Umāsvāti in Epigraphical and Literary Tradition

Summary

M.A. Dhaky’s extensive essay “Umāsvāti in Epigraphical and Literary Tradition” investigates the historical figure of Umāsvāti (also known as Umāsvāmi), one of the most luminous thinkers of the Nirgrantha (Jain) tradition. Dhaky notes that Umāsvāti pioneered the systematisation of Jain doctrine by composing the Tattvārthasūtra in Sanskrit—departing from the canonical Ardhamāgadhī yet retaining fidelity to Jain teachings. Drawing on early monastic traditions, he organised scattered knowledge into a concise aphoristic treatise that addressed metaphysics, ethics and epistemology, updating the Nirgrantha position by engaging with contemporaneous traditions such as Yoga and Vaiśeṣika. The essay surveys inscriptions from southern and northern India, tracking how various epigraphs from the 10th to 14th centuries attribute the Tattvārthasūtra and its commentaries. Some southern inscriptions refer to the author simply as a “riddhānta‑kartā” and do not mention Umāsvāti by name, while later inscriptions in Gujarat and Karnataka explicitly call him Śrutakevali‑deśīya or Āryadeva, suggesting evolving sectarian perceptions. Dhaky reviews medieval literary sources—from Jñānacandra’s Gaṇadhara‑sārddhaśataka, Kalpapradīpa and Pañcāśatī to modern works—and analyses controversial claims regarding authorship. Śvetāmbara scholars often hold that both the Sūtra and Bhāṣya were written by Umāsvāti, while many Digambara scholars attribute the Sūtra to an early Digambara Umāsvāti and regard the Bhāṣya as the work of a Śvetāmbara author. Some argue for two separate authors named Umāsvāti; others posit that the Bhāṣya was added by a later commentator. Dhaky criticises the polemics and methodological laxity of earlier writers and emphasises the need for objective historiography that weighs evidence without sectarian bias. He concludes that Umāsvāti most likely belonged to a pre‑Śvetāmbara Northern Nirgrantha tradition and that both Śvetāmbara and Digambara communities appropriated his legacy to buttress their doctrinal positions. By meticulously examining epigraphic notices and literary testimonies, Dhaky provides a nuanced account of how the figure of Umāsvāti was remembered, contested and revered over centuries, and he calls for further critical study of Jain canonical history.