Vacaka Svati 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-Svati certainly sounds peculiar,and he seems to have been called Svati after his father in the olden days as the earlier pattavalis 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 Pataliputra, the ancient capital of the Nandas through the Guptas, where the First Jaina Canonical Conference was held. Umasvati 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 Arya 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 Umasvati in the light of the Nandisutra pattavali with the help of the Kalpa theravali. This clears up the pending problem of the authorship of the s.karika. We have thus duly demonstrated that the Sabhasya T. S. was composed by Umasvati 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-Umasvati 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.karika 22 has been already endorsed by Atmarama in his Tattvarthasutra jainagamasamanvaya, wherein he traced the Digambara recension of the T. S. sutra 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 Satras I : 1-4 The beginning four aphorisms lay down the basic plan of the T. S, which read, 'sanyag-d.irs.ana-jnana-caritrani moksa-margahl tattvartha-sraddhanam samyag-darsanam/ tan-nisargad-adhigamad val jiva'ivasrava-bandha-samvara-nirjara-moksas-tattvam.' That moksamarga consists of threefold pathways is propounded in the Uttaradhyayana 23.33 wherein Gautama replies to Kesi, 'aha bhaye painna u, mokkh-sabbhuya-sahana/ nanam ci damsinam ceva, cartitam ceva nicchae.' Likewise the Rsibhasitam, which is enumerated as one of the angabahya texts in the T.S. I:20Bh., refers to the same concept in its Ch. 24, 'tamha'dhuvam asasatam-inam samsare savva-jivanam sam sati-karanam iti nacca nara-damsana-carittani sevissami, nana-damsana-caritrani sevitta anadiyam jara kantaram vitivatitra sivam acala java thanam abbhuvagate citthissami.' That having faith in nine tattvas constitute the content of samyaktva is again known to the Uttaradhyayana 28. 15. The Sthani 2.1.102 lists samyagdarsina in two divisions by pisargaja and abhigamaja. As widely accepted, the Uttaradhyayana 28 entitled Mokha-maggagai provides the materials for Umasvati io outlining the composition of the T. S, of which contents are as follows : (1) Introduction: 1-3, jnana-darsana-caritra-tapas as constituting moksamarga; (2) Irana: 4. five jnanas- 5-6. dravya-guna-paryaya- 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 jnana and caritra without darsana, there is no caritra without jnana. and without caritra-guna there is no moksa- 31. eight angas of samyagdrsti; (4) Cariira : 32-33. fivefold caritras such as samayika; (5) Tapas : 34. tapas in two divisions accompanied by six subdivisions each; (6) Conclusion: 35-36. fruits of fourfold pathways to liberation. Umasvati improved ninefold tattvas here into seventold tattvas because punyapapa can be logically absorbed in asrava and bandha tattvas.' The popular sequence of nine tattvas is jiva-ajiva, punya-papa, asrava-samavara-nirjara, and bandha-moksa, as so found in the Sthani 9.867, Prasamarati 189, Pancastika ya 116, Mulacara 5.6 and so on. The Uttaradhyayana 28.14 separates bandha tattva from moksa, i. e., jiva-ajiva, bandha, punya-papa, asrava-samvara-nirjara-mok$a. The T. S. 1:4 modifies them once again according to the causal sequence towards moksa, i. e., jivaajiva-asrava-bandha-samvara-nirjara-moksa. Fourfold paths to liberation in the Uttaradhya 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 aradhana, of which order usually appears in the sequence of juana-darsana-caritra, as so expressed in the Uttaradhyayana 23. 33. The Unwradhyayana 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-jnana-caritra, after which Umasvati 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 Uttaradhyayana 28, the structure of these two prakaranas are fundamentally different. The Uttaradhyayana 28 is based on the doctrine of fourfold moksamargas wherein tattvas constitute the content of darsanamarga, while the T. S. is based on the doctrine of tattvas for which moksamarga plays a role of the guiding theme. An exposition of moksamarga by way of the doctrine of tattvas that by which the entire teachings in the Agama can be known never occurred in the pre-Umasvati 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 Dasapadartha. Sastra of Candramati and Padarihadharma sangraha of Prasastapada in the Vaisesika 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. Umasvati caught hold of the Uttaradhyayana 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 moksamarga, these belong fundamentally to the ontological category. Umasvati therefore made use of the doctrine of threefold moksamarga 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 jnanamimama is dealt with in the first five chapters consisting of jnana and jneyas, and caritramimamsa in the rest of chapters, then having faith in the entire work of which is assumed to be darsanacara. Jnana 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 tattvarthadhigama. 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 Umasvati 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, pramana and naya; and (3) their exposition: 7-8. the other anuyogadvara - 9-33. pramana - 34-35. naya. All these methods of knowledge minus naming five knowledges as pramana were in vogue in the later Agamic texts, e. g., the Nandi, Anuyogadvara, etc. The Uttaradhyayana 28.24 lists pramana and naya as the methods of cognition of all the nature of dravya, and its 28.4-5 say that fivefold jnanas are the methods of cognizing dravya, guna and all paryayas. Pramana mentioned in the Uttaradhyayana 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-sarkhya. etc., of apuyogadvaras are employed in the Samtaparuvanasuttani 7 of the Satkhandagama. Seven nayas are likewise treated in the Anuyogadvara and Satkhandagama, although Umasvati resorts to five nayas which is referred to in the Avas yaka niryukti 144. Over 2/3 of this chapter is spared for the exposition of pramana, and the topics dealt with in this connection are : five jianas as pramana (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 jnana (32-33). A majority of these materials is deduced from the classification of knowledge worked out in the Sthara 2.1.103, and also from the Nandi and Anuyogadvara. The definition of jnana stated in the sutra 33 finds no mention in the canon, which was probably formulated by Umasvati on the line of the Yogasutra 1.8, 'yiparyayo mithyainanamatad-rupa-pratistham'. Umasvati takes the position of yugapadvada of kevali's upayogas in 1:31 Bh. against the canonical position of kramavada, of which discussion shall be made separately in Sec. III, Pt.l. The Nya yasutra 11.2.2 says that ajtihya is included in sabda, and artbapatti, sambhava and abhava in anumani. In counteracting, the T. S. 1:12Bh. defends the Jaina position that anumani, upanana, agama, arthapatti, sambhava and abhava are all included in mati and sruta, as these are caused by the sannikarsa of indriyas with their arthas. The Nyayasutra 1.1.4 defines pratyaksa as indriya-sannikarsotpanna, from which the Jaina position is discerned in the suiras 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 Lokaprajnapti and Devagatipradarsana in the respective puspika, 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 samsara are taken up in the succeeding two chapters. These three chapters are thus relevant to the samsari 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-ayus. 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. Jambudvipa 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, lesyas, sexual behaviours and lifetime. The materials contained in these three chapters are mostly provided in the Jivajivabhigama, 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 anuyogadvaras such as sarira, kasaya, lesya, indriya, sanjna, veda, drsti, darsana, jnana, yoga, upayoga, ahara, upapaia, sthiti, gati, and so on. Its third chapter describes the thre worlds in relation to the classification of jivas by gitidvara. Some other materials are supplemented to it from the Prajnapana, Sthana and Jambudvipaprajnapti. 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 sutras 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 bhava anuyogadvara. The Sthana 6.649 and Annyogadvara 127 enumerate six types of bhava including sannipatika, 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 Anuyogadvara 127, and particularly noteworthy here is Umasvati's performance in determining the subtypes of parinamika bhava. The construction of the T. S. is based on the doctrine of tattvas. Umasvati therefore seems to have caught hold of the then popular concept of bhava anuyogadara, 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 ahara involving the soul's transmigratory passage are again stated in view of the karma theory. Likewise anapavartyayus 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 Prajnapana 1 and in the other canonical texts met a reclassification by Umasvati in II:34Bh. in accordance with their modes of birth such as jarayuja, possibly under the sway of the non-Jaioa classification. He quotes the Astadhyayi 5.2.93 for explaining the term indriya in II:15Bh., and Vyasa's commentary on the Yogasutra JII:22 in 11:52Bh." * The description of the worlds made in Chs. III-IV is no more than a skillful reproduction of the Agamic 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, Umasvati is conscious in discriminating the Jaina position from that of the others, for instance, he notes in III:1 Bh., 'api ca tantrantariya asankhyeyesu loka-dhatusy-asankhyeyah prthivi-prastara ity-adhyavasitah/ tat-pratisedhartham ca sapta-grahanam-iti', which must refer, as Siddhasena points out, to the Buddhist view expressed in the Abhidharmakosa 3.3.Bh. Haribhadrasuri refers to a puranic view also, ... tantrantariyah sakyadajah asankhyeyesu loka-dhatusu... , aneka brahmand opalak sanam-etad, tat-pratisedhartham...'. 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 Abhidharmakosa 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 dhatus, i. e., kani, rupi and arupya, situated one above the other, and five gatis therein (i. e, naraka, preta, tiryanca, manusy and deva) -- 8-18. modes of birth (i. e., and ja, jarayuja, samsvedaja and upapaduka), the antarabhava and the birth of sattvas in five gatis - 19-44. bhavacakra explained in terms of twelve pratityasamutpada - Middle world 45-52. vayu-jala-kancana-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 Umasvati 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 Prajnapana 2. Chapter V The 5th chapter pertaining to the Jaina ontology consists of two parts, i. e., (1) 1-16. five astikayas; and (2) 17-44. six dravyas. The canonical tradition explains the metaphysical world by way of these two different principles, which Umasvati also adopted. The first portion relevant to the nature of five astikayas 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 Uttaradhyayana 28.7 in respect of the laksana of six dravyas, the Uttaradhyayani 36 in respect of pudgala and dravya, the Prajnapana 13.418 in respect of the theory of atomic combination. Sutras V:17-22 examine the upakara of six dravyas, e.g., 'gali-sthity-upagrahau dharmadharmayor-upakarah (17)', which is made after the canonical works, e. g., the Sthana 5.3.530, Untaradhyayana 28 9. etc. Upakara is expalined in V:17Bh. to be the equivalent of prayojana, guna and artha; and upagraba to be the synonym of nimitta, apeksa, 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 Vaisesikasutra, wherein the 2nd and 3rd chapters attempt to establish the existence of dravyas from their gunis, for instance, 'niskramanam praveS anam ity-akasasya lingam (2. 1. 20),' 'aparasmin param yugapad-ayugapac-ciram ksipram-iti kala-lingani (2. 2.(6),' 'pranapana-nimesonmesa-jirana-mano-gatindriyantaravikarah sukha-duhkheccha-dvesau prayainas-catmano lingani (3. 2. 4),' and so on. The Vaissika definition of kala obviously gave some influence for the formulation of the aphorism V:22.5 The Bhasya on V:22 explains paratva-aparatva as of three kinds, i. e., prasamsakrta, kStra-krta and kala-kria, the first two of which are irrelevant to kala as the bhasyakara admits. The latter two occur in the Vaisesikasutra 7.2.25, which were both reproduced by Unasvati 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-jnana-caritra-virya-siksa. 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 Vaisesikasutra Ch. 4 and that the concept of sat in threefold characteristics was also derived in the milieu of the Nyayasutra 4. 1. 11-40. The Jainas do not sanction four or five mahabhutas as the constituents of the matter, but believe sabda, etc., to be its modifications. In the sutras 23-24, this point is carefully discrimirated from the concepts held by the other systems. The Vaisesikasutra refers to the nature of anu to be sat-akaranavat-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, 'karanam-eva tad-antyam suksmo nityas-ca bhavati paramanuh / eka-rasa-gandhavarno dvi-sparsah karya-lingas-ca.' This citation fails to find its source at present, however it sufficiently well distinguishes the Jaina concept of anu 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 Umasvati 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 satsamanya. The nature of dravya is treated at the end in relation to guna, paryaya and parinama. Kala 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 astikayas, Dravya ard gupa are defined in the sutras 37 and 40, of which concepts were derived by way of improving the same in the Uttaradhyayana 28.6 with the help of the Vaisesikasutra 1.1.15-16.6 Umasvati 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 asrava includes the following topics: (1) 1-2. definition; (2) division; at sulivisio 13: 3-4. by payi ad papi - 5. by samparayika and iryapatha - 6-10. subdivisions of samprayika by causes and by various categorical topics; and (3) 11-26. causes of asrava binding eight mula prakrtis. There is no convenient Agamic source which readily provides en bloc the materials used in this chapter to facilitate its composition. The Tattvarthasutra jainagamasamanvaya most frequently refers to the Bhagavati passages in its satakas 1, 6, 8 and 9, and less frequently to the Sthina and Uttaradhyayana. 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 Umasvati's original plan and scheme. This chapter displays an inventory of kriya belonging to various categories which had been worked out independently in the long Agamic period, thereby exhibiting occasional reiterations of the same concept, for instance, four kasayas occur again as the subdivision of jivadhikarani, and arambha is reckoned both in jivadhikarana aod in twenty-five kriyas. The third topic of kriya, either good or bad, as the cause of sriva in binding mula prakstis is directly concerned with the subject matter of Ch.VIII. It should not be lost sight of that Unasvati changed the traditional sequence of three yogas, i.e., manis, vac and kaya, into kaya, vac and manas, probably because he attached more importance to kayikakriya which had been repeatedly denouned in tradition in relation to praltipata. The definition of asrava was for the first time statei by Univati. 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 subha and asubha, the former of which ensuing iryapatha asrava belongs to those without kasayas and the latter ensuing samparayika arava belongs to those with kasyas. It should be noted down that Umasvati deems yoga, which theoretically belongs to a neutral category, in terms of subha-asubha on the basis of the absence and presence of kasayas. Umasvati szen to have formulated this concept with the help of the Kasayaprabhyta Ch. VII, wherein Gunadhara conceives kasayas 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 subha upayoga necessarily ensues subha yoga and asubha upayoga does asubha yoga. Susha yoga then activates punya asrava which brings forth punya bardha, and asubha yoga prompts papa asrava which brings forth papa bandha. The canonical texts such as Sthana 5.2.517 and Samava ya 16 list fivefold asrvadvaras, i.e, mithyadarsana, avirati, pram:ada, kasaya and yoga, which are enumerated as bandhaavaras in the T.S. VIII:1. Theoretically speaking, there is no difference between asrava 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 gunasthapas with or without kasayas, therefore Umasvati justified yoga to be the root cause of asrava, meanwhile classifying it into subha and asubha, in the latter of which he included all the rest of the four kinds of asravadvaras reckoned in the canon. For among the four subdivisions of samparayika asrava, i.e., avrata,kasaya, indriya and kriya, indriya is explained in the Bhasya on VI:6, 'panca pramatasyendriyani', and mithyatva is included in twenty-five krijas. Kriya had repeatedly been propounded in the early caronical works to be the cause directly inviting asrava, so Umasvati 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 asravadvaras in tradition are thus in theory further systematized by Umasvati. 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, 'sakasayatvat...", which creates difficulty involving the treatment of iryapathika bandha that is logically ensued by iryapatha asrava as so punya karmas are reckoned in VIII:26. Umasvati 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 iryapathika 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, 'granthah karmasta-vidham mithyat vavirati-dustayogas-ca". For this reason, he does not refer to prakrti and pradesa bandhas of iryapathika type, which are surely noted down in the Sarvarthasiddhi under the sutra VIII (3). This bizarre performance of Umasvati 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 bhavanas 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. aticaras 33-34. dana. In the canonical sources, the five vratas and their bhavanas are treated in the Aciranga II. 15 and Prasnavyakarana II, and twelve vows of laity and their aticaras are discussed in the Upasakadasa 1 and Sravakavasyaka, the latter of which also refers Upasakadala to samlekhana. The Yogasutra enumerates five yamas called mahavratas in II: 30-31, niyamas and their bhavanas in II: 32-34, and their phalas in the succeeding sutras. The sutras 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-danam puid nugrana kamaya kavik-Karma sotthanam [Lan-mahabhogavat-phalam ) ||113/ sva-pararthobhayarthaya nobhayarthaya diyate ad-viseto anapati-vastu-ksetra visesatal)//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 dana stated in the sutra 34 are vidhi, dravya, datr and patra, which are drawn from the Bhagavati 15. 540.. The condition of vratis as ninsalya does not find a mention in the canonical literature wherein threefold salyas, i. e., maya, nidana and mithyadarsana, are frequently talked about. It seems that Umasvati 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 sutras of the T. S. Mithyadarsana salya is reckoned as the last one among eighteen vices and as one of five kriyas. As to the list of bhavanas, those of asteya conspicuously differ between the two recensions of the T. S. Umasvati's list in VII:3Bh. agrees with that of the Acaranga II.15. 1043-1044 in content but differs in sequence. The Samayaya 82 and Mulacara 5.142 belong to the same group with some variations. On the other hand, the Digambara sutra VII:6 and Kundak unda's Caritrapahuda 34 broadly agree with the list made in the Prasnavyakarana (v. 1, p. 1230-31).' These indicate that there were two major trends in the practice of bbavanas 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 (asrava) to Ch.. VIII (bandha) in the sequence of tattvas is disturbed by the insertion of Ch. VII in the middle. This chapter deals with mahavratas which fall in samvara tattva and anuvratas which fall in asrava tattva. Umasvati's logical reduction of punya-papa from nine tattvas in tradition ensued difficulty in arranging in his scheme of seven tattvas the topics of anuvratas 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 Pujyapada 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 Tattvarthasutra. 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. anubhaga bandha - 25. pradesa bandha; and (3) 26. punya karmas. The Uttaradhyayana 33 called Kammappayadi deals with the same topics: 1-5. eight mula prakrtis and their subdivisions --- 16. their bondage by pradesa ksetra and bhava - 17-18. pradesa bandha -- 19-23. sthiti bandha - 24-25. anubhaga bandha, 64

Page #78
Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION Chapter VIII is thus directly derived from the Uttaradhyayana 33 by slightly improving its structure and contents, to which the first three sutras and the last aphorism are added at both ends. We have already referred to Umasvati's formulation of the definition of bindha that it pertains to those with kasayas alone, which is not at all satisfactory. The latter portion of its definition, i. e., 'jivah karmano yogyan pudgala 1-a 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 sutra regarding punya karmas is mentioned in the sequel of the reduction of punya-papa tattvas, of which papa karmas are mentioned in the Bhasya. Corresponding to papa asrava stated in VI:4. papa 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 nirjara tattvas: (1) 1-2. difinition of samvara and sixfold samvaradvaras --- 3. tapas as the cause of samvara and nirjara; (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 samvaradvaras consisting of gupti, samiti, dharma, anupreksa, parisahajaya and caritra do not occur as a set category in the canon. Tenfold dharmas, which are listed in the Sthara 10.145 and Samavaya 10, and twelvefold anupreksas do not quite fit in the context bearing the other older items; and it must be Umasvati himselt who formulated these six kinds of samvaradvaras by excluding mahavratas and their bhavanas which are dealt with in Ch. VII. Needless to say, mahavrata constitutes an important samvaradvara as Umasvati counts it in samvaranupreksa in IX:7Bh. Caritra is said to denote five stages of samyama such as samayika, which finds a mention in the Bhagavati 25.7. Urtaradhyayana 28.32-33, and so on. The problem of caritra shall be considered separtely in Sec. III, pt. 5. Anupreksas are partially enumerated in the canonical texts, for instance, in the Bhagavati 25.8.802, Sthana 4.1.308 and Aupapatika 19, wherein ekatva, anitya, asarana and samsara belong to dharma dhyana, and anantavarti, viparinama, asubha and apaya to sikla dhyana. Asarana, anitya and ekatva bhavanas are mentioned in the Acaranga I already, so these items had developed into the preliminary observances to these two types of dhyana by the time of Umasvati. The Abhidharmakosa Ch. 6 entitled Margapudgalanirdesa deals with arya satya and bhavana marga, of which karika 6.1 reads, klesa-prahanam-akhyatam satyadarsana-bhavanat / dvividho bhavana 65

