Book Title: Studies In Umasvati And His Tattvartha Sutra
Author(s): G C Tripathi, Ashokkumar Singh
Publisher: Bhogilal Laherchand Institute of Indology
________________
Tattvārthasūtra Commentaries of Karnataka 157
It is an established fact that there is one and only one Tattvārthasūtra. If there were to be another Tattvārthasūtra, it would not have escaped the notice of Nirgranthologists for a thousand years. The fact is that Āryadeva's Tattvārthasūtra is not an original work; instead, it is a commentary on Tattvārthasūtra. Cūḍāmaṇi, a Kannada commentary on Tattvārthasūtra, mention-ed by Bhaakalankadeva (1604) in his Śabdānuśāsana [ed. Narasimhacar, R.:1923:10] is the same commentary of Āryadeva. Bhaākalankadeva has mentioned the name of the commentary and not the name of the author.
At this juncture a suggestion of Pt. Jugal Kishor Mukhtar deserves special consideration. He is of the opinion that the Sanskrit verse, quoted in an inscription of Śravanabelagola [EC. II(R) 360 (254) AD 1398 p 216 lines: 33-5] praising Śivakoi who ornamented Tattvärthasūtra by his penance, is a quotation taken from Cūḍāmani, the Kannada commentary on Tattvārthasūtra.In this case this is the only verse that has survived till now [Mukhtar J. K., Jain Sahitya Aura Itihas par Visada Prakāśa: Calcutta: 1956: 78]. If it is proved that Aryadeva is the author of Cūḍāmani, a Kannada commentary, then he will be the earliest Kannada commentator who pioneered writing in Kannada.
In the absence of any corroborative evidences, either inscriptional or literary, everything is nebulous; but, it is curious enough to note the name of Aryadeva as an author of Tattvārtha-sūtra for the first time, from an inscription of eleventh century, which records the name of the author and the work in unmistakable terms. M. A. Dhaky has very appropriately summed up the issue involved with reference to Aryadeva: "Incidentally, the Mallisena-prasasti of 1129 AD on Chandragiri at Śravaṇabelagola refers to Aryadeva and qualifies him as Rāddhā-ntakartā, an implied allusion to his authorship of the Tattvärthasūtra [EC. II (R) 77(67); p. 51]. The inscription at the same time does not anywhere mention Umāsvāti or Gṛddhra-picchācārya either in it's otherwise long list of the southern Nirgrantha holymen.
