Gandhahasti Mahabhasya: Revisited

Summary

Prof. Hampa Nagarajaiah’s article “Gandhahasti Mahabhasya: Revisited” re‑examines whether Samantabhadra (c. 550–625 CE), the distinguished Digambara logician, really wrote a massive commentary on Umasvati’s Tattvarthasutra called the Gandhahasti Mahabhasya (GHMB). Because the GHMB itself is lost, the discussion relies on indirect testimony. Nagarajaiah reviews the extant Sanskrit commentaries on the Tattvarthasutra—Pujyapada’s Sarvarthasiddhi, Akalanka’s Tattvartha‑rajavartikalankara and Vidyananda’s Tattvartha‑sloka‑vartika—none of which mention a Gandhahasti commentaryfile:///home/oai/share/jain_journal_2008_10_520172_hr6_ocred.pdf#:~:text=GANDHAHASTI%20MAHABHASYA%20%3A%20REVISITED%20Prof,are%20in%20Kannada%20languagg. The earliest hint appears in a tenth‑century Kannada chronicle by Camundariya, which merely says that Samantabhadra wrote a bhasyafile:///home/oai/share/jain_journal_2008_10_520172_hr6_ocred.pdf#:~:text=of%20%E0%A4%A5%E0%A5%80%20commentaries%20by%20the,Subsequently%20Gunavarma%2011%20%281235. By the thirteenth century, the Kannada poet Gunavarma II described Samantabhadra’s commentary as the ‘Gandhahasti Mahabhasya’ and claimed that its 96 000 verses left rival scholars speechlessfile:///home/oai/share/jain_journal_2008_10_520172_hr6_ocred.pdf#:~:text=and%20does%20not%20mention%20its,withdrew%20like%20the%20elephant%20in. Later authors, including Doddayya (1620) and Sanskrit writers like Hastimalla and Laghu‑Samantabhadra, repeat this assertionfile:///home/oai/share/jain_journal_2008_10_520172_hr6_ocred.pdf#:~:text=Another%20Kannada%20poet%20Doddayya%20,guravah%20Sri%20Svami%20Samantabhadracaryah. Yet contemporary inscriptions and canonical commentaries by Pujyapada and Akalanka are silent about such a textfile:///home/oai/share/jain_journal_2008_10_520172_hr6_ocred.pdf#:~:text=The%20inscriptions%20do%20mention%20SBD,they%20quote%20%E2%80%98fathgcoktam%E2%80%99%20from%20early, and later commentators who vaguely mention a ‘Mahabhasya’ may not be referring to the GHMBfile:///home/oai/share/jain_journal_2008_10_520172_hr6_ocred.pdf#:~:text=texts,Samantabhadra%E2%80%99s%20sentence%20in%20the%20Astasahasri. Nagarajaiah suggests that confusion may have arisen from the epithet ‘Gandha‑hastin’ given to Siddhasena Gani, an eighth‑century commentator; later writers could have misattributed Siddhasena’s work to Samantabhadrafile:///home/oai/share/jain_journal_2008_10_520172_hr6_ocred.pdf#:~:text=Albeit%2C%20one%20more%20hint%20comes,Bhasya%20%E0%AA%A5%E0%AA%A1%20the%20work%20of. After weighing the evidence, Nagarajaiah concludes that despite persistent claims in Kannada and Sanskrit literature, there is no concrete proof that Samantabhadra authored the Gandhahasti Mahabhasya. The question remains open, highlighting the need for further textual and epigraphical researchfile:///home/oai/share/jain_journal_2008_10_520172_hr6_ocred.pdf#:~:text=statements%20%3F%20All%20said%20and,solved%20with%20solid%20clinching%20evidences.