Tithidin ane Parvaradhan tatha Arhattithibhaskar

SR No.: 005673
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jain Pravachan Pracharak Trust
Publisher: Jain Pravachan Pracharak Trust
Publication Year: 1977
Total Pages: 552
Language: Gujarati, Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Gujarati
File Size: 15 MB

Page 312

...सवाही यात सन्ते मालो समाश्रीनो निर्णय
२६३
दृश्यते, तदा पर्वतिथित्वात् चतुर्दश्या भाद्रशुक्लचतुर्थ्याश्च क्षयमकृत्वा तत्पूर्वतरवर्तिन्याः अपर्वतिथेः त्रयोदश्या भाद्रशुक्लतृतीयायाश्च क्षयः कार्यः ।
All this, according to Acharya Sagarananda Suri, means that in case of ksaya of a parva tithi, the previous tithi which is not a parva tithi, should be regarded as ksina. For instance, if Chaturdashi which is a parva tithi and is shown in the Laukika Panchaga as ksina, we should treat Trayodashi as ksina and make Tryodashi in the Panchanga as Chaturdashi for the purpose of Aradhana. If Purnima or Amavasya or Panchami of the bright half of Bhadrapada is ksina, we should not regard Chaturdashi or Chaturthi as ksina as it is itself a parva tithi, but should treat Trayodashi or Trtiya of the bright half of Bhadrapada as ksina, with the result that Trayodashi proper in the Panchanga will be Chaturdashi, and Chaturdashi proper will be Purnima, and Trtiya proper will be Chaturthi and Chaturthi proper will be Panchami.
I must at once say that this interpretation of the first part of Umasvati's Rule is against all canons of interpretation. It requires the borrowing of several terms, like parva and aparva. This borrowing is not justified on any ground. No writer of the Tapagaccha school upto the author of Tattvatarangini has even suggested such interpretation. At any rate I have failed to discover any support for such interpretation. Nowhere have they mentioned the principle that there is no ksaya of parva tithis. On the contrary, mention is made of several parva tithis as ksina in works like Suryaprajnapti. I therefore hold that that this interpretation of the first half of Umasvati's Rule given by Acharya Sagarananda Suri is unauthorised, unwarranted, unsupported by old Shastrak
aras like the author of Tattvatarangini, and of Pravachanapariksa, and invo: "Ives undue modifications in the scheme of tithis in the Panchanga.
Let us now turn to Acharya Sagarananda Suri's interpretation of the second half of Umasvati's Rule. I put his interpretation in Sanskrit garb:
जैनटिप्पणके तावत् पर्वतिथीनां वृद्धिरेव न भवतीति “वृद्धी कार्या तथोत्तरा” इति उमास्वातिवचःप्रघोषत्वेन प्रसिद्धः श्लोकपादः लौकिकटिप्पणानुसारेण प्राप्तानां पर्वतिथीनां वृद्धिविषये अनुपयुक्त एव । अस्य श्लोकपादस्य प्रामाण्यं प्रत्येव नः संशयः । अतः “ क्षये पूर्वा तिथिः कार्या" इत्यत्र निर्दिष्टो नियमः अतिदेशेन लौकिकटिप्पणानुसारेण प्राप्तानां पर्वतिथीनां वृद्धिविषयेऽपि प्रयोज्यः । एवं सति 'क्षये पूर्वा तिथिः कार्या' इत्यस्य नियमस्यातिदेशेनायमर्थः संपन्नः । स यथा-पर्वतिथेः क्षये ( वृद्धौ च ) पूर्वस्याः अर्थात् पर्वतिथेः पर्वतिथ्योर्वा पूर्वस्याः अपर्वतिथेः क्षयः (वृद्धिश्च ) कार्यः (कार्या)। एवं च पर्वतिथेश्चतुर्दश्या वृद्धौ पूर्ववर्तिन्या अपर्वतिथेः त्रयोदश्या एव वृद्धिः । पर्वतिथेः पूर्णिमाया अमावास्याया वा भाद्रशुकपञ्चम्याश्च वृद्धौ पूर्वस्याः चतुर्दश्याः चतुर्थ्याश्च पर्वतिथित्वात् पूर्वतरवर्तिन्यास्त्रयोदश्याः भाद्रशुक्तृतीयायाश्च वृद्धिर्भवति ॥
. Acharya Sagarananda Suri did not actually put up this interpretation in his written statement, but his stand all along has been of this type. His
Ba.