Acharya Siddhasen Gani Aur Tattvarthbhashya Vrutti - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Acharya Siddhasen Gani aur Tattvarthbhashya Vrutti" by Amra Jain:

This text is an analytical study of Acharya Siddhasen Gani and his commentary on the Tattvarthasutra.

Acharya Siddhasen Gani and his Work:

Identity: Acharya Siddhasen Gani was a Śvetāmbara Jain muni. Little specific information about his life is available.
Primary Work: His significant contribution is the "Tattvarthabhashya Vritti," a commentary on the foundational Jain text, the "Tattvarthasutra." No other works by him are currently available.
Information Sources: Knowledge about Siddhasen Gani is primarily derived from the citations of other texts and mentions of Jain and non-Jain scholars within his "Tattvarthabhashya Vritti." Additionally, nine concluding verses in his Vritti indicate that he was a disciple of Bhāsvāmī, who was a disciple of Siṃhasūri, who in turn was a disciple of Dinnaga Gani.
Traditional Lineage: Siddhasen Gani appears to have belonged to an Āgama-traditional guru lineage, evident from his deep reliance on the Āgamas. He prioritizes Āgama statements over the dialectical conclusions of Siddhasen Divākara.
Pedagogical Approach: The text suggests that Siddhasen Gani belonged to an ancient guru-śiṣya tradition where disciples learned at the feet of their gurus without reliance on books. This is inferred from a verse stating that his third antecedent, Dinnaga Gani, gave discourses to his disciples without using books.
Identification with Gandahasti: Pandit Sukh Lalji identifies Siddhasen Gani with "Gandahasti" (Elephant in Knowledge). According to Pandit Sukh Lalji, Siddhasen Gani authored two works: the extensive commentary on Tattvarthasutra (Tattvarthabhashya Vritti) and an unavailable "Achārāṅga Vivaraṇa."
Geographical Mentions: The "Tattvarthabhashya Vritti" mentions the cities of Ujjain and Pataliputra, suggesting that Siddhasen Gani may have traveled to or composed his work in these locations.

Time Period of Siddhasen Gani:

Reference to Dharmakīrti: Siddhasen Gani mentions a scholar named "Dharmakīrti" in his Vritti. Dharmakīrti lived in the 7th century CE, making Siddhasen Gani's period after the 7th century.
Pandit Sukh Lalji's View: Pandit Sukh Lalji places Siddhasen Gani in the last quarter of the 7th century CE to the middle of the 8th century CE.
R. William's View: According to R. William, Siddhasen Gani lived around the 8th century CE.
Conclusion: It is certain that Siddhasen Gani lived in the 7th-8th centuries CE.

Chronology of "Tattvarthabhashya Vritti" relative to "Tattvarthavartika":

Context of Commentaries: The "Tattvarthasutra" has numerous commentaries, both Śvetāmbara and Digambara. The original "Tattvarthabhashya" is dated to the 2nd-3rd century CE. Pujyapada Devanandi's "Sarvārthasiddhi" (Digambara) is from the 5th-6th century CE. Bhatta Akalanka's "Tattvarthavartika" (Digambara) is from the 7th-8th century CE. Siddhasen Gani's "Tattvarthabhashya Vritti" is a Śvetāmbara commentary on the original Bhashya.
Debate on Precedence: There is a debate on whether Siddhasen Gani's "Tattvarthabhashya Vritti" or Akalanka's "Tattvarthavartika" was composed first, given they were contemporaries.
Arguments for "Tattvarthabhashya Vritti" preceding "Tattvarthavartika": The text presents four arguments:
1. Refutation of Sutra Texts (Sutrapāṭha): Akalanka in his "Tattvarthavartika" refutes Śvetāmbara-accepted sutra texts (e.g., 3.1, 4.8). The text argues that Akalanka must have had access to Siddhasen Gani's Vritti, which contained these texts, and needed to refute them using logical arguments to establish his own tradition's sutra texts. Siddhasen Gani's refutation of Digambara sutra texts is less forceful, implying that the dispute over sutra texts was not as intense during his time as it was for Akalanka.
2. Style (Śailī): Both Siddhasen Gani and Akalanka refute the Sāṅkhya principle of "matter being a modification of Ākāśa" (Isvarakṛṣṇa, Sāṅkhyakārikā 3.22). Akalanka's refutation is more clear and mature, suggesting his style is more evolved and thus later than Siddhasen Gani's. The text also notes that Akalanka's style exhibits characteristics seen in later scholars like Vidyānanda, but not in earlier scholars like Pujyapada.
3. Development of Subject Matter (Viṣaya Vikās): In Tattvasutra 4.41, the topic discussed in seven vārtikas by Akalanka is found in sutra form in the original Bhashya and Siddhasen Gani's Vritti. The text speculates that Pujyapada might have omitted these sutras in his "Sarvārthasiddhi" as unnecessary. However, it argues that by Akalanka's time, these sutras had gained acceptance in certain traditions, making it impossible for him to omit them. Akalanka's inclusion of these sutras in vārtika form suggests that the Vritti, and the sutras it contained, existed before his work.
4. Establishment of Specific Traditional Views (Paramparā-Viśeṣa ke Mat kā Sthāpan): Akalanka (8.1) refutes Śvetāmbara beliefs such as the possibility of female liberation, a person with possessions being a Nirgrantha, etc., labeling them as perverted wrong belief (mithyātva). Since Siddhasen Gani's Vritti is written according to Śvetāmbara tradition and is known for refuting anti-Āgamic statements, it's argued that if his Vritti were composed after Akalanka's, he would have certainly refuted these statements. The absence of such a refutation in Siddhasen Gani's work implies it predates Akalanka's "Tattvarthavartika."
Counter-Argument and Rebuttal: Some scholars argue that the Vritti is later because it mentions "Siddhiviniścaya," which is possibly by Akalanka. However, Prof. Hiralal Rasikdas Kapadia disputes this, stating that identifying "Siddhiviniścaya" (with a commentary by Anantavīrya) as Akalanka's work is impossible. Even if it were Akalanka's, as Pandit Sukh Lalji suggests, it doesn't necessitate that "Tattvarthavartika" predates the Vritti. The argument is that both were contemporaries, and a slight time difference is possible. It's possible Akalanka composed "Siddhiviniścaya" first, and Siddhasen Gani referenced it. However, the internal analysis of both works strongly suggests that Akalanka had Siddhasen Gani's Vritti before him when composing his "Tattvarthavartika."

