________________
which came to be called TS with passage of time, and on which Pūjyapāda wrote his commentary SS and Umāsvāti TB. (It may be interesting to note that one Prabhācandra has named his work "Arhatprvacana" and claims it to be based on ancient Arhatpravacana: athātorhatpravacanamasūtram vyākhyāsyāmah). [2; p. 43).
To prove that Umāsvāti hailed after Pujyapāda, Phoolchandji puts forth following facts: (i) Oldest Pattāvali of Nandisūtra and Gurvāvali of Kalpasūtra (composed in 5th C. A.D.) do not mention Umāsvāti or his masters. Jinabhadragani (5/ 6 C.) also does not mention him in any of his monumental works. Thus Umāsvāti must have hailed after this period. (ii) As per the Pattāvali composed by Dharmaghoșasūri (12/13 C. A.D.), the period of Umāsvāti comes around 664 A.D. (iii) Great scholar Vinayavijayagani of 17th C. A.D. describes Umāsvāti as Yugapradhāna (Chief Pontiff) hailing after Jinabhadra and Puşpamitra, i.e. from 7th C. A.D. (iv) Ravivardhanagaņi (17th C. A.D.), in his Pattāvali gives date of Umāsvāti as 1190 years after Mahāvīra, i.e. 664 A.D. This all goes to show that Umāsvāti flourished in 7th C. A.D. Thus Pūjvapāda (5/6 C. A.D.) precedes Umāsvāti by about a century.[2; p. 68-70).
The last argument (at (5) of section III (A)) of Sukhalalji about almost total consistency between TS and TB to prove that both are authored by Umāsvāti, is refuted by Phoolchandji by pointing out couple of basic differences in TS and TB. Further he points out a number of differences in TS, TB, and two commentaries on TB by Haribhadra and Siddhasenagani and objections raised by these commentators against TB.
To prove that Grddhapiccha, the author of TS, was an adherent of Dig. sect, Phoolchandji harps on the word "nāgnya" of TS (9.15) as one of parisahas. [2; p. 63]. Thus, according to Phoolchandji, TS was written by Grddhapiccha of Dig. sect and the first commentator was also a Dig. (Pūjyapāda) and was followed by Sve. Umāsvāti, who made suitable alterations in the original aphorisms to suit Sve. tradition. On the other hand, Sukhalalji has also put forth strong argument to show that TS is by Umāsvāti, a Sve. saint of 5th C. according to him, especially by drawing attention to aphorism (9.11) of TS, namely, "ekādaśajine", meaning that the liberated souls undergo 11 parişahas, which goes against Dig. tradition. [1; p. 36). Sukhalalji rightly puts Pūjyapāda in 5/6th C. but after Umāsvāti and states that he made changes in original aphorisms of TS as found in TB to suit Dig. tradition as the differences in two sects had become irreconcilable then. [1; p. 99-100]. V. HOW DEEP WAS SCHISM ?
In order to justify our conjecture in the next section it will be necessary to recount, in short, the genesis, spread and growth of divide in Jainism. From
60
376 477,23 (3), 2011
