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 37

CHAPTER II
IS THE BHĀSYA AN AUTOCOMMENTARY OR NOT
Sec. 1. MSS EVIDENCES
The original text is accompanied by the Svopajñabhāșya. The word Bhāşya in a broad senze applies collectively to all the depending portions attached to the text and in a narrow sense to the textual commentary alone. We are using the word Bhāsya in both senses (in as much as the title T.S. is used in both senses, i. e., the text in two recensions and the Sabhāsya T. S.), which should be distinguished in the given context. This term was foreign to the author hiniself, which became conventionalized in the course of time inasmuch as the word sūtra designated in the title. For the Bhāşya clearly mentions that the title of the text is Tattvārthādhigama-sāstra (prašasti 5), which is sometimes called Tattvārthādhigami (prasisti 6) or Tattvārtha-sangraha (puşpikā to Chs. 4-5). The textual commentary refers to the text as śāstra (e. g., 1:1 Bh.) and sūtra (e. g., 1:11Bh.) as well. Thus the term sūtra likely became customary after the Sūtra text of the Digamb:ras won its popularity in the South. The Bhās va consists of the sambandhakārikā (s. kārikā), prasisti and textual commentary, which are annexed to the text at the beginning, end, and middle, respectively. S. kārikā or an introductory verse conveys what the text is and why it was written. Prasasti or a colophon informs us who the author is. Bhāşya or a textual commentary is made for and arranged after each sūtra, and each chapter is appended by a puspikā indicating its end. The physical outlook of the work is thus well planned and even modern. The s. kārikā prasisti are composed in verse in āryā metre, the text in sūtra style, and its commentary in prose.
Do all these appendices belong to the same author of the text or not? This somewhat odd question, as the prašisti registers the author's name, must have arisen due to the reason that the Southern version is not accompanied by the Bhasya. Even when the Western version of the text has been proved to be the original, the same doubt does not seem to disappear so easily for various reasons, e. g., due to the unconventional format of the work accompanied by an introductory verse and a colophon which is new in the olden days, due to the mastery competence in Sanskrit
24