Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya

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

Page 52

Soc. 3. TEXTUAL COMMENTARY
- Umāsvāti must have given here a mathematical formula of the pradesa parihāni of Mt. Meru, therefore Siddbasena's criticism does not make much sense. The space between these two vanas alone was likely mentioned for the sake of an illustration, it is otherwise difficult to understand it. 4) III:15Bb. Umāsvāti counts altogether fifty-six antaradvipas at Mt. Himavan and
Mt. Sikhari, but some sources count ninety-six. However since fiftysix antarandvipas are also mentioned in the Jivajivābhigama, etc. Siddhasena concedes a point that the source used by Umāsvāti might have been lost.
- Prajñāpanā 2.105 also counts fifty-six antaradvipas.
5) IV:26, sūtra & Bb. The divisions of Lokāotika which are told as of eight by
Umāsvāti are counted as pine in the canon, - Sthāna 8.790 enumerates eight, but its 9.894 lists nine. The nature of difference here is interpretational, whether to count the central Rştavimāna or not. 6) VIII:12Bh. The name of the second samhanana is vajranārāca as so called in
the Karmaprakrti, but not ardhavajrarṣabhanārāca. - Sthāna 6.572 calls it usabhaņārāya, likewise Samavāya 242, Jivājivābhigama
1.38 and Prajapana 23.615. 7) [X:6Bh. Caturdaśa and ekavimsati rātrikyā pratimas of ascetics are called in the
canon under the name of dvitiya sa piarătriki and tftiyā saptarātriki. - Samavāya 42 and Daśāśrutaskardha 7 use the terms padhamā sattarāimdiyā, doccă sattarāimdiyā and taccā sattarājmdisā.
All these points raised by Siddhasena are of minor importance, which are better called complaints rather than criticisms. The 4th is not even a complaint, which can be dropped from the list. Two issues, i.e., 1 and 3, fail to find their sources in the canon of which the 3rd can be dropped off as it does not make much sense. The 2nd statement made by the Bhasya is alleged in the canon, and both pros and cons of the 5th issue are supported by the Āgama. The 6th finds another name in the canon which does not support both Umasvati and Siddhasena. Siddhasena's assertion of the 7th issue is endorsed in the canon. Pūjyapāda agrees with Umāsvāti as to 1, 2, and 5, but goes with the side of Siddhasena as to 6, while he describes 4 differently from the Bhāsya and drops refere aces altogether as to the 3rd and 7th issues. Thus Siddhasena's complaints as to 1 through 6 have no claim, and the 7th issue is too minor to be argued about. The controversial issues created by Siddhasenagapi are thus worth for nothing, least contributing to the positive improvement of the Bhāsya.
39