Page #79
Sec. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF THE T. S, AND THEIR ORGANIZATION margo, darsanakhyas-tv-anasravah and its 6.5. explains, 'votta-sthih sruta-cintavan bhavanayam prayujyate.' Its svopajnabhasya on 6.17 expounds sixteeofold dharmasmrty-upastbanabhyasas, i.e., duhkhadrsti - duhkham, anityam, suiyam, anatmakam; samudayadrsti - samudaya, prabhava, hetu, prutyaya; nirodhadssti-nirodha, santam, pranitam, nih saranam; and margadrsti marga, nyaya, pratipati, nairyan kam. It seems that Umasvati formulated anupreksa items of asrava through bodhidurlabha in the context of samudayadrsti through margadssti above, because duhkhadrsti is somewhat covered by the items present in the Agama. Anyatva sounds to have been derived from anatmaka; asuci occurs in the sukla dhyana anupreksa as asubha; the concept of loka is well suggested by the items anantavarti and viparinama therein; and asrava, samvara, nirjasa and bodhidurlabha (occurring in the Sutrakta I.15.624, Uttaradhyayana 3.8, etc.) are comparable to the Buddhist items such as hetu, pratyaya, pirodha, marga, nyaya and pratipati. Thus it appears that Unasvati expanded and systematized the Jaina concept of anupreksa in the context of the relevant Buddhist concept. He treated anupreksa as an independent samvaradvara because his list of enlarged items deviated from the canonical list, and because these twelvefold items were conceived in the context of 'klesa-praharam-akhyatam satyadarsana-bhavanat' of the Abhidharmakosa 6.1 which is comparable to the simvaradvara of the Jainas. The Prasamarati calls them twelve bhavanas. Parisahajaya is an old topic occurring in the Agama since its genesis, however it is a stray subject there treated somewhat independently. For instance, the Acaranga 1. 9. 3 talks about paris ahas in relation to Lord Mahavira's wandering life at Ladha, and the Sutrakrla 1.3.1 describes mental and physical hardships which a novice is to be prepared to face in his path. The Uttaradhyayana 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, parisahajiya sounds to fall in the category of tapas for both are effective for nirjara, 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 Raiavartika explains it under the sutra IX : (19), 'buddhi-purvo hi kaya-klesa ity-uccyate, yadyochayopanipate parisahah. Possibly for the same reason, Unasvati gave a definition, 'margacyavana-nirjarartham pari sodhavyah parisahah., and classed this stray item in the category of samvaradvara together with the two other relatively new items, i.e., dharma and anupreksa. But then, the aphorism 3, tapasi nirjura ca, suffers, for the same concept is applicable to parisahajaya, too. The 22nd parisaha listed in the Ultaradhyayana 2 is darsana parisaha, which is replaced by adarsana parisaha in the T. S. The Bhagavati 8.8.342 brings into discussion how many parisahas occur at once, and how many of them occur to saraga chidmasthas, vitaraga 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, Uttaradhya yana 30 and Aupapatika 17-19.10 Among twelvefold Azmic subdivisions of tapis, dhyana 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 Prajnapana 36. Aupapatika 41-43, etc. However, the treatment of moksa pada here is made on the theoretical line, and the Tattvarthasutra jainagamasamanvaya refers for its sources to various texts such as the Bhagavali, Uttaradhyayana, Prajnapana, 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 vadhyasan-nasmi na me naham-ity-aparisesam aviparyayad-visuddham kevalam-ut padyate jnanam'. Its karikas 67-68 describe the states of jivan mukti and videha mukti, 'samyag-jnanadhigamaddhurmadinam-akarami-praptau tistui samskara-vasac-cakra-bhramavad-dhrta-sarirah// prapie sarira-bheile caritarthatvat-prudhana--vinirrttau/ ekantikam-atyantikam -ubhayam kaivalyai-apnotil/'. 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 akasi due to the absence of dharmastikaya expressed in X:6Bh. is new to the age, 11 for the Bhagavati which is familiar with th: concept of five astikayas argues in its 16.8.585 that a deva cannot move his limbs in the aloka akasa for no jiva-ajiva exist therein, because motion is elsewhere incurred when a jiva tries to fetch matters to nourish his body. Likewise the Sthana 10.931 says that motion occurs only when jivas and matters exist, therefore jivas cannot go beyond the loka akasa wherein no matter exists. The Southern version duly aphorized this Bhasya 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, prajitapana 1.7.7-10 and Jivaj. ivabrigama 1.7 classify the emarcipated souls into two types i.e., anantara siddhas and parampara siddhas, who are examined in terms of an uyogadvaras such as tirtha. 67

Page #81
See. 1. SOURCE MATERIALS OF T. S. AND THEIR ORGANIZATION pratyekabuddha-bodhita, linga and sankhya. Umasvati employs here twelve anuyogadvaras, and speaks of anantaca siddhas and parampara siddhas in terms of naya, i.e., purva-bhava-prajnapaniya-Daya and pratyutpanna-bhava-prajnapaniya-naya. The Bhasya to X:7 mentions a yogi's sddhi which is generally accepted by the rest of schools as expressed in the Yogasutras, Sankhyakarika, Abhidharmakosa, etc. Up.karikas 24-27 classify sukha into four kinds, i.e., by visaya, vedana-bhava, vipaka and moksa, which seem to have been conceived in the fashion of duhkhatrayas referred to in the Sankhyakarika 1 that are known as adhyatmika, adhibhautika 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, Uttaradhyayana, Prajnapana, Jivajivabhigama, Nandi, Anuyogadvara 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 Umasvati 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 jivas to Chs. II-IV is likely suggested by the Jiyaji vabhigama, 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 Agamic works, with the sole exception of Ch. V which was drafted by Umasvati on the independent line. Ch.X is made much under the sway of the Sankhyakarika. The non-Jaina standard works, such as Vaisesikasutra, Nyayasutra, Sankhyakarika, Yogasutra and Abhidharmakosi, must have been thoroughly studied by the author not only to master the skill in composing the text in sutra 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 Agamic 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 pramana (Ch. I), Yugapadvada of kevala jnana-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-paryaya (Ch. V), definition of kala (Ch.V), definition of asrava (Ch VI), formulation of sixfold samvaradvaras (Ch.IX), formulation of twelve anupreksas (Ch. IX), concept of chyana (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 dana(Ch.VII), Dihsalya as the proviso of vratis (Ch. VII) etc., were formulated by Umasvali 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-Umasvati period, and particularly the Southern authors followed the categorical concepts standardized by Umasvati. 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 Agamic 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 Uuasvati 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. Umasvati's systematization of the canonical contents of jnana (Ci. 1. )'2 and of kriya (Ch.VI) is loose with redundant items, his presentation of the topics in Ch. V is disorganized, and equally unsatisfactory, are the definitions of parinama ( Ch. V), bandha (Ch. VIII), dhyana ( Ch. IX), and so on. Likewise the Biasya expositions of naya (Ch. I) and arpita-anarpita theory (Ch. V) are obscure. Umasvati himself improved some minor points in his Pras imarati and the Southern recension of th: T. S and the Sarvarthasiddhi made a major improvement on the deficiencies exbibited in the Sabhasya 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 Umavati, 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, Umasvati 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 prayascitta 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 Svetambara 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 Prakirnakas 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 anekantavada, of whi h rapid and forcible development in the post-Umasvati 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 Divakara, Jinabhadra, Mallavadi, 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-Umasvati 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 Prakirnakas 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 gathas 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 Sutrakta 1:1 NIRYUKTIS Bhadrabahu (the later 5th century A.D.) Avasyaka (based on Avasyakasutra-niryukter-avacarnih) 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 Sanghadasa Vyavahara 1:1 405 (v. 9, p.69) Jinabhadra (c. 650 V.S.) Visesavas yaka with svopajnavstti (exclude Kottacarya's vitti) 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. (dharmastikayabhavat) 23: 5, 3782 CURNIS Agastyasimha (the 6th century A. D.) Dasavaikalika 1:1 pp. 1*, 193 1:13 d. 16'* V:29 pp. 10. 13 VII:4-5, 5Bh. IX:3 IX:27 Jinadasa (650-750 V. S.) Nandi 1:1 p.8 1:31Bh. pp.46-47 Anuyogadvara p.85 p.19* p.16* p.11 1:2 P.86 1:1 V:29 p.29 Dasavaikalika 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 Sutrakrta 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 Anuyogadvara 1:28 VIII:4 Dasavikalika 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 Kottacarya 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 Visesarasyakablasya vrtti by Kottacarya, gatha 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. (dharmastikayabhav) 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 Sutrakyla 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 sutra text, Bhasya, 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 sutra by title only once. The following table exhibits a distribution of the referred sutras in each chapter. A Sutra with a single asterisk indicates that the concerned sutra was directly derived from the Agamic text in its original form or with a slight modification. A sutra 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 sutra 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. (dharmastikayabhavat ) ( * 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-Umasvati 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 Sanghadasa Jinabhadra Agastyasimba Jinadasa Haribhadra Koltacarya Silanka Prakirakas Bhadrabahu Sanghadasa Jinabhadra Agastyasimha Jinadasa Haribhadra Kottacarya 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-Umasvati authors who commented on the canonical texts which generally advocate fourfold pathways to the final release. IX:27 on the definition of dhyana 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-darsana opined by Umasvati in 1:31Bh. provoked further hot argumentation in the post-Umasvati 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 kala stated in V:22 is an improvement made by Umasvati on the canonical concept by way of introducing the Vaisesika concept, which is likewise with the case of the definitions of dravya-guna in V:37 and 49. VII:6 was formulated by Umasvati in the context of the Yogasutra. We have already discussed about the definition of samyagdarsana expressed in 1:2, the defective nature of the sutras 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 jnana in 1:33, the definition of dana in VII:33 and the definition of parisaha in IX:8, which were formulated by Umasvati. "Dharmastikayabhavar' 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 Silanka. 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 padarthas while enumerating seven tattvas. VIIT:26 with its Bhas 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 sutras evinces, their citations made in the post-Umasvati literature well reflect the important and controversial concepts brought about by Umasvati. 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 Jinadasa's Nisitha curni (v. 3, pp. 5-6 from P.R. 145), in Haribhadra's Trasjaka volti (p. 63 from P. R. 151) and in Kottacarya's Visesavas yaka rytit (p. 454 from P. R. 238). Among the works examined, Jinabhadra (in his svopajnavitti to Visesivas yakabhasya) and vittikaras wrote in Sanskrit. Quotations from the 4sadhyayi are frequent in Agastyasimha's curni and in the vittis composed by various authors. It took some generations after Umasvati 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 anekantavada, 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 'upomisvatim sangrahitarah under utkrste'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 jaaa and darsana, Pt. 2) Perceptibility of things, Pt. 3) Treatment of dhyana, Pt. 4) jivasamasa marganasthana and gupasthana, and Pt. 5.) Treatment of caritra in moksamargs. 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-Umasvati product with the sole exception of the kasayaprabhrta 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 matjanadisu coursu paryayenopayogo biti ni yuzip!/ sam'b'inni-jnani-darsanasya tu bhagavatah kevulino yugapai-sarvabhara-grahake nirapakse kevalajane kevala.sarsane canusamayam upayogo bhavall//kin canyat ksayopasama jani catvari manani parvani ksayad eva kevalam tasman-na kevalinah sesani 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 Divakara in his Sarmati II that jnana and darsina are identical in the case of a kevali (abhedavada) 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 (kramavada), upon which ground the Avasyaka niryukti 979 disapproves the yugapadvada. Jinabhadra defends the canonical position in his Visesavasyakabhasva 3709-55 and Visesanavati 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 nayavadas. Umasvati's proposal thus invited a wider range of eactions both in time and space. Umasvati seems to have contributed here in effect in stimulating an epistemological interest as exhibited by Siddhasena Divakara 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 jiranas are due to yogic labdhi, for instarce, in the Dasasrutaskandha Ch.v, and the successive occurrence of darsana after jnana as expressed in janai pasai' 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 jnana and darsana are mentioned in the same passage ( which are mostly nertaining to Lord Mahavira), their order occurs generally ifana first and darsana second, for instance, in the Acaranga 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 Acaranga 1.9 1.472 is said in relation to meditation, and the Sutrakzia 1.2.3.2? refers to anuttara-nani and anuttara-damsi, its I. 6. 3 and 1.9.24 to anamta-nani and anamta-damsi. The Sutrakrta 1.6.5 mentions savva-damsi and a bhibhuva-nani in due order, and its 1.15.1 reads, jam-aiam pad uppannam agamissam ca najao/ sauvam mannai tam 1ai 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 jnana 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 paramahohie nam manuse paramanu-poggalam jam samavam janai no iam sanjam pasai, jam samayam pasai no tam samayain janai ? gojama sagare se nane bharai, anagare se dainsane bhavai, se tenattlienam java na tam samaram janai, evam java anamta-presiyam kevali nam bhamte ! manusse paramanupoggalam jaha paramahohie taha kevali-ri jara anamta-paesiyam/l seram bhamte sevan bhante! 11: The Prajnapana 30.663 reads, ... hamta goyama: kevali nam imam raya. nappabham pudhavim anagarehim java pasai na janail se konatthenam bhamte ! evem vuccai -- 'kevali nam imam ryvanappabliam pudhavim anagarehim jave pasai na janai'? goyama ! anagire se damsan. bhavai, sigare 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., anakara and sakara. Jana or sakara 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-darsana, upon the destruction of the relevant avarapa karmas. Also the the later work like the Karmagrantha clearly mentions in its svopajnatika 1.3 (Jaina Atmananda Sabha, v.1, p.5) that a kevali's jana precedes darsana, anyac-ca yasmin samye sakala-karma-vinirmukto jivah sahjayate Tasmin samaye jaanopayogopayuktah eva, na darsanopayogopayuktah, darsdnopayogasya dvitiya-samaye bhavat... Therefore a reverse order of occurrence in the case of a kavali's upayogas, i. e., jana-darsana, 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., Acoranga I and Sutrakyta I. It makes its appearance in the Bhagavart side by side the other anuyoga items such as jaana, darsana 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 pasyatta an! 31st samji, each independently. The Bhagavali 2. 10. 119 which mentions,...uvaoga-lakkhane num jive...", fully enumerates eightfold joanas (five juanas plus three ajanas) and fourfold darsinas. The Bhagavati 19.8.658 and 20.3.664 express upayoga in terms of sakara and anakara. The Prajnapana 29 classifies upayoga into two, i.e., sakara and anakara, which are explained by way of eightfold janas and fourfold darsanas. As already taken note. of the Sutrakyta 1.15.1 refers to darsanavarana, 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 sakara and anakara 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 marganasthanas which include the items of jnana and darsana. The Kasayaprabhrta 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 kasayas 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 atma as of eight kinds, i.e., dravya, kasaya, yoga, upayoga, jnana, darsana, caritra and virya. Gunadhara seems to have ciught hold of this concept of kasaya atma as the characteristic nature of the samaii jiva, and expressed kasayas in terms of upayoga, the chiracteristic na-ure of the soul. Kundakunda follows the Kasa yaprabhrta on this matter, as he explains, for instance, in the Pravacanasara II. 63ff. that kasayas 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 sakara-anakara that are identical with jnana-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 jna navaraniya karma categorically differs from darsanavaraniya karma on the basis of their different nature. However, curiously enough, they did not establish darsanamohaniya karma and caritramohaniya karma as the two independent categories in the class of mula prakstis. These two mohaniya karmas distinctly differ by nature inasmuch as jnanavaraniya karma and darsanavaraoiya 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 darsana (faith) and caritra belong to entirely different categories. They could have in fact formulated a single category of upayogavaraniya karma accompanied by the two subdivisions of jnana and darsana inasmuch as they did for mobaniya karma. The later karma specialists abstracted ksayika 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 upayoga varaniya karmas. Jhana and darsana are identical-cum-different within the category of upayoga consisting of sakara and anakara types. Therefore if these two avaraniya karmas were made in one in the form of upayoga varaniya karma, our problem in question would not have cropped up. The abbedavada expressed by Siddhasena Divakasa seems to be perfectly logical in grasping the nature of the problem. A catalogue of kirma prakstis was completed by the time of Umasvati. And the table of the g astha 13 wis nearing to completion by the end of the Agamic 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 gunisthana. A riile was established at a certain time that one necessarily attains sayoga keyalihood when his jnana varaniya, darsanavaraniya and ant araya karmas are simultaneously annihilated. The idea that a sayoga kevali is possessed of kevala jnana and darsina at the same time was in all probability derived from the earlier texts wherein Mahavira is described to have been endowed with aranta jnana and ananta darsana 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-nani 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 jnana-Jarsana 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 jnana-darsina is no other than the soul's function or nature of jnana-darsana itself. This position does not therefore go with the concept of karma theory itself. A kevali is possessed of the lower kinds of jnana-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 jnans-darsana, the rest of the lower types of jnana-darsana do not occur. And according to the karma theory, all the objects are illumine i to him at the time when he employs his atma for cognition. The yugapadvada expressed by Umasvati is perfectly sound according to the doctrine of karma. If the kramavada were insisted upon irrespective of the karma doctrine in the original sense of the earliest canon that anuttara darsana follows anuttara jnana in the context of dhyana, it certainly makes sense. And the kramavada 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 jnanavaraniya, dursinavaraniya and antaraya karmas, the kramavada expressed in the canon takes the upper hand. However in this case, the successive order of the manifestation of joana-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 avaraniya karmas are andibilated, two cognitions should be functioning to him constantly according to the theory of karma. The kramavada faces thus difficulty in maintaining its position. Umasvati posed this problem in the context of karma theory developed in the later canonical age. The canonical authors likely maintained the kramavada based on 11s earlier position, which cannot be insisted upon in the advanced stage of karma doctrine. And as long as joina-Jarsina are identified with sakara-arakara upayogas aj s) und in th: cao, buth are identical-cum-different. Siddhasena Divakara 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 Agamic 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. Umasvati 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-sanghatabhyam caksusah'. Toe Bhasya imparts a brief exposition on this suira, 'acaksusastu pathokrat sangharit bhedat sanghata-bhedac-ceti', which denies as the cluse of visibility the rule of the production of skandhas stated in the aphorism 26 (26), bheda-sanghatebhya utpadyante'. This sutra 28 in relation to the su 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 suira 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 sutra (27), Pujyapada gives an introductory remark on the sura (28), 'ahi, singhata l-2v1 skan Thana n-am alabhe siddhe bheda-sanghatagrahinan-anarthak im -iti tal-grarini.priyojana-pratipadanartham-idam-ucyate -'. He seems to understand that the palpability of a thing arises by the sanghata method mationd in the production of skandhas and by the bheda-cum-sargha!a method discussed in the aphorism (28), but not hy bheda nor by sanghata-cum-bheda as he commeats on the sura (28), ...'a'ra yo' caksusah sa katham caksuso bhavariti ced.cyile - bh211-sanghitabhyam caksus ah/ni bedad-iti ka'tropapattir-iti cet ? brumahsuksin i-parinanisya skanluya bhe de squ'smyap irityaza l-acaksus atvam-eval sauksmya 83

