________________
..., Umāsvāmī, ..., Samantabhadra, ..., Pūjyapāda, ..., Aklanka, ..., Vidyānanda, etc. however, many historians and scholars like Premiji and Mukhtarji do not believe that Umāsvami was direct or hereditary disciple of Kundakunda (कुंदकुंद). They are not ready to accept the testimony of SB-inscriptions in this respect since these inscriptions are carved about 1000 years after the division of Sangha. They also do not want to rely on Pattāvalīs and Gurvāvalīs of various Sanghas as they too are composed after 12th C. A.D., are full of inconsistencies, and tend to show that their Sanghas originated from Müla Sangha and that all great Ācāryas (especially c) belonged to their Sangha. [1; p. 110-115].
iv) There is great debate about whether the initial invocation " TRUR..." belongs to TS or SS. Those in favor of SS argue that great Dig. commentators of TS like Aklanka in his RV or Vidyānanda in his SV have not commented on it, clearly showing that it did not belong to TS. They also argue that this invocation does not appear in TB-version of TS and also no Sve. commentator of TS or TB has commented on it. This clearly indicates that it is by Pujyapāda in his SS. Another camp vehemently opposes this mainly because of the fact that if this is accepted as invocation of SS, then since Aptamīmānsā (or Devāgamastotra) of Samantabhadra is regarded as commentary on this invocation, will put Samantabhadra after Pūjyapāda, which goes against the tradition that Samantabhadra preceded Pūjyapāda by about a century. [2; p. 54-55). IV. GREAT DEBATE ON OWNERSHIP.
(A) Great Sve. scholar late Pt. Sukhalalji, revered greatly by all the sects of Jainas, tries to prove in his most erudite preface to TS [1] that: i) TS and TB are by same author, namely Umāsvāti, ii) who belonged to Sve. sect, iii) he hailed after 2nd C. A.D. (although Dr. Suzuko Ohira in his doctoral dissertation under the guidance of Pt. Sukhlalji arrives at the conclusion that upper limit of Umāsvāti is middle of 5th C. A.D. [6; p. 137]). v) Umāsvāti, the author of TS and TB, precedes Pūjyapāda to whom he accepts belonging to 5th C. A.D., and that the later changed some aphorisms to suit Dig. tradition.
He rests his case on following premises: (1) There are some words or phrases in TB and commentaries on TB by Siddhasenagani and Haribhadra which indicate that TS and TB are by the same author. (2) SS smacks of sectarianism while TB does not give such impression. (3) Style of TB appears older than that of SS and SS also appears to be influenced by TB. (4) The ideas on philosophy, epistemology, logic enunciated in SS appear to be more developed and advanced when compared to TB. (5) There is great consistency and absence of any difference of opinion in TS and TB, indicating that they are by the same author. [1; p. 17-24, 94-100).
Prima facie, Sukhalalji's contentions at (2), (3), and (4) above appear to be his views and opinions. This author does not dare to cast any aspersions on
58
316
0,23 (3), 2011
