Date and Authorship of Nyayavatara

Author(s): M A Dhaky
Publisher: Z_Nirgrantha_1_022701.pdf and Nirgrantha_2_022702.pdf and Nirgrantha_3_022703.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269005/1

Page #1

THE DATE AND AUTHORSHIP OF NYAYAVATARA
M. A. Dhaky
The famous work on the Nirganthist logic, the Nyāyāvatāra, is traditionally held by the Svetämbara church as the work of the illustrious hymnist, dialectician, epistemologist, Siddhasena Diväkara (c. first half of the 5th century A. D.). Several scholars who seriously had considered the works of Siddhasena or had a need to discuss, or an occasion to refer to his age in their writings, took it for granted that the Nyayavatára was his work.
The Nyāyāvatāra is cast in the form of a dvātrimśikā, rendered in the Anustubh metre; it contains 32 kārikās in Sanskrit. It was first commented upon by Siddharsi of Nivṛttikula (c. A. D. 870-920)2. Jineśvara sūri, later looked upon as the patriarch of the Kharatara-gaccha, had selected the opening karika of the Nyäyävatära for composing his Ślokavārtika (better known as Prama-laksma or Pramana-laksana) with an autocommentary early in the second quarter of the 11th century A. D. Likewise, Santi süri, a disciple of Vardhamana süri (probably of the Pürṇatalla-gaccha), also chose the same kärikā of the Nyāyāvatāra and composed his vārtikas with an auto-commentary in c. A. D. 1100-1110. And Devabhadra, disciple of acarya Hemacandra of Harsapuriya-gaccha, wrote the tippana on the vivṛtti of Siddharsi in early 12th century A. D. All above-noted scholiasts had belonged to the Svetämbara sect.
The Nyayavatāra, though attributed to Siddhasena Diväkara, contains in its fabric no indication as to its authorship, nor does its style in general accord with Siddhasena Diväkara's as its comparison with his available 21 (out of the original 32) dvātrimlikās indicates. While the dvätrimisikäs uniformly betray the characteristic style of Siddhasena, the Nyäyävatüra, in terms of cadence, phrasing, modulation, verve, and disposition looks. not only different but also seems inferior in several respects. The verses in fact betray variability in quality as well as style. The work, as a whole, lacks the kick, power, and brilliance of Siddhasena's characteristic expression. The Digambara church was aware of a few of the Siddhasena Diväkara's dvātrimśikās as well as his other famous work, in Prakrit, the Sammai-payarana (Skt. Sanmati-prakarana)", but is completely ignorant of the Nyayavatara. In point of fact, no quotations from this work are noticeable in the works of the Digambara commentators and scholiasts, nor was it commented upon by any Digambara writer of the past. As regards quotations, the situation is virtually the same with the Svetambara church as well. The earlier Svetambara writers, who were aware of Siddhasena Diväkara's works and had copiously cited from his several, failed to quote from the Nyāyāvatāra. Among them Mallavadi in his svopajña-bhasya (autocommentary) on the kärikäs of his Dvādasara-nayacakra (c. mid 6th century A. D.), Jinabhadra gani kṣamäśramana in his (incomplete) auto-commentary (c. A. D. 588 or

