Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya

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

Page 89

Sec. 2. REFERENCE TO THE T. S. IN THE AGAMIC COMMENTARIES UP TO THE 10TH
for futher development. These post-Umäsväti authors frequently quote the sutras from the T. S. instead of from the canonical passages even though the original forms. of these aphorisms are readily available in the canon itself, which suggests that the T. S. came to be well accredited in this tradition. The final table below shows a distribution of these debatable sutras according to the authors who referred to them. Authors/
I
1 2 4 31 Bh. 33
X
X
Prakirakas Bhadrababu
Sanghadāsa
Jinabhadra
Agastyasimba
Jinadasa
Haribhadra
Kolṭācārya
Śilanka
Prakirakas Bhadrabahu
Sanghadāsa
Jinabhadra
Agastyasimha
Jinadasa
Haribhadra
Koṭṭācārya
Sikanka
Chapters Aphorisms
X
X
X X
X X
X
X X X
V
37 40
X
X
X
X
42-43 & Bh.
X
X
VI
3-4
II
1-7 22 26
X
X
VII VIII
6 33
X
X
1 26 & Bh.
A
V
29 30 31
X X
X
X
X
X
IX
8 18
X
X
X X
X 27 6Bh.
X X X
X
The table above forcibly speaks that the sutra 1:1 on threefold pathways to liberation (although the concept was not formulated by Umasvati himself) gave an immediate and profound influence over the post-Umäsvati authors who commented on the canonical texts which generally advocate fourfold pathways to the final release. IX:27 on the definition of dhyāna also soon invited reactionary arguments on it. V:29, although herein referred to after Jinabhadra onwards, must have roused an instantaneous effect in the fields of ontology and logic. Likewise Yugapadvada of kevala jana-darśana opined by Umasvati in 1:31Bh. provoked further hot argumentation in the post-Umäsväti period. These are considered to be the immediate and important reactions to the T. S, which are pregnant with problems for further development.
X X
76