Jain Journal 1996 10

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 14

56
JAIN JOURNAL: Vol-XXXI, No. 2 October 1996
tradition, early or late, and this may have been perhaps the case also with the Yapaniyas in Karṇāṭadēśa.
3. The Humcha inscription of 1077 A.D. and the Sravana Belagola epigraph of 1129 A.D. ascribe the Sūtra neither to Umāsvāti nor to Gṛddhapiccha but to Āryadēva, thus coming in conflict with the notices of Virasēna, Vidyananda, Pampa, and Vādirāja as well as other inscriptions from Sravana Belagola.
4. The 12th century inscriptions beginning from 1115 A.D., alluded to the foregoing pages, for the first time, and indeed with no past precedent known so far in the Southern (Digambara) Church, mention 'Umāsvāti'; and 'Gṛddhapicchācārya' they note as his alias. This equation, in conjunction with other associations, explicit or implicit, would make Umāsvāti the author of the Tattvärthasutra. But what is the basis for equating 'Umāsvāti' with 'Gṛddhapicchācārya'? From where did the composer of the inscription of 1115 A.D. get this information, particularly when the earlier celebrated commentators on the Tattvärtha beginning from the seventh century and other subsequent but eminent early writers - Southerners all and indeed of the Digambara persuasion-till 11th century A.D. do not mention Umāsvāti at all? Why, all of a sudden, did Umāsvāti appear in the Southern epigraphical notices ?
5. Again, the inscription of 1115 A.D. for the first time mentions Koṇḍakundācārya as Umāsväti alias Gṛddhapiccha's preceptor, a statement that had been never met with before this date, nor can it be upheld by any sound external or internal evidence.
The direct and most ancient source, the testimony of the author himself, is what is explicitly believed to be his own encomium at the end of the Sūtra-text's Bhāṣya, the Bhāṣya being available in, and recognized only by, the Northern tradition: and this proclaims the authorship of the Tattvārtha-sūtra (in point of fact the Tattvarthädhigamasastra as the author himself therein calls it) positively in his own name, Umāsvāti; and this encomium could hardly have been available to the medieval composers of inscriptions in Karṇāṭa. Nor could they have deduced that it was Umāsvāti who is the author of the Sutra, at least, not from the earlier writings of their own sect. To all seeming, the Humcha inscription of the 16th century, earlier noted, which quotes a couplet in Anustubh, palpably from some medieval Yapaniya writing (since the term śruta-kēvali-dēsiya it uses it typically of Yapaniya usage and not known in the vogue either of the Digambara or of the Svētāmbara sect), may have been the source