Moksh Margasya Netaram Ke Kartta Devnandi - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "मोक्षमार्गस्य नेतारम् के कर्ता देवनन्दि" by Dr. Nathmal Tatia, based on the supplied PDF content:

The article by Dr. Nathmal Tatia, titled "The Author of 'Mokshamargasya Netaram': Pujyapada Devanandi," delves into a scholarly debate surrounding the authorship of the opening invocation verse found at the beginning of Pujyapada Devanandi's Sarvarthasiddhi (a commentary on the Tattvartha Sutra). The verse in question is:

"मोक्षमार्गस्य नेतारं भेत्तारं कर्मभूभृताम् , ज्ञातारं विश्वतत्त्वानां वन्दे तद्गुणलब्धये." (I bow to the leader of the path to liberation, the destroyer of mountains of karma, the knower of all world-elements, in order to attain those qualities.)

The author addresses a previous academic discussion that attempted to establish Acharya Umāsvāmi, the author of the Tattvartha Sutra itself, as the composer of this invocation. Dr. Tatia argues against this widely held view, presenting several points to support the attribution to Pujyapada Devanandi.

Key Arguments and Evidence:

"Sutrakara" and "Shastrakara" Terminology:
- Acharya Vidyananda, in his Aptapariksha, uses both "Sutrakara" (author of sutras) and "Shastrakara" (author of scriptures) for the composer of this invocation. This dual usage naturally led to confusion, as "Sutrakara" is predominantly associated with Umāsvāmi.
- However, Dr. Tatia argues that Vidyananda's usage of "Sutrakara" was broader than just Umāsvāmi. He cites Vidyananda's discussion on the "lineage of preceptors" (aparāparagurupravāha) in his Tattvartha Shloka Vartika. In this context, Vidyananda uses "Sutrakara" to refer to Umāsvāmi and other Acharyas, both before and after him. If "Sutrakara" only meant Umāsvāmi, then the tradition of venerating previous and subsequent Acharyas would be inconsistent, and Vidyananda's own veneration of Samantabhadra would be anomalous.
- Acharya Vādideva Suri echoes Vidyananda's broader interpretation in his Syadvāda Ratnakara.
- Vidyananda's Tattvartha Shloka Vartika also discusses the potential "unsuitability" (anupapatti) of the first sutra of the Tattvartha Sutra. Crucially, Vidyananda does not refer to the "Mokshamargasya Netaram" verse as being at the beginning of Umāsvāmi's Tattvartha Sutra when addressing this point. If the verse were indeed the opening of Umāsvāmi's work, Vidyananda would have likely cited it.
Broader Meaning of "Tattvartha":
- Dr. Tatia emphasizes that Vidyananda uses terms like "Tattvartha" (world-elements/truth) and "Sutrakara" in a broad sense. The phrase "Tattvartha Sutrakāraiḥ Umāsvāmi-prabhṛtibhiḥ" (by the authors of Tattvartha Sutras, starting with Umāsvāmi) in Aptapariksha implies a lineage of authors contributing to Tattvartha literature, not solely Umāsvāmi. The word "prabhṛti" (and others) is significant here.
- "Tattvartha" can refer generally to scriptures dealing with world-elements, not just Umāsvāmi's specific work. Therefore, authors like Siddhasena Divākara (author of Sanmati Prakaraṇa, also known as Sanmati Sutra) could also be considered "Tattvartha Sutrakāras" in this broader context.
The Nature of Vartika and Commentaries:
- Vidyananda considers commentaries and vartikas (a specific type of commentary) as part of the "Shastra" (scripture). He explicitly states that if the Tattvartha itself is a scripture, then its vartika is also a scripture. This supports the idea that Devanandi's Sarvarthasiddhi (a vritti or commentary) could also be considered a "Tattvartha Shastra," and its author, Devanandi, a "Tattvartha Shastrakara."
The Invocation as a Sutra:
- The "Mokshamargasya Netaram" verse itself possesses characteristics of a sutra (concise, meaningful, universal, etc.). This leads Vidyananda to refer to its author as a "Sutrakara" and the work as a "Sutra." The fact that eminent thinkers like Samantabhadra (inspiring his Apta Mimamsa) and Vidyananda himself were inspired by this verse further supports its significance and possible classification as a foundational sutra.