Page #97
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S. parinatah punar-aparah saty-api tad-bhede'nya sanghai antara-samyogat-sauksmya-pari namoparame sthaul yoipattau caksuso bhavati'. However, the sarghata method of skandha formation is plainly negated by the Bhasya from being the cause of its palpability. Besides suira 28 reads it in dual ending, therefore it is difficult to take it in the sense of simultaneous process of bheda-cum-sanghata. Thus his explanation is not at all convincing. This aphorism is not only difficult to understand but also the problem raised by Unisvaci here is important in view of the Jaina concept of pudgala, therefore we shall attempt to tackle the problem to see what Umasvat! exactly meant to say in this aphorism. The theory of atomic combination is taken up prominently in the Bhagavati and Prajnapana in the canon. The Jaina theroeticians in the Agamic age developed a peculiar method of approaching a problem by way of certain anuyogadvaras or the points of inquiry, among which the most common set consists of dravya, ksetra, kala and bhava. Io discussing a certain problem, the Jaina theoreticians as a rule specify which kind of anuyoga dvara 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 kala 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 paramanus and skandhas. From the viewpoint of ksetra, the problem can be discussed as to the union and disunion of pradesas. And from the aspect of bhava, it can be dealt with in relation to the transformation of the degrees of properties of the atoms and composites. Sometimes avaganana anuyogadvara 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, ksetra and bhava. 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 anus 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 ksetra, 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 pradesas, that a composite of three atoms along with odd numbered atoms has no half but has middle and pradesas, 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, ksetra, 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 bhava, 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 suksma (which include the case of paramaga also) and by badara. L.kewise the Bhagavati 25.4 and Prajnapana 3.7 discuss about the numerical strength of gupas possessed by the paramous and Skandhas. The Prajnapana 13.418 then enunciates a rule of atomic combination, "bamdhana-pariname nam bhamie: kai-vihz pannate? goyama: du-vihe pannattel tam-jahasiddha-bamdhana-pariname, lukkha-bamdhana-pariname ya sama-niddhayae bandho ya hoi sama-lukkhayde vi na hoi vemaya-niddha-lukkhattanena bandho u khamdhanam// giddaassa niddhena dayahie nam lukkhassa lukkheya duyanie nam niddhassa lukkhena uvei bam tho jahannavajjo visamo samo 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 ksetra, 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 suksma paripata skandha) are allowed to have the properties of one colour, one smell, one taste and two touches (either one of snigdharuks 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 uksa gunas play an important role. In this relation, Abhayadeva quotes certain gathas in his commentary on the Bhagavati 5.7.217, 'samkoa-vikoena va, uvaramide vagahanae-vil tattiya-mitianam cla, ciram-pi davvaya' vatthanam samghaya-bheyao va, davvovarame punai samkhitte/ niama tad-davvogahanae naso na samdeho// ogahaddha davve, samkoa-vikoyao a avabaddha na u davvam samcoana-vikoa-mittamni sambaddham'. In commenting the first and the last gathas above, Ratnasimhasuri explains the concept of sankoca-vikoca stated therein in the Paramanukhandasattrimsika (Atmananda Sabha p. 4), 'vivak sita-ksetrapradesa-vyapitvam nama paramurunam-avagahana, tebhyo' Ipataresu bahutaresu ca ksetra-pradese su tavatam-eva pudgalanam suksmi-bhhvanam sakkocah, sphart-bhavanam vikoch tatas-ca sankoca-vikoycabhyam-avagahanaya uparamo bhavatiti... sakkocadvikocac-ca paramananam suksma-parinamataya 'nyonyanupravesah sankocah suksmaparinama-parinatanam tu badara-parinamataya bhavanam vikocah, 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 pradesas. When these ten atoms are combined in one prades', the mode of their spatial interpenetration is called suksma 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 pradesas, the mode of their spatial diffusion, in at skandha is called badara parinama, 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 ksetra, i. e., (1) X atoms are combined in one prades and (2) X atoms are combined in two to X pradesas. 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, Umasvati discusses the problem of atomic combination in the content of pudgala as follows : V:23-24 nature of pudgala (viewed from the aspect of bhaya) 25-28 components 25 anu-skandha as components (dravya 26 method of skandha formation (dravya) 27 method of anu formation (dravya) 28 cause of the perceptibility of skandha (ksetra) 32-36 process of atomic combination (bhava) It is indisputable that Umasvati 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 pradesas with which the number of atoms constituting a composite has nothing to do. This is the standpoint of ksetra, upon which ground Umajvati clarified in the Brasya 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, sanzhata, bheda, and singhara-bheda of two to ananta atoms taken place within one prades is barren as to its potency of imparting perceptibility. Perceptiblity arises in the two pradesi skandhi onwards, thus only the number of pradesas of a composite is responsible for the rise of the palpability or the dimension of a thing. In another words, the sutra V:28, 'bheda-sanghtabhyam caksusah.' 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 prades13 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. sanghata-cum-bheda in skandha formation is dropped here, because from the viewpoint of ksetra it is looked at as the two phenomena of sanghata and bheda. The canonical authors treated one and the same problem from the entirely different angles of dravya, ksetra, bhava and kala, 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 Umasvati (who was considerably affected in arranging the topics on pudgala and satsamapya by the contents discussed in the Vaisasikasutra 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,' sankhyah parimarani pythakivam samyogavibhagiu paratvaparat ve kirmi ci rupi-dravya-samavayat caksusani (Vaisesika:utra 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, ksetra, etc., must have been taken for granted as to any types of problems in the canonical tradition, and perhaps for this reason Umasvaci 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 Bhasya exposition, which demonstrates that it was composed by the same aphorist. Part 3 Treatment of dhyana 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 sukla dhyana constitute a part, and dharma dhyana and the first two subdivisions of sikla dhyana are the mere aids. The auxiliary position of dhyana in the ascetic practice of Jainism thus differs greatly from its position held in Buddhism wherein the origioal teachings of Buddha of duhkha-ksaya were formulated on the ground of the way of meditation practice. The dependent position of dhyana to tapas in the canon was likewise received by Umasvati. However be spared nearly 1/3 of the total aphorisms in Ch. IX for the exposition of dhyana, and while brioging this subject matter into prominence, he added to it certain features which were previously unknown, i.e., the definition of dhyana and the dhyatas' gradation in the scheme of gunasthana. He did it in order to 89

Page #103
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S. discriminate the Jaipa concept of dhyana from that maintained by the other systems, and in so doing he introduced these new featutes into the Jaina system. A treatment on dhyana made in the T.S. immediately attracted his successors, who made further efforts to develop what was worked out by Umasvati 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 dhyana into four types, i. e., arta, raudra, dharma and sikla, which are each subdivided into four kinds. The first two types are exclu fed from the consideration of dhyana in the non-Jaina systems, and the last two subdivisions of sukla dhyana i. e., suksmakriya 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 dhyana in the normal usage of its term. Samucchinnakriya is the state of dhyana revealed in the immediate sequel of suksmakriya, therefore it is called dhyana in the nominal sense alone, which does not involve in essence any effort for its performance. The content of Jaina dhyana is thus very peculiar by itself jumbling together the non-dhyana elements in its ordinary sense of term. The first two subdivisions of sukla dhyana, 1. e., pfthaktva vitarka and ekatva vitarka, correspond to the beginning stages of samprajnata samadhi in the Yoga system and to the rudimentary stages of the first dhyana of 'the Buddhists. This indicates that the Jainas did not attach that much importance to the practice of dhyana 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 dhyana in the capon. The Sutrakrta I. II. 26-28 read, 'te ya biyodagam ceva tam-uddissa ya jam kadam bhocca jhanam jhiyayamti akheyannasamahiya) jaha dhamka ya kamka ya kulala magguka sihil macchesanan ihiyayamti jhanam te kalusadhamam!! evem tu samana ege micch additthi anariyal visaesanam jhiyayamti kamka va kalusahama.' The mental activity of a sinful kind is here already expressed by the term dhyana, which denetes nothing more than a manoyoga in the later term. This soon prepared the rise of raudra and arta classes in the Sutrakrta II.2.9, 'ahavare atthame kiriya-tthane ajjhatiha-vattie tti ahijjail se jaha-namae kei purise natthi nam kei kim-ci visamvadei sayam-eva hine dine dutthe dummane ohaya-mana-samkappe cinta-soga-sagara-sampavitthe karayala-palhattha-muhe atta-jjhanovagae bhumigaya-ditthie jhiyai...' In the course of time, these two dhyanas came to be considered in relation to avratas, and meotal activity brooding over the objects of parigraha and abrahma came to be called arta dhyana, and that over the objects of the first four avratas came to be called raudra dhyana as their subdivisions evince. :: Susukla-sukla dhyana practised by Mahavira is described in the Sutrakrta 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 jha:11-varam jhiyai/susukka-sukkamapaganda-sukkam samkh-imdu-egamtavadayasukkam anuttaraggam paramam mahesi asesa-kammam sa visohaitta/siddhim gae saimarin'a-pilte na?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 sukla dhyana must have been developed from these passages. Mahavira adopted dhyana praxis along with the other severe penances, which were the common practices pursued in the then sramanic circles, and he is often narrated to have been engaged in contemplation in the earliest part of the canon, for instance, in the Acaranga 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 dhyana as the immediate cause for the final release. Jumbling these elements together, the Jainas also developed their own classification of dhyana. The fourfold divisions of dhyana accompanied by the fourfold subdivision's each are enumerated in the Bhagavati 25.8.802, Sthana 4.1.308 and Aupapatika 19, the contents of the former two texts of which are exactly identical. These texts talk about laksini regarding the subdivisions of arta and raudra dhyanas, and laksana, alambana and anuprek$a regarding the subdivisions of dharma and sukla dhyanas, which are disregarded in the treatment of dhyana in the T.S. On the other hand, the T.S. adds in contribution two main new features, namely, the definition of dhyana and the dhyatats' gradation in the scheme of gunasthapas. Dhyana is defined in IX:21, .uttama-samlananasyaikagra-cinta-nirodho dhyanam', of wbich duration is stated in the succeeding sutra 28, 'a muburtat'. These two aphorisms are combined into one in the text of Pujyapada, 'uttama-smhananasyaikagra. cinta-nirodho dhyanam a antarmuhurtat (27)'. The definition of dhyana offered by Umasvati thus includes three different categories, i.e. its definition proper, the physical prerequisite of a dhyala and the duration of dhyana. The source of its time duration is difficult to be traced in the canonical code, and it was likely formulated by Umasvati against the different views held by the other schools. The requirement of the best joints for dhyatas is likewise absent in the Agamic source, which must have been again offered by Umasvati with the dhyatas of the highest stages in mind. The Bhasya understands 'uttam 1-3ami inana' to mean the first two divisions of joints, i.e., vajra-rsubha-naraca and ardha-vajra-naraca, which is extended to the third division of joints called naraca in the Sirvarthasiddhi. Dhyana is defined as 'ekagra-cinta-oirodhah' which is said in the Bhasya to denote two separate contents, i, e., ekagra-cinta 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 dbyana was formulated by Umasvati.

Page #105
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S. The Urtara Ihyayan? 29.25 reads, ezagga-mana-samni vesaniyae nam bhamte : jive kim janiyai ? egagza-man 1-samnive sanayae nam cittaniroham karei'. Its 29.56-58 then say, 'man 1-samaharaniyae nam bhamte ! jive kim janayai ? mana-samaharanayae nam jive egaggam jinayail egaggam janaita nara pajjave janayai/ nana-pajjave jinailta sammattam visohei, micchattam ca nijjarei //56/1 vaya-samalaranayae jive kim janayai? vaya-samaharanayae nam jive vaya-saharana-damsara-pajjave visoheil vayasaharara-damsana-pajjave vis hitra sulaha-bodhiyattam nivraitei, dullaha-bohiyattam nijjarei 1/57// kaya-samaharariyae nam bhamte!jive kim janayai ? kaya-samaharanayae nam jive caritta-pajjave visoheil caritta-pajjave visohitta ahakkhaya-carittar visohei ahakkhaya-carittam visohetta saltari kevali-kaminin se khaveil tao paccha sijjhai bujjhai muccai parinivvayai savva-dukkhanin-amtam karei 1/58// Thses passages say that kaya-samahara or the collection of physical activities alone leads to moksa but not the collection of mental and vocal activities. Then, suksmakriya and samucchinpakriya dhyanas are described in the Uttaradhyayana 29.71-72, kevala-nana-damsonam samuppadei) jara sarogi bharai 1/71// aha ayuyam palaitta amtomuhutt -addhavasesae joga - niroham karemane-suhumakiriyam appadivaim sukkhajjhanam jhayamane tap-pad hamayae mana-jogam nirumbhai vai-jogam nirumbhai, kaya-jogam nirumbhai, anipana-niroham kureid isi-pamca-rahass-akkharuccaranaddhae ya nim arigare sam icchinnakiriyam aniyatti-sukkajjhanam jhiyayamane veyanijjam auyam namim gottam ca ee cattari 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 dhyana, which had never been so done in the other canonical texts such as Prajnapina 36 and Aupapatika that describe the final performance of these kevalis approaching towards the final release. The Uttaradhyayana 29.72 above describes suksmakriya dhyana as involving the performance of bringing the threefold yogas into cessation. Two contents of dhyana offered by Uinasvati are 'ekagra-cinta' and 'nirodba'. The Yogasu ra 1 2 defines yoga, yogas-citta-yrtti-nirodhah,' from which the Jaipa concept of dhyana greatly differs. According to the Agamic classification of dhyana, the last two stages of sukla pertain to kevalis' yoga-nirodha, wbile the rest involve themselves with various mental activities, sinful or otherwise. Umasvati therefore discerned these two types of dhyaga in tradition, and offered the definition of 'ekagre-cipta' to the arta through the first two stages of sukla, and 'oirodha' to the last two stages of sukla. 'Ekagra-cinta' was apparently derived from the Uttaradhyayana passage of ezagga-mani-samnivessana' or 'man1-samahapa' while replacing manas by cinta. Then, 'mirodha' which is meant as the definition of kevlis' dhyana was derived from the Uttraradhyayana 29.28 and 29.72. In the T.S.IX:42, Umasvati specifies that suk$makriya is performed by a kevali possessed of kaya-yoga and samucchiopakriya 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 dhyata is an ayoga ke vali precisely represents the canonical view of this dhyana, which involves no problem. However the concept of suksmakriya expressed by Umasvati that it is the preformance of kaya-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 suksmakriya dhyana, Umasvati seems to have taken recourse to the Uttaradhyayana passage of 'kaya-samaharana' saying that collection of kayayoga alone leads one to moksa but not the collection of mental and vocal activities (29.55-58). It should be reminded here that Univali altered th: order of threefold yogas into kaya-van-manas in the T.S. VI:1 from the usual order of mano-vak-kaya. It is however difficult to widen the said concept of kaya-yoga-nirodha as inclusively expressive of the nirodha of all the threefold yogas beginning with kayayoga, because it invites technical difficulties involved with the other established concepts in this connection. According to Unavati, a sayoga kevali thus performs the third stage of sukla dhyana immediately after completing the process uf bringing his subtle activities of mind and speech into cessation which takes place after the performance of samudghata. The Uttara shyay.na 39.35 reads, 'atta-ruddani vajjitta, jha?jja susamahie dhamma.Sukkaim jhanami, jhanam tam tu buha vae', which finds an expression in the T.S. IX:30 (29) that the last two dhyanas alone are the causes of mok$1. And since dhyana which is a part of tapas is here taken up in the context of samvara and pirjara, arta and raudra dhyanas do not fall in the context in question. The definition of dhyana offered in 1X:27-28 which contains three different categories, i.e. the dhyatas' physical prerequisite of the best joints, the definition of chyana proser and the duration of dhyana, must be therefore primarily formulated in view of moksamarga But here he brought in all the four types of dhyana in the canop, perhaps in order to distinguish the Jaina concept of dhya 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 dhyana. Or as we have previously understood and as so also understood by the later authors on dhyana, Umajvati might have desired to extend the said blanket definition to them all, because 'ekagra-cinta' surely applies to arta and raudra dhyanas also. And even if we exclude these two lower types from the said definition of dhyara, 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 dhyana, which led Pujyapada to expand its content up to the third division of joints. Neither Umasvati lucidly expresses that 'ekagra-cinta' is applicable to those in cbadmastha and 'kaya-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 Umasvati by dropping the proviso of the best joints, 'amtomuhuttakalam cittass-egaggaya havai jhanam/tam puna ayam ruddam dhammam sukkam ca nayavvam." In its gatha 1481 onwards, however, he expresses a dissatisfaction about Umasvati's idea of suksmakriya dhyana to be the performance of kaya-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 va-viljhanam hoi nanu taha iaresu-vi de em-eval/1485//. He emphatically explains then that vag-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 Umasvati's view in his Visesavas yakabhasya, sudadha-ppayatta-vavaranam nirodho va vijjamananam! jhanam karanana matam na tu citta-nirodha-metra yam//3669// hojja na manomayam vayiyam va jhanam jinassa tad-abhave! kaya-nirodha-payatassa bhavam-iha ka nivareti? //3670// aha'bhave manaso chatumatthass-eva tam na jhanam sel adha tad-abhave vi matam jhanam to kinna suttassa/3672// juttam jam chatumatthassakarana-metta nusari-nanassal tad-abhavammi 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-gamna-kale, 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 Umaisvati, 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-ajjhavasae, tam jhanam jam calam taya cittam! tam hujja bhavana va, anupeha va have cimla/ amonautta-mittam. clutavatthayam-ega-vasthumni/ chaumatthanam 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 Dasavaikalika (Prakrit Text Society ed., p.16) reads, 'idagim jhanam/tassa imam samannam takkhanam egagg-ciqua-niroho jhanam ...egagzassa cimta egagga-clmia, etam jhanam chaumatihassa; niroho kevalino jogassa, cinta nahi ttl kevalin tan-niroho na sambhavati" tti keti, tam na, davvamana-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-cimta-niroho jhanam' ti etam na ghadate kevalino, abhinibohiyabhedo cimta tri, tamha "dadham-ajjh wv.isanam jharim"-iti, te avidita-viggaha-bheda sutta-dusanenam buldhi-mahappam-abhilasimii, paripheggu jampiyam, dad ham-ajjhavasao etam visesena cimta-ruvam, ko etassa ajj havasato ? yad-uttam ka cimta ? takkadato savve ab'rinibohiya-nana-bheda padhita tattvarthel kala-nirohi a muhuttato.... The point of Agastyasimha's criticism on the Jhanajjhayana 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 suksmakriya 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;vati's position la that case, his understanding of the T.S. treatment of suksmakriya is confused. Also it is strange that Agastyasimha understand cinta in the sense of the synonym of abhinibodbika jnana by way of quoting the T.S. These are the immediate reactions expressed by the post-Umasvati authors to the obscure definition of dhyana proposed by Umasvati 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 dhyana after Umasvati, and gave the definition of 'ekagia-cinta' to arta and raudra dhyanas as well. Hemacandra was the first author who removed these two types from the category of dhyana in his Yogasastra, which is a sure improvement on Umasvati's treament that has been waited for too long. The non-Jaina schools provide the stages of dhyana or samadhi, for instance, the Yogasutra lists fourfold samprajnata samadhis and asamprajnata samadhi, and the Abhidharmakosa enumerates upapatti and samapatti of which steps and stages are therein elaborately worked out. The Agamic classification and subclassification of dhyana are made on the basis of the objects of concentration, excluding the case of sukla dhyana 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 Umasvati to arrange them according to the stages of the progress of meditation as so done in the non-Jaina schools, and gunasthana was seized for this purpose. As already mentioned, the Uttaradhyayana 29.72 already identifies the dhyalas of the last two stages of Sukla dhyana with the sayoga kevali and the ayoga kevali who are the saints in the last two gunasthanas. This was so done because of the peculiarities of these dhyanas known to be performed by kevalis alone, but not due to the conscious attempt to arrange the meditators of these dhyanas in their specific gunasthanas. Umasvati performed this task of assigning the meditators of fourfold dhyanas to the proper gun asthanas by drawing the existent materials in the Agama as we see below. 95

