Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya

Author(s): Suzuko Ohira
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 28

Sec. 3. OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS
Sat-nityatva 29
30
31
37-44
Threefold nature of sat Nityatva
Justification of 29-30
Guna-paryaya-parinäma, kala)
(Dravya
The arrangement of these sutras strikes us to wonder why V:29-31 are inserted in the strange context of an-skandhas instead of properly placed in the context of dravya. This must be explained in order to solve the present problem, whether V:(29) is a later accretion or not.
The Bhasya on V:28 reads, dharmadini santiti katham grhyata iti/atrocyate/lakşanatah. It does not say explicitly that dravya is sat in the sense of the Sarvarthasiddhi to V:(29), "yat-sat-tad dravyamity-arthah' but implies it. The Bhasya proposes here that one can estalish the existence of these dravyas form the nature of existence itself, which makes an introduction to the next sutra. An inferential method as such in proving the existence of things is foreign to the thinking pattern of the Jaina canon, and its source must be sought in the non-Jaina literature available at the time of Umāsvāti. The Vaiseṣika sutra text of Cindrānanda, Chapter IV ähnika I reads, 'sad-akaranavat tan-aityam 1 tasya karyam lingam /2/ kāranābhāvād-dhi kāryabhavaḥ /3/ anityam-iti ca vises a-pratiṣedha-bhavaḥ [4] mahaty-aneka-dravyavattvāt-rūpāc-copalabdhiḥ [6] adravyavativāt piramaniv-an palabdhiḥ/7/ sankhyaḥ primāṇāni prthaktvam samyoga-vibhāgau paratvaparatve karma ca rupidravya samavayat cakṣuşani /12/ arupiṣv-acak şuşatvāt /13/. Here the existence of a paramaou which is nitya and invisible is inferred from its karya. Perception arises in the case of a mahat because it has many dravyas and it is possessed of a form. Things become perceptible to the eyes due to the inseparable relation of rūpi-dravya with various gupas such as sankhya. That which is sat and without cause is said to be nitya. Thus the problems of sat-nityatva, apu-skandha and cakṣusaacaksusa are herein posed, and it is exactly in this milieu of paramaou-mahat that our topic of satsāmānya is taken up. In another word, the quest for sat-nityatva of V:29-31 is made in relation to the origination and perceptibility of apu-skandha, that is, within the framework of 'pudgala', but not in the context discussing the ontological nature of sat in relation to dravya itself. If the latter were the prime interest of the aphorist, the same question should have been posited in the context of dravya as Palcastikaya 1:8-10, but it is not the case here. 'sad-dravya-lakṣaṇam' does not therefore fit in the context here at work, thus it is justified to be the later interpolation. This Digimbari aphorism is too important to be missed, and the supposition in the reverse case that it was the original sutra unquoted by the Svetambara receusion is improbable, This testifies that the aphorism V:(29) does not belong to the original text of the T.S.
As to the four categories considered under "Omissions and Commissions" the Diga abara text exhibits, an improvement made on the Svetambara recension by excluding the defective paripami account of V:42-44 (group 1), by promoting the important
15