Compositional Style of Siddhasen Gani:

Commentary on the Bhashya: Siddhasen Gani's Vritti is a commentary on the original Tattvarthasutra Bhashya. The phrase "Bhāṣyānuṣārī" (following the Bhashya) at the end of each chapter is appropriate, as he elaborates on almost every word of the Bhashya, commenting on each word of the Bhashya for Tattvasutra 1.4.
Language: His language is scholarly but also poetic at times, as seen in his description of the six seasons, which reads like a piece from a poetry collection rather than a philosophical text.
Use of Examples: Siddhasen Gani uses examples to clarify his statements. For instance, when discussing Tejo-leshya (fiery karma type) in the Vritti of Tattvasutra 2.37, he uses the historical example of Gosāla, who directed Tejo-leshya at Lord Mahavira, to illustrate its effect on the body.
Verse Composition: While his Vritti is primarily in prose, Siddhasen Gani also composed verses. He wrote seven verses in Āryā meter for the Vritti of Tattvasutra 10.7, and the concluding nine verses of the Vritti are in Śārdūlavikrīḍita and Āryā meters.
Use of Simile (Upamā): He extensively uses similes in his Vritti.

Grammatical Knowledge:

Grammarian: Siddhasen Gani was a grammarian. He analyzes the grammatical structure of sutras, the meaning of words within the sutras, the formation of words, the significance of case endings, and the meaning of suffixes.
Etymology: He also performs etymological analysis of words. For example, for the word "Pudgala" in Tattvasutra 5.1, he provides several derivations: "Pūraṇāt galanāt ca Pudgalah" (Pudgala due to filling and decaying), "Puruṣaṁ vā gilanti puruṣeṇa vā goryante iti pudgalāḥ" (Pudgala because they swallow or are consumed by humans), and "Puruṣeṇādīyante kaṣāyayogabhajā karmatayeti pudgalāḥ" (Pudgala because they are taken by those with passions and attachments as karma).
Use of Pāṇini: He occasionally utilizes Pāṇini's "Aṣṭādhyāyī" in his Vritti.

Scholarship:

Profound Scholar: Siddhasen Gani was a profound scholar with deep knowledge of the Āgamas. His Vritti is replete with Āgama citations, a characteristic of his methodology – whenever he states a fact, he supports it with a corresponding Āgama quotation.
Use of Jain Texts: Besides Āgamas, he also utilizes other Jain texts like the Prajñāpanā Sūtra, Bhagavatī Sūtra, Daśavaikālika Sūtra, Ācārāṅga Sūtra, Nandī Sūtra, Praśamaratī, Sanmati Tarka, and many others.
Knowledge of Non-Jain Philosophy: Siddhasen Gani was also well-versed in Indian philosophies. He refutes principles from schools like Sautrāntika, Vaiśeṣika, and Sāṅkhya. He mentions non-Jain scholars like Śabara, Kaṇāda, Datta Kṣamāśramaṇa, Dharmakīrti, Diggāṅga, and Kapila, and presents their views as the purvapakṣa (opponent's argument) before refuting them.
Mathematician: Siddhasen Gani was proficient in mathematics. The Vritti of Tattvasutra 3.11 serves as a good example of his mathematical knowledge. In the Vritti of Tattvasutra 3.9, he even criticizes the mathematical knowledge of the original Bhashyakara.
Āgamic Adherence: While engaging in philosophical and logical discussions, Siddhasen Gani ultimately upholds the Āgamic tradition. His Vritti, being "Bhāṣyānuṣārī," analyzes every word of the Bhashya. However, if any statement in the Bhashya contradicts the Āgamas or its spirit is not found in the Āgamas, Siddhasen Gani clearly states this and ultimately supports the Āgamic tradition. For example, regarding the height of hell-dwellers mentioned in the Bhashya of Tattvasutra 3.3, he states that he hasn't seen this mentioned in any Āgama. Similarly, for the eight types of Lokāntika deities mentioned by the Bhashyakara in Tattvasutra 4.26, Siddhasen Gani states that the Āgamas mention nine types and presents those nine.
Summary of Qualities: In essence, Siddhasen Gani was a supporter of the Śvetāmbara Āgamic tradition, knowledgeable in Indian philosophies, a dedicated student of the Dvādaśāṅgī (twelve-limbed canon), skilled in mathematics, and a historian.

Conclusion:

Based on the analysis of the text, the author concludes that Acharya Siddhasen Gani's "Tattvarthabhashya Vritti" was composed before Akalanka's "Tattvarthavartika." The text emphasizes Siddhasen Gani's deep scholarship, adherence to Āgamic traditions, and his analytical approach in his commentary.