Page #109
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S. We have earlier mentioned that the Bhagavati, Sthana and Aupapatika to uchupon the laksinis of dhyana subdivisions, which are dropped from Umasvati's treatment of dhyana. These are as follows ; 1) arta : kamdanaya, soyanaya, tippanaya, paridevaniya, 2) raudra: osanna-dose, bahula-d., annana-d., amaranamta-d., 3) dharma : apa-rui, nisaggi-r., sutta-r., ogadha-r., and 4) sukla:avvabe, asammobe, vivege, viussagge. The Prajnapana 1.74 classifies saraga-damsanariyas into ten types, i, e.' nisagga-rui, uvaesa-r., ali-r., sutta-r., biya-r., abhigama-r., vitthara-r., kiriya-r., sam'sheva-r., and dhamma-r. The first three laksanas of dharma dhyana find their corresponding types here in the classification of saraga-darsana-aryas. The 4th laksani called avagaui-ruci meining inclination towards the deep study of scriptures may correpond to type of arya called abhigam 1-ruci above. The Prajnapina 1.7 ; further classifies viyaraya-damsanariya into two, i.e., uvasamta-kasaya and khi 11-kasaya, of which the latter is further divided into two i.e., chaumattha-khinakasaya and kavali ksinakasaya. Herein chaumatiba-khinakasya is again of two types, i.e, sayambuddha and buddha-bohiya; and kevali-khinakasaya is also of two types, i.e., sayogi-kevali and ayogi-kevali. The four laksanas of sukla dhyana enumerated in the texts such as Bhagavati do not fiod here the corresponding four types in vitaraza-darsina-aryas, nevertheless these lak$anas are self-explanatory that these belong to the class of vitaraga-darsina-aryas alone, but to no others. The Prajnapana 1.76 continues to say that saraga-caritra-aryas are of two types, i.e., suksma-samparaya and badara-samparaya, who belong to the 10th and 9th gunasthasa in the list of 14 stages. Summing up all these accounts, the performers of dharma dhyana according to these Agamic texts fall in the 9th and 10th stages, and those of sukla dhyana in the 11th stage onwards. The compass of the stages of dharma dhyana above does not exactly agree with that offered by Umasvati 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 arta and raudra dhyatas are difficult to be traced, but these are logically assignable with the basic knowledge of avratas and gunasthanas. Systematizing the, Agamic literature on this subject, Umasvati assigns the meditators of raudra dhyan to the 1st through the 5th stages, those of arta to the 1st through the 6th stages those of dharma to the 7th through the 12th stages, and those of sukla 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 gunasthanas are thus shared by the meditators of dharmi dhyana and by the meditators of the first two stages of sukla dhyana, who are necessarily the purvavids. (Umasvati 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 Pujyapada drops the portion of dhyata from the sotra 37 along with the succeeding sutra 38 of the Svetambara recension. Consequently, no statement is made in the Digambara text as to the authorized performers of dharmya dhyana, of wbich explanation must be supplied by the commentaries. The Sarvarthasiddhi on the aphorisms (36-37) explains that the meditators of dharmya dhyana belong to the 4th through the 7th stages prior to the ascendance of srenis. 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 svetambara tradition.19 Pujyapada, who is thoroughly familiar with 14 gunasthanas and the concept of karanas involving two srenis, insists that dharmya dhyana cannot be performed in the stages beyond the ascendance of $reniz. However it is not at all clear what is the exact reason underlying this rule of prohibition, because commenting the sura (37) he permits the performance of dharmya dhyana to the possessors of the purras in the 11th and 12th stages, "ca' sabdena dh armymapi samucciyatel tatra "vyakhyanato visesa-partipattih" iti srenyaroh indt-prag-dharmyam, srenyoh sukle iti vyakhyayate.' His statement is doubtlessly confused and contradicted. His position is defended by Akalarika urder the sutra (36), 'kascid - aha-upasanta-ksinamoha-kasayayos-ca dharmyam dhyanam bhavati na purvesam eveti; tan-na; kim karanam ? suklabhava-prasangat/14/ syad-etat-ubhayam dharmyam suklam copasanta-ksinakasayayor-astiti? tan-na; kim karanan ? purvasyanisgatvat / purvam hi dharmyam dhyanam srenyor-nesyate arse, purvesu 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 srenis beyond which belongs to the domain of sukla dhyatas. Umsavati utilized the existing canonical materials and systematically arranged the respective dhyatas in the corresponding gunastbanas after the model of the treatment of dhyana made in the non-Jaina circles. His table can impart a general idea as to which type of dhyalas falls in approximately which collective stages of gunasthapa. However, the canonical classification and subclassification of dhyana are on the whole schemed according to the objects of meditation, therefore the gradation of dhyanas and dhyatas in the orderly stages as so worked out by the non-Jainas requires the total reclassification of dhyana itself in the canon. Haribhadra approached this problem from the entirely different angle and established his own scheme of the stages of dhyatas under the influence of the non-Jajna yoga. Some authors solved this problem by way of introducing the four steps of pada, pinda, lupa, and arupa to dharmya dbyana under the influence of the Saiva yoga.20 The treatment of the stages of dhyana thus gave rise to new approaches in the post-Umasvati period. . As we have observed in the texts like the Bhagavati dhyana had already met a semi-systematic treatment regarding its laksana, alambana and anupreks in the later Aganic stage, which Unasvati did not adopt. Jinabhadra revived this canonical 97

Page #111
sec. 9. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T S. treatment of ajambana 'to dharma dhyapa in his Jhanajjhayana, the first elaborate prakarna on the Jaini dhyana, 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 dayana 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 Jivasamasa, marganasthana and gunasthana 14 jivasamasas, 14 marganasthanas and 14 gunasthanas by which media the karma doctrine'is expounded make their first appearance in the Saskhandagama in the standardized form. These three sthanas are reckoned at the outset of its first book called Samtap.iruvanisuttari which are planned to be explained in the beginning several books from the viewpoint of eight anuyogadvaras, i. e., sat, dravya (sankhya), kteira, sparsana, kala, antara, bhava and alpa bahutva. Umasvati does not know the designations of these three Sthanas 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 sthanas had been developed by the time of Umasvati in order to estimate the temporal distance between the T. S. and the Satkhandagama (and between the Kasayaprabhrta and the T. S. at the same time). - Jivasamasa is a classification of samsari jivas 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 Agamic texts, for instance, the Jivajivabhigama, 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 paryapta-aparyapta divisions that are extensively used in the canon. Umasvati must have represented in T.S. the then most advanced and prevalent classification method of the beings, from which the final formulation into 14 jivasamasas expressed in the Sarkhandagama is a matter of time. The T. S. 1:8 Bh. enumerates 13 marganasthanas which are called by the name of anuyogadvaras, i, e., gati (1), indriya (2), kaya (3) yoga (4), kasaya (6), veda (5), lesya (10), samyaktva (12), jnana (7), darsana (9), caritra (8), abara (14), and upayoga 98

Page #112
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THF T. S. (13). Bhavya or the 11th marganasthana is missing in this list, and upayoga or the 13th sthana here is replaced by samja in the Satkhandagama. Umasvati'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 anuyogadvaras which are employed in the beginning books of the Sarkhandagama in the same order (Anuyogadvara 102 counts nine with the addition of bhaga). Umasvati directs the readers to apply these thirteen margana sthanas to samyagdarsana from the standpoint of these eight anuyogadvaras, of which exposition is called sadbhutapadaprarupapadi inasmuch the Satkhandagama designates it samtaparuvana and so on. It is thus undeniable that the crystallization of 14 marganasthanas 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), desavirata (5), pramattasamyata (6), badarasamparaua (9), suksmasamparaya (10), upasantakasaya (11), ksinakasaya (12), (also chadmasthavitaraga, 11-12), kevali or jina (13-14). IX 47 lists samyagdrati (4), sravaka (5), virata (6-7), anant nubandhiviyojka (4-8), darsanamohaksapaka (8-10) mohopasamaks (8-10, 11; on the srepi), upasatamoha (11), mohaksapaka (8-10, 12; on the sreni), 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 Kasayaprabheta 1.14 lists; sa nyaktva, disavirati, samyana, dariinamohopasimina, caritramohopasamana (i. e., bafararags and suks misamparaya. 14.121-122), darsina mohaktapana and caritramohaksapana. This clearly demonstrates the proximity of distance between this text and the T. S. The first stage of mithyarva 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 Umasvati together with certain karanas involving srenis 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., micchaditthi, sasayanasammadditthi, sammamiechadittbi, avirayasammadditthl, virayaviraye, pamattasamjae, appamattasamjae, niattibayare, aniyattibayare, suhumasamparae, (uvasamae or, khavae or), uvasamtamohe, khinamohe, sajogikevali and ajogikevali. Stages 1-7 excluding the 2nd are found in the Agama like the Bhagavatt, for instance, its 18.1.6 lists samyagdrsti (4), mithyadrsti (1) and samyagmithy adrsti (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 darsana and samyama, both of which are the important ethical topics discussed since the time of the Acaranga I and the Sutrakrta I. The Prajapana 1.65-77 impart a full classification of ariyas as follows: ariya 1. iddhipattariya arahama, cakkavatti, baladeva, vasudeva, carana, vijjabara 2. an ddaipattariya kbettariya, jalariya, kulariya, kammariya, sippariya, bhasariya, nanariya, dam sanariya, carittariya damsanariya 1. saraga d. nisaggarui, uvaesa r., ana r.. sutta 1., biya r., abhigama r., vitthara r., kiriya r., samkheva r., dhamma r. 2. viyaraga d. 1. uvasamtakasaya v. by time division : (1) padhamasamaya u. v, apadbama. samaya u. v., (2) carimasamaya u. v., acarimasamaya u. v. khinakasaya 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. Carittariya (1) 1. saragacarittariya 1. bayarasamparaya s. c. [9th stage] (1) by two time divisions. (2) padivai, apa divai 2. subumasamparaya s. c. [10th] (1) by two time divisions. () samkilissamana, visujjhamana 2. viyaragacarittariya .: 1. uvasamtakasaya v. c. (11th) by two time divisions. 2. khinakasaya 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. samayiyacarittariya ittariya s. c., avakahiya s. c. 2. chedovatthavaniya c. saiyara c. c., niraiyara c. c. 3. pariharavisuddhiya c. nivissamana p. c., Divitthakaya p. c. 4. suhumasamparaya c. samkilissa mana s. c., visujjhartana s. c. 5. ahakkhaya c. chaumattba a. C., kevali a. c. The classification of these two types of aryas is primarily tased on the modes of eliminating raga or kasaya. The classification of viyaragacarittariya which is identical with that of viyaragadamsanariya contains the gunasthanas 11-14, and sarazacarittariya are expressed in terms of the 9th and 10th gunisthavas. This indicates that by the time of the Prajnapani all the stages excluding the 2nd and 8th (apurvakarani) were ready. And the subclassification of the 9th stage by pad voi and apadivai and that of the 10th stage by samkilissamana and visujhamana adumbrate the direction towards the formulation of the concept of srenis. It is curious to note here that carittariya are explained by way of the two different types of classification, namely, by gunasthanas and by the stages of samyama. These five stages of samyama or caritra later came to constitue the 8th marganasihana together with asamyama and desasamyma. 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, Umasvati refers for the content of caritramarga to these five types of samyama. This classification of aryas based on these fivefold samyatas seems to have been developed when these items were taken up in the Chedasutras. For instance, the Brhaikalpa 6 enumerates six types of kalpa, i.e., samayika-samyata, chedopastha. paniya-samyata, nirvisamana, nirvistakayika, jina and sthavira; and the Vyavahara 1 discusses about cheda ard pariharae in relation to the mooks' performance of prayaScitta. And it is likely that these five types of aryas came to stand in the capacity of monks' gunisthana in the later monastic disciplinary jurisprudence. The Buddhists were also ready with the classification of aryas known by the name of eight arya pudgalas. It is informed that only four sramanya pbalas were discussed in the old text like the Samyuttanikaya, i.e., srotapanna, sakndagami, anagani and arhat. It is said that each of these four stages of aryas 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 sramanya phalas and the Jaina concept of gunisthagas, 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 srolapanna 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 Abhidharmakos Ch. 6 called Margapudgalanirdesa 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 (Prajnapana 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 marganasthanas. 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 Prajnapant 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 Prajnapana and the T.S., the concept of two sreini involving the 8th stage of apurvakarana must have evolved, and the 2nd stage of sasvaiana must have been formulated in the post-Umasvati period. The provision of srenis, a fall from upasama sreni 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 ksaya (kammam khavei occurs in the Sutrakyta 1.2.1. 15) and upasama must belong to much older period. The idea of ksaya sounds to be an ontologically logical deduction, while that of upasam appears to be an empirical deduction. If their combined operation called ksayopasama. is considered to be much impurer than the upasama operation, it is quite logical to assume that upasama and ksaya types alone can advance an aspirant to the further spiritual ascendance, of which paths are expressed in the forms of two srenis. 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 ksapaka sreni alone is competent to achieve his end. Then it is again imperative to assume that the ascendant on upasama sreni 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 sreni within one samaya up to antarmubarta, and gave two choices for his mode of departure from this sreni, 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 sasvadana 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 gunas hana was on the whole worked out on the rational ground. The above examinations evince that jivasamasa and marganastbana were crystallized soon after Umasvati'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, Umasvati engages himself bere in the discussion of karmic bondage alone, while the Saskhandagama 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 sankramana (VIII: 22Bh.) and a pavartana (II : 52Bh.), and explains anubhava in terms of udaya. Taking all these into consideration, the temporal distance between the T.S. and the Satkhandagama is not too far away, say, at the most ten years. The list of gunasthanas reckoned in the Kasa yaprabhria and the T. S. is quite alike. Likewise the classification of kasayas into four types with subdivisions made in the Kasa yaprabhyta Cb. 8 is located in the Prajnapana Ch. 14 and the T.S. VIII : 10Bh. The synonyms of these four kasayas enumerated in the T.S. VIII: 10Bh., and those of raga-dvela 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 Kasayaprabhyta Ch. 9. Its fifth chapter takes up the concept of sankramani from the standpoint of various anuyogadvaras, and it is also taken up in most of the later chapters which are arraaged according to the gunasthanas. 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, Umajvati 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 asubha. Naya in the Kasayaprabhyta is explained by Yativrsabba as of five kind;. In all probobility, the Kasayaprabhyta was in front of Umasvati. 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 moksamarga The concept of the threefold pathways to liberation, i. e., darsana, jnana and caritra, may be even traced in the Sutrakrta 1.6.17 which reads, 'anuttaraggam paramam mahesi asesa-kaminim sa visohaitta/ siddhim gde saim-ananta-patte nanena silena ya damsanena', and the Satrakrta 11.7. 812, ...agamitta nanam damsanam agamiita carittama pavaram kann 1779 akaraiyio se khilu para-loga-palimimthatta citthai...' However the conscious attempt of discussing moksamarga in threefold ways (Uttaradhya yana 23.33 and Rs brasitan C1.211 or fourfoli wys, i. e., triplet plus tapas (Uttaralhyayana 28), came in a considerably later canonical stage, to which Vattakera 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 Mulacara. 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 moksimarga 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 moksamarga. Therefore, even though tattva essentially express the ontological principles, the first five chapters of the T.S. can be considered in the sease of jnanamimamsa, the last five chapters in terms of caritramimamsa, and the belief in the entire tattvas in terms of darsanamimamsa. 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. Umasvati opens up the topic of mahavrata in this seventh chapter while discussing anuvrata, which was better if it were handled in the section of samvara tattva because the ascetics, conduct is necessarily directed towards moksa whether it is attainable or not in this life. (Moksa is not attainable without the knowledge of the fourteen Purvas, thus no one after Jambu is said to be capable of attaining it. When I visited nuns at Rukdi near Bihubali at Kolhapur Dist., Pujyasri Ajitamati Anna replied in reference to this problem that one can be born in malavidehi 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 samsara ) Thus in the schema of tattvas. samvara-nirjara represent the disciplinary code of ascetics that must constitute the content of caritramarga. However Umasvati, 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., sa nayika, chedopasthapana pariharavisuddhi, uksmasamparaya and yathakhyana. Besides he formulated sixfold simvaradiaras excluding mahaviata. Umasvati's performance as such exhibits that many concepts relevant to car tramarga 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 caritiamarga came to ci olve in the canoaical period, how they were handled by Umasvati and how they were treated in the immediate post-Umasvati authors in the two traditions. The categorical items of jnana-darsana-caritra occur in the canon in reference to various concepts such as aradhara (Bhagavati 8.11.354), viradhana pratikramana (Avasyaka 4.6), jiva guna (Anuyogadvara 145), bodhi and buddhi (Sthana 3.2.207), prajnapa: a (Sthina 3.4.256), samklesa (Sthani 3.4.258), pray: Scita (Sthana 3.4.264), gani pidhi (Stha 11 3 4.277), and so on. This set category also occurs in various contexts in the Azamic texts, for instance, as one of the gunas of Lord Mahavira (Bhagavati 2.5.107), as one of the properties of a ma (Bhagavati 12.10 466), as one of the subdivisions of nirgranthas (Bhagavati 25.6.4), as one of the subdivisions of arya (Prajna pana 1.1.72-77), as one of he subdivisions of vinaya (Aupaparika 19), as one of the divisions of jiva parinana (Prajnapana 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 moksamarga. 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 darsana aradhana. It then discusses three grades of each aradhana in relation to rebirth, and says that he who is possessed of the highest degree of each ara ihana 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-Umasvali phenomenon, which occurs, for instance, in the Tandulavaicarika 118, but not yet in the niryukti literature. A description of Lord Malavira and his elder disciples often ends with such an idiomatic expression as stated in the Bhagayati 1.1.7, ....samjamenim tavasa appanam b'avemane vihai.' The Bhagavati 2.5.111 reads, ... paccakkhane kim phale ? samjamaphale, se non blu.ne! sanjarne kim phale ? aninhaya-phale, evam ananhae 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, 'nana-damsanasampannam samiame ya tavarayam/ ganim-agama-sampannam, ujjanammi 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 Sthana 2.3.120 reads, 'duvihe ayar2 p-o tam-o nanayare ceva nonana yare ceva, nonanayare duvihe p-o tam-o damsanayare ceva, nodamsanayare ceva, nodamsandyare duvihe pannatte, carittayare ceva, nocaritayare ceva, nocaritayare duvihe p-o tam-o tayayare ceva, viriyayare ceva.' Again the Sthana 5. 3. 526 enumerates fivefold acaras, i e., jnana darsana, caritra, tapaz and virya. The Uttaradhyayana 29.59 discerns caritra from tapas and vinaya, 'nana-vinaya-tava-caritta-jogae sam paunai, sasamaya-parasamiyavisarae ya asamgha yanijje 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 guni in the later canonical stage, for its subdivisions include jnana-Jarsina-caritra. Virya which is a quality required for the performance of tapis is said as of twofold in the Sutrakrta 18.1-2, duha veyam suyakkhyayam viriyam ti pavuccail kim nu virassa virattam kahan ceyam pavuccais/ kammam-ege Pavedenti akamman va vi suvvayal eehim dohi thanehim jehim disanti macciya.' The Bhagavati 1.8.70-71 also touch upon this matter, and the Utraradhyayana 3. 10 says that virya is difficult to obtain. These independent categories, i, e., vinaya and virya came to be added to fourfold gunas 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 Mulacara must have been derived. In the earliest strata of the canon wherein the main focus of discourse falls in pranatipata 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 himsa in the Acaranga 1. 5. 3. 298 and the Sutarkata I. 7. 389, in reference to parigraha in the Sutraykta 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 Sutrkacta I. 8. 486, in reference to kriya in the Sutrakta 1.10. 489, and in reference to five vows in the Sutrakyta l. 3. 4. 232. Gupti is taken up, for instance, in reference to vac in the Acaranga I. 8. 2. 409, Sutrakia I. 2. 2. 122 and 10. 487, in reference to atma in the Sutrakyta 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 esana in the Sutrakrta I. 11. 509 and in reference to gupti in the Sutrakyta I. 14. 584. The concept of gupti (manas, vac and kaya) and samiti 106

