Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya

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

Page 65

Sec. 4, VERIFICATION OF PRAGASTI
not known why the Nandi author proposed Balissaba as the predecessor of Svāti instead of Srigupta or Susthita-Supratibuddha. It may be that the Nägarī sākbā wbich branched off from Balissa ha's gana was more well known than the other two. It is neither known whether it was so done intentionally or accidentally.
The Sriguru pattāvali epters Balissaha and Sustbita-Supratibuddha as the rivals (vāraka: hostile, opposiog). The addition of this abrupt information seems to have an intriguing attempt to assert that Svāti does not belong to Susthita-Supratibuddha line, namely, Uccairnāgari sakbā, for this party is said to have stood hostile against Balissaha party of which Svāti is placed as a member. It may allude to a fact that there were some prestige struggles for the prerogative over our eminent Vācaka among the Nāgari sākhās. This pațţāvali is undated, but from the manner of its description it may stand close to the period of the Tapāgaccha pattāvali of Dharmasāgaragani, i. e., 16th century A. D. This tradition could be an old one, but it cannot be so old, for it essentially follows the interpretation of the Nandi commentaries. It can certaioly pot be older than the cūrņi which comments upon the Nandisutra. Then the implication made in the Sriguru pattāvali should not be counted seriously for the consideration of our problem.
It is sufficiently convincing that the Nandi author created a seat for Svāti in the genealogy of the Kalpasūtra wherein all the Nāgasi sākbās branched off from the disciples of Mahāgiri-Subasti. Arya Säntisenika, the founder of Uccairnāgari śákhā, was totally forgotten in the context because he stood outside this Mahāgiri-Suhasti circle. A doubt may arise as to how his gotra Hārita could have escaped a criticism expected from Haribhadra and Malayagiri who are said to have commented uson the T. S. The author of the Nandi yrtti was not likely the same Haribhadra who wrote a commentary on the T.S. after the Bhas yānusāriņi. Malayagiri's commentary on the T. S. does not exist, and we are not sure if he composed it at all. Thus this doubt shall be dismissed.
Although much remains still in darkness, yet foregoing discussion sufficiently well explains that Svāti referred to in the Nandisūtra is identical with Umāsvāti who belonged to one of the three Nāgari sākhās recorded in the Kalpasūtra, and that the Nandi record of his gotra was likely derived by the confusion of the place names. The Nandi author seems to have attempted to justify his interpolation of Svāti after Balissaha by way of bringing in the line of Syāma-śāņdilya who belonged to much earlier date than Umāsvāti, The modes of such manipulation suggest that this interpolation was made in a considerably later time when the position of the T. S. came to be well recognized in the Jaina circle. The later authors of the pattāvalis in the Groups II and III faced difficulty in accepting Umāsvāti's chronological position Created by the Nandisutra and attempted to adjust it by pushing him further dowo. This is enough to ascertain that th: Nandisutra, although it is accompanied by the