________________
Tattvārthasūtra Commentaries of Karnataka 161 Cāmundarāya says that none can equal Samantabhadradeva (c. 550. AD) who wrote famous Tattvārtha-bhāșya and a treatise on logic(verse no. 5). Cāmundarāya has clearly attributed a bhāsya on Tattvārthasūtra to Samantabhadradeva. Some other Sanskrit and Kannada authors also attribute a bhāsya to Samantabhadradeva by specifically mentioning it as Gandha-hasti-mahābhāsya and it's extent is said to be of 96,000 granthagras or verses. Hastimalla (1290), a Kannada author has expressed in his play Vikrānta-Kaurava that Samantabhadra was the promoter of Gandhahasti commentary; Dharmabhūṣaṇa's (1385) Nyāyadīpika also echoes the same opinion. LaghuSamantabhadra (fifteenth century) says that Svami Samantabhadra Ācārya, the chief of the doctrine of qualified assertion, wrote Gandha-hasti-mahābhāsya on the Mokşaśāstra olim Tattvārthādhigama of Bhagavad Umāsvāmi. A commentary of Siddhasena (eighth century), a śvetāmbara author is also called Gandhahastin.
Pt. Sukhlal and others are of the opinion that a commentary like Gandhahasti-mahābhāsya of Samantabhadradeva did not exist at all. But the available facts and internal evidences confirm the existence of Gandhahasti-mahābhāsya. Apart from the statements quoted above of different later authors, which can be considered as external evidences let me quote three examples in defence of Gandha-hasti-mahābhāsya as internal evidences: 1. Pūjyapāda (Sarvārthasiddhi) and Akalańkadeva (Rāja
vārtika) mention an earlier commentary: 'tathā coktam, sakalādeśah pramāṇādhīno, vikalādeśo nayāļhīnah' (-Rājavārtika); the reference here is to Samanta-bhadradeva's Gandha-hasti-mahābhāsya. Bhāskaranandi ācārya (c. 13–14th century) in his gloss Tattvārthasukha-vrtti, while commenting on the 42nd sūtra in the fourth chapter quotes-aparaḥ prapañcah sarvasya bhāsye drașavyah; and again in the fifth chapter