Page #120
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T.S. (irya, bhasa, esina, asananiksepa, 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 anagare jate iriyasamie brasasamie esanzsamie ayana-bham! 1-mitta-nikkhevanasamie uccara-pasavana-khelasimghari-jilla-piritthavariyzsamie mirisimie vayasanie kayasamie managutte vaigutte kayagutte gutte guttim lie gutta-bambhayari ...' Simyama is classified into four kinds, i. e., manas-vak-kaya-upakarana, in the Sthana 4. 2. 385, five kinds, i. e., the earth-being through the plant-being, in the Sthara 5. 2. 524; seven kinds, i. e., sthavaras, trasas and ajivakaya, in the Sthana 7. 705; ten kinds, i. e., the five one sensed beings up to the five--sensed beings plus ajivakaya, in the Sthana 10.937; and seventeen kinds, i.e., ten kind plus 'pehasamiame uvehasamiame ayahattusamjame pamajjanasamiame mina samiame vaisamjame ka yasamjame' in the Samaraya 57. These items cover the domain of indriyasamvara, samiti and gupti. Samvara is classified in to five kinds, i.e., mithyatva, avirati, pramada, kasaya and yoga in the Sthana 5. 2. 517; six kinds, i. e., sruta up to sparsa plus no-indriya, in the Sthana 6.553; eight kinds, i. e., sruta up to spars plus manas-vak-kaya in the Sthana 8. 759; and ten kinds, i. e., eight plus upakarana and Sucikusagra, in the Sthana 10.939. The categorical items listed in the Sthana 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-nirjara 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 himsa and parigraha as so clearly indicated by their bhavanas. The category of fivefold vratas (i.e., ahimsa, satya, asteya, brahma aod aparigraha) is dealt with in the Uttaradhyayana 30. 2 as the cause of anasrava along with ratri-bbojanavirati (its 30.3 mentions samiti-gupti to be the same cause), in the Samavaya 16 as one of the fivefold anascavadvaras or samvaradvaras and in the same Samavaya 16 as nirjarasthana. And fivefold avratas are treated in the Prajnapana 22. 584 and 594 in relation to kriyas (of which 22. 585 and 595 take up ahimsa 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 bhavanas, and likewise the Dasavaikalika 4.5-10 offer an independent treatment of it along with ratri-bhojanavirati This evinces that the category of five vows, among which ahimsa and aparigiaba (which is used in the sense of a synonym of ahima in the Acaranga I and Sutrakyta 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 anasravadvaras or samvaradvaras when these ontological categories became prevalent. Umasveti includes mahavrata in the category of samvara in IX : 7Bh. which pertains to samvaranupreksa ,samvarams-ca miartadi-gupty-adi paripalanad-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 Sutra 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 Caritrapahuda 27, 'pamc-imdiya-samvarunam pamc.l-vaya pamcavim sa-kiriyasu/pamca-samidi taja-zu'li samjama-caranam nirajaram', and in the Bur.isanuvekkha 76, 'vadi-samidi-palanae damdaccaena in liya-jaenal parinamananussa puno samiami-dhammo have niyama'. Likewise the Mulacara V counts vrata, sam ti and gupti as constituting of the content of casitramarga. The Sthana 5.2.524 absve enumerates another list of fivefold samyamas, i. e., samayika, chedopasthapana, piribaravsuddhi, suksinasamparaya and yatbakhyana, 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., sa nak1-519/ati, ci dopastna janiya -sim,ita, nirv.samana, nirvistakayika, jina and stbavira. It is evident that the content of caritra was formulated after the composition of the Chrdasutras. These five stages of car:tra were later absorbed in the 8th margana. sthana, however they were likely in full swing in the capacity of gunasthana in the monastic practice, under the authority of the Chedasutras. Caritra is therefore clearly discerned from the concept-couple of samyama-tapas in the Bhagavati 1. 1. 17, "goyama ! iha-bhavie caritte no para-bhavie cariste no tad-ubha yacarittel eram tave samiame'. Likewise when the Sthina 2. 3. 120, etc., distinguish caritra from tapas, caritra must have denoted samyama in five stages in as much as it denotes so in the Uttaradhyayana 28, for the term samyama used in a concept-couple of samyam 1-tapas seems to have never been called by the name of caritra. 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 moksamargas, the asectic conduct is expressed by caritra-tapas which ought to be equivalent to samyama-tapas in terms of ethiecal conduct or samvara-nirjara in terms of karma theory. However the Uttaradhyajana author indentifics caritra with samyama in five types such as samayika. 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 tapomarga, it doesn't make much sense. It seems that the Uttaradhyayana author identified caritramarga with its equivalent samyama in five stages much under the sway of the circumstances in the monastic praxis. Umas ati followed its suit as he says in the T.S. 1:33Bh., 'Uktom jnanam/ caritram navame'dhyaye vak s yamah', which the Pasamarati 228-229 articulate in more precise expression. It is as clear as crystal however that caritramarga is equivalent to samvaranirjara in the scheme of tattvas. Moreover he formulated sixfold samvaradvaras which consist of gupti, samiti, dharma, anupreksa, parisa hajaya and caritra. Samyama in tradition does not generally include in its content dharma, anupreksa and pyisa hajaya, among which parisah ajaya is an old stray item since the time of the Acaranga I. Umasvati perhaps thought that since these are the important items they should also find a place in the disciplinary code of the Jaina ascetics. Then samvaradvara is the only category that can absorb these items in the scheme of seven tattvas. Mahavrata is invariably an important samvaradvara as Vamsvati counts it as a part of the content of samvara ajupreksa, 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-Umasvati authors handled these problems raised in the TS. (The following order of the post-Umasvali authors is not necessarily chronological.) Siddhasenagani follows Umarvati's exposition that caritra marga denotes sanayika, etc., of five stages, which is clear also from his explanation of samyakcaritra made on I:1B'. (c. f. Kapida'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 caritramarga continues long to be explained in terms of the fivefold stages of samyama, for instance, in the Visesarasyakabhasya 1257-1277,3159, etc. and the Sutrakrtangarriti [ 5.1. Bhadrabahu follows fourfold moksamargas in dealingwith the Uttaradhyayana(cf. Niryukti gatha 499), however the position of threefold moksamargas is upheld in his Avas yaka niryukti 910. He explains caritra dharma in terms of samyamatapas in the Dasavaikalika niryukti 45-48, and takes recourse to the same concept-couple of samyama-tapas in explaining the aspirants' practice toward mokla, for instance, in 109

Page #123
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T.S, the Dasavaikalika niryukti 344 and Avasyaka niryukti 1081. The content of samyama is to be indriyasamvara in the Dasavaikaaikla niryukti45-46, and samiti-gupti in its gatha 185. Bhadrabahu seems to be in support of includingsamyama-tapas under the category of caritramarga, 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 avaikalika niryukti 181 (the chapter is called Ksudrakacara), Bhabrabahu enumerates the fivefold categories consisting of tapas and virya 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 Avasyka niryukti 207 and Dasasrutaskandha niryukti 2.8. Tasse'set items of five already exist in the canon, which are reckoned irrespective of m@ksamarga in both canonical and niryukti literature. Bhadrababu calls fivefold vinayas by the name of mok$ivinayas in the Dasavaikalika niryukti 314, possibly on the apalogy of moksamarga for they contaia jnana-darsini-casitra vinayas. And it seems that emphasis laid by Badcabaru on these set item of five influenced the southern authors to utilize them in the context of moksa marga,because the Mulacara V takes up fivefold moksimargas inclu ling virya, and the Mularadhana spares pages for the exposition of vinaya. As aforementioned, Kundikuda identifies samyama with vrata, samiti, gupti, etc. Pujyapa li seems to have rec)gnized Umajvati's uasatisfactory identification of caritramarga with samyama in five stages, because the Bhasya exposition on the sutra 1:33 in question completely disappears from the Sarvarthasiddhi. Unfortunately, he did not come out with a positive amendment of this Bhasya statement. The Rajavatika does not substantially add much to the Sarvarthasiddhi on this matter. The Mulacara V entitled Pancacaradhikara outlines moksamarga by way of fivefold acaras, i.e., darsana, jnana, caritra, tapas and virya, of which content is as follows: (1) Introduction: 1-2. mangala verse and enumeration of five acaras: (2): Darsana: 3-4. eigbt angas of darsana - 5. marga and margaphala - 6-51. nine padarthas as the objects of faith and their exposition -- 52-54. threefold kanksas - 55-58. twofold vicikitsas (twenty-two parisahajayas are counted as its bhava type) - 59-63. tourfold drstimohas - 64-67. darsana suddha -- 68. definition of samyagdarsana: (3)Jnana: 69. jnana acara for the destruction of eightfold karmas - 70-71. definition of joana72-89. exposition of svadhyaya in eight divisions: (4) Caritra : 90-97. exposition of five vratas-98-99. abstinence from ratri bhojana- 100-139. exposition of five samitis and three guptis- 140-146. bhavanas 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 acaras leading to the attainment of siddhahood. The overall construction of this chapter is based on that of the Uttaradhyayana 28. Caritramarga includes in its content five vratas plus ratri-bhakti-virati along with their bhavanas and eight matskas. While utilizing th: structure of the Uttaradhyayana 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 carittamarga; 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 samvaradvaras formulated by Umasvati, Vattakera came out with a proposal to the effect that the content of samvaradvara 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 samvaradvara by including vrata, samiti and gupti as its content, parisabajaya, anupreksa and dharma which were absorbed by Umasvati in this category had to go astray again. In consequence, Vattakera classed parisahajaya under the category of darsana as the bhava type of vicikitsa, which in effect sounds more strange than what Umasvati actually did. The five items of anupreksas, i. e., ekatva, anitya, asarana, samsara, and asuci, are enumerated in the Agama as the observances of dharma dhyana (the first four items) and sukla dhyana (asuci which appears in the canon as asubha). In addition to them, Umasiati formulates the rest of the seven anupreksa items after the model of the subdivisions of dharma-smrty-upasthapabhyasas in the Abhidharmakosa VI, and treated these twelve items as an independent samvarad vara (for the details, see Ch. III, Sec. 1). Vattakera again took recourse to the Agamic treatment of anupreksas and placed all of them under the last subdivision of dharmya dhyana. The nature of these anupreksas is predominantly conformable with the observance of dharma dhyana, therefore Vattakera's performance is quite reasonable and commendable, thus it became standardized in the later works on dhyana and yoga. (We should however note that the Malacara VIII takes up twelve anupreksas as an independent category.) Tenfold dharmas are totally ignored in the Mulacara V (which appear in its Ch. X called Silagunadhikara). The Mulacara V thus offered certain positive amendments on the treatment of caritra made by the Uttaradhyayana 28 and the T. S. Unlike the Mulacara which is a compendium of the Jaina ethical doctrines possibly composed by plural authors, Sivakoti's Mularadhana 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 moksamarga, and probably for this reason sivakcti resorted to the traditional position of fourfold paths to liberation. In dealing with the concept of moksamarga, however, Sivakoti advances a step further in theory by sayirg that jnana is included in darsana and tapas in caritra (verses 3-6), of which the former is ultimately reduced to the latter category of caritra (verses 8, 11, 14, etc.). The traces of the concept as such are not impossible in the canonical tradition, for instance, the inclusion of jnana in darsana is adumbrated in the Avas yaka niryukti 1179, damsana-pakkho savaya caritabhatthe ya mimda-dhamme ya damsana-caritta-pakkho samane paraloga-kamkhimmi." That caricra is the direct cluse of moksa is also expressed in the Avas yaka niryukti 1178, 111

