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 124

APPENDIX
107
headship at a matha or with a family-of-disciples. But the people who wrote out gurvāvalīs and pattāvalis had their head filled with the idea that whoever is a master or an author must be the head of some family-of-disciples or other. Misled by this mistaken notion they concocted information-registers about all the earlier scholars and turned them into the heads of this or that family-ofdisciples. They had no inkling as to when Umāsvāti and Kundakunda had actually flourished, but since both were great masters and were ancient they were brought into relationship with one another and the former made into a disciple of the latter or vice versa. They did not take the trouble of considering the circumstance that Kundakunda was a resident of the village Kundakunda of the Karnataka region while Umāsvāti would tour about in the region of Bihar. Really, any idea of a mutual relationship between the two is well nigh impossible.
The lineage of old masters that is given in the old texts like Śrutāvatāra, Ādipurāņa, Harivaṁsapurāņa, Jambūdvīpaprajñapti etc. does not at all mention Umāsvāti. Śrutāvatāra does mention Kundakunda and there he is said to be a great commentator, but there too we find no mention of Umāsvāti either before or after him. This Śrutāvatāra of Indranandin is not particularly old but it appears to be a transformation of some old work and in view of that a statement made by it is to be deemed authoritative. Darśanasara is a work of 990 A. V. and it mentions Padmanandin or Kundakunda but not Umāsvāti. By the time of Jinasena Rājavārtika and ślokavārtika had already been composed but he too while eulogising scores of masters and authors makes no mention of Umāsvāti–for he did not treat the latter as belonging to his own tradition. One point more. The authors of Adipurāṇa, Harivamśapurāņa etc. do not mention even Kundakunda, a circumstance that is worth consideration.
My own understanding is that Kundakunda was the founder of a particular ideological sub-sect; he sought to shape Jaina religion after the mould of Vedānta. It appears that till the time of Jinasena etc. his standpoint had not won universal