Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals

Author(s): N L Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 15

Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals
(d) Contents and conceptual development.
The pontifical and teacher-taught lineages are different in the two Jaina traditions. There is not only difference in lineage of 683-year period of Mahavira's post-salvation but the lineages of post-683 year are still more complex. Though some of these lineages contain the name of Umāsvāti, but they can not form the sole basis for any definite conclusion either about the author or his period. A range of period, however, could be guessed about him. The early lineages of S-version do not have the name of Umāsvā ti. However, their lineages of 12th century onwards do have his name approximating Vācaka's period as 660 A.D.
All the inscriptions quoted by the Digambaras, generally, belong to a very late period (11-13th century A.D.). They indicate that Graddhapiccha Umāsvāmi (-ti) was the author of the text but nothing about his biography or period. The period of inscriptions is the period when things got settled with respect to versional traditions and perspective. They cannot be very much relied upon the authorship issue. However, they may add a supporting factor alongwith other points.
There is mention of the aphoristic author neither in the D-version of the text nor in its first two important commentaries composed approximately between 450-780 A.D. However, some later scholars mention the author as Graddhapiccha modified afterwards as Umāsvami in inscriptions and Kannada commentary as above in 12-13th century. Since then, the D-version has G. Uma svati as the aphorist. The earliest commentary of Pujyapada on this text fixes his latest date also to be somewhat 100-200 years prior to him (i.e. 250-350 A.D.).
The Digambaras do not accept Umāsvāti with the title of 'Vācaka' as the aphorist as the Svetāmbaras postulate on grounds of the panegyric in the autocommentary and other later commentaries of seventh and eighth centuries of their version. They feel the versional identity in these titles. They also express surprise about non-mention of the aphorist in early commentaries of the D-version. This leads to surmise that Digambara scholars might not have accepted him as a member of purely their lineage because of many of his aphorismic contents not tallying with the concepts of the current D-version. Dr.S.M.Jain has indicated that this type of non-difference about the lineages has been in many cases. However, he points out many contents not tallying even with the concepts of S-version in the text.
The scholars have mentioned that the following aphorismic concepts do not tally with the D-contentions: (i) Preferential three-fold path of salvation in place of traditional fivefold one in 1.1. (ii) The possibility of eleven afflictions in the omniscients (9.11).
For Private & Irsonal Use Only