Page #125
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S. 'sutthu-vi sammadd:ttht na sijjhat carana-karana-parihtno jam ceva siddhi-mudho tam ceva nisi. The Uttara lhyayana 29.59-61 likewise read, ...nana-sampannayae nam ilve save-bhavahigimin janayail nina-sampanne nam jive caur-amte samsara-kamare na vinassai...damana-sampannya: 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 caritra. 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 moksamarga. He receives the traditional threefold moksamargas, sometimes along with tapas and virya, and spares pages for the exposition of caritra, for instance, in the Pravacanasara 111, Niyamasara and Satpralla. 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 Pancastikaya he persistently pursues the theme of dravya-guna-paryaya and satsamanya expressed in the T.S. while analyzing. the contents of jaana and jneyas, 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 vyavahara 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, 'ayarad-nanam jivadi-damsanam ca vineyam Ichaj-jivaram rakkhi bhanadi 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, jaanamargs 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 Satprabhrta, 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 paramatma, 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 sukla dhyana as he discusses it, but he does not much bother about this aspect. For the same purpose of promoting atma-suddhi, the Niyamasara proposes the practice of pratikramana, pratyakhyana, prayascitta and samayika. Kundakunda adopts the theme of moksamarga propounded in tradition, but he does it rather in the fashion. of formality, and the road to liberation that he vindicates is in essence jnanamarga alone. He looks at caritramarga from vyavahara 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) Umasvati's date and works, and Pt. 3) Historical position of the T, S. As the foregoing analysis of the T. S. evinces, Umasvati belonged to the 5th century, sometime after the Abhidharmakosa, and sometime before the Niryukris, Satkhanda gama and Sarvarthasiddht. 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 (Kumaragupta 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 Kumaragupta I who performed the asvamedha 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 Huras 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 Huqas whose advancement was once checked by Skandgupta enhanced their power as they just defeated Persia, and advanced to the heart of the Gupta empire, Pataliputra. 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 dipara 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. Umasvati'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 Aryabhati in mathematics. The puranas 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 Umasvati 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 Nyayasutra, Sankhyakarika, Brahmasutra, Yogasutra, Abhidharmakosa (which were all composed before the T S.) and Prasastapadabhasya were all brought out in this period. The commentarial works such as Vyas's Yogasutrabhasya (which is a pre-Umasavti work), Sabarasvami's Mimamsasutrabhasya and Uddyotakara's Nyayavarttika 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 Umasvati. The need of the T.S. for the Jainas was hence the call of time, which was allegedly a product of this historical trend. Vaisnavism 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 Kumarajiva, 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 Hinayana Buddhism was still holding its sway all over North India and Mahayanism 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 Viadhyavasa of the Sankhya system challenged disputants of all the schools at Ayodhya, against whom Buddhamitra was invited by king Vikramalitya to challenge, for his disciples Manoratha and Vasubandhu were out of station. He was defeated. Having heard of this humiliating news, Vasubandhu refuted the Sarkhya 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 Baladitya. 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 Paradartha 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 Kapisa, 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, Varanasi, Vaisali, Pundravardhana and Sanatata 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 Parsva, 26 2) Mathura inscription of 432 A. D. made by a lay disciple of Kotika gali V.iyathiri sikhi registering a dedication to an image of Jina27 3) Kahaum 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 Paharpur Rajishahi Dist. of Beagal) stating a Brah nin couple's land donation for the sake of - maintaining worship in a Jaina vihara.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 Mathura 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 Svetambaras. 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 Asokan period, if sramani mentioned in Kalsi Rock Edict XIII at Malakalmuru, 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 Hatbigumpha 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 Kani 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 Marasimha, 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-bhottaraka," 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 Acarya 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 Acarya called srutakirti.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, puja 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 Yapapiyas, Nirgranthas and Kurcakas 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 Saka c. 522 (c. 600 A.D.) recording the history of the migrated sarigha and the samadbi marama of Prabhacandra.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 Perunkatunkon 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 Pallahkovil 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 Visnu. (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, Maharaja 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, Vidisa 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 Parsva 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, Mahagiri, Subatthi, Camdarudda, Rakkhiya, Bhaddagutta, Kalaga and Asadha visited Ujjain wbich was the capital of King Samprati. Siddhasena Divakara's legend of breakaing siva lingam is said to have occurred in this city. 56 A bronze image of Pa, 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 Bava-Pyara's math near Girnar belongs to the period of the grandson of Jayadaman, the 2nd century A. D., where Acarya Dharasena taught, according to the Dhavala; scriptures to Puspadanta and Bbutabali. 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 mala 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, Bhillamala, Malava were the centres of culture and commerce in those days.co syanacarya, author of the Prajitapana, and Aryaraksita, author of the Anuyogadvara, belonged to Malava, likewise Jinabhadra seems to have engeged in composition in Saurastra." As narrated in the Kuvalayamala of Uddy otana (779 A. D.), a traditico maintains that Acarya Harigupta was the preceptor of Toramana. After the Gupta age, West India became the stronghold of the svejambara Jainas. All the Jaina antiquities in North India are reported from Mathura, the ancient cosmopolitan city and dynamic centre of commerce, which was at the junction of the trade routes from Pataliputra to Texila. Mathura 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 Matbura listed by Luders 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 Mathura 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 Mathura, Mathura 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 Mathura 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 Vyavaharasutrabhaya 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 Avasyakacurni 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 sresthis (bankers), sarthavabas (traders) and kulikas (merchants). They organized guilds (srenis 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 srenis which were the guilds of craftsmen and merchants, there existed the other corporate bodies such as pugas which consisted of different castes and occupations in the same area and ginas 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 Arthasastra 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 srenis and sarighas as such evinced in the Arthasastra, 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 Mathura 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 Mathura where a majority of the Jainas had likely settled down by this time is the birth place of Lord Krsna. 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 Mathura are still available in number during the reign of the Hindu King Vasudeva (202-226 A. D.: he was likely a saiva 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. Krsna 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 Disavzikaliki. Tas th:m: oft welve cakravartis including Vasudeva and Baladeva also occurs in the Sthana and samavaya, for instance. Some features of Krsna stories in the Jaina canon are reported as follows (1) Only a part of the Krsna 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) Krsna, no doubt a mighty king, figures as a secondary personality in the biography of Neminatba, (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 -Mathura in the South and their perishing on the Satrunjaya 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 Prabhasa purana, who are however not at all relevant to Tirtbankara Neminatha. The Hindu puranis 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 Krsna 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 Krsna 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 Krsnas 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 avatara worship is amply attested by the growing number of the relevant epigraphic evidences during the 4th through 8th centuries. The Hindu pulanas of the Gupta age began to accept Buddha as an avatara of Visnu. And by absorbing the Buddhist doctrines of ahimsa, vegetarianism, etc., which are more sternly upheld by the Jainas, the Vaispavas 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 puranas like the Bhagavata likewise absorbed the first Jaina Tirthankara Rsabha as one of Visnu's avataras. And it should be also remembered that a Rajgir cave of the 4th century A. D. cane to be requisitio..ed by the Vaisnava 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, Kanchi, 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 Surastra and Madura 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 Mathura inscriptions wherein lay doners inscribed the names of their preceptors along with their gana, 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 Mathura 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 Mathura 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 Acarya'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 srutakiri who is called senapati 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 Mathura 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 Mathura version instead of the Valabhi version of the previous century, which was likely due to the strengh of monks newly emigrated from Mathura. Then the Mathura vacana is expected to show the characieristic features of Saura:cti, however the present Agama is characterized by the Maharastri 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 Mabarastri in the West, because the recension of the canonical texts used by the curni authors is said to show the archaic Maharastri, 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 cuini 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 Mathura, 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. Sravanabelgola inscription no. 1 of c. 600 A. D. which is so far the earliest available Jaina epigraphy therein tells that Bhadraba ausvami, of the lineage of Gautama, Lobarya ..... Bhadrabahu, 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 Prabhacandra Acarya, 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 marani 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 Mathura 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 Mahayaaism and Hinayanism 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 Agimic concepts grew into a full maturity. The Visesavas yakabhas ya 3032-3092 refer to sivabhuti's nihnava which is not men. tioned in the previous literature in the Agamic tradition. The story goes that Sivabhuli, 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 moksa, that women are thereby not eligible to attain moksa, and ibat a kevali does not eat food tbrough his mouib. T1232 points are accounter in the Servarihasiddhi, therefore Pujyapada 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 Mrgesavarman (c. 475-490 A. D.) register land grants made to 1) the Sveta patas and Nirgranthas (c. 478 A. D.), and Yapaniyas, Nirgranthas and Kurcakas (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 Kurcaka. 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. Pujyapa la also describes Umasvati as Nirgrantha Acary in the Survarthasiddhi. Since these four sanghas were called by those distinct names, the schism must have occurred before c. 478 A. D. The Yapatiyas 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 Kurcaka sangba which does not have many inscriptions, nor bas left us so far any literary works.Si Haris gives the earliest Digambara explanation of the schism account in his Brhukuhakos 2, Sec. 131 called B'adrabahukathanaka. According to him, Bhadrababu in the reign of Candragupta at Ujjain predicted a famine lastiog for twelve years. Upon hearing this, Candragupta received diksa from Bhadrabahu, who soon became the head of all sanghas and called by name Visakba Acarya. By the order of Bhadrabahu, Visakha led the sangha to Punnata kingdom in the South, while Bhadrabahu 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 Bhadrabahu 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. roo: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 Bhadrabahusvami who predicted the twelve years' famine at Ujjain is a different saint from Bhad as ahu I whose immediate disciple is recorded as Visakha. The inscription is totally silent about the migration of this certain nimittajna Bhadrabahu, which must mean that he did not at all come to the South. Prabhacandru 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. Yativrsabba (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 srutake valis including Bhadrabahu, which therefore suggests that Candragupti referred to above is identical with the Maurya King by this name. Sravanibelgola 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 Harisena (931-932 A. D.) tells that Candragupta alias Visakha led the sangha to the South. Since Visakha A arya 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 Bhadrabahusvami and Prabhacandra in the scavanabelgoli inscription, which fatally determined the pontiffical liceage of of the Digambaras. This Sravanabelgola 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 Sravanabelgola 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 Mrgesavarman. 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-abaddhiya ceval sattee nighaga khalu titthammi u vaddhamanassa', while its gatha 781 adds Rathavirapura as the place of the eighth nihnava, savatthi 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 Visesavasyakabhasya 3034 as its niryukti gatha 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 niryuktikara is identical with nimittaja Bhadrababu. Bhadrabahu II, author of the Niryuktis and nimittajna, 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 Bhadrabahu at Ujjain who was excelled in nimittavidya 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 Divakara, 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 niryuktikara Bhadrabahu and nimittajna Bhadrabahu were the same person or not. But since both Bhadrababus do not know the schism, they must have belonged to the same period. Then we can still retain the accepted view that these two Bhadrabahus 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 Mahavira's lifetime as so cvinced in the Acaranga 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 Mrzeslvirnui, 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 Dhavala (v. 1, pp. 65-57), the complete knowledge of the angas and purvas was lost by the iine of D11132n2, teacher of Paspadinta and Brutabuli. Tas Dig inbiras nevertheless accept the twelve argas as their sacred literature. Th: Slvarthasid thi explaias "Dis zvazikalika, etc." as the content of the an zabahyas under the sutra 1 : (2), and the Rijavirtik a propounds "Uttara lhyayana, etc." as such, while the Dhzvala enumerates 14 texts (i. c., Samayiya, Cauvisatthao, Vand ini, Padikkamana, Venziya, Kidiyamini, Dasaveyaliya, Uttarajjhayana, Kappayayaharo, Kappakappiya, Mahakappiya, Pumdariya, Mahapumdariya, Nisihaya) which likely constituted the common heritage of the angabahyas in the Agamic tradition before the split of the church.87 The later Digambaras count the Kasayaparabhrta of Guradhara, the Satkhidagimt of Paspalanta and Bu'abali and th: Tiloyapannatti of Yativrsabha (author of the Curnisulra on the Kasayaprabhyta) as their angabahya texts, which were, excluding the first named text, directly derived from the later camaical tradition in the innslate post-Umasvati period. Their pro-canon is classified into four types : i) Prathamanuyoga, namely, Padinapurana, Harivansapurana Mariparari ani Uttarariri which are the works of the 7th to the 9th century A. D.; 2) Karananuyoga, namely, Jayadhavala of the 9ih century, including the 130

Page #144
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE 7. S. Suryaprajiapil and Candraprojapti which scund to be derived from the ujingas Ly these names: 3) Dravyanuyoga, namely, the works by Kundakunda, the revised version of the T. S. and Aptamimamsa, which are the post-Umasvati products, and 4) Caranianyogi, namely, Malacara and Trivarnacara of Vattakera, Rainakaranda sravakacara of Samantabhadra and Bhagavati aradhana of Sivakoti, which again belong to the post-Umasvati period. The works other than the twelve angas, 14. angabahyas and the Kasayaprabyla are the post-Umasvati 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 Mulacara, 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 Drstivada, 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 Mathura 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 Mathura and Valashi in the 4th century. It must mean that these Councils were or at least Mathura 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 Kasayaprabhrta, $atkhandagama 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 patas 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 Svetapatas. The later Digambaras then attempted to build up their history by 132

Page #146
Sce. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T. S. bringing in Bhadrabahu 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 Kasayaprabhrta, T. s. etc., are derived from the Drotivada is obviously concocted in relation to Bhadrababu I who alone is said to have memorized the Dust vada.) 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 Kasayaprabhyta, 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 Svetapatas 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 patas and the Nirgrani 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 kavalahara must have been gradually developed by the time of the Sarvarthasiddhi, because the Digambara recension of the T. S. which accepts the Svetambara reading 133

Page #147
Sec. 3. SOME PROBLEMS IN THE T.S . of the sutra IX : 11(11) evinces an obscure position regarding this matter. Pujyapada could have revised this sutra, which somehow he hesitated to do. Under the circumstances, the Digambaras had to likewise establish some other minor matabhedas to strike differences from the Svetambara positions. For instance, Kundakunda follows the Kasayaprabhta as to the concept of upayoga. Pujyapada follows the Satkhandagama as to the theory of atomic combination. Vattakera takes the Niryukti position as to the treatment of acara. 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 Dhayala, 3) T. S., Niryuktis, etc., which are by nature outside the category of the canon, and 4) Kasa 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 Kasa yaprabhrta, 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 Kasayaprabhyta, 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 Umasvali's date and works (1) His date Among the works cited by Umasvati, the Vaisesikasutra, Nyayasutra, Sankhyakartka and Yogasutra were composed before the Yogasutrabhasya 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 Sarvari hasiddhi. Umasvati's date has to be thus deter nined somewhere between Vasubandhu, Vyasa and Bhadrababu II. Bhadrabahu 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 Mabavira's nirvana 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 birvana is widely accepted in 487-477 B.C.93 As aforementioned, Mrgesavarman, c. 475-490 A.D., donated lands to the Sveta 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 Kalavarga 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 pata 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., Mrgesavarman 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 Santivarman, and donated lands to the Yapaniyas, Kurcakas and Nirgranthas. His grandfather Kakusthavarman (c. 405-435 A.D.) donated a land to a Jaina acarya, but no inscription pertaining to the Jainas seems to exist as to his father. W. are not sure when and how the Yapaniyas and Kurcakas 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 Mahavira 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 puravas 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 Mahavira'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 Mithura. 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 Mathura, 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 Mrzesavarnin'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 Yozsutrabris yi and the Abhidharmakosa. Vyasa'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 Mahayanist Vasubandhu and 400-480 A.D. as of the author of the Abhidharmakosa 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 Mahayanism 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 Abhidhirmakasa and sometime before the date of the Niryuktis. Vasubandhu, Umasvati and Bhadrabahu II were thus contemporaries in the 5th century. (2) His works The tradition informs us that Umasvati composed five hundred prakaranas (for instance, Haribhadrasuri 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 Bhavavijaya says that Vacaka said so and so is not traceable in his extant works.95 The Prasamarati, Jambudvipasamasa, Puraprakarana 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 raga-dvesa (raga defined as mamakara of which content is said to be maya-lobba, and dvesa as ahamkara of which content is said to be krodha-mana) as the causes of the karmie bondage in sam ara and their vairagyamargas which consist o five vratas, twelve anupreksas (said as blavanas), ten dharmas, threefold pathways to liberation and dhyana. 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. Prasamarati 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 samudghata up to suksmakriya dhyana 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 sthavaras are counted here as of five kinds (verses 190-192 against T. S. II:13-14) and samyaktva, jnana, caritra, virya and siksa are enumerated to be the jiva laksanas (verse 218 against T. S. V:21). The Prasamarati 3-4 read, 'yadyapy-ananta-gama-paryayartha-hetu-naya-sabda-ratnadhyam/ sarvajna-sasana-puram pravestum-abahusrutair-duhkham//sruta-buddhi-vibhava-parihinakas-tatha'py-aham-asaktim-avcintya/dramaka ivavayavonchakam-anvestum tat-pravesepsuh', which echo the s. karika 23-26 expressing a difficulty in epitomizing the canon. The Prasamarati is doubtlessly a post - T. S. product, for it quotes the concept like satsamanya which was formulated in the particular context in composing the T. S. The Jambudvipasamasa is a systematic treatise on Jambudvipa, of which first two abnikas describe the geography of Jambudvipa, the third explains the world oceans and continents, and the fourth discusses about mensuration formulae and recapitulates the characteristic features of Jambudvipa. 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 Agamic or non-Agamic. These speak in support of the traditional belief that the Jambudvipisamisa was composed by Umasvati. 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 Jambudvipasamasa gives a formula h - Vla? -c)/6, which is based on approximations and does not yield a correct result. Umasvati improved this formula in the T.S. This demonstrates that the Jambudvipasamasa was composed sometime before the T.S., most likely as a provisional preparation for the composition of its third chapter called Lokaprajaapti. Perhaps for this reason, the third chapter of the T. S. turned out to be extremely summaritical and short. The Pujaprakarana in nineteen verses describes twenty-one methods of Puja for the laity. The Prasamarati 305 refers to puja by enumerating gandha, malya, adhivasa, dbupa, pradipa, etc., but not more than that. The mention of such an elaborate ritual has no place in the known works of Umasvati, which makes it doubtful to be his composition. It is also remarked that the methods of puja described here are almost identical with those noted by Caritrasundara in his Acaropadesa, and the work is speculated to be scarcely older than the 14th century A. D.98 The Savayapannatti is a prakrit work which expounds twelve suvaka dharmas (guna-siksa vratas) along with their aticaras 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 Sayayapannatti is found in the T.S. Ch.VII, however the former differs from the latter as to the major treatment of twelve guna-siksa vratas and their aticaras, which go with the tradition of the Upasakadasa but not with the T.S. The methods applied for distinguishing siddhas in verses 76-77 corrrespond to those of the Prajnapana 1.7.7-10 but not to those of the T. S. Besides the Savayapannatti is composed in Prakrit. These points make difficult to ascribe it to Umasvati, and many scholars are of opinion that Haribhadra is likely its original author.99 The Jambudvipasamasa and Prasamarati are the minor works of Umasvati. 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 Umasvati composed some more provisional works for the T. S. on the line of the Jambudvipasamasa. 140

Page #154
See. 4. HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S. Part 3 Historical position of the T. S. Vacaka Acarya Umasvadi 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. Pujyapada in his Sarvarthasiddhi delineates him as a saintly figure in a lonely asrama attended by the order of monks. The tradition invented a legend that Umasvati, 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 Umasvati 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 Acarya.100 No anecdote is otherwise known to us about him. He was no doubt an orthodox Jaina acarya, 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, Umasvati 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 Unavati. 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. Umasvati 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 Dharmatrata's Abhi tharmahydayasa sira before him, upon which he could develop his own treatise. Umasvati 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 prakarani form in sutra 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 Mathura 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. Bhadrabahu 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 Agamic 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 Sarvarthasiddhi was composed from the Digambara point of view. The pro-canonical authors drew their materials from the Agamic stock which excludes the later canonical texts authorized in the West and which includes the Kasayaprabhrta, 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 Umasvati 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 svopajnabhasya 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. Pujyapada 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 Pujyapada. Kundakunda's Dame makes its appearance in the inscriptions in the late 11th century, i. e., 1075 A.D. (Saka 997)201 onwards, even though Kundakundanvaya is recorded in 466 A. D. (Saka 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 Kundakundanvaya 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 Pancastikaya 1.10 can be well born in the context of the Pancastikaya 1.8-9 wherein he analyzes the nature of sat in relation to dravya.'o* Pujyapada's revision of the T. S. clearly reveals his mastery skill in editorship, thus this sutra V:(29) must have been drawn from the other source, namely, the Pancastikaya. Pujyapada was thus acquainted with the Pancastikaya 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-Umasvati-Pujyapada. Since the later Southern Jainas believed Umasvati to be the author of the revised version of the T. S., this sequence is not insensible. Samantabhadra quotes mangalacarana of Pujya pada in bis Aptamimamsa, and Pujyapada refers to Samantabhadra in the Jainendra vyakarana while enunciating a rule, 'catustayam samantabhadrasya' (5.4.140) which refers to jhayo hah' (5.4.136) and which does not exist in the Astadhyayi. 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. (Saka 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 Pujyapada's name occurs after 729 A. D. (Saka 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 Budrabahu 11,109 pinpoint only the important concepts in the canon by the method of anuyogadvaras 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 prakarani form accompanied by a svopajnabhasya commenced earlier. 143

Page #157
Sec. 4, HISTORICAL POSITION OF THE T. S. The adoption of the Sanskrit language started by Umasvati 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 prakarana form of composition started by Umasvati 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 Jhanijjhzyini, Millavadi'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 $ravakacara.111 Another important contribution that Umasvati 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 pramana 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-paryaya, 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 anekantavada 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 nayavada and saptabhangi by Siddhasena Divakara 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 Mallavadi and Haribhadra in the West, and Akalarika and Vidyanandi in the South. It is noteworthy that the titanic logicians such as Akalanka and Vidyanandi, to whom the Western tradition owes for its later development of logic, were the commentators of the T. S. Anekanta 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 Madhava 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 Umasvati 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 Umasvati 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 Aryadeva (E. C. VIII, Nagar Tl. no. 35), Umasvati or Grddhapiccha (also spelled as Grdhrapisicha, etc.) qua 'padartha-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.). Umasvati alias Gtddba piccha is mentioned as the author of the T.S, in the Sravanabelgola inscription no. 105 of 1398 A. D., and Umasvati 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 Umasvati alias Grddhapiccha was a disciple of Kondakunda. Grddhapiccha as the auther of the T.S. is mentioned in the Dhavala of the 9th century A. D. in the literary source. The name Umajvami appears in the Digambara source after Srutasagara's commentary on the T.S. in the 16th century A. D. (Sec also Jugalkishor's "Purani vatom ka khoja" in Anekanta, varsa 1, kirana 5) Premi : Jaina sahitya aur itihasa, pp. 521-547 3. Various dates of Umasvati 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, Muniraja Sri Pun yavijayaji's Collection, pt. 1 Descriptive Catalogue of Manuscripts in the Jain Bhandars at Pattan. Catalogue of Manuscripts in Shri Hemachandracharya Jain Jnanamandira, Pattan, pt. 1. Limbadi Jaina Jnana Bhandarani Hastalikhita Prationum Sucipatra, 146

