________________
152
THE ESSENCE OF JAINA SCRIPTURES
by Umasvati in the Tattvartha Sutra, Pujyapada's Sarvarthasiddhi commentary thereon as well as in certain Shvetambara texts and scholars. In Tattvartha Sutra (TS 7.13), himsa is defined as pramattayogat pranvyaparopanam himsa, i.e. the destruction of bioenergies, life-principles, or vitalities (prana) due to negligence or passion is himsa. Muni Vidyananda defines violence as the passionate state together with the separation/ ending of bio-energies (pranas) of the self (sva) or other (para). In other words, violence occurs when a passionate activity of body, speech or mind causes harm, injury, or separation of one's own or someone else's psychic or physical pranas (TSV commentary on TS 7.13, Vol. 6, p. 564).
The contention that himsa does not merely hurts vitalities of living beings but that injury even results owing to the mental condition of passions and negligence is said to be a revision of the concept of violence as enumerated in Shvetambara canonical texts such as Bhagavati, and Thanang, which lay emphasis on merely physical aspects of violence.
The Tattvartha Sutra, Johnson opines, is the earliest extant Jaina work in Sanskrit written between 150 C.E. and 350 C.E. He affirms: "It is not only the one text that both Digambaras and Svetambaras recognize as authoritative," but the commentaries on it, whether by Digambara or Svetambara authors, "present almost identical explications of Jaina doctrine". In any case, the differences between the Svetambara and Digambara doctrine are not relevant for our discussion, which focuses on the problems which are fundamental to both traditions.
Johnson admits that he himself has used the Sarvarthasiddhi of Pujyapada (Devanandin) (c. fifth century C.E.) in conjunction with the Tattvartha Sutra "rather than the alleged auto commentary, the Tattvarthadhigama Bhasya (also known as the Svopajna Bhasya)" since there is considerable doubt whether Umasvati himself wrote the "auto commentary". Bronkhorst has presented a convincing case for attributing it to a Svetambara of the fourth century C.E. (at the earliest) whereas Zydenbos dates it to the fifth century A.D.
The Sarvarthasiddhi, Johnson adds, might be using a version of the Tattvartha Sutra which is "at times closer to the original than that used in the Bhasya". There is also some evidence that the Tattvartha Sutra itself was composed in "a Digambara milieu, while the Bhasya
