Sambodhi 2014 Vol 37

Author(s): J B Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 30

22
M. A. Dhaky
SAMBODHI
apparently had before him a version of the āgamas which differed in a few details and dogmatic particulars from the āgamas of the Vajrī sākhā inherited by the Svetāmbaras. While Umāsvāti appears to have flourished in the middle of the fourth century A.D., the Svetāmbara sect at that time was still in its infancy. Its prevalence, moreover, was restricted to Lāta (southern Gujarāt) and eastern Saurastra, which together represent the provenance of its origin and an early base in western India. Umāsvāti could not have belonged to this sect because in his Sūtra-bhāsya he refers only to (a single) vastra (not vastrāni) and (a single) pātra (not pātrāni). Also, the Svetāmbara sect originated from the sedentary caityavāsī abbots and monks, and was not created by the itinerant/mendicant friars of the main stream aplacela Nirgrantha order moving in north India to which Umāsvāti belonged. Moreover, I must repeat here that some divergencies in dogmatic details and doctrinal deviations are noticeable in his Bhāsya when compared to the corresponding ones of the version of the Canon of Vajri-sakhā fixed at the Mathurā Synod I (c. A.D.363) and collated in Valabhi at the Synod II there (A.D.503-516) with the earlier version fixed there at Synod I in the fourth century A.D. Predictably, the version used by Umāsvāti, which reflects a different tradition on some points, may have been followed by his Uccairnāgara-sakhā which he, in turn, had followed in c. A.D.350, a date which plausibly antedated even the Mathurā Synod. (In any case, there is no clear evidence that the mendicants of the Uccairnāgara-sakhā were also present at the Mathurā Council presided over by Arya Skandila of the Vajrīsākhā.) The unconformities (implied to be between the Vajri's and the Uccairnāgara-sakhā's were also present at the Mathurā Council presided over by Arya Skandila of version) have been duly reported by Pt. Nathooram Premi (1956). Incidentally, Sāgarmal Jain has identified Nyagrodha, the birth place of Umāsvāti with 'Nāgod' and 'Uccairnagara' with 'Ucherā', both in Madhya Pradesh, the two towns, moreover, situated not far from each other. (His article is currently not handy). I fully concur with him. A few of his sūtras in the Tattvārthadhigama go against the Digambara belief, such as 12 instead 16 kalpas, the five types of Nirgrantha friars, nudity as parisaha instead of a mandatory monastic discipline, "11 parīsahas to a Jina" (which, moreover, did not include nudity even when the Jina is believed to follow acelakya) etc., etc. Earlier scholars likes Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi (1929, 1940), H.R.Kapadia (1926, 1930), Sāgarānanda sūri (1935), and Pt. Nathooram Premi (1956) had called attention to some of these unconformities in the Sūtra-text with the Digambara dogmatic positions and doctrinal premises. There, of course, are several more points to which, on the basis of those made particularly by Sāgarānanda sūri, I have referred to in my aforenoted paper included in the present Volume. And, what is more, there are no sūtra which hold the Digambara dogmatic
7.