Page #2

M. A. Dhaky
Nirgrantha
594) on his Višes=Āvasyaka-bhāsya (c. A. D. 585), Simhaśūra ksamāśramana in his commentary (c. A. D. 675) on the afore-noted sa-bhasya Dvādaśāra-nayacakra, Kottārya vādi gani in his commentary (complementary to Jinabhadra's, C. A. D. 700-725) on the Viseś= Avasyaka-Bhāsya, and Gandhahasti Siddhasena in his commentary (c. A. D. 760770) on the sa-bhasya-Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra of Vācaka Umāsvāti (c. A. D. 375-400) are the more notable. On prima facie grounds, therefore, the authorship as well as the date of the Nyāyāvatāra poses a twin problem that needs fresh investigation.
Had Siddhasena Divakara been the author, the known earliest commentator of the Nyāyāvatāra, Siddharsi, would surely have so noted. But he is dumb on this point. The earlier of the two vārtikakāras, Jineśvara sūri, ascribes the work to adya-sūri at the beginning of his commentary and to purvācārya at the end. Obviously, to him the author was anonyinous or unknown, though doubtless an earlier Nirgrantha logician. It is the subsequent vārtikakāra, śānti súri, who uses such phrases as Siddhasenārka sutritam and who explains at another place the phrase 'Siddhasenasya' as sutra-kartrho, so regards. Next, at one other place, in a verse, he once more projects Siddhasena as the author of the work under reference. It is, thus, from the beginning of the 12th century A. D. that the work began to be looked upon as of Siddhasena, although it was not explicitly clarified by śānti sūri whether this Siddhasena bore the epithet 'Divākara'. Seemingly, some sort of confounding at interpreting his source may have led Sariti sūri apparently to an erroneous identification (unless he had some other Siddlasena in mind) and the Svetambara church till this day, as well as several scholars of this century, lent (and still lend) an unqualified credence to that ascription. (Alternatively, Siddharsi's fuller appellation before he attained the pontifical status with the specific suffix tại' of his monastic order, might have been Siddhasena, which is perhaps why śānti sūri does not qualify his Siddhasena as 'Divakara'.)
The ascription of the Nyāyavatāra to Siddhasena Divākara had in the recent past led to erroneous conclusions both on the side of the protagonists of a late date as well as the advocates of an early date for Siddhasena Divakara, the confusion to a large extent is continuing in the writings of the present generation as well. In point of fact, the Nyāyāvatāra has proven a dead and a heavy weight on the issue of the chronological position of Siddhasena Divakara as I shall shortly show.
The opinion on the authorship of the Nyāyāvatára is in point of fact sharply divided into three major camps : The first unhesitatingly ascribing it to Siddhasena Diväkara and hence to the first half of the fifth century A. D. or even earlier, to the first century B. C., depending on the date-perception of the scholars concerned for Vikramaditya whose contemporary, according to the prabandhas, Siddlasena had been. Among them are Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi", Pt. Dalsukh Malwaniya, P. N. Dave 3, and several Svetāmbara munis. The second camp is represented by S. C. Vidyabhusana", H. Jacobi's, P. L. Vaidya! (and seemingly also perhaps Satakari Mookerjee) who do ascribe the work to Siddhasena

Page #3

Vol. 1-1995
The date and....
Diväkara but date him either in the sixth or the seventh century A. D.19 The Digamabara scholars, among them the more notable being Pt. Jugal Kishor Mukhtar, Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri, and Pt. Darbarilal Kothiya", attribute it to some other and posterior Siddhasena-without any attempt to identify him-who, according to their estimate, possibly had flourished in the seventh or eighth century A. D.
41
It is then clear that considerable discussion had ensued on the authorship and date of the Nayāyāvatāra since Vidyabhusana first focused serious attention on it in the early years of the 20th century. It also reflects a diversity of views containing some useful hints and clues whose potential very largely has been weakly exploited, or not grasped at all. For brevity's sake, I shall forego the detailed account of views and arguments forwarded by scholars concerned and restrict, instead, to the more vital points of their analysis or contention. I must also warn that, this paper does not concern itself with the problem of the date of Siddhasena Diväkara; hence no discussion on that issue is deemed relevant in the present context. However, my own researches reject for him the 1st century B. C. date, that being so assumed by P. N. Dave and by some Svetämbara. munis as a contemporary of Vikramaditya, the legendary founder of the Vikrama Era. There is sufficient external as well as internal evidence to demonstrate that Siddhasena was contemporaneous with a Gupta emperor bearing the cognomen Vikramaditya, and his active period can be convincingly bracketed between c. A. D. 400 and 45025.
The Nayāyāvatāra is terse and concise work, a mere dvātrimśika. With regard to size, then, it does not favourably compare with the works of the great Buddhist philosophers, logicians, and epistemologists such as Dinnäga and Dharmakirti. However, it does succeed in neatly codifying the main features of the Nirgranthist position on pramāņa (valid knowledge or valid cognition), and, as such, has been hailed as a valuable work of its class and disposition. Since the Nirgranthist perception and definition of pramāņa had in part also to be settled by comparing and contrasting (and hence, by the logic of the process, agreeing with or confuting and refuting) the positions held by the other schools such as the Buddhist, the Vaiseṣika, the Nyaya, etc., the Nyāyāvatāra largely has served the purpose.

