Jaina Epistemology

SR No.: 006738
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Indra Chandra Shastri
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith
Publication Year: 1990
Total Pages: 516
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 21 MB

Page 41

Epistemology of Jainas
gama it is placed amongst the Agamas, owing to its antiquity and the authorship which goes to the authors of original Agamas; namely, Bhutabali.
The Tatvartha and its commentaries
16
The Tatvartha sütra is an independent work presenting the substance of Agamas in Sūtra style. Though, it does not come directly in the tradition of canonical literature; yet, advocates the Agamic view faithfully. Umāsvāti (Umāsvamin according. to the Digambara version) dated fourth century A. D. has put in it the metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, cosmology and other topics of the Agamas in aphorism, which was the style of that period. He deals with every subject logically and systematically. The Tatvartha sūtra with its commentaries stands as a valuable literature on Jaina religion and philosophy.
The Bhāṣya and Tikās: Umāsvāti has himself written a Bhāṣya on it; but, some Digambara scholars are doubtful about its genuineness. The Bhāṣya is commented upon by Siddhasena Ganin, also known as Gandhahasti. Siddhasena (9th Cent.) His copious references, grammatical explanations and the statements of different views prevalant at that time, give a valuable information on all the topics. The commentaries of Haribhadra and Yasovijaya are further mentionable in this context. They are not found completely.
Sarvārthasiddhi, Rājavārtika and Ślokavārtika: The Digambara tradition holds Sarvarthasiddhi by Pujyapada as the first commentary of the Tatvartha. Pujyapada was a great scholar of grammar as well as of logic and philosophy. Sarvārthasiddhi is a logical explanation of the Tatvartha. It is believed that Samantabhadra also wrote a big commentary on it, which was known as Gandhahasti. Mahabhāṣya, and the present Aptamimāmsā, also known as Devagama stotra, served as mangalācarana at its beginning. But this tradition is not supported on the historical ground. Pt. Sukhlal1 holds that the Bhasya of Siddhasena has been wrongly associated with Samanta 1. Sukhlal, T. S. Int. p. 42