________________
94 : Śramaņa, Vol 58, No. 1/January-March 2007
cided), Yogīndradeva (life-period undecided), Laksmīdeva (lifeperiod undecided), Yogadeva (1600 AD.), Abhayanandi Sūri (lifeperiod undecided), Cirantanamuni (after 14th cent. AD.) and Malayagiri (12th cent. AD) etc. Thus it appears evidently that there is an abundance of commentaries on the Tattvārtha-sūtra serving as the ample proof for its profound popularity. With reference to commentaries, the late Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi, the great savant of Jaina philosophy, has attempted a very interesting comparison and contrast of the Tattvārtha-sūtra with the Brahmasūtra, which I am quoting here in its English rendering - "With regard to the tradition-orientated expositions, the 'Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra' can be compared with the 'Brahmasūtra'. As the expositors possessing entirely divergent views from each other on many a topic have written expositions of the Brahmasūtra and, resorting to those alone, have attempted to prove their viewpoints as based on the Upanişads, so also the scholars of both the schools of Digambara and svetāmbara have written expositions of the Tattvārtha and have attempted to establish even the mutually contradictory views on the basis of the canonical literature. The similarity established by it is this much that as the talented Ācāryas having divergent opinions felt the necessity of expressing their specific statements resorting to the Brahmasūtra due to its celebrity in the Vedānta literature, so the scholars of both the Jaina schools, too, had the necessity of expressing their viewpoints taking recourse to the Tattvārthādhigama owing to its established reputation in Jaina literature. Despite this external similarity, there is a difference of paramount importance between the traditionorientated expositions of the Brahmasūtra and the Tattvārtha-sūtra. The famous expositions of the Brahmasūtra greatly differ from each other on the fundamental topics of philosophy such as world, migratory soul, God, etc. and at many times they seem to be poles apart in their ideology whereas no such absolute divergence is seen amongst the expositors of any of the two schools belonging to the Tattvārtha. There is not any divergence on the fundamental topics