Coming back to the question. Had the Nyayavatara been authored by a luminary like Siddhasena Diväkara, it would have betrayed considerable originality as well as sparks of brilliance in thought constructs, structure, phrasing, and overall presentation. While dryness is not a demerit in such works, what intrigues in the case of the Nyāyāvatāra is its rather cool and quiet flow, with only a little colour and glitter seen here and there, this too being present more within the borrowed, and what today may seem to us plagiarized verses, hemistiches, strophes, and overt as well as masked influences of the writings of earlier Nirgrantha as well as Buddhist and other thinkers on this subject. The author doubtless is sufficiently clever in combining it all into an apparently homogeneous, harmonious, articulate, and consistent whole, which does succeed in

Page #4

M. A. Dhaky
Nirgrantha
presenting the Nirgranthist standpoint and notions on the attributes, qualifications, and nature of pramāna, a fact I must stress and repeat here on the authority of Vidyabhusana, Sanghvi, Malwaniya, Mookerjee, and a few other contemporary writers.
The upper limit of the date of the Nyāyavatāra can be fixed as c. late ninth or early tenth century, which, incidentally, is the general date-bracket of Siddharsi's vivrtti commentary. The internal state of the Nyāyavatāra is our dependable guide in fixing its virtual or plausible date and, by its logic, get some indication on its probable authorship. We may begin by comparing the Nyāyāvatāra with the works of Dinnāga, the founder of the systematic school of the Buddhist logic. Malwaniya, in the comparisons he instituted of the Nyāyāvatāra with the works of other ancient and pre-medieval authorities, has included Dinnaga's famous works such as the Pramanasamuccaya, the Nyāyamukha, and the Nyāyapraveśa. While he has drawn attention to certain similarities, as also the reflected thinkings of (and even oppositions to) Dinnāga's statements and views in the Nyāyāvatāra, he drew no conclusions arising from the correspondences as well as familiarities noticed. I shall select a few points froin Malwaniya's notings which more directly and forcefully indicate the acquaintance of the author of the Nyāyāvatāra with Dinnāga's famous works :
1. Dinnāga has qualified the parārtha-anumāna with two characteristics, namely the
lietu-vacana and the paksād-vacana. Both are included in the kārika 13 of the
Nyāyāvatāra 2. The refutation of the kārikā 1. 23 of Dinnaga's Pramanasamuccaya is in the kärikā
28 of the Nyāyāvatāra??.
3.
The first foot of the kārikā 10 of the Nyāyāvatāra is an adoption, with very slight" change, of Dinnagas.
The Nyāyāvatāra thus seems posterior to the works of Dinnāga (c. A. D. 480-540) and hence subsequent to c. A. D. 550. It cannot, therefore, be the work of Siddhasena Divākaraa
Further weight to this surmise is lent by the wording of the first plirase of the opening verse of the Nyāyāvatāra (Pramānam svaparābhāsi) which shows correspondence with the wording of the strophe of the verse 63 of the Brahadsvayambhu-stotra of Samantabhadra 30 (c. A. D. 600) to which Malwaniya las hinted 31 : ('samagrata'sti svapara-vibhāsakam, yathā pramanam buddhi-laksanam). Also, Mukhtar has demonstrated that the influence of Pátrakesari alias Patrasvāmi, a Digambara epistemologist of note of the second (or first half of the seventh century A. D., is discernible on the definition of the anumāna-pramana (cognition by inference) figuring in the Nyāyavatāra; moreover, the first foot of the kārikā 22 concerning the hetu-laksana

