________________
An attempt is made in this article to weigh the arguments dispassionately and look into internal and external evidence. What is tried to establish here is that Grddhapiccha, Umāsvāmi and Umāsvāti are three different personalities and that Grddhapiccha, who hailed from a period when the differences between Sve. and Dig. sects were not so acute and when some of the saints like him were equally revered by both the sects, was the author of TS (original aphorism), Umāsvāti was of Sve. sect was only the author of TB (and not of TS), and Umāsvāmi of Maghanandi, Padmanandi (Kundakunda?) lineage has nothing to do with TS.
We must not forget two very important dissertations by two great scholars of Sve. and Dig. sects, but held in esteem by both the sects, viz.:
(1) Introduction in commentary on TS and TB by (Prajñācakṣu) Sukhalalji Sanghavi [1; Introduction, p. 15-67]; and
(2) Preface in Sarvāthasiddhi (SS hereafter), a commentary on TS by Pūjyapāda, edited and translated by Phoolchandji Siddhantasastri [2; preface, p. 19-76).
These put forth very strongly the views that:
(1) (Sukhalalji): Author of TS and TB is same, viz. Umāsvāti and he belonged to Sve. tradition; and
(2) (Phoolchandji) Umāsvāti of Sve. sect was only author of TB and Grddhapiccha of Dig. sect was the original author of TS; respectively. II. TWO VERSIONS (RENDERINGS) OF TS.
Presently, two versions of original aphorisms of TS are available : 1) SSversion, based on commentary "Sarvārthasiddhi" by the great Dig. saint-scholar Pūjyapāda (5/6 C. A.D.) and the same is followed by almost all the subsequent Dig. commentators of TS, viz. Aklanka in his Rājvārtika (hereafter RV), Vidyānanda in his SV, Srutasāgara in his Tattvārthavịtti, etc. 2) TB-version of TS and both TB and TS are assumed to be written by Umāsvāti as per Sve. tradition. In fact, both the versions are almost identical except for about two dozen minor and half a dozen major differences in the readings.
It is interesting to see as to how the great minds due to their ingrained faith in their respective traditions have strong views in certain matters. Sukhalalji contends that Pujyapäda altered the TB version of TS to suit the dogmatic tenets of Dig. sect. This was due to Sukhalalji's conviction that TS and TB are from the same author, i.e. Umāsvāti, (according to him from 4/5th C. A.D) and that Umāsvāti preceded Pujyapāda by about one century. Phoolchandji, on the other hand, vehemently tries to establish that Umāsvāti hailed from 7/8th C. A.D. and was the author of TB only and changed the original (SS-version) aphorisms found in TS, to suit the tenets of Sve. sect.
56
376277, 23(3), 2011
