Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya

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

Page 90

Sec. 2. REFERENCES OF THE T. S. IN THE AGAMIC COMMENTARIES UP TO THE 101H
As for the rest, the function of käla stated in V:22 is an improvement made by Umāsvāti on the canonical concept by way of introducing the Vaisesika concept, which is likewise with the case of the definitions of dravya-guņa in V:37 and 49. VII:6 was formulated by Umäsvāti in the context of the Yogasūtra. We have already discussed about the definition of samyagdarśana expressed in 1:2, the defective nature of the sūtras V:42-43 and 42-43 Bn, and the problem or VIII:1 involving the cause of bandha. Discussion has been also advanced as to the definition of a jñana in 1:33, the definition of dāna in VII:33 and the definition of parişaha in IX:8, which were formulated by Umāsvāti. "Dharmāstikāyābhāvar' in X:6Bh. was still new to the age and the five states of souls in II:1-7 were explained by him in the context of karma theory. A reference to seven tattvas enumerated in 1:4 makes its appearance in the works of Haribhadra ard Silānka. It should be however noted that Haribhadra defends the canonical position of nine tattvas in his saddlar sana samuccura, 15 and Silanka refers to nine padārthas while enumerating seven tattvas. VIIT:26 with its Bhās pa pertaining to eightfold punya karmas is accepted by Jinabhadra and Haribhadra, even though it involves itself with a remark made by Siddhasenagani (see Ch. I, Sec. IV, Pt. 1, 8 )). V:26 concerning the production of skandhas involves a problem relevant to the perceptibility of things in V:28. V:30-31 pertain to the problem of V:29, and IX:18 shares a problem with the aphorism 1:1 regarding the content of caritra.
As this cursory analysis of these disputable sūtras evinces, their citations made in the post-Umāsvāti literature well reflect the important and controversial concepts brought about by Umāsvāti. It should be also taken note of that some defective apliorisms in the T. S. continued to be referred to in the commentarial literature as they are without receiving proper improvements. Quotations from the Prasamarati are found in Jinadāsa's Nisitha cūrņi (v. 3, pp. 5-6 from P.R. 145), in Haribhadra's
Trasjaka volti (p. 63 from P. R. 151) and in Kottācārya's Viseșāvas yaka rytit (p. 454 from P. R. 238). Among the works examined, Jinabhadra (in his svopajñavịtti to Viseșīvas yakabhāsya) and vittikaras wrote in Sanskrit. Quotations from the 4şādhyāyi are frequent in Agastyasimha's cūrni and in the vittis composed by various authors. It took some generations after Umāsvāti to see the establisbment of the medium of writing in Sanskrit. The examination of the non-Jaina doctrines and the attack on them began with Jinabhadra mainly with the vigorous tool of th anekāntavāda, which became severer as time went on. Likewise the exposition of karma doctrine became further elaborate in the course of time. These are some salient features noticed in these commentarial works.
It is not sure if the T.S. was consciously reckoned by the Svetambaras as the standard text of Jaina philosophy by the 10th century A.D., however it quarts evident from the above data that its accre lited position was hy that time well
77