________________
12
issue. However, they may add a supporting factor alongwith other points.
There is mention of the aphoristic author neither in the Dversion of the text nor in its first two important commentaries composed approximately between 450-780 A.D. However, some later scholars mention the author as Graddhapiccha modified afterwards as Umāsvāmi in inscriptions and Kannada commentary as above in 1213th century. Since then, the D-version has G. Umāsvāti as the aphorist. The earliest commentary of Pujyapada on this text fixes his latest date also to be somewhat 100-200 years prior to him (i.e. 250-350 A.D.).
The Digambaras do not accept Umāsvāti with the title of 'Vå caka' as the aphorist as the Svetambaras postulate on grounds of the panegyric in the autocommentary and other later commentaries of seventh and eighth centuries of their version. They feel the versional identity in these titles. They also express surprise about non-mention of the aphorist in early commentaries of the D-version. This leads to surmise that Digambara scholars might not have accepted him as a member of purely their lineage because of many of his aphorismic contents not tallying with the concepts of the current D-version. Dr.S.M.Jain has indicated that this type of non-difference about the lineages has been in many cases. However, he points out many contents not tallying even with the concepts of S-version in the text.
The scholars have mentioned that the following aphorismic concepts do not tally with the D-contentions: (i) Preferential three-fold path of salvation in place of traditional five-fold one in 1.1. (ii) The possibility of eleven afflictions in the omniscients (9.11). (iii) There is mention of twelve classes of heavenly celestials in 4.3 in place of the traditional 16 in 4.19. (iv) The separate mention of time as a reality in 5.39 (and 5.22) indicating its disputed character despite the postulate of six realities. (of course, this indicates the boldness of the author to move on to definiteness). (v) The definition of 'spotted saints' (Vakuas) in 9.46 (TRV, P.636). connotes 'few clothism' also as one of the forms of 'sky-cladism' or 'knot-lessism'. (vi) The definition of 'possession' (Parigraha) in terms of attachmental volition rather than physical possessions in 7.17
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