Page #160
APPENDIX i 2. See Introduction, n. 1 3. Pannalal suggests that Amrtacandra and many post-Akalanka authors drew their materials specifically from Akalanta's Ra'avartika. See his introduction to the Tattvarthasara of Amrtacandra, 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 Laghvitika 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 Bhasyanusarini. As such, the Laghvitika must have been produced from the Bhas 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 Bhasyanusarini. Chapter II Siddhasena's commentary on the s.karika begins with, 'ri vardhamanasvamine namah atha sri siddhasenagani-pranita dvitiya tika prarabhyate', and ends with, iti svopajna-sambandhakarikah tika-dvaya-sametah samaptah'. 2. viram pranamya sarvajam, tattvarthasya vidhlyate/ tika samksepatak spasta, manda-buddhi-vibodhini 3. Namdisuttam and Anuogaddaraim, 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 mala) which appears in Haribhadra's Laghvi tattvarthatika 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 Bhasya, 5. Sihana 10.972. dasa-vihe daviyanuoge p-o tam-o daviyanuoge mauyanuoge egaththiyanuoge karamanuoge appiyanappie bhaviyabhavie bahirabahire sasayasasae tahanane atahanane

Page #161
APPENDIX I 6. All the three characteristics of sat enumerated by Umasvati make their appearance in Nagarjuna's Madhyamakasastra 7.33 in the totally different context, 'upada sthiti-bhangdnam-a siddher-nasti samskytam, samskrtam, 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 Sakanayanavyakarana, pp. 35 ff. 10. Some scholars maintain that the Digambara version of the T. S. existed before Pujayapada's time as he notes some variant readings in the Sarvartthasiddhi. Pujyapada notes two variants, i. e., 'ksipranihsrta' for the reading 'ksipranihsrta' in I: (16), and 'caramadeha' for 'caramottama-deha" in II (53). The original text reads them, 'ksipranisrita' 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 Pujyapada are: 3rd century A. D. 4th 5th Motilal Ladha (308 V. S.) J. L. Jaini (before 308 Saka) 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 :Sri Kundakundacarya'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 sivasriyah prakasa-yasasah prasisyena/ sisyena ghosanandi-ksamanasyalkadasangavidah || 1 vacanaya ca mahavacaka-ksamaya-mundapada-si syasya sisyena vacakacarya-mula-namnah prathita-kirteh | 2 nyagrodhika-prasutena viharata pura-vare kusuma-namni | kaubhisanina svati-tanayena vatsi-sutenarghyam / 3 arhad-vacanam samyag-guru-kramenagatam samupadharya | duhkhartam ca duragama-vihita-matim lokam avalekya 1/4 148

Page #162
APPENDIX I idam uccairnagara-vacakena sattvanukampaya dybdham / tattvarthadhigamakhyam spastam umasvatina sastram 1/5 yas--tattyadhigamakhyam jnasyati ca karis yate ca iatroklam/ so'vyabadha-sukhakhyam prapsyaty-acirena paramartham // 6 13. Buhler'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. Buhler notes that the name occurs four times in A. Cunningham's Collection and once perhaps twice in A. Fuhrer'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 Umasvati is known by name Nagara Vacaka is mentioned by C. J. Shah in his Jainism in North India, p. 240 and by B. C. Law in his Some Jaina Canonical Sutras, 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 Tattvarthasutra, 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. Gunakarasuri expresses the same idea taht Umasvati was a convert from Snivism in his Bhaktamarastotravrtti composed in 1426 V. S. (Sri Jinadattasuri Jnanabhandara, pp. 11-12), 'tato'nyatra sivadau virakto jinadharma-darsanasakto'bhud-umasvatir-dvija-sunur-atta-vratah suri-padam apa, kramat-purvagata-vetta vacako'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 Patanjali Introduction, p. 19; Pt. Sukhla'ji's Commentary on Tattvarthasutra, lotroduction, pp.27-28 5. Pt. Sukhlalji's Comnentary on Tattvarthasutra, 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 Tattvarthasutra 8. Jacobi : "Eine Jaina-Dogmatik", p.523 9. Asteya bhavanas : Bhasya - anuvisy-avagraha-yacana, abhiksna-a.-Y., etavad-ity-a.-dharana, samana-dharmikebhya-a.-y., anujnapita-pana-bhojana Acaranga -- anuvii-miuggaham-jai, uggabamsi uggahiamsi abhikkhana, etavatava uggabana-silae, sahammiesu anuvij-mitoggaha-jai, anunnaviya-pana-bhoyana Sam zva ya - uggahinunnivamiya, uggaba -simajananiya, sayam-eva ugga ham anuginbanaya, sahammiya-uggaham anunnaviya paribhumjanaya, sabarani-bhatia-panam anunnaviya padibhumjanaya Mulacara -- jayani-padisevi, samanunnamana-p., anangabhava-p., sadhammi ovakaranissa-nuvici-sevana, catta-p. Prasnavyakar.ini -- vivitta-vasa-vasabi, uggaha-3., sejja-s., vinaya as to ahainmi, uvakarami..., salarana-pinda-vaya-labhe-s. Sarvarth zsildhi and Caritrapahuda | Sunaya zara-vasi, vimocitavasa, paropa rodha-karani, sadharmavisamvada, bhaiksya-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 Matijnana in the Subhas ya Tattvarthadhigamasutra" 13. See Sukblal's introduction to Sanmaritarka 14. It is bisel on : Juinz sahit ya bthat itihasa 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-papasrayadinam-api tatah Pythag-upadanam na yukti-pradhanam syat, rasi-dvayena sarvasya vyaptatvad-iti cetl na punyadinam vipratipattinirasartharvat, isravadinam sakarana-samsara-mukti-pratipadana-paratvadva prthag--upadanas yadustatal yatha ca samvara-nirjarayor-moksa-hetura asravasya i bandhana-nibandhanatvan-punyapunya-dyi-bheda-bandhasya ca samsara-hefutvam tathagamat-pratipattavyam// 16. N. J Shah "Some Reflection on the Problem of Jnana-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 Tattvarthasutra, p. 345, n. 1 19. Dhavala 13/5.4.26/14/10 (Jainendra siddhanta kosa, v. 2, p. 481) asam jadasammaditthi-sam jadasam jada-pamattasamiada-appamatlasam jada - apuvvasamjada-aniyattisamjada-suhumasam paraiya-khavagoyasamaesu dhamma jjhanassa pavutti hodi tti jinovadesado / 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 Tantraloka X. 241, etc. 21. Dictionary of Buddhology (Bukkydgaku jiten), Kyoto, Hozokan, 1961, pp. 189-190 22. Sukhlal: Cautha karmagrantha, Introduction, pp. 53-55; Malvania: "Jaina gunasthana aur bodhicaryabbumi" 23. K. K. Dixit "The Probleins of Ethics and Karma Doctrine as Treated in the Bhagavati Sutra", 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. Brhatkalpabhas ya III 3275-3289; also I. A., XI, p.246 31. E.I., v.20, pp. 71 ff.; Jaina sila 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 Marasimha" 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 Tulunadu", 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 Tamilnadu"; These articles are all in Aspects of Jaina Art and Architecture. Also see P. B. Desai: Jainism in South India; T. N. Subramanian: "Pallankovil 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 Vidisa" 56. Prakrit Proper Names, pt. I, p. 113, 'ujjeni" 57. A. Ghosh, ed.: ibid., ch. 8, pp. 87-88 58. U. P. Shah: "A Unique Saina image or Jivantasvami"; his "An old Jaina Imige from Khed-brahma (North Gujarat)"; and his "Age of Differen tiation of Digambara and svetambara 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 Gurjaradesa and Its Literature" 61. Namdisuttam and Anuogaddaraim, Introduction by D. D. Malvania. pp. 17-18 (English) 62. G. S. Gai: "Mathura Jain a Inscriptions of the Kusana Period - A Fresh Study", in Aspects of Jaina Art and Architecture 63. The image described here belongs to the Archaeological Museum at Mathura (no. 2502). See A. Ghosh, ed.; ibid., ch. 6, p. 66 64. For North Indian and Mathura 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, "mahura" 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; Sarthavaha 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 Mahipala, 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 iddaraim, 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 Yapaniya sangha, see A. N. Upadhye : "Yapaniya sangha - A Jain Sect"; and his "More Light on Yapa niya sangha; A Jain Sect"; N. Premi : Yapaniyom ka sahitya", in his Jaina sahitya aur itihasa, pp. 56-73; Sakatayana : Strimukti-kevalibhukti-prakarana, bound with Sakajayana-vy akaranam 81. N. Premi : "Kurcakom ka sampradaya", in his Jaina sahitya aur itihasa, 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 sahit ya ka byhad itihasa, v. 3, pp. 68 ff. 87. Namdisutiam and Anuogaddaraim, Introduction by D. D. Malvania, pp. 21-22 (English) 88. The nature of the Suryaprajnapti and the Candraprajnapti which are said to have been derived from the Drstivada is not at all clear. See Jaina sahitya ka brhad itihasa, 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 : Brhatkathakosa, 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 svetambara images ...", pp. 4-5 92. For various views regarding the dates of nirvana of Mahavira 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 : Tattvarthadhigamasatra, v.1, Introduction, pp. 20 ff. 96. T. S. III:1 $Bh., 'gajamukhanam vyaghramukhanam-adarsamukhanam gomu khanam-iti', has another reading, 'adarsana-mesa-haya-gajamukha-namanah'. The Jumbudvipa samasa 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 Umasvati 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 Umasvati in the svetambara 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, Umasvati and Pujyapada. See his Sri Kunda Kundacarya's Pravacana sara, 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. Pancastikaya I 8 satta savva-payatiha savissa-ruva anamta-pajjaya / bhamg-uppada-dhurata sappad ipakkha bhavadi ekka // 155

Page #169
APPENDIX I 9 daviyadi gacchadi idim taim sabbhava-pajjayaim jam daviyam tam bhannamti aananna-bhudam tu sattado // 10 dayvan sal-lakkhaniyam uppada-vvaya-dhuvatta-sam juttam / guna-pajjaya sajam va jam tam bhannamti savvanhu // 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 Anuogaddaraim, 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. Tattvarthasutra A selected bibliography (Texts, major commentaries, and about 7. S.) Akalanka: Tattvarthavartikam [Raiavartikam] of Akalanka, ed. by M. K, Jain 2 vols. Bharatiya Janapitha, Banaras, 1953 & 1957. (J. M. J. G. Sk. nos. 10 & 20) Amrtacandra Tattvarthasara of Amrtacandrasuri, ed. by Pannalal. Ganesaprasada Vari Granthamala, Banaras, 1970. (G. V. G. no. 21) Atmarama: Tattvarthasutra jainagamasamanvaya Lala. Bacanalala Jaina, Malerkotla, 1941. APPENDIX II BIBLIOGRAPHY Bhaskaranandi Tattvarthavetti or Sukhabodha of Bhaskarunandi, ed by A. Santiraja. University of Mysore, Mysore, 1944. (University of Mysore Oriental Library Publication, Sk. no. 84) Bhatt, B. and Tripathi, C. : "Tattvartha Studies". In The Adyar Library Bulletin 38i 1974 Ghatage, A. M."The Text of the Tattvarthadhigamasutrani". In Journal of the University of Bombay, 4-3, Nov. 1935 Haribhadra Srt tattvarthasutram svopajnabhasyanusari srimad Haribhadrasuri sutravettiyutam, ed. by Anandasagara. Jainanand P Press, Surat, 1936. Jacobi. H., tr.: Eine Jaina-Dogmatik: Umasvati's Tattvarthadhigama Sutra." In Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Leipzig. Band 60, 1906, Jain, A. A Comparative study of the Major Commentaries of the Tattvarthasutra (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 Tattvarthadhigama Sutra. Bharatiya Jnanapitha Publication, Delhi, 1975. (J. M. J. G. Eng. ser. 5) Jaini, S. A., tr. Reality of Shri Pujyapada's Sarvarthasiddhi. Vira Sasana Sangha, Calcutta, 1960. Jain, J. L, ed. & tr.: Tattvartha thigina sutra (A Treatise on the Essential Principles of Jainism) by Sri Umasvami Acharya, ed. with introduction . . . Central Jain Publishing House, Arrah, 1920. (The sa cred Books of the Jainas v. 2), 157

Page #171
BIBLIOGRAPHY Kailascandra, ed. : Tautvarthasulra. Bharatavarsiya Digambara Jaina Sangha, Mathura 1950. (B. D. J. S. 7) Kanakura, Y., tr. : Tait varthudhigam zsutra of Umisvali (Teigi-shotoku kyo,) with introduction ... together with "Study of the Jaina Theory of Knowledge -- on Matijnana in the Sabhasya Tattvarthadhigama sutra." In his Study of Indian Spiritual Civilization - Jainism (Indose ishin bunka no kenkyu). Baifukan, Tokyo, 1944. Khucandra, ed.: Sablasv.1 tatsa-thithiganisura of Una spati, with Hindi translation. Manilal, Revashankar Jagajivan Jhaveri. Bombay, 1932. (Rayaca ndra Jaina Sastramala) Ladha, Votila), el. : Tati varta lhig im Isutrali bhasyisalitani.Poona, 1927. (Arhata mata Prabhakara no. 2) Mody, K, P., ed. : Tattvarthadhigama sutram, with Puaprakarana, Jambudvipasamasa and Prasamaratiprakaruni. Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta 1903. Pujyapala : Surva thasiddhi of Puiya pa ta, ed. by K. B. Nitave. Jainendra Press, Kolhapur, 1917. Pujyapaja : Sarvarthasiddhi of Puivapada the Commentary on Acarya Grddhapiccha's Tattvarthusutra, ed. by Phulcand:a. Bharatiya Joanapitha, Banaras, 1955. 2nd ed., 1971. (J. M. J. G. Sk. ser. 13) Sagarananda: Sri tattvarthakarir-tan-muta-nirnaya yane sri tatt vartha-sutrake kartta Svetambara hai ya digambara ? Rishabhadevji Kesbarimalji Shveta mbar Sanstha, Ratlam, 1936. Sirma, Vidyabhusan : Tultvartha sutraka alocanatin ik-adhyayana. Vikrama Visvavi dyalaya, Ujjain, 1973. Dissertation, Siddhasena : Tattvarthathiquin isutriz (A Treatise on the Fundamental Principles of Jainism) by His Holiness Sri Uinasvari Vacaka, together with his Connective Verses Cominented upon by Sri Devaguptasuri and Sri Siddhusenagini, ed, with introduction ... by H. R. Kapadia. 2 vols. Jivanachand Sakerchand Javeri, Bombay, 1926 & 1930. Srata jagira : Tattvarthavrtti of Sri Srutasagarasuri, the Commentary on Tattvartha. Jura of Sri Uma svami, with Hindi tr., ed with introduction ... by M. K. Jain. Bharatiya Jnanapitha, Banaras, 1949. (J. M. J. G. Sk. no. 4) Sukhlal, S.: Pl. Sekhilji's Connentary on Taltvarthasutra of Vacaka Umasvati, 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 Vidyanandi : Tattvarthaslokavartikam of Vidyanandi, ed. by Manoharalal, Ramacandra Natha 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 Anekanta, varsas 3, 5, etc. 2. Bibliography for Chapter II, Section 11 Acarangasutra, with Niryukri by Bhadrabahy, and Voli by Silanka. Agamodaya Samiti, Mehesana, 1916 Acaranga-curnih. Rishabhadevji Kesharimalji Shvetambar Sanstha, Ratlam, 1971, Anuyogadvaranam curnih, with Vitti by Haribhadrasuri. Rishabhadevji Kisharimalji Shvetambar Sanstha, Ratlam, 1928. Avassaga-nijjutti-cunni, 2vols. Rishabhadevji Kesharimalji Shvetamba: Sanstha, Ratlam, 1928-29. Avas yakasutram, with Niryukti by Bhadrabahu, ani Vilti by Haribhadrasuri. Agamodaya Samiti, Mehesana, 1916--17. Avasyakasutra-niryukter-avacurnih. 2 vols. Matichand Maganbhai Coksi Surat, 1965. (D.L.J.P. 108) Brihat Kalpa Sutra 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. Atma. nanda Jaina Sabha, Bhavnagar, 1933-42. Catuhsaranadi-maranasamadhy-antam prakirnaka-dasakam. Agamodaya Samiti, Mehesana, 1927. (A. S. grantha 46) Siyambhavz's Daskali yasuttam, with Bhadrabahu's Niryukti, and Agastyasinha's Curni, ed. by Punyavijaya. Prakrit Text Society, Binaras. 1973. (P. T. S. series 17) Dasavaikalika-curnih Rishabhadevji Kesharimalji Shvetambar Sanstba, Ratlam, 1933. Dasavaikalikun, with Nirvukii by Bhadrabau, au: Vytli by Haribhadrasuri. (Devchand Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar, Bombay, 1918) (D. L. J. P. 47) Duszsrutaskandha nula-niryukti-cunik, Bonhay, 1918. (Minivijayajigani granthamala 14) Jitakalpasutr.im > Jinab drigir, with Svopnji brasya, ed. by Palayavijaya. Babalchand Keshavlal Modi, Ahmedabat, 1937. Nandisitranwith Curni by Jina lasagani, and Vyhli by Haribhadravuri. Rupchand & Navalmal, Indor, 1931. 159

