Jaina Karmaology

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

Page 19

14
reassuring as they prove the preferential opinion of the aphorist rather than the colloidal canonical descriptions. These canonical statements indicate the developing trend of concepts in different periods crystallised by the bold Umāsvāti. Academically, this developmental process may be analysable, but this trend has a point towards the total validity of canonical contents on the basis of Jinas' meanings and scripture-proficient wordings for the common man.
However, the above bothway conceptual contradictions lead to conclude that the aphorist was not adapted to either of the major sects prevailing today as has been contended by many scholars of midtwentieth century. He could also not be 'Vācaka' - titled. The lineages of S-version hold to have him round about 660 A.D. One, therefore, can safely presume that only Umāsvāti or Umāsvāmi was the author of Tattvārtha Sūtra without any title. It is the titles which have created the problem of authorship to be discussed later. How could he, otherwise, make the above type of statements ? However, if he was neither of these two lineages, which lineage he belonged to ?
• There are three possible contentions on the issue. Some Digambara scholars hold the view that he belonged to the Yåpaniya sect (a compromise sect in early Christian centuries) because the tabletted lineages of current sects do not contain his name upto quite a later date and also these are of questionable nature on many counts, However, this view does not seem to be correct as Dr. Jain suggests because of his different lineages involving different opinions regarding certain postulates. The aphorist, thus, seems to be a pre-Yapaniyan and preDigambara-Svetambara lineage.
There has been an opinion based on variable later lineages among the Digambaras that the aphorist was not only a prominent member of Måla-Sarigha of Kundakunda lineage but he was his direct or indirect successor also. However, this also does not seem to be correct as he has not advocated idealism over realism so ferrociously when one looks deeper into the literature composed by both of them. There are many points of contrast which indicate independent intellectualism of this aphorist. He has given his own version on the major issụes. This is the main reason for the popularity and the following he received by later seers. How a direct or indirrect disciple could improve concepts over his traditional colloidal teacher