________________
162 Studies in Umāsvāti
at the second sūtra, he quotes—anyastu višeso bhāsye drașavyah. Thus both the references are to Gandha-hasti
mahābhāsya. 3. Dharmabhūsana also in his Nyāyadīpikā quotes from
Gandha-hasti-mahābhāsya; a. tadbhāsyam-tatrātmabhūtam agnerausnyam anātma
bhūtaṁ devadattasya dandah. b. bhāsyaṁ ca-samsayo hi nirnaya virodhī na tvavagrahah. c. tаduktaṁ svāmibhirmahābhāsye mīmāṁsā prastāve
sūksmāntarita dūrārthāh pratyaksāh kasyacid'ayathā
anumeyatvatojgnyādiriti sarvajña saṁsthitih.
The works so far discussed, Cūdāmaņi and Gandha-hastimahābhāsya are irretrievably lost. Of the extant commentaries the earliest is that of the adept Pūjyapāda alias Devanandi's Sarvārthasiddhih. Pūjyapāda is a prolific author so well known to Nirgranthologists with his works on logic, grammar, prosody and philosophy. He had the cognomen of Jinendrabuddhi. Later inscriptions and authors have praised Pūjyapāda (c. 580–635). He is said to have visited videha kşetra blessed by SīmandharaTirtharkara; while on his retreat from Videha he lost the eyesight but got back the eyesight by composing śāntyasaka at the śānti Tirthankara temple at Bankāpura, now in Haveri district of Karnataka. Sarvārthasiddhi is an exhaustive commentary on Tattvārthasūtra and a trend setter of southern tradition of Digambara affiliation.
It is really astonishing that Pūjyapada does not mention the name of the author and ascribing the work to oneNirgranthācāryavaryam, ‘some nirgrantha pontiff, has caused doubts in the minds of serious readers. No doubt it is a glaring omission, but the question is whether Pūjyapāda has purposely done it; M. A. Dhaky is of the opinion that Pūjyapāda professed complete ignorance of Umāsvāti [1996:53]. Though I very much like to differ from this opinion, I do not have another convincing alternative to agree. However, without probing deep into this
