Tattvarthadhigamsutram Part 2

Author(s): Umaswati, Umaswami, Hiralal R Kapadia
Publisher: Jivanchandra Sakarchandra

Page 40

INTRODUCTION
pretation of Avaśyaka-niryukti etc., a meaning no doubt etymologically correct is not applicable here; for, the learned commentator 'Śrī Devagupta Sūri as well as the exegetist 'Siddhasena Gani distinctly inform us that he is Ācārya, So, we have to fall back upon the first and the last interpretations. This presents some difficulty ; for, while accepting the first interpretation our author's knowledge shall have to be admitted to be superior to and wider than that of his guru; since, the Pūrvas form a part of the 12th anga and thus the status of a Pūrvavid (Vācaka) is much higher than that of an Ekādaśāngavid. But such a circumstance is not certainly impossible. The very fact that our author's Svidyā-guru is different from his dīksā-guru (though the latter is well-versed in the 11 angas), seems to be suggestive. It may be that our author's thirst for drinking the nectar of knowledge was not to be quenched by his dīkşā-guru and so his training was to be entrusted to a sādhu superior in knowledge. Such a sādhu here is of course Vācakācārya 6 Mūla, pupil of Mahāvācaka Mundapāda. These two being well-versed in the Purvas, it is not unnatural, if their student, our competent author should become equally clever and earn the unique title of Vācaka.
Another question that may confront us at this stage is about the self-praise or boasting of our author. Our thoroughly educated and cultured author will not like to belittle his dikṣā-guru's merits, much less can we expect him to be puffed up with pride and announce his vācakatva, and only ekādaśangavittva of his guru. But, he had no other go; the fact could not be denied. The phrase uccairnāgaravācakena is, no doubt, capable of being construed in two ways: (1) meaniny one belong to the uccanāgara śākhā of the Vācaka-vamsa and (2) implying one belonging to the uccanā gara branch and Vācaka (conversant with the Pūrva literature); but the former is hardly admissible as we shall presently see.
1 See pt. I, pp. 1, 3, 4 and 10.
2 Vide pt. I pp. 26, 31, 41, 56, 59, 63, 65, 66, 68, 78, 80, 93, 108, 120, etc., and pt. II p. 308, etc.
3-4 In the Sthavirävalī of Kalpasūtra or any other pattāvali we do not come across the names of these two.
5 Compare the cases of Sri Vajrasvāmin and Sri Aryarakṣita Sūri, who respectively studied from Sri Bhadragupta and Sri Vajrasvāmin. ** 6 It may be added that Sri Sivasri, the guru of Umāsvāti's dikşā-guru could have taught him ; but, perhaps, owing to his old age or death, he had to receive instructions at the feet of Müla,