Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals

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

Page 17

Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals
12) leads to favour it more in this tradition. The clarification of Jain on many points going contrary to S-version are not very reassuring as they prove the preferential opinion of the aphorist rather than the colloidal canonical descriptions. These canonical statements indicate the developing trend of concepts in different periods crystallised by the bold Umāsvāti. Academically, this developmental process may be analysable, but this trend has a point towards the total validity of canonical contents on the basis of Jinas' meanings and scripture-proficient wordings for the common man.
However, the above bothway conceptual contradictions lead to conclude that the aphorist was not adapted to either of the major sects prevailing today as has been contended by many scholars of mid-twentieth century. He could also not be 'Vacaka' titled. The lineages of S-version hold to have him round about 660 A.D. One, therefore, can safely presume that only Umäsvāti or Umäsvami was the author of Tattvärtha Sutra without any title. It is the titles which have created the problem of authorship to be discussed later. How could he, otherwise, make the above type of statements? However, if he was neither of these two lineages, which lineage he belonged to?
There are three possible contentions on the issue. Some Digambara scholars hold the view that he belonged to the Yapaniya sect (a compromise sect in early Christian centuries) because the tabletted lineages of current sects do not contain his name upto quite a later date and also these are of questionable nature on many counts, However, this view does not seem to be correct as Dr. Jain suggests because of his different lineages involving different opinions regarding certain postulates. The aphorist, thus, seems to be a preYapaniyan and pre-Digambara-Svetambara lineage.
There has been an opinion based on variable later lineages among the Digambaras that the aphorist was not only a prominent member of Mula-Sangha of Kundakunda lineage but he was his direct or indirect successor also. However, this also does not seem to be correct as he has not advocated idealism over realism so ferrociously when one looks deeper into the literature composed by both of them. There are many points of contrast which indicate independent intellectualism of this aphorist. He has given his own version on the major issues. This is the main reason for the popularity and the following he received by later seers. How a direct or indirrect disciple could improve concepts over his traditional colloidal teacher sermonising for unquestionable right faith? Some contrasting points may be noted here:
(i) A clearcut upholding of 3-fold 3-gemal path for religiosity and salvation out of 3-5-fold paths mentioned by Kundakunda in his texts.
(ii) Initiation of the concept of organs of valid cognition (pramānās) by eqating knowledge with its organs.
(iii) A clearcut upholding of seven reals on spiritual basis instead of nine (or more).
12