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 68

INTRODUCTION
51
scholar Upādhyāya Yaśovijayajī belonging to the 17th-18th centuries A. D. In his ‘Mahāvīrastotra' Yaśovijayajī has quoted a gāthā from Siddhasena Divākara's 'Sanmati' in the form of an utterance by gandhahastin. On the basis of that one nowadays maintains that it is Siddhasena Divākara who is gandhahastin. But this reference made by Yaśovijayajī is a product of mistake, and to prove this two clear evidences are at hand. The first is the circumstance that no old or modern author come before Yaśovijajī employs the adjective gandhahastin while referring to Siddhasena Divākara, or to the works definitely known to be his composition, or to a quotation from his works. It is only Yaśovijayajī who has employed the adjective gandhahastin while referring to a quotation from a work of Siddhasena Divākara. So the reference made by him is devoid of all old basis. Besides, whatever old and modern prabandhas' containing a life-sketch of Siddhasena Divākara are now available nowhere employ the term gandhahastin while, on the other hand, the term Divākara is found employed in the old prabandhas as also in the works of other masters. The other powerful and irrefutable evidence is the circumstance that whatever quotations from gandhāhastin are found in so many works composed before Yaśovijayaji are also
1. Siddhasena-prabandha in Bhadreśvara's Kathāvali, Siddhasenaprabandha by another author, Siddhasena-prabandha within Vrddhavādiprabandha in Prabhāvaka-carita, Vikrama-prabandha in Prabandhacintamani and Caturvimśati-prabandha.
In the life-sketches of Siddhasena we come across the alias Divākara as also a supporting evidence for the same, but nothing of the sort is found in connection with the term gandhahastin. Had the term gandhahastin been in use since so olden times the question is as to why the old authors did not employ the term gandhahastin--as they did employ the term Divākara--while referring to Siddhasena or to a work definitely known to be his composition.
2. See Haribhadra's Pañcavastu-gāthā 1048, p. 156.
3. For a comparison observe: "nidrādayo yatah samadhigatāyā eva darśanalabdheh upayogaghāte pravartante caksurdarśanavaranadicatustayam tüdgamoccheditvāt mulaghātam nihanti darśanalabdhim" iti Tattvārthabhāsya Vrtti, p. 135, line 4, part II