Tattvartha Sutra

SR No.: 006796
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sukhlal Sanghavi, K K Dixit
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2000
Total Pages: 596
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Tattvartha Sutra, & Tattvarth
File Size: 10 MB

Page 114

INTRODUCTION
Vārtikas by Akalańka through analysis and classification; at the same time, he has composed new Vārtikas dealing with points worthy of expansion and with similar questions. And to all the prose-vārtikas he has himself supplied a lucid explanatory comment. Thus taken as a whole, Rājavārtika-even while being of the form of an explanatory comment on Sarvārthasiddhi-is in fact an altogether independent text. The level of philosophical expertise observable in Sarvārthasiddhi attains a much greater height in Rājavārtika. Thus it is a constant practice of Rājavārtika that whatever statement dealing with whatever topic it has to make it does on the basis of the doctrine of anekānta (=nonextremism). Really, the doctrine of anekānta is the very key for each and every discussion undertaken in Rājavārtika. Akalanka has raised the noble structure of his Rājavārtika with a view to refuting the objections raised against and the deficiencies pointed out in the doctrine of anekānta by the scholars belonging to the different sects uptil his own time and with a view to presenting forth the true nature of this doctrine—this on the basis of the reputed Tattvārthasūtra and with the help of Sarvārthasiddhi with its well chiselled definitions. Too much expansion of the Āgamic topics observable in Sarvārthasiddhi has been reduced by the author of Rājavārtika!--who on his part has given exclusive prominence to the philosophical topics.
• Residing in Southern India Vidyānanda noted that there remained much to be answered in the attacks launched on Jaina philosophy by the numerous non-Jaina scholars—of an earlier time as of his own time; in particular, he could in no way help answering the refutation of Jaina philosophy that had been undertaken by the Mīmāṁsaka Kumarila etc. Hence it is that he composed his ślokavārtika; and we see that he has in fact realized his aim. The refutation of Mīmāṁsa philosophy as has been undertaken-and so strongly—in ślokavārtika is not to be found in any other commentary of Tattvärtha. No important topic discussed in Sarvārthasiddhi and Rajavārtika has been left untou
1. Compare Sarvārthasiddhi and Rājavārtika on 1.7-8.