Tattvartha Sutra

Author(s): Sukhlal Sanghavi, K K Dixit
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 27

10
TATTVĀRTHA SŪTRA
account occurring in texts like Umāsvāti's Bhāsya, his Praśamarati, etc; for these texts clearly speak of a monk's clothes and utensils, nor do they recommended nakedness as a general rule. And as for the external instruments like kamandalu and piccha they are not even mentioned in them.
(2) It is also one of the arguments advanced by Shri Premiji that Umāsvāti's position on the question of the auspicious karma-types etc. is found maintained in Aparājita's commentary. But the history of the philosophical positions maintained by the sub-sects and sects reveals that even within the fold of one and the same sect there are often found maintained such general and minor positions as are mutually contradictory. Not only that, even two sects considered to be mutual rivals are often found agreeing as to certain general and minor positions of this nature. In view of this it should not be surprising if as regards certain positions Umāsvāti--a supporter of clothes-and-utensils—agrees with the Yāpaniya order—an opponent of clothes-and-utensils.
Pt. Phulchandji, in the Introduction to his explanation of Tattvārtha, has endeavoured to make out that Grdhrapiccha composed the aphorisms and Umāsvāti the Bhāsya. But this endeavour is as much contradicted by logic as it goes against the findings of history. Thus when he says that among the preliminary Kārikās there is not a single one which indicates Umāsvāti to be the author of the aphorisms, then it seems that he is so much bent upon establishing his position that a clear meaning of words either does not occur to him or is ignored by him. Even ignoring the rest of these kārikās those numbered 22 and 31 are so transparent as to leave not the least doubt about Umāsvāti being the author of the body of aphorisms and the same being the author of the text devoted to the pathway to mokșa.
Tattvārthasūtra along with a Hindi translation by Pt. Kailashchandraji has come out only recently. In the Introduction to it the views expressed by him as to Umāsvāti's authorship of Tattvārthabhāsya and about the date of this Bhāsya are such as cannot be treated as authoritative by an impartial historian