Jaina Karmaology

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

Page 16

Jaina Karmology authors have a short mention of their parentage and/or teacher-taught lineage without any details. This historical disregard has been responsible to contribute to many debatable and as yet unresolved issues to evaluate Jinistic contribution in the literary and philosophical fields properly. The Tattvārtha Sūtra is no exception to this trend, specially its D-version. Moreover, the prominence of the above trend in the early compositions casts doubt about the period of Vācaka Umāsvāti. One has to convince how could his details be taken as exception in the matter?
Despite this, many scholars have academically attempted about the issue of the authorship of this first Jaina Sanskệta text. It is agreed that Ac ārya Um āsv āti is the author of the text ( of course, with different titles of identification). However, his personal identity is still under discussion by the scholars. The author is described with two titles- (i) Gựddhapiccha and (ii) Văcaka. The scholarly discussion on this point is based on the following grounds: (a) Different pontifical and elders' lineage records of varying periods. (b) Many inscriptional records of Sravanvelgola, Hansi, Humcha etc. (c) The mention of author in literary commentaries by the commentators like Vidyananda, Siddhasena, Haribhadra, Vadiraja and in other texts of different authors like Virasena. (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 683year 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 Um āsv āti. 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