Page #5

Vol. 1-1995
The date and....
(character of probans) reflects sense-agreement, even partial verbal concordance with the verses from Pātrasvāmi's (Pātrakesari's) Trilaksanakadarthana cited by the Buddhist scholiast śāntaraksita in his Tattvasangraha (c. 2nd quarter of the 8th century A. D.)». Moreover, Sanghvi, but more definitely Kailashchandra Shastri, has shown that the qualification badha-vivarjitam (incontrovertible) (emphasized as obligatory) for the pramāna in the opening kārikā of the Nyāyāvatāra has been adopted from Kumarila Bliatta (c. A. D. 575-625) 33; indeed that specific qualification is earlier nowhere noticeable in the Nirgranthist or Buddhist or Brahmanical works either. What is more, the kārika 9 of the Nyāyāvatāra is the wholesale appropriation of the verse 9 of the Ratnakarandaka ascribed to Yogīndra by Vädirāja of Drāvida Sanigha in Karnātadeśa (A. D. 1025) and to Samantabhadra by Prabhācandra (c. A. D. 1050), probably of the Mula Saingha, in Mālavadeśa. The opinion of the Digambara scholars, as a result, is sharply divided into two camps on the authorship of the Ratnakarandaka. My own view is that the style of the Ratnakarandaka, though, seeming not later than the seventh century A. D., does not correspond with that of Samantabhadra. ( The work is also in part doginatic as well as sectarian.) In any case, all aforenoted points considered, it clearly emerges that the author of the Nyāyāvatāra is posterior to the first half of the seventh century A.D. This is further confirmed by the use of the term abhrānta (inerrant) and the truths consequently emerging therefroin in the karikās 5-7 of the Nyāyāvatāra. For ablıránta, in lieu of the earlier term avyabhicari as one of the qualificatory as well as requisite attribute of the pratyaksa-pramāna, was popularised (even perhaps revived, if Asanga and Maitreyanatha, c. 4th century A. D., had employed it) by Dharınakīrti. The influence of the imposing figure of Dharmakirtis in the field of epistemology was all-pervasive since the days he wrote his famous Pramāņavārtika, tlie Nyāyabindu, and other cognate works. The author of the Nyāyāvatāra does not in reality refute, but sides with Dharmakirti as demonstrated by Mookerjee in his brilliant analysis. Looking at the fact that the author of the Nyāyāvatāra is posterior to Dinnaga, Samantabhadra, Kunarila, Yogindra, and Pātrakesari, little wonder if he were also familiar with Dharmakīrti's notions which he indirectly accepts in his own layout. Malwaniya had further shown that, even when there is no close verbal agreement between the Nyāyāvatāra and the corresponding works of the great Digambara dialectician Akalankadeva (active c. A. D. 725-760), there is often a fairly close sense-correspondence at several places. In that event the author of the Nyāyāvatāra has to be placed after the first half of the eighth century.
And now we may look at the vivitti of Siddharși. As noted in the beginning, Siddharsi does not ascribe the Nyāyāvatara to Siddhasena Divākara or to a different Siddhasena or for that matter to any other author. Nor does he mention it as a composition of a purvācārya, vrddhācārya, or some cirantanācārya. Also, in his verse by verse exposition, he nowhere uses qualificatory phrases such as the śāstrakāra, sūtrakāra, kārikākara, acarya, etc., which may have denoted a second, an earlier revered personage, as the kārikās' author. And had the original author been Siddhasena Divãkara, the five

