________________
...લવાદી ચર્ચાને અન્તે આવેલા લવાદશ્રીના નિર્ણય ]
૨૫૭
can they be doubled because a tithi is vrddha. Similarly, when there is an intercalary month, there is to be no duplication of duties enjoined for that month. Such vrddha tithis and months are therefore to be ignored for religious rites, and are technically called impotent or barren,
Now is there any principle laid down in the Shastras to govern these cases? I have not discovered any such in works like Suryaprajnapti and its commentary. Tradition outside the Agamas, however, supplies the principle which I call "Umasvati's Rule" and is contained in the following line:
क्षये पूर्वा तिथिः कार्या (प्राय) द्ध कार्या (प्राधा) तबोत्तरा
This line is not found in the extant work of Umasvati, and is therefore known as a floating maxim attributed to him (fast). The tradition however is consistent and uniform in attributing the authorship of the line to him. I see no reason therefore to doubt the genuineness of the line, as it is quoted by several writers of the Tapagaccha school. The line refers to ksaya and vrddhi of tithis, but makes no reference to intercalary month. Later writers like Dharmasagara, who accept this principle, extend its application to intercalary months as well. My view is that the principle laid down in this line is very, very old, as old as the use of the Tippanas, and may have been a spontaneous utterance of a famous Acharya like Umasvati. The reference to vrddhi of tithis in the line goes to suggest that even in the days of Umasvati there existed Tippanas containing the vrddhi of tithis. I therefore hold that the above rule of Umasvati, governing adjustments of ksaya and viddhi of tithis, is in its entirety genuine, authentic and binding on all Jains.
In the course of my oral examination I was astonished to notice a strange attitude of Acharya Sagarananda Suri, a Pandit brought up in the orthodox. fashion, regarding the genuineness and authenticity of this line. He seemed to hold the first half qui fa af to be valid, but doubted the genuineness of the second half, saying that vrddhi of tithis is neither mentioned nor recognised by the Jain Tippana or Siddhanta Tippana. Had there been in use a Siddhanta Tippana, such a view would have been justifiable; but under Issue. No. I, we have found that the Siddhanta Tippana lost currency in very early times, and under Issue No. III, we held that its place was taken up by the popular Panchanga. It is not therefore right to challenge the authenticity of the line on this score. I therefore hold that the entire line
s qui fafa: wat vað mai annu
is genuine and authentic, and as such, has the force of a Shastra. Further, the Jain Shastrakaras having quoted and accepted the entire line without reserve at least since the 11th century V. E., it has the force of a Jita, long
33
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