Vidyananda's Argument on First Sutra's Suitability:
- When discussing the suitability of the first sutra of Tattvartha Sutra, Vidyananda presents a potential objection and then an answer. The answer describes the prerequisite conditions for composing such a scripture, including the need for a knower of all tattvas who is free from impurities and praised by great ascetics. This answer, which forms the basis of Vidyananda's argument, aligns precisely with the sentiments expressed in the "Mokshamargasya Netaram" verse and the subsequent explanations in Sarvarthasiddhi and Akalanka's Tattvartha Vartika. If the verse were Umāsvāmi's, Vidyananda would have surely referred to it directly in this context. His silence suggests it was not Umāsvāmi's.
Samantabhadra's Apta Mimamsa and the Invocation:
- Dr. Tatia highlights Vidyananda's assertion that Samantabhadra, in his Apta Mimamsa, discussed the "Apta" (worthy one) described in the "Mokshamargasya Netaram" verse. Vidyananda explains this by referencing Akalanka's commentary on Apta Mimamsa, where the "mangala-purassara stava" (auspicious introductory eulogy) is mentioned. Vidyananda interprets this eulogy as the "Shastravatara-rachita-stuti" (eulogy composed at the time of the scripture's descent/beginning).
- Furthermore, Vidyananda states that this eulogy, which glorifies the Apta as the leader of the path to liberation, destroyer of karma, and knower of all world-elements, is the basis for the Apta Mimamsa. He even quotes verses from Apta Mimamsa itself, which, in his view, are inspired by the "Mokshamargasya Netaram" verse. This strong connection between the invocation and Samantabhadra's seminal work, particularly through Vidyananda's interpretation, further suggests that the invocation might have preceded Umāsvāmi's Tattvartha Sutra in its current form.
The "Sutrakaradayaḥ" and "Shastrakara" Terms in Aptapariksha:
- In Aptapariksha, when discussing the practice of eulogizing the Parameṣṭhi (Supreme Being) at the beginning of a scripture, Vidyananda uses the phrase "Sutrakaradayaḥ" (Sutrakaras and others). He clarifies that this refers to the tradition of both the speaker (upadeṣṭā) and the listener (śrotā) venerating the preceptors.
- Crucially, when Vidyananda refers to the author of the "Mokshamargasya Netaram" verse (the one with the verb "vande"), he identifies this author as the "Shastrakara" who is either the listener or the explicator of the scripture at its commencement. If this "Shastrakara" and the "Sutrakara" who composed the invocation are one and the same, then it's unlikely that "Sutrakara" refers solely to Umāsvāmi.

Conclusion:

Based on his detailed analysis of Vidyananda's writings and the broader context of Jain philosophical literature, Dr. Nathmal Tatia concludes that:

There is no conclusive evidence from Acharya Vidyananda's statements to definitively prove that the "Mokshamargasya Netaram" verse was authored by Acharya Umāsvāmi.
On the contrary, some of Vidyananda's interpretations suggest that he considered a different Acharya (distinct from Umāsvāmi) to be the author of this invocation.
A significant deduction is that Samantabhadra, inspired by this very verse, composed his Apta Mimamsa. Akalanka, and by extension Vidyananda, held this view.
Given the lack of contradictory evidence from ancient times, the "Mokshamargasya Netaram" verse found at the beginning of Pujyapada Devanandi's Sarvarthasiddhi should be attributed to Pujyapada Devanandi himself.
Any considerations regarding the chronological placement of Samantabhadra should take into account Vidyananda's understanding of this invocation as the foundational verse inspiring the Apta Mimamsa.

In essence, the article re-examines the authorship of a well-known Jain invocation, arguing for a re-evaluation based on the nuanced interpretations of later commentators, particularly Acharya Vidyananda, and suggesting a strong connection to Pujyapada Devanandi.