Prashamratiprakaran

SR No.: 001259
Original Sutra Author: Umaswati, Umaswami
Author: Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1989
Total Pages: 180
Language: English, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_English, Principle, & Philosophy
File Size: 9 MB

Page 20

Date of Umāsvăti is still a controversial problem in the history of Jaina literature. Very little is known about the exact date of the present author. The colophon at the end of Tattvärthasütra-svopajñabhasya is not useful in fixing the date of Umāsvāri. Scholars are not unanimous in fixing the date of Umāsvāti. His date ranges between the 2nd and 5th centuries of the christian cra. Dr. Satiscandra Vidyabhusana, thinks that Umāsvāti flourished in 2nd A. D. (1-85 A. D.) 16 Hartmut Piper and Dr. Suzuko Ohira assigned the 5th century A.D., as the date of Umāsvāti??. A car eful study of his works reveals that he was familier with the Sankhya system, Yoga sūrtras and bhāsyas, Nyāya-Vaišeşikasūtras, which are known to have been composed prior to the date of great Vijñānavadi Buddhist Vasubandhu who flourished in the middle of the 5th century A.D. Uma. svāti in his works clearly distinguishes the Jaina concepts, from the Sankhya systems, Nyāya-vaişesikasütra and Abhidharma Koşa of Vasubas ndhu.18 It seems that Umāsvīti and Vasubandhu were contemporaries in the 5th century A. D. 19
Sect : Umisväti was so great personality that Digainbaras and Svet:mbaras, the two major sects of Jaina community claim that he belongs to their sect. Diga:nbaras believe that Umāsvāti was a pupil of famous Digambara Ācāry-Kundakunda. Digambara Pattāvali mentions Umisviiti as the sixth Diagmbarasűri of the Sarasvatīgaccha between Kunda-Kunda and Lohācārya II.20 He was also called Grddhrapiccha and Umāsvāmi in the Digambara tradition.21 We learn from one of the Sravanabelagola Inscriptions (1433-A. D.) that there was some speciality in Umisvāti being called Grddhrapiccha. 22 Digambaras believe that, Tattvärtha-- sūtra is the only work written by Umäsviiti. They reject outright other works attributed to him, Even Svopajñabhasya on T. S. is not accepted by them as a work of the same author.
Svetāmbaras believe that Umisväti belongs to their faith. They attribute T. S. and Svopajñablasya and many other minor works to Umar svati. Their claim is justifiable on many accounts. The rock inscriptions** of Sravanabelagola in which Umisväti was mentioned as Digambara, were all composed after 11th or 12th century A. D. Whereas in certain Svetā - mbara texts 2 3 written by Siddhasenagani (7-8 A. D.), Jinadāsamahatara. (7. AD) Haribhadrasüri (8. A. D.), Abhayadevsūri (10th A. D.). which are earliar than Sravanabelagola rock, incsriptions, we find that, Umisväti was recognised as Svetainbarite and, author of T. S. with Svopajñabhisya, Prasamaratiprakarana and many other small treatises. Sri Haribbhadrasuri of 12th A. D. (other than Yakinisünu-Haribhadra) clearly states in his commentary on Prasamaratiprakarana that Umäsväti is the glory of the entire svetāmbara family (Svetämbarakulatilaka). A careful study of his works reveals that he was a Svetämbarite. The code of conduct for monks