Tattvarthadhigamsutram Part 2

SR No.: 002716
Original Sutra Author: Umaswati, Umaswami
Author: Hiralal R Kapadia
Publisher: Jivanchandra Sakarchandra
Publication Year: 1929
Total Pages: 472
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Philosophy, Tattvartha Sutra, Tattvartha Sutra, & Tattvarth
File Size: 12 MB

Page 87

INTRODUCTION
51
commentator's. But these do not seem to include Sarvărthasiddhi or any of the two Vārtikas above described. Sarvārthasiddhi is no doubt an earlier work; the Vārtikas, on the other hand, may have been the achievements of contemporaries but none of these seems to have been noticed by Siddhasena Gani. Otherwise it will be a very great puzzle to solve as to why he did not attack 'any one of them, when he has gone to the very length of reviewing and severely criticising the different readings and 'opinions of earlier scholars even of his own school of thought and when he is in no way second to Pujyapāda in his zeal for the dogmatics. At times one comes across passages where this commentary and Tattvārtharājavārtika have used almost the same phraseology. But this can be accounted for, by supposing that both must have got the same source to refer to.
Marginal notes collected together at the end of each part will serve as a specimen to show the quality and variety of topics ably handled by Siddhasena. His proficiency in the Agamas needs no proof; for, the commentary has properly and profusely quoted them. That he is expert even in Mathematics is borne out by the fact that not only has he expounded the mensuration-formulæ given in the bhāsya (pt. I, p. 258), but, he has even challenged the Mathematical knowledge of Umāsvāti. See p. 252 of the first part. That he does not ignore even a slight mistake is a fact which is evident from the remark he has made on p. 308 of the second part. Judging from the importance and the voluminous size of this work
1. A similar remark perhaps holds good in the case of the author of the Vārtikas.
2. #age 375 etc., (pt. I, p. 321) may be looked upon as a refutation of the ideas expressed in these two. If so, it is an exceptional case.
3. Vide p. 321.
4. In this connection one may refer to the following pages of the first part :29, 34, 48, 53, 78, 85, 99, 101, 111, 118, 140, 141, 146, 149, 152, 154, 156, 167, 169, 170, 175 etc.
5. Occasionally, we find passages where the Digambara version is criticised e. g. 8797 agiat gaff........ E ittà (pt.I, p. 261 ), 3797 q u....are (pt. I, p. 320), 8777 Tofia Fei (pt. II, p. 101 ).
6. As an instance may be pointed out facetafqaat on p. 321 (pt. I).
7. As a corroborative evidence may be cited the fact that this work has been quoted by Sri Vinayavijaya Gani in Lokaprakāśa (canto III, v. 55 f., v. 104 f. v. 706 f. v. 749 f. etc.), the encyclopædia of Jainism. A portion of the commentary (pt. 1, p. 137) is inexplicable ; so says the encyclopædist in Bhāvalokaprakāśa (v. 94 f.).