Jaina Karmaology

SR No.: 001654
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: N L Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith
Publication Year: 1998
Total Pages: 186
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Karma, & Tattvartha Sutra
File Size: 11 MB

Page 28

Jaina Karmology
and advanced in comparison to the S-commentaries. In contrast to the opinions of some scholars, it can be easily pointed out that if there appears simplicity in elaboration and style in the S-autocommentary, it is also there in SS in many cases. Of course, it must be admitted that while the Văcaka was a cononist, Pujyapāda was grammarian and logician also as is reflected in his SS. This point cannot, therefore, be a sufficient ground to prove the earlier or later period of the two, Secondly, if non-composition of commentaries for longer periods (i.e. about 700 years in case of Kundakunda texts) could be a logic for dating an author, the Vācaka will also appear to be in the same category (Siddasena commentary being about 400 years later) and his date could also be about 6th century i.e. about 100 years earlier than Siddhasena. This leads to an approximate contemporariness of Pūjyapada and Vā caka - one in south and other in north, per chance without normal chances of mutual personal communication. This seems to be an anomalous point for the debating scholars. Pt. P.C. Shastri and recently S.M. Jain (and many others) have dealt with this issue which requires more exhaustive studies to yield plausible conclusion.
One of the vexed problems associated with che socalled autocommentary of Vācaka Umāsvāti is whether he is only a commentator or author-cum-commentator of the text. The following points indicate that he could be only commentator-cum-remodeller of the original text under the title 'Vācaka': 1. Generally, no panegerics are found in ancient texts upto the period of roughly seventh-eighth century (These seem to have started from the days of scholastic schismisation). 2. Vācaka has mentioned that he is composing "Tattvarthädhigama" as an explanatory of “Tattvartha" rather than “Tattvartha Sūtra" as is indicatd by the last words of the chapters. Similar practice is also followed by Devanandi Pujyapāda. The terms “Tattvārtha" and "Tattvā rthadhigama" should not be equated to connote the same meaning as has been done by many scholars to support their contentions. 3. Some scholars opine that important texts have first commentaries 100-200 years after their compositions. That is why, Kundakunda's, period is slated for sixth to eighth century. On the basis of this criteria, the first commentary on Vācaka's commentary appears by about 750 A.D.. He should have, therefore, composed his