Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
114. Yes, there is absolutely no mention of Umasvati in it. There is a mention of Kundakunda in Murtavatar, and a significant commentator has been indicated, but there is no mention of Umasvati either before or after them. Although the "Murtavatar" is not very old, it is considered a transformation of some ancient composition, and from this perspective, its statement is considered authoritative. The Darshanasar was created in the year 990 of the Vikram Samvat, where there is a mention of Padmanandi or Kundakunda, but not of Umasvati. By the time of Jin Sena, "Rajavartika and Shlekavartika" had already been composed; however, these also do not make any mention of Umasvati in the context of praising the Acharyas and the authors, as they did not consider him to have any contribution. Another point is: in the Adipurana, the authors of Harivanshapurana and others have also made no mention of Kundakunda; this is a matter for consideration. In my understanding, Kundakunda is a special proponent of a certain tradition or sect. He transformed the Jain philosophical thought. It is known that by the time of Jin Sena, his views were not universally accepted, and therefore he did not receive much respect. The term "Tirthatr Prashiruksit" does not specify who it is referring to and how old it is. I find this foundational basis in the Tattvarthasutra. Sometimes, Kundakunda is also mentioned along with Gridhrapiccha. There is also a mention of another Acharya by the name of Gridhrapiccha. Jainhitaishti, Part 10, Page 369.| 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 |