________________
(4) From these considerations it is highly likely that Gṛddhapiccha was the author of TS. Otherwise why Virasena and Vidyananda categorically state that the writer is Grṛddhapiccha? Why they do not mention the name of Umasvāti or Umāsvāmi? Gṛddhapiccha's historicity gets confirmed also by his mention by Vādirājasuri (10/11th C.). This Gṛddhapiccha might be an yapaniya (as brought out by Premiji in his long article [1; p. 9]), or from such a sangha composed of both naked and partly clad saints, or even if he was Śve., he would have been a jinakalpi (naked) and thus acceptable to Dig.s also, as was the case with Arya Mankṣu and Nagahastī. Unfortunately, no details whatsoever are available about Gṛddhapiccha.
(5) Gṛddhapiccha must have belonged to 5th C. at the earliest when writing in Samskṛta was introduced in Jaina fold. Pūjyapāda and Umāsvāti must have wrote their commentaries (TS and TB respectively) immediately thereafter by adopting versions of TS consistent with the tenets of their respective faiths. They may be contemporaries (6th C.) or the difference between their periods must be insignificant.
(6) At the end of reading of Dig. TS, usually a verse is recited: Tattvārthasütrakartāram Gṛddhapicchopalaksitam/Vande ganindrasañjātamumāsvamimuniśvaram//. We do not know when and by whom this verse was inserted. But it appears of very late date, may be 19th C. or thereafter. Similarly, an inscription from taluka/ district Ahmadnagar reads as under: Tattvārthasūtrakartāramumasvāti muniśvaram/ Śrutakevali desiyam vandeham guṇamandiram //. Date of this inscription is not known, but appears to be of 14/ 15th C. as by that time there is mix-up of Gṛddhapiccha with Umāsvāmī or Umāsvāti due to similarity in the names. Same thing has happened with SB inscriptions no. 105 (1398 A.D.) and no. 108 (1411 A.D.), where all these names have got mixed up.
Such misconception is possible as SB inscriptions were of very late date separated by centuries from Gṛddhapiccha or Umāsvāmī or Umāsvāti. These inscriptions cannot be relied upon as they belong to a period of mystification where unbelievable and exaggerated accounts such as gods carrying Kundakunda to Videha (similar stories also in respect of Umāsvāmī and Pūjyapāda), Pūjyapāda walking in the air by applying a chemical to his soles, etc. are narrated.
VII. CONCLUSION.
From all the discussion above it looks highly probable that Gṛddhapiccha, Umāsvāmī and Umāsvāti are three different persons. Gṛddhapiccha of 5th C., revered by all sections of Jainas, composed TS in Sanskrita, which was probably known as Arhatpravacana, on which Umasvati of Śve. sect wrote a commentary TB or Tattvärthadhigama in 6/7th C. and Pujyapada of Dig. sect wrote commentary SS round about the same time. Umāsvāmī of Arhadbali,
अर्हत् वचन, 23 (3), 2011
64
