Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya

SR No.: 001578
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Suzuko Ohira
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1982
Total Pages: 196
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Tattvartha Sutra, Philosophy, Tattvartha Sutra, & Tattvarth
File Size: 13 MB

Page 36

Sec. 4. MATABHEDAS
jina, but they could not deny the presence of dravya-vedaniya-karmas in him. For this reason, the revisor of the text seems to have conceded to accept the sūtra 11(11) without alteration, of which purport had to be however amended by the comwentary in accordance with their dogmatic belief. Pūjyapāda tried to amend it by employing the dialectics of upacāra so that the positive sense of this aphorism would not be entirely spoilt at least, in which he failed. This testifies that the aphorism IX:11 (11) did not originally belong to the Digambara tradition. And the fact that this Digambara aphorism cannot be comprehended without its commentary decisively demonstrates that the revisor of the text was Pūjyapāda himself. CONCLUSION
The last two cases discussed in Sec. IV, Pts. 2-3, which involve doctrinal discordances in the two traditions, are crucial to determine the authenticity of either version of the T.S. It is impossible to tackle the problem from the scrutiny of the concerned aphorisms alone, and it is absolutely needed to mobilize the expositions of the commentarial works which have concealed the key for its solution. There may be still some other similar instances as such. However these two cases relevant to mitabhedas along with the case of V:(29) discussed in Sec. III, 2.4) are enough to establish the evidences to testify that the text preserved in the Svetāmbara camp is the archetype from which the Digambara recension is derived. In addition to them, we may count the case of the author's idiomatic usage of ‘yatbākramam' (Sec. III, 2.2)) and the case of his style of writing wherein a pronoun sa always opens a new aphorism (Sec. II, 4.2)) as the minor evidences in proving the same. Then the question raised in reference to the revision of the Chapter III, whether the Digambara text drew these materials from the Bhāşya and the Jambūdvipasamäsa or vice versa (see Sec. III, 2.3)), is auromatically answered.
23