Studies In Umasvati And His Tattvartha Sutra

Author(s): G C Tripathi, Ashokkumar Singh
Publisher: Bhogilal Laherchand Institute of Indology

Page 28

18
Studies in Umāsvāti
paśyati yugpat sarvam sālokaṁ sarva-bhāvinam//12// (Cf. H. R. Kapadia, Tattvārthādhigamasūtra, Pt. 2, Surat 1930, p. 275, Sūtrabhāsya 9.39.) The above-cited āryās undoubtedly reveal that Umāsvāti was yugpatvādi, the first on record to so believe. Whether he himself intellected that way, or it was according to the āgamic tradition of the Uccarnāgara-śākhā, is hard at present to decide. Incidentally, a part of the bhāsya on the sūtra 1.31 has also been interpreted to mean that Umāsvāti was believer in yugpatvāda. (Cf. Suzuko Olira, A Study of Tattvārthasūtra with Bhāsya, LDS 86, Ahmedabad, 1982, Chap. 3, pp.7, 79. Some years ago, during my discussion with Dr. Nagin Shah, I was given to understand that the passage in question does not yield the meaning Pt. Sukhlal Sanghavi (as well as Suzuko Ohira ha deduced. The next luminary to believe in yugpatvāda was Siddhasena Divākara as evidenced by the undernoted two verses from his dvātrimśikās: Jagan-naika-āvasthaṁ yugpad-akhil-ānanta-visayam yad-etat-pratyaksam tava na ca bhavan kasyacid-api Anenaivācintya-prakrti-rasa-diddhes-tu vidusām samiksyaitad-dvāram tava-guna-kathotkā vayam-api//
-Prathama Dvātrimśikā, 32 ." Also from one of his lost Dvātrimśikās: Evam kalpita-bhedam-apratihataṁ sarvajñatā-lañchanam sarvesāṁ tamasāṁ nihants jagatām-ālokanaṁ śāsvatam nityam paśyati budhyate ca yugapan-nānā-vidhāni prabhau sthity-utpatti-vināśavanti vimalam dravyāni te kevalam//
(Quoted in the Koārya ganī's Țikā (c. AD 700-725) on the Višes-Avaśyaka-bhāsya (c. 585-595) of Jinabhadra gani: Cf. Višesāvasyakabhasya Pt. III, Eds Pt. Dalsukh Malvania and Pt. Becherdas J. Doshi, L.D. Series No. 21, Ahmedabad 1968, p. 741. It also figures in the commentary on the Visesa-Avaśyaka-bhāsya (AD 1119) by Hemacandra Sūri of Harsapurīya-gaccha, SYJG (35), V.N.S. 2439 (AD 1912), p. 1198). There it has been quoted in the name of 'stutikāra' (i.e. Siddhasena Divākara). Thus, these two non-Digambara authors believed, and indeed earlier in date than the Digambara authors and their works, in the yugpatvāda. And so did the dārśanic scholar Mallavādi (c. AD 550-600), a Svetāmbara epistemologist as reported by Abhayadeva Sūri in his Tikā (c. AD