________________
such a great personality and scholar but wants only to indicate that some views can be due to deep-seated and ingrained faith in one's tradition. The other camp led by another doyen from Dig. sect and respected by all the factions of Jainas, late Pt. Phoolchandji Siddhanta Shastri, has tried to demolish all the points [(1) to (5) in previous para] raised by Pt. Sukhalalji. Especially, as regards contention (5) of Sukhalalji he has quoted numerous instances of differences in TB-version of TS and TB itself. Also as regards Sukhalalji's contention at (1) above, Phoolchandji quotes certain remarks and passages from TB and its Śve. commentators which indicate that the authors of TS and TB are different. [2; p. 64-67]. (We are not going into details of their arguments but recommend the readers to go through the prefaces written by these titans to TS and SS mentioned at the end of section I of this article, as they are beautiful pieces of great literary and philosophical merit).
(B) Pt. Phoolchandji, in his presentation [2], tries to show: (a) Umāsvāti is the author of TB only (and not of TS); (b) Author of TS was Gṛddhapiccha who may be assigned to 2nd or 3rd C. A.D.; (c) Umāsvāti might have changed the original aphorisms of TS to suit the tradition of Śve. sect and wrote commentary (TB) on it. (d) As apparent from many Śve. sources, Umasvati's time was around 730 A.D. and thus he was influenced, if at all, by Pujyapada. [2; p. 68-69]. Pt. Phoolchandji had written pages on rebuttal of points raised by Pt. Sukhalalji but was not able to throw any light on as to who Gṛddhapiccha was or as to the period he belonged. Phoolchandji agrees that some references, especially the invocatory passages or remarks at the end of each chapter (adhyāya) or chapterending phrases of Śve. commentators, indicate that TS and TB are authored by the same person. Both Sukhalalji and Phoolchandji refer to colophon at the end of each chapter of TB reading thus: "iri tattvärthadhigamerhatpravacanasangrahe prathamodhyāyah samäpta". Sukhalalji regards this as the proof of the fact that TS was called Tattvärthadhigama and thus authors of TS and TB are same. This very fact, according to Phoolchandji, indicates that TB was known as Tattvärthadhigama and TS was known earlier as "Arhatpravacanasangraha", and thus TS and TB are by different authors. To reinforce his argument, Phoolchandji puts forth following additional evidence. In his commentary RV on sutra 37 of chapter 5 (i.e. 5.37) Akalanka refers to one "Arhatpravacanahṛdaya" and later remarks "Uktañcahi arhatpravacane dravyāśraya nirguṇā guṇaḥ". Even the colophon at the end of TB runs as "Tattvärthadhigamakhyam bakvartham sangraham laghugrantham / vakṣāmi Sisyahitamamarhadvacanaikdesasya". Amṛtacandra, in his commentary on Kundakunda's Samayasara, regards TS as part of Arhatpravacana (prabhṛtahvayavasyārhatpravacanāvayavasya). Thus, Phoolchandji surmises that there must be some earlier work called Arhatpravacana or Arhatpravacanasangraha or Arhatpravacanahṛdaya written by Gṛddhapiccha, अर्हत् वचन, 23 (3), 2011
59