Page #6

M. A. Dhaky
Nirgrantha
centuries intervening between him and Siddharsi would probably have given rise to the pāthāntaras or variant readings in the text. Siddharsi, however, nowhere records or notices such alternative readings. Also, neither in the inaugural nor in the concluding verse does he pay obeisance to the author of the kārikās' which indeed is very, very unusual. Had Siddhasena Divakara been the author, Siddharsi surely would have known that fact and paid him homage in glowing terms. His silence, together with the other concomitant facts just noted, lead to a singular inference : Siddharsi himself is the author of the Nyāyāvatāra : which is why there are no variant readings recorded; which is why he does not have to resort even to proxial ways of referring to the author as śāstrakāra etc.; which is also why he avoids salutation to the author. Since Siddharşi flourished in the times as late as ninth and early tenth century A. D., just at the threshold of the medieval age, he had the opportunity to have before him the works of all earlier masters mentioned in the foregoing discussion. Siddharsi for certain is not startlingly original; he could not have been in that age since much ground in the field of Indian epistemology and logic by different schools had already been covered before him. But, to be fair to Siddharsi, he did inake an adroit use of the enormous data gathered on the question of pramāņa that was before him, and that indeed was with exemplary precision, clarity, consistency, incision, and concision.
A formidable objection, however, to the above-postulated identification as well as the period-determination can be raised on the grounds of the ascription of a verse, which appears as the karikā 2 of the Nyāyāvatāra, to Mahāmati (Siddhasena Divakara) by Yakinisúnu Haribhadra sūri (active c. A. D. 745-785) in his Astaka. And the karika 4 figures as a part of the Saddarśana-samuccaya of the same Haribhadra sūris. Since Haribhadra suri ascribed the particular verse (kärikä 2) co Siddhasena Divākara, it must be so. However, this kärikā could be orginally from some dvātrimsikā, one of the lost" 11 of Siddhasena Divākara, perhaps the Pramana-dvātrimisika, from which Gandhahasti Siddhasena quotes in his sa-bhaysa-Tattvārthadhigama-sūtra-vrtti *. The kärikā 4 in the Saddarśana-samuccaya may likewise have been taken from one of the unavailable dvātrimśikās of Divākara. Alternatively, if that verse is Haribhadra's own, Siddharşi must have borrowed it from the Saddarśana. In any case, Haribhadra and Siddharsi could have common sources from which they apparently may have drawn.
It may be argued that there were other Siddhasena-s who had flourished between Divakara and Siddharși : Why not, then, one of them could be the author of the Nyāyāvatāra ? Granted, there were at least three other early Siddhasena-s, none of them, however, could be the author of this work. For instance, a single verse from some Vacaka Siddh hasena (c. 475-525), cited by Vādi-Vetāla sānti sūri of the Thäräpadragaccha in his Sukhobodha-vrtti (c. A. D. 1020-1030) on the Uttarādhyayana-sutra, differs in terms of style as well as content from Divākara's as well as Siddharsi's. The writings of Siddhasena kşamāśramana (c. A. D. 575-625), a disciple most probably of the illustrious Jinabhadra gani kşamāśramana, are in Prakrit and relate to monastic

