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 84

INTRODUCTION
67
instead of adhyayanas too was initiated in the Jaina literature by none but Umāsvāti. And the division into Ahnikas and pādas-a division not initiated by him-was also initiated by his followers like Akalanka etc. However, even while particularly akin to Vaiseșika-sūtra as regards its external construction Tattvārtha-sūtra also exhibits a noteworthy difference such as throws light on the traditional mentality that has found expression in the Jaina system of philosophy. Thus Kanāda, having put forward his thesis in the aphorisms, does not-as does Aksapāda Gautama-prove his case by speaking of a prima facie view and the corresponding final view and yet often enough he does offer reasons by way of subtantiating those theses of his; on the other hand, Vācaka Umāsvāti nowhere offers an argument, illustration or reason by way of proving even a single one of his theses. He rather goes on describing--as does Patañjali, the author of Yogasūtra-his view in the form of a finally established thesis without offering an argument or reason and without speaking of a prima facia view and the corresponding final view. On comparing the aphorisms of Umāsvāti with those of the Vedicist systems of philosophy an impression is left on the mind—viz. that the Jaina tradition chiefly relies on faith and literally accepting a statement made by the personage believed by it to be omniscient, it sees no occasion to resolve a doubt raised in this connection. The result is that so many intelligible topics capable of revision, supplementation or development remained undiscussed even in the age of Logic and are yet intact on the basis of faith alone.
1. Of course, it cannot be denied that the development of Logic and logical discussion undertaken by so many profound logicians like Siddhasena, Samantabhadra etc. occupied a prominent place in the development of Indian thought; so the assertion made above has to be understood from the stand-point of the predominent and the subordinate and from that of a difference of outlook. If that is to be grasped with the help of a few illustrations then compare the Tattvārthasūtras with Upanisads etc. The commentators of Tattvārthaeven when they are profound logicians and are divided into different sects-undertake a treatment and employ the power of logic only with a view to elucidating or supporting earlier established Jaina thesis.