Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
If they had done so, they would not have used the designation 'Gṛdhrapiccha' at one place and 'Umasvami' at another, but rather they would have used the term 'Umasvami' following 'Gṛdhrapiccha.' If my interpretation of these two statements is not false, it implies that, in Vidyananda's view, Umasvami would be considered the author of Tattvarthadhigama Shastra; however, in his perspective, Gṛdhrapiccha and Umasvami must certainly be distinct. The creation of descriptors like Gṛdhrapiccha, Balakapiccha, Mayugiccha, etc., arises from the sentiment of the Digambara tradition, which entails the abandonment of clothing and worldly possessions. If Vidyananda had certainly understood Umasvami as a Digambara, he would have surely included the traditional descriptors like Gṛdhrapiccha along with his name. Therefore, it can be said that Vidyananda did not indicate Umasvami as belonging to the Shvetambara, Digambara, or any third sect.
- Sukhlal