Page #7

Vol. 1-1995
The date and....
disciplines. The third Siddhasena is Gandhahasti (c. A. D. 690-770), earlier referred to in this paper. He was both an agamika as well as a darśanika pundit as is clear from his voluminous vitti on the sa-bhasya Tattvārthadhigama-sūtra43. He could have composed the Nyāyāvatāra. But then he is anterior to Siddharsi by only 150 years. Siddharsi, in his age, certainly would have known that important fact and hence could have recorded it, indeed reverentially, in his vivítti. This negative but none the less significant evidence precludes the possibility of his being the author of the Nyāyāvatāra. We must then revert to the original conclusion that Siddharsi himself was the author; for he satisfies the conditions even when the position rests on arguments on the indirect evidence that emerge out of reductio ad absurdum.
Sanghvi and Doshi 44 as well as Dave's thought that Simhaśūra (c. A.D. 675) refers to the Nyāyāvatāra alongwith the Sanmati (and hence the Nyayāvatāra is implied to be the work of Siddhasena Divakara.) However, what Simhaśūra refers to in that context is the Nayāvātāra, not the Nyāyāvatāras. It seems that Divākara had authored the work on nayas or standpoints of viewing at an object or idea; and the concept of naya is different from that47 of pramāna. I have elsewhere suggested that the two citations in prose figuring in Simhaśūra's commentary as of Siddhasena's *8 could have come from this lost work, the Nyāyāvatāra :
i. "Asti-bhavati-vidyati-padyati-vartatayah sannipāta sasthah satt-ārthah itya-višesen
oktvat Siddhasenasūriņā."
ii "Tathācācārya Siddhasena āha-yatra hyartho vācam yabhicarati nābhidhānan tat' iti'."
Once more, though not sufficiently strong, indication comes from the so-called Vardhamana sakra-stava ascribed, though wrongly, to Siddhasena Divākara in the Svetāmbara Church. It reflects soine of the tendencies paralleled in the composition of the Nyāyāvatāra. The work is cast into the Dandaka mode for its 11 stanzas; the ending, the 12th, is a verse in the Vasantatilaka metre"). The eighth Dandaka mentions 'Siddhasena' which perhaps was instrumental in the dubious supposition that the hymn was composed by Siddhasena Divakaras. The 12th verse, however, significantly mentions 'Siddharşist which apparently was employed with the objective of double entendre and lience the author in reality could be Siddharsi whose other name arguably may have been Siddhasena. This may perhaps explain why Šānti sūri had ascribed the Nyāyāvatāra to Sidhlasena.
in recent years, I had chances to discuss the problems of the date and authorship of the Nyāyāvatāra with Pt. Malwaniya. Independently of my findings, he, too, had arrived at the same conclusion as laid bare in this paper. For all these years he had been upholding and defending the Nyāyāvatāra as the work of Siddhasena Divākara, and had vigorously argued in favour of that stand in his stimulating Introduction to the Nyāyāvatāra-vārtika

Page #8

M. A. Dhaky
Nirgrantha
yrtti. Now no longer. He is currently preparing a case necessitating a modified view on the date and authorship with his characteristic and profound epistemological insights to which I cannot pretend. We must await to read his brilliant erudition on the problems under discussion which can give a final seal to, and vindicate what has been argued in this article.
Notes and References :
1. Opinions differ on his date. I am here using my own determination.
2. Two editions of the Nyāyāvatāra with this commentary are available. The details of these
publications are as follows: i) Ed. S.C. Vidyabhusana, Nyāyāvatāra (First edition), Calcutta 1909; (Second Edition),
Sacred books of the Jaina Society, Arrah 1915. Also incorporated in A.N. Upadhye,
Siddhasena's Nyāyāvatāra and other works, Bombay 1971, pp. 30-107. ii) Ed. Pt. Bhagwandas Harakhchand, Nyāyāvatarah, Ahmedabad 1917. The Tippaņa of Devabhadra is included in this edition. The text alone has been published alongwith
Divakara's other works in JDPS, Bhavnagar 1909. 3. Pramälaksanam, Ahmedabad 1927. 4. Ed. Pt. Dalsukh Malwaniya, Nyāyāvatāravārtika-vrtti of Sri Sănci Süri, (with 'Introduction
and 'Annotations' in Hindi), Singhi Jania Series (No.20), Bombay 1949. 5. No manuscripts of this work are available in Digambara libraries. However, a reference
to a commentary on this work by Sumati, supposed to be a Digambara scholiast of c. late 8th century A. D., is known. And citations from this work also figure in several premedieval and medieval commentaries of the Digambara authors.
6. in his opening verse 4. 7. This figures in the opening verse of the commentary : (Malwaniya, p. 11). 8. In his opening kārika of the Vārtika (ibid., pp. 5 and 11). 9. ibid., p. 13. (Naityaha-'siddha senārkasūtritam iti / Siddhasena eva jagaj =jantu- manomoha
santatitamasitanah samuhrapoha-käritvat arka iva arkah tena sütritam). 'Arka' here is not
in the sense of 'Divākara' but 'essence.') 10. Ibid., p. 107. 11. "Śri-Siddhasena Divākara-nă Samaya.no Praśna" (Gujarati), Bharatiya Vidyā, Pt. III,
Bombay 1945. 12. "Prastāvana," Nyāyāvatāru., p. 141. 13. “Upodghāt,” Dvātrimsaddvātrimsikāh, Ed. Vijaysuśīlasūri, Botad 1977, pp. 15-17.

