Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
## Introduction
This tradition of keeping oneself free from attachment has been prevalent since ancient times. The more widespread this practice was, the more respect the Shruta-dhara Acharyas had for it.
Today, the difficulty in compiling the biographical sketches of Shruta-dhara and other Acharyas, along with a factual history of their works, stems from this very reason. We call it a difficulty in the sense that this period is about compiling historical facts, and therefore, more emphasis is placed on determining which Acharya lived in which era, what their daily life was like, and what their notable works were.
In this context, we need to consider the author of the Tattvartha Sutra. As beautiful and captivating as the compilation of the Tattvartha Sutra is from a religious perspective, there is just as much debate surrounding its author. This debate has been further fueled by the two traditions that emerged within the Jain Sangha over time. The first debate revolves around the author's name, and the second concerns the time of their existence. Here, we will first present the irrefutable evidence that helps us determine the author of the Tattvartha Sutra, and then shed light on the facts that have caused this debate.
## The Author of the Tattvartha Sutra
We will see later that Acharya Pujyapada has written extensively on various subjects. Yet, he has never mentioned his name anywhere. Not only that, but even when writing his commentary, Sarvarthasiddhi, on the Tattvartha Sutra, he follows the same path. He instructs in its introduction that a Bhavy, sitting in an ashram among a gathering of monks, approaches Acharya Vardhamana with humility and asks a question, and as a result, the Tattvartha Sutra is composed. However, he remains silent about the names of those Acharyas. Why? We understand from this that even though Acharya Pujyapada was aware of the information regarding the author of the Tattvartha Sutra, he avoided mentioning his name, perhaps to avoid any sense of self-importance. Bhatta Akalankadeva has also followed the same path. He too accepts the same introduction in the beginning of the Tattvartha Vartika that Acharya Pujyapada mentioned in the beginning of the Sarvarthasiddhi. Therefore, even though these mentions lead us to believe that these Acharyas were aware of the author's name, they do not reveal who the Acharya was who made this great effort for the welfare of Bhavy beings.
We believe that this practice of not mentioning names, particularly in the Jain tradition, continued in India until the 4th and 5th centuries CE. Some Acharyas continued this practice even after that. However, due to several reasons, this policy began to change, and scholars started mentioning their names at the beginning or end of their works. Not only that, they also began to mention their predecessors in other ways. Therefore, to accurately determine the author of the Tattvartha Sutra, we must delve into later literature. So, let's first look at the irrefutable evidence from later times that sheds light on this subject.
## Evidence from Later Literature
1. Acharya Vīrasena, a great commentator in the tradition of the Shruta-dhara Acharyas, completed his famous Dhavala commentary on the Panḍagam in the year 738 of the Saka era. His commentary contains numerous references and historical facts. He has quoted many sutras from the Tattvartha Sutra in this commentary. Not only that, but in the Jīva-sthāna-kāla-anuyoga-dvāra, he quotes a sutra from the Tattvartha Sutra along with the name of its author. He says:
"Harīyāsiyat-chatyamu-le vi vartana-pariṇāma-kriyāḥ paratva-aparatve cha kālasya chhavi bacha kālo pakavido mudrita prishtha 316"