Page #173
BIBLIOGRAPHY Nisith isurin wit. Bhasya and Visesicurni, by Jinadasagani, ed. by Amaramuni and Muni Kanhaiyalal. 4 vols. Sanmati Jnanpith, Lohamandir, Agra, 1957-60. (Agama Sahitya Ratnamala 3-6) Ogh iniryuktih, with Bhasyi by Purvacarya, and Vrtti by Dronacarya. Agimodaya Samiti, Mehesana, 1919. Pindaniryuktih, with Bhasya, an! Vrti by Miliyagiri. Devchind Lalbhai Jain Pastakoddhar, Bombay, 1918. (D. L. J. P. 44) Sutrakrtangim, with Niryukti by Bra trabahu, Vrtti by Silanka, and Dipika by Vijayadevasura. 2 vols. Sangha Pedhi, Bonubay, 1950-5j. (Gopi Parsva Jaina granthamala 4 & 7) Sutrakytang 1-curnih. (Printed by M. M. Badami, Surat), 1941. Uttaradhyayanani, with Niryukti by Bhadrabahu, and Vrtti by Santisuri 3 vols. Devchand Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar, Bombay, '1916-17. Uttrra lhyayan1-curni". Rishabhadevji Kasharimalji Shvetambar Sanstha, Ratlam, 1933. Acarya Jinabhadra's Visesanas yakabrasya with Auto-commentary, ed. by Dalsukh Malvania. 3 vols. Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidyamandir, Ahmedabad, 1966-68. (L. D. series 10, 14, 21) Vytvaharasutran 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) Abhidhana -rajendra, ed. by Vijayarajendrasuri. 7 vols. Samasta Jaina svetambara Sangha, 1910-34. Bhagavatisura (Vyzkiyaprujn 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 indracharya Jain Jnanamandira, Patian, pt. 1 Paper Manuscripts, ed. by Punyavijaya. Hemacandracarya Jaina Jnanamandira, 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 Kasaya Pahuda Sutta by Gunadhara with Churni Sutta of Yativrsabhacharya tr. and ed. by H. L. Jain, v.1. Vira Sasana Sangha, Calcutta, 1955. (V. S. S. series) Haribhadra Yogadrstisamuccaya and Yogabindu. Jaina Grantha Prakasaka Sabha, Ahmedabad, 1940. (J. G. P. S. granthamaja 24-25) Harisena: Brhatkathakos 1, ed. by A. N. Upadhye. Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, 1943. (Singhi Jain series 17) Isibhasiydim, 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 Granthamala 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 Svopajnatika. Rishabhadevji Kesharimalji Shvetambar Sanstha, Ratlam, 1927. 161 Jinavijaya Kharataragaccha pattevali sangraha. Babu Puranacandra Nabar, Calcutta, 1931. Karmagrantha. 4 vols. (v. 4 ed. by Sukhlal) Atmanand Jain Pustak Pracarak Mandal, Agra, 1918-22. Dhyanasataka, with Haribhadra's Commentary. Jamnagar, 1939. (Vinaya Bhakti Sundara Carana granthamala 3)

Page #175
Karmagrantha-karmaprakrti-pancasangraha. A. J. P. P. M.. Agra, 1924. Kirttik:ya (Swani Kumara): Karttikeyanupreksa, ed. by A. N. Upadhye. Rajacandra Asrama, Agas, 1960. (R. J. sastramala) BILIOGRAPHY Kundakunda: Ni yamsara. Jain Granth Ratnakar Karyalay, Bombay, 1916. Pancastikayasamayasara, ed. by A. Chakravarti The Central Jaina Publishing House. Arrah, 1920. (The Sacred Books of the Jainas 3). Sri Kundakundacarya'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 : Bhaktamarastotra, with Gunakurasuri's Tika. Jinadattasuri Jnanabhandara, 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. Gommatasara :jivakanda. The General Jaina Publishing House, Lucknow, 1927. (The Sacred Books of the Jainas 5) 162

Page #176
BIBLIOGRAPHY Nyayadarsana of Sri Gotama Muni, ed. by G. Damodar. Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Banaras, 1929. Nyayasutram (Nyayasutra of Gautaina : A System of Indian Logic with Vatsya yana's Njayabhasya and Vacasparimisra's Nyayasucinibandha), ir. by G. Jha. Oriealal Book Agency, Poona, 1939. (Poona Oriental series 58) Puspadanta & Bbutabali : Satkhandagama of Puspadanta and Bhutabali with the Commentary Dhavala of Virasena, ed. by H. L. Jain and A. N. Upadhye, 16 vols, Seib Laxmichandra Shitabrai, Amraoti, Vidisba, 1939-58. Ratnasimhasuri: Paramanukh and trimsatika-pudgalasatirimsika-nigodasathimsika. Atma nanda Sabha, Bhavnagar, 1912. sakatayani : Sa'atayina-vyakaranam (with the Sropajna 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 : Devagama of Aptaminamsa, tr. by Jugalkishor Mukhtar. Viraseva Mandir, Delhi, 1967. Sanicira-dharinasastra or Ratnakaranda upasakadhyayana, ed. by Jugalkishor Mukhtar. Viraseva Mandir, Delhi, 1955. (V. S. M. grantha mala 13) Sankara : The Bramasutra Sankara Bhasja with the Commentaries Bhamati, Kalpataru and Parimala...., ed. with notes etc. by M. Avantkarsni sastri. 2od ed. Pandurang Jawaji, Bombay, 1938. The Sankhyakarika of Mahamuni Sri Isvarkrsna, with the Commentary Sarabodhimi of Pandit Sivanarayani Sastri, with sankhya Tuttvakaum di of Vacaspatimisra. Pand'irang Jawaji, Bombay, 1940. The Sankhyakarika of Isvarakasna, ed. by S. S. Suryanarayan Sastri. 2nd ed. University of Madras, Madras, 1935. (Publications of the Department of Indian Philosophy 3) Siddha sena Divakara : Saunztitarka, a critical introduction and an original commentary by Sukhlal Sanghavi and Bichardas Dosbi. Jain Shwetambar Education Board, Bombay, 1939. Simhasuri: Lokavibhaga, ed. by Bilchandra Shastri. Gulabchand Hirachand Doshi, Sholapur, 1962. (Jivaraja Jaina granthomala 13) sivakoti: Mulara:Ihana (or Bhagavati aradhani) of Sivakoti, with Vijayodayatika, by Aparajita, Mularadhana darp ina by Asadhara, and Bhasa by Amitagati. Dharmavira Ravaji Sakha:ama Dosi, Sholapur, 1935. 163

Page #177
BIBLIOGRAPHY subhacandra : Jnanarnava, tr. into Hindi by Pannadal Bakalival. Rajacapora Asrama Prakasana Samiti, Agas, 1961. (Rajacandra Jaina sastramala 4) Suttagame, ed. by Puppbabhikkhu. 2 vols. Suragama Prakasaka Samiti, Gurgaon, 1953-54 Tandulaveyalia, Ein Painriyi des Jain 7-Siddharta, Textausgahe, Analyse und Erklarung, by W. Schubring. Akademie der Wissenschaften under Literatur, Mainz, 1969. Uma;vati : Prasamarati with Haribhadra's Tika, ed. by J. S. Jhaveri. Seth Devcband Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar, Bombay, 1940. (D. L. J. P. 88) Prasamaratiprakarana with Haribhadra's Tika, ed. by Rajakumara. Parama Sruta Prabhavaka Mandala, Bombay, 1950. Rayacandra Jainn sastramala) Prasamaratiprakarana. See Tattvarthadhigamasutram, ed. by K.P. Mody, under Bibliography I. Jambudvipasamasa. See ibid. Pujaprakarana See ibid Savayapannatti, ed. by V. K. Premchand. Nirnayasagara Press, Bombay, 1905. Vuises:kadarsanin (The Aphorisms of the Viisesika Philosophy by Kanada, with the Conimentary of Prasastapada and the Gloss of Udajanacharya), ed. by V. P. Dvivedi, Vidya Vilas Press, Banaras, 1919. Vaisesikasutra of Kanada, with the Commentary of Candrananda, critically ed. by Jambuvijaya. Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1961. (Gaekwad's Oriental series 136) Varahamihira : Brhatsamhita, ed. by J. N. Vidyasagara. Saraswati Press, Calcutta, 1880. Vasubaadhu : Abhid rarmakosi of Vasubandhu, ed. by Rahula Sankstyaya. Kasi Vidya pitha, Banaras, 1931. Abhidharmakos zbhas yam of Vasubandhu, ed. by P. Pradhan. K. P. Jayaswal Research Institute, Patna, 1967. (Tibetan Sanskrit Works series 8) Vattakera : Mulacara with Tika by Vasunandi, ed. by Gajadharalal, 2 vols. Manik candra Digambara Jaina Gran hamala Samiti, Bombay, 1920 & 1925. (M. D. J. G. 18 & 23) Velankar, H. D.: Jinaratnakosa, 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 sra, 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 Tattvarthasutra and its major commentaries, see Bibliography I. Bibliography General (In the other languages) Agrawala, R. C.: "Newly Discovered Sculptures from Vidisa", 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. Trubner & Company, London, [no date). (Trubner'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 Mulasutra 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 Bhatkalpasutra, 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-smaraka 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 (Bukkyogaku-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 Ramagupta", 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 Sutras. 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 nirdesika, ed. by Kanhaiyalal Kamal. Agama Anuyoga Prakasana, Delhi, 1966. Juzal kishor, Mukhtar : Jaina sahitya aur itinas par visad prakasa v. 1, chs. 7-11, 17. Vira Saana Soraha, Calcutta, 1956. Srami sam intabha Ira. Bud with Ratnakaranda-sravakacara. Minikcandra D. Jaina Granthamala Samiti, 1925. (M. D. J. G. 24) Juin Journal, III-4, Mahavira 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 Dharmasastra, 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 Nyaya and Vuisesika System. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1921. Law, B. C. : Some Jaina Canonical Sutras. Bombay Branch Royal Asiatic Society, Bombay, 1949. (B. B. R. A. S. monograph 2) Luders. 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. Maihura 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 gunasthana aur bodhicaryabhuni", in Sambodhi, I-2, July 1972. Jaina sahitja ka brhad itihasa, ed. by D. D. Malvapia and M. L. Mebta, vols. 1- 1. Paisvanatha Vidyasrama Sdha Sansthana, Banaras, 1966 68. 167

Page #181
Namdisuttam and Anuogaddaraim, ed. by Punyavijaya, Malvania and Bhojak, Introduction (by D. D. Malvania). Mahavira Jaina Vidyalaya, Bombay, 1968. (Jaina Agama series) Nyayavataravartikavetti 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 Gujaradesa 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 Kuapitel von Vattakeras Mulacara herausgegeben. Ubersetzt 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 Jnana-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 svetambara Bronzes", in Bulletin of the Prince of Wales Museum of Western India, no.1, Bombay, 1950-51. "The Jaina Monk Kala kacarya: A Historical Figure", in Adyar Library Bulletin, XXXVIII, 1974. "An Old Jaina Image from Khed-brahma (North Gujarat)", in Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, X-1, Sept. 1960. Suvarnabhumi mem Kalakacarya. Jain Sanskrit Sanshodhana Mandal, Banaras, 1956. "A Unique Jaina Image of Jivantasvami" in Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, 1-1, 1951. Sharma, R. C.: "Mathura sangrahaly ki kusan-kalin jain muctiyam", in Bhagavan Mahavira Smrti Grantha, Mahavir Nirvana 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 sastri, s. : Sources of Karnataka History, v. 1. University of Mysore, Mysore, 1940. (Mysore University Historical series) Subramanian, T. N. : "Pallankuvil Jaina Copper-plate Grant of Early Pallava Period". in Transactions of the Archaeological Society of South India, 1958-59. Takakusu, J.: "A Study of Puramartha'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 Barasanuvekkha of Kundakunda", unpublished paper, Freie Uni versitat, 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 Yapaniya Sangba : A Jain Sect", in the Annels of Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, LV, Poona, 1974. Nyayavatara of Siddhasena Divakara, ed. by A. N. Upadhye with an introduction, bibliography, indices etc...... Introduction. Jaina Sabitya Vikasa Mandala, Bombay, 1971. Vaisbakhiya, M. K.: "Krsna 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 Pataniali. Harvard University Press, Massach usetts, 1929: (Harvard Oriental series 17) Williams, R.: Jaina Yoga : A Survey of the Medieval Sravakacaras. Oxford Universit Press, London, 1963. (London Oriental series 14) For the T. $. and its commentaries, see Bibliography I.. 701

Page #184
GENERAL INDEX abhedavada 78-83 Abhidharmakosa 59-60, 65, 68, 102 Acaranga 63-66, 79, 91, 106-108 agama 130-131 abaraka sarira 16-17 akasaya 7 amanojna 7 anahara 16 anekantavada 36 anu 15, 61 apupreksa 65-66, 111 anu-skandha 14-15, 18-21, 83-89 anuyogadvara 58, 68 Anuyogadvara 16, 57-59. 99, 102 apavartana 103 arpita-anarpita 34-37 arya 100-102 asrava 61-63 asravadvara 62 Aszadhyayi 59 atomic combination see anu-skandha Aupapatika 65, 91-92 Avasyaka niryukti 16, 31, 78, 94, 109-112, 129 badara parinama 87 bandha 62-63, 65 Bhadrabahu at Ujjain (alias Bhadrababu II) 125, 127, 129 Bhadrabahusvami (alias Bhadrababu I) 125, 127 Bhagavati 16, 60, 64-67, 78-81, 84-87, 91, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107-108 Bhasya of 'T.S.) 4-5, 24-26, 39-42 Bhasyanusarini 6, 17, 25-26, 36, 38-39 bhava 58-59 bhavana 63-64 Botika (nihoava) 127 Bshatkalpa 101, 108 Brhatkatbakosa 127 caksusa-acaksusa 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 caritra 104-112 Caritrapahuda 64, 108 dana 63-64 darsana 111-112 darsanavaraniya karma 80-82 Dasasrutaskandha 39, 79-80 Dasavaikalika 106 Dasavaikalika niryukti 37, 109-110 Dasavaikalika curni 94 Devagupta 25 dharma 65, 111 dharmastikaya 13, 67 dhyana 37-38, 89-98 Digambara see also Nirgrantha 127, 131, 133-134 dravya 14-15, 60-61 dravya-kletra-kala-bhava 34, 84-84 Dravyasangraha 41 Drstivada 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 Jambudvipaprajnapti 58 Jambudvipasamasa 14, 139-140 Jhanajjhayana 94, 98, Jivajlvabhigama 16, 38-39, 58, 67-68 jivanmukti 11 jivasamasa 98 jana 111-112 jaanavaraniya karma 80-82 kala 17, 30, 34, 41, 60-61 kalpa 17 Kalpasutra 43, 50-52 karma 64, 80-82 Karmagrantha svorajnatika 80 kasaya 62, 80 Kasayaprabhrta 62, 80-81, 99, 103-104 karana 103 Kaubhisana (gotra) 43, 53 kevala jaana-darsana 67, 78-83 kramavada 78-83 kriya 62 kra 120-123 ksayopasama 102 Kurcaka 117 Kusumapura 53 Laghvitika 38, 147 (Ch. I, n. 4) lesya (of devas) 17 mah vrata 65 mangalacarana (mangalasloka) 2,4, 27, 30 marganastbana 98-99 Mathura 44, 116, 119-121, 123-126 Mathura vacana 125 mohaniya karma 21-22 mok 10-11, 67 moksamarga 55-56, 104-106, 109-112 Mrgesavarman 117, 127, 134 Mulacara 55, 104, 108, 110-111 GENERAL INDEX Mularadhana 111-112 Nagara gaccha 53 Nagara vacaka 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 nihsalya 64 nirgrantha 67 Nirgrantha (later Digambara sect) 117 nirjara 104, 107, 109 nokasaya 7 Nyagrodhika 53 Nyayasutra 34-35, 57, 61 Pancastikaya 55 praramanu see anu paratva-aparatva 60 parinama 12, 40 parioama-nityata 35, 37 parinamika bhava 59 parisaha 21-23 parisahajaya 66, 111 pradesa 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 Rsibhasitam 55 Samavaya 39, 62, 65, 107 sambandhakarika 4, 5, 25-30 samiti 106-108, 111 samparayika 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 Divakara 16, 70, 81, 83 Siddhasenagani see Bhasyanusarint ita-upa guna 86-87 sramanya phala 101 Sravanabelgola (inscriptions at) 5, 125-126 sreni 99, 102-103 Sthana 16-17, 34, 36-37, 39, 55, 58, 62 65, 106-108 173 sthavara 16 sukha 68 suksma parinama 87 Sutrakrtanga 66 79-80, 102, 104, 106, 108 Sutrakrtanga niryukti 16, 90 Sutrakrtanga vrtti 109 Svetapata 117 syadvada 36 Syamacarya 49-50 tapas 67, 106-112 tattva 55-56, 104 Tattvarthadhigamasutra (T.S.) 24, 68-69 141-145 Tiloyapannatti 128 Uccairnagara vacaka 44 Uccairnagar fakha 43-45, 50, 52-53 Umasvati 5, 28, 42-53, 68-69, 78, 136, 141-145, 149 upacara 21-22 Upasakadasa 63 upasamharakarika 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 sutras in Digambara tradition are in parentheses.) Ch./Sutra Page Ch./Sutra 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) 5 o 40 8 7 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 parinama is used in the senses of kasaya-parmaitri-pramoda-karunyamadhyasthani ca sattva-guna.... age 36.69-70, etc. 174 - Tiloyapannatti 8.114 counts 52 kalpas. kriyate, niravasesa-nirastainanatisaye 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-nirastajnanavarane yugapatsakalapadarthavabhasikevalajnanatisaye prasasti be imitated samyag tat purvakat vac caritrasya)- exposition of moksa and marga- general purport of the sutra (atah samyag-darsanan) saksan doubled for those in other bbumis." and prasasti be easily imitated samyag-darsanam 33.20 38.29 moksan double the height of those in the preceding bhumi in the other earths." induced to be authentic. patravali, Author disau Syami 43.12 46,25 48.4 49.9 authentic. pattavali author disde Svati 179

Page #193
ERRATA conflict are 50.20 56.5 57.27 59.9 60.13 63.33 conflict with is ajnana karma yoga than a VII : 33 68.19 68.20 71.14 72.13 72.16 75.25 75.28 jnana 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 Prakirnakas Bhadrababu Sanghadasa Jinabhadra Agastyasimha Jinadasa Haribhadra Kottacarya silanka

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. Prakirnakas Bhadrababu Sangbadasa Jinabhadra Agastyasimha Jinadasa Haribhadra Kottacarya 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 Sutrakyta I. II. 26-28 'mapa-samabana' 29.28 have seems to here nanan ascetics, 13.414-15 vdoane Sutrkarta 1.8.486 6.55 to be siddhi-mudho band dedication to mercantile record is Mobadevi Orissa 36 Mathura it is quite 3.27 Sutrakrta I. 11. 26-28 mapa-samaharana' 29.58 a have seems to be here is nanam agamitta ascetics 13.414-15 vodane Sutrakyta 1.8.416 6.558 said to be siddhi-mulam mudho head dedication of mercantile record his Mabadevi 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 Yapaniyas, vindicates Vasubandhu, Vyasa (980/693 V. N.) which 283-360 A. D. hmiuggaham Sarvadarsanasamuccaya up of an functioned Visnidasa but grew even 2) the Yapapiyas, indicates Vasubandhu-Vyasa (980/993 V. N.) which is 280-360 A. D. is h= miuggahanam Saddarsana samuccaya 182

Page #196