Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals

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

Page 25

Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals
UI).
could also be about 6" century i.e. about 100 years earlier than Siddhasena. This leads to an approximate contemporariness of Pujyapada and Vācaka - one in south and other in north, per chance without normal chances of mutual personal communication. This seems to be an anomalous point for the debating scholars. Pt. P.C. Shastri and recently S.M. Jain (and many others) have dealt with this issue which requires more exhaustive studies to yield plausible conclusion.
One of the vexed problems associated with the socalled autocommentary of Vacaka Umasvati is whether he is only a commentator or author-cum-commentator of the text. The following points indicate that he could be only commentator-cum-remodeller of the original text under the title
Vacaka': 1. Generally, no panegerics are found in ancient texts upto the period of roughly seventh-eighth century (These seem to have started from the days of scholastic schismisation). 2. Vacaka has mentioned that he is composing “Tattvarthadhigama" as an explanatory of "Tattvartha" rather than "Tattvartha Sutraas is indicatd by the last words of the chapters. Similar practice is also followed by Devanandi Pū jyapada. The terms "Tattvartha" and "Tattvärthadhigama" should not be equated to connote the same meaning as has been done by many scholars to support their contentions. 3. Some scholars opine that important texts have first commentaries 100200 years after their compositions. That is why, Kundakunda's, period is slated for sixth to eighth century. On the basis of this criteria, the first commentary on Vacaka's commentary appears by about 750 A.D.. He should have, therefore, composed his commentary not earlier than 600 A.D. as is clear from the Va caka's lineages stated above. 4. It is observed in Digambara tradition of Jain Church that most of the later commentators have added or modified the basic texts (of Kundakunda, Battakera etc.) in their own times with respect to the number of verses and their referential meanings. Why this can not be assumed that Vacaka Umasvati could have followed this point in modifying the original text and commenting on it? 5. The S-lineages indicate his approximate period as 660 A.D. or So - the period of practising schismisation. It is, thus, quite natural to explain the basic aphorisms according to the tradition and sometimes modify it. This is what has been done by Vācaka and also by many later Digambara Commentators on Kundkunda and Battakera literature etc. 6. Some scholars have presented similar logic or counter-logic applicable in both the versions of the text. This indicates that polarisation of schisms has led to many anomalous points in both the versions. These are logically unable to prove any proposition. 7. Traditionally, the Digambaras have very high place for this text and it is not only read in Paryūsana, but it is also a part of regular recital like an
20