Page #9

Vol. 1-1995
The date and....
14. In 1908, he considered him to be the contemporary of Varahamihira (c. early 6th century
A. D.) on the authority of the Jyotirvindābharana. In 1909, he made him contemporary with (the Aulikara monarch) Yaśodharma of Mālava (c. early 6th century A. D.) whom he identified with Vikramāditya. But 12 years afterwards, in his A History of Indian Logic (Ancient, Medieval and Modern Schools), Calcutta 1921), he had felt that he was contemporary of Jinabhadra gani ksa māśramana (ob. A. D.588 or 594) since Jinabhadra criticised him (for his concept of the simultaneity of perception and cognition for an
omniscient being.) 15. In his edition of the Samaraiccakaha, Bibliothica Indica, Calcutta 1925, he takes Siddhasena
to be a contemporary of Dharmakirti whose term abhrānta he used in the Nyāyāvatāra. 16. In his 'Introduction to the Nyāyāvatāra, Bombay 1928. He takes him to be Digambara if
identified with the kşapanaka (of the Jyotirvindábharana). His style, Vaidya felt, is postKalidasa. Siddhasena upholds his views against the apologetic position taken by
Jinabhadra : hence, according to Vaidya, he is younger in time. 17. "Introduction," A Critical and Comparative Study of Jaina Logic and Epistemology on the basis
of the Nyāyāvatāra of Siddhasena Divakara, Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin No.1, p.19. 18. The foregoing footnotes reveal that Vidyabhusana favours sixth century for Siddhasena. 19. Jacobi, Vaidya, and others. 20. "Sanmatisūtra aur Siddhasena" (Hindi), Jaina Sahitya aur Itihāsa par Visada Prakasa,
Calcutta 1956, pp. 538-543. 21. “Prstabhūmi," Jaina Nyāya (Hindi), Calcutta-Delhi 1966, pp. 19-21. 22. “Parisista 2," Jaina Darsana aur Pramānaśāstra pariśīlana, Varanasi 1980, p. 540. 23. Cf. footnote 2 (i). 24. Siddhasena Divakara : A Study: A thesis submitted to the University of Bombay for the Ph.
D. degree, September 1962. Also, his "Upodghăta" (Gujarātī) to Dvātrimsaddvatrimsikāh,
Botad 1977, pp. 14-16. 25. This problem has been discussed in my Introduction in Gujarāti (with Jitendra Shah) to
Siddhasena's 21st hymn to be shortly published. 26. Malwaniya, Nyäyāvatāra, "Parisista 1, Nyāyāvatāraki Tulanā," pp. 292-293. 27. Ibid., p. 294. 28. Ibid., p. 291. 29. There is no unanimous agreement on the date of Dinnāga which in part depends on the
date of Vasubandhu. If he is a direct disciple of Vasubandhu, then he must be dated either C. A.D. 450-510 or earlier by a few decades if Vasubandhu's date is finally fixed at c. A. D. 350-430. However, the current opinion of the Westem as well as Japanese specialists do not favour the earlier brackets. So following them, I have adopted here c. A. D. 480-540 for Dinnaga.

