Study Of Tattvarthasutra With Bhasya - Book Summary

This is a comprehensive summary of Suzuko Ohira's "A Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya," focusing on its critical examination of the authorship and dating of the Tattvarthasutra and its Bhasya, and their historical context within Jainism.

Core Argument and Methodology:

The book aims to definitively resolve the long-standing scholarly debate regarding the authorship and date of the Tattvarthasutra (T.S.) and its accompanying Bhasya. Ohira's central thesis is that the Tattvarthasutra itself, along with its Bhasya (including the Sambandhakärikā and Prasasti), was composed by Vācaka Umāsvāti. She argues that the Bhasya is an autocommentary and that the Svetambara recension of the text, accompanied by the Bhasya, is the original version, from which the Digambara recension was later derived.

Ohira employs a multi-faceted methodological approach, combining:

Text-historical method: Analyzing manuscripts, inscriptions, and lineage records (pattāvalis) to trace the development and transmission of the text.
Comparative method: Comparing the Svetambara and Digambara versions, as well as the T.S. with earlier canonical texts and later commentaries.
Conceptual evolution method: Tracing the development of key Jain concepts within the T.S. and its commentaries.
Linguistic analysis: Examining linguistic changes between the recensions to identify the original text.
Historical evaluation: Placing the T.S. within its socio-historical context, particularly the Gupta period, the migration of Jain communities, and the great schism.

Key Findings and Arguments:

Authorship of the Sabhasya T.S. by Umāsvāti:
- Prasasti Verification: Ohira meticulously analyzes the Prasasti (colophon) of the Bhasya, verifying its biographical details about Umāsvāti by cross-referencing with pattāvalis (especially the Nandi tradition). Despite some discrepancies (like the conflicting gotra), she concludes the Prasasti is largely authentic and points to Umāsvāti as the author.
- Sambandhakärikā and Bhasya: She argues that the Sambandhakärikā (introductory verse) and the Bhasya (textual commentary) are integral parts of Umāsvāti's original work, evidenced by their internal coherence, consistent terminology, and the author's unique style. The Bhasya often clarifies obscure points in the sūtras or refers to explanations that are indeed present in the Bhasya, suggesting an autocommentary.
- Polemics and Citations: The Bhasya's treatment of polemical aphorisms and its critical engagement with other philosophical schools (Vaiseșikasūtra, Nyāyasūtra, etc.) reveal an author deeply engaged with contemporary intellectual currents, further supporting Umāsvāti's authorship. The Bhasya's citations of differing views, often without critical elaboration, are seen as characteristic of the time before the rigorous systematization seen in later commentaries.
Originality of the Svetambara Recension:
- Manuscript Survey: Ohira's analysis of manuscripts in Western India reveals that Svetambara copies without the Bhasya are often "polluted" by Digambara aphorisms, suggesting the Digambara version is a later development. The Svetambara version with the Bhasya is generally well-preserved.
- Linguistic Changes, Omissions, and Commissions: While linguistic analysis proves challenging, Ohira finds that the Svetambara version often exhibits clearer purports. The analysis of omissions and commissions, particularly the presence of crucial Digambara aphorisms like V:(29) in the Digambara recension but their absence or different placement in the Svetambara text, is presented as evidence that the Svetambara text might be the archetype, although this point is complex and debated. The crucial argument here is the anomalous placement of V:(29) in the Digambara text, suggesting it's an interpolation.
- Matabhedas (Doctrinal Differences): Ohira examines doctrinal differences, finding that many are minor or have scriptural support in both traditions. However, two specific instances – the rules of atomic combination (V:34-35) and pariṣahas (IX:11) – are crucial. The interpretation of V:35 in the Digambara tradition (as seen in Sarvārthasiddhi) contradicts the sūtra itself, suggesting a later reinterpretation or revision. Similarly, the Digambara understanding of pariṣahas occurring to a jina (IX:11) requires extensive commentary, indicating it's not the original intent. These specific matabhedas, particularly concerning V:(35) and V:(29), are presented as key evidence for the Svetambara text being the archetype.
Dating Umāsvāti and the T.S.:
- Gupta Period Context: Ohira firmly places Umāsvāti in the late middle of the 5th century A.D. This is deduced from his engagement with and citation of non-Jaina philosophical works (like Abhidharmakosa) composed before this period and his influence on later texts (Niryuktis, Satkhandagama, Sarvarthasiddhi).
- Migration and Schism: The 5th century was a turbulent period for Jainism, marked by the migration of communities from the North (Mathura) to the South and West due to socio-political pressures during the Gupta age. This migration, combined with a prolonged famine and the subsequent Canonical Convention at Valabhi, is identified as the primary cause of the Great Schism between the Svetambaras and Digambaras. The schism likely occurred before c. 478 A.D., as evidenced by inscriptions of Mrgesavarman.
- T.S. Precedes Niryuktis and Sarvarthasiddhi: The T.S. predates the Niryuktis (likely around 500-600 A.D.) and the Sarvarthasiddhi ( Pujyapada, early 6th century A.D.). The author's interaction with Abhidharmakosa suggests a date after Vasubandhu (flourishing mid-5th century A.D.).
Historical Context and Umāsvāti's Contribution:
- Response to Need: The T.S. emerged from an internal need within Jainism for a systematized, authoritative text, mirroring a similar trend in other Indian philosophical systems during the Gupta period.
- Sanskrit and Prakaraṇa Form: Umāsvāti's use of Sanskrit and the prakaraṇa (treatise) form, rather than the traditional Prakrit and sūtra style, was a deliberate choice responding to the changing intellectual landscape and likely influenced by his Brahmanical background.
- Synthesis of Sources: The T.S. is a masterful synthesis of canonical Jain sources (like Bhagavati, Uttaradhyayana, Prajñapana) and contemporary non-Jaina philosophical texts, allowing Umāsvāti to clarify Jain doctrines and address universal philosophical problems. He innovated and refined numerous concepts, often by distinguishing Jain positions from those of other schools.
- Foundation for Later Developments: The T.S. laid the groundwork for the subsequent development of Jain philosophy, particularly the age of logic (through pramāṇa, naya, anekāntavāda) and the systematization of pro-canonical texts in the South.

Overall Significance:

Ohira's "A Study of Tattvarthasutra with Bhasya" is a rigorous and scholarly work that provides a comprehensive and definitive analysis of the Tattvarthasutra's authorship, dating, and historical significance. By meticulously examining textual evidence, manuscript variations, linguistic patterns, doctrinal nuances, and socio-historical factors, the book makes a significant contribution to Jain studies, resolving key scholarly debates and offering a profound understanding of the T.S.'s pivotal role in the development of Jain philosophy and literature.