Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya

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

Page 64

Sec. 4. VERIFICATION OF PRASASTI
error occurred in the Nandisātra in the following way. Uccairnagara is, as already mentioned, known also as Varaņā, an ancient kingdom which is counted as one of the twenty-five and a half Aryan countries of the Jainas. The Nandi author likely confused Uccairnagara with its another name Varaņā as the place of säkhā where Svāti belonged, Sväti was thet assigned to belong to Vāraṇa gana which was founded by Srigupta of Hārita gotra. Thus by the second confusion of the place name and gana, Vācaka's gotra came to be fatally recorded as Harita, which was likewise extended to Syämācārya. The confusion seems to have thus happered accidentally. (2) Relation to Balissaha The Nandi verses 25-26 read,
'elāvaccasa-gottam vam tāmi mahāgirim suhatthim cal tatto kosia-gottam bahulassa sariv-vayam vamde/ hāriya-guttam sāim ca vamdimo hāriyam ca sāmajjam/ vande kosiya-gottam sam lillam ajja-iiyadharam//
(Bahula's twin brother is Balissaha) It is patent from the Kalpa therāvali that Balissaha is the direct disciple of Mahāgiri, from the line of which Suhasti's line differs. The Nandi verses above do not clearly distinguish their relation, which however is elucidated by its cūrni, And in tbis Nandi cūrni, Svāti is plainly stated as the pupil of Balissaha, 'balissahassa amtevāsi sāti hāriyassagutte.' The cūrni author least bothers about our problem, why Svāti's seat was all of a sudden allotted under Balissaba. But why did the Nandisutra reckoo Svāti after Balissaba ?
In the previous genealogical table of the Kalpasūtra it is noted that all the three Nāgari sākhās are derived from the ganas established by the disciples of Mahāgiri and Subasti alone. Also it has just been suggested that Umāsvāti's identity to be an Uccairnā gara was likely muddled with a Vajranagara (whose sakhā branched off from vāraņa gana) in connection with the assignment of his foreign gotra. This tends to support a surmise that he was popularly identified with the Vācaka of Nāgari sākhā who might have been known to people as Nāgara Vācaka.20 If his specific Nāgari šākhā were already confused with the other or forgotten, but if he were popularly identified with Nagara Vācaka, it is most desirable for him to be placed in the spot wherein some way all these three Nāgari sākhās are conveniently found together in the established patriarchal Jineage. And sure enough, such a spot is ready in the Kalpa therávali in the circle of Mahāgiri-Subasti whose disciples are responsible for branching off of all these Nāgari sākhās. Then this is the exact place where Nāgara Vācaka ought to be assigned – under one of the organizers of the three ganas who are each responsible for the origination of their own Nägarī sākhā. It appears that this is the picture bow Svāti came to be allotted under one of the disciples of Mahāgiri-Subasti. It is
dud.
$1