Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
102
The study of "Sarvarthasiddhi" has certain characteristics, which become more pronounced in "Rajavartika," and ultimately become very entrenched in "Kavartika." It can be stated to those who study the histories of "Rajavartika" and "Shlokavartika" that the philosophical knowledge and competition that emerged in South Hindustan, along with the development of multi-faceted scholarship, is reflected in these two texts. These two texts provide adequate means to authentically study Jain philosophy; however, the prose of "Rajavartika" is so simple and extensive that it alone suffices for all commentary texts on Tattvartha. If not for these two texts, the distinctiveness that emerged in the Digambara literature before the tenth century would surely have remained incomplete, as would the prestige it achieved. Although these two texts are traditional, they possess the merit of holding a unique position in Indian philosophical literature from many perspectives. Their examination sheds historical light on various subjects of Buddhist and Vedic traditions as well as on numerous texts.
After introducing the brief commentary constructed on the original sutra, one can proceed to introduce the commentaries built on those definitions. Currently, there are two commentaries fully available, both of which are Svetambara. The main similarity between these two is that they both touch upon and describe Umaswati's "Swopajnabhashya" verbatim. While describing the commentary, the commentary is generally noted everywhere.