Page #10

M. A. Dhaky
Nirgrantha
30. Mukhtar, Jaina Sahitya aur Itihäsa., p. 46. 31. His "Parisista 1," lbid., p. 287. 32. Mukhtar, "Sanmatisütra.," pp. 540-543. 33. Vide his "Prstabhumi," pp. 19-21. 34. Since in the present discussion the point is of subsidiary importance, I forego citing
sources and the current writings and controversies on it. 35. Cf. Malwaniya, “Parisista 1," pp. 288-290. 36. Mookerjee, "Introduction." 37. Malwaniya, discussion in his "Parisista 1." Following his earlier perceptions on the date and
authorship of the Nyāyāvatāra, Malwaniya of course then had noted that Akalanka had
made a fair use of the Nyāyāvatāra. The position is now reversed. 38. Malwaniya, pp. 287-288. 39. Ibid., p. 288. 40. Tattvärthädhigamasutra, Ed. H. R. Kapadia, Sheth Devachand Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar
Fund Series No. 67, Surat 1926, p. 7. 41. The citation refers to the fact that the bowl and the monastic robe are ultimately meant
as an aid on the path of salvation; by themselves they cannot be termed as possession; for
attachment on a thing or an object is possession. 42. For instance his commentary in Prakrit on the Jita-Kalpa-sútra of Jinabhadra. Citations from
his works also figure in the Nišitha-cūrni of Jinadāsa gani Mahattara (c. A. D. 675). 43. This commentary is full of citations from the agamas and at places refutative discussions
from the epistemological standpoints of the other systems, but mainly Buddhist. 44. For details, vide their "Introduction” to Sammaipayarana (Hindi Edition), Ahmedabad 1963. 45. His “Upodgháta," p. 20. 46. "purvācārya-viraciteșu sanmati-Nayavatārādisu nayaśastresu" : Cf. Ed. Muni Jambuvijaya,
"Prākkathana," Sri Atmanand Jain Granthamala, Serial NO. 92, Bhavnagar 1966, p. 10. 47. "Some Less Known Verses of Siddhasena Divakara", Sambodhi, Vol. 10, Nos. 1-4, April 1981,
Jan. 1982, p.173, infra. 48. Ibid.
49. This is included in H. R. Kapadiya, Bhakrāmara, Kalyanamandira and Namiüņa, SDLJPFS
No. 79, Surat 1932, p. 243. It has been edited also by J. Mukhtar, "Siddhasenkä Siddhisreyasamudaya stotra" (Hindi), Anekānta 1/8-9-10, pp. 499-504. Also, it has been edited by Muni Kirtiyasavijaya (with translation in Gujarati ) in the Arhannamaskärāvali, Bombay-Ahmedabad 1983, pp. 47-66. After the 12th verse, the remaining part seems an

Page #11
Vol. 1-1995 The date and.... addition at some posterior date. This stotra is strongly influenced by the epithetic terms taken from the Namostu-nam Stava (Ardhamagadhi, c. 1st cent. B. C.) and from Sidddhasena Divakara's Paratma-dvatrimsika (No. 21). 50. ॐ नमोऽर्हते सर्वदेवमयाय सर्वध्यानमयाय सर्वज्ञानमयाय सर्वतेजोमयाय सर्वमंत्रमयाय सर्वरहस्यमयाय सर्वभावाभावजीवाजीवेश्वराय अरहस्यरहस्याय अस्पृहस्पृहणीयाय अचिन्त्यचिन्तनीयाय अकामकामधेनवे असङ्कल्पितकल्पद्रुमाय अचिन्त्यचिन्तामणये चतुर्दशरज्ज्वात्मकाजीवलोकचूडामणये चतुरशीतिलक्षजीवयोनिप्राणिनाथाय परमार्थनाथाय अनाथनाथाय जीवनाथाय देवदानवमानवसिद्धसेनाधिनाथाय // 8|| 51. लोकोत्तमो निष्प्रतिमस्त्वमेव, त्वं शाश्वतं मङ्गलमप्यधीश ! ! त्वामेकमर्हन् ! शरणं प्रपद्ये, सिद्धर्षिसद्धर्ममयस्त्वमेव // 1 //