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 49

Sec. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
is
is
Viewed from arpita-anarpita stand
points in respect of three numbers, Kinds of sat i.e., singular, dual and plural. predication by sat and asat (1) dravya
dravya (2) mātska
mātska amatska
is not (3) utpanna
utpanna anutpanna
is not (4) paryāya
sad-bhāva paryāya asad-bhāva paryāya
is not tad-ubhaya paryāya
avaktavya What is expressed here is more obscure than cryptic. The Bhāş ya does not first of all explain the technical term arpita-anarpita, which are understood to be visesa-avisesa in the canon. Secondly, aphorism 31 is offering the theorization of the concept of three different natures of sat expressed in the sūtra 29 about which no exposition is made, instead the Bhşāya strangely brings in an inferior list of the fourfold characteristics of sat about which alone the discussion is furthered. Thirdly, in discussing the matter, an application of arpita-anarpita viewpoints is considered in respect of each individual nature of sat in four forms, but not in respect of mutually differring threefold characteristics of sat which is the very point to be explained. Finally, an explanation of the theory of these two viewpoints is totally neglected regarding the nature of nityatva. The Bhāş ya is thus out of tune here in every respect.
The Sarvārthasiddhi defines the terms arpita-anarpita, then briefly and clearly elucidates the purport of the sūtra V: 31 (32) with an appropriate illustration. Modern scholars follow the Sarvārthasiddhi in explaining this sū'ra, solely giving up the obscure exposition offered by the Bhasya. The later commentator like Siddhasenagani says that the bhāsyakāra is elucidating the aphorism by way of the nayavāda consisting of dravyāstika and paryāyāstika and by way of the syādvāda. This is farfetching, because this sūtra does not pertain to the theory of knowledge, and the first chapter wherein these ought to be dealt with does not refer to them at all. The concepts of these two principal divisions of nayavāda and saptabhangi are not yet clearly grasped by the canonical authors nor by Umāsvāti, otherwise the exposition of payas made in 1:34-35Bh. should have been altogether different. As a matter of fact, until these aphorisms V: 29-31 were formulated, the concept of the anekā tavāda could not have been developed. These sūtras themselves provided the basis for the immediate arrival of the age of logic. Then, what does this sudden appearance of the list of fourfold natures of sat mean in relation to its threefold characteristicts in question?
The Sthāna 4.2.372 reads, 'cattāri ekka pa. tam. davie-ekkae mau-ekkae pajjaeekkae samgaha-ekkae, cattāri kai p. tam. daviya-kai màuya-kai pajjava-kai sam.
36