Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
107
Because it does not seem that Siddhasena had the opportunity to see "Sarvarthasiddhi" for any other reason. Siddhasena appears to have been entrenched in the tradition of the Digambara Acharyas like Pujyapada and others, as indicated by his conduct. Now, if he had seen "Sarvarthasiddhi" or any other Digambara text, it would have been impossible for him to assert the Digambara perspective on "Sarvarthasiddhi" without countering its words, nor did he critique any of the Digambara sectarian interpretations at any place. He does not provide a brief reference to the disputes concerning the texts or parts among the prior commentators of his father, nor does he express satisfaction without criticizing the great Shvetambara Acharyas who stated anything even slightly contrary to the Shvetambara tradition upheld by his father. It is unimaginable that Siddhasena could be unaware of the fully strong opposing views held by a Digambara Acharya. Hence, it is speculated that the Shvetambara Acharya present in northern or western India did not get the opportunity to see the well-known Digambara commentary composed and elaborated in southern India on Tattvartha. Similarly, it seems that the Akalanka, the Digambara commentator from southern India, did not have the opportunity to see the contemporary Shvetambara commentary on Tattvartha composed in northern India; nevertheless, there are words in Siddhasena's writing and in the Rajavartika that capture attention.| SR No. | 001074 |
| Book Title | Tattvartha sutra |
| Original Sutra Author | Umaswati, Umaswami |
| Author | Sukhlal Sanghavi |
| Publisher | Jain Sahitya Prakashan Mandir |
| Publication Year | 1977 |
| Total Pages | 667 |
| Language | Gujarati, Sanskrit |
| Classification | Book_Gujarati, Tattvartha Sutra, Philosophy, J000, J001, Tattvartha Sutra, & Tattvarth |
| File Size | 23 MB |