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 Nyayavatara, is traditionally held by the Svetambara church as the work of the illustrious hymnist, dialectician, epistemologist, Siddhasena Divakara (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 Nyayavatara was his work. The Nyayavatara is cast in the form of a dvatrimsika, rendered in the Anustubh metre; it contains 32 karikas in Sanskrit. It was first commented upon by Siddharsi of Nivrttikula (c. A. D. 870-920)2. Jinesvara suri, later looked upon as the patriarch of the Kharatara-gaccha, had selected the opening karika of the Nyayavatara for composing his Slokavartika (better known as Prama-laksma or Pramana-laksana) with an autocommentary early in the second quarter of the 11th century A. D. Likewise, Santi suri, a disciple of Vardhamana suri (probably of the Purnatalla-gaccha), also chose the same karika of the Nyayavatara and composed his vartikas with an auto-commentary in c. A. D. 1100-1110. And Devabhadra, disciple of acarya Hemacandra of Harsapuriya-gaccha, wrote the tippana on the vivrtti of Siddharsi in early 12th century A. D. All above-noted scholiasts had belonged to the Svetambara sect. The Nyayavatara, though attributed to Siddhasena Divakara, contains in its fabric no indication as to its authorship, nor does its style in general accord with Siddhasena Divakara's as its comparison with his available 21 (out of the original 32) dvatrimlikas indicates. While the dvatrimisikas uniformly betray the characteristic style of Siddhasena, the Nyayavatura, 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 Divakara's dvatrimsikas 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 Divakara's works and had copiously cited from his several, failed to quote from the Nyayavatara. Among them Mallavadi in his svopajna-bhasya (autocommentary) on the karikas of his Dvadasara-nayacakra (c. mid 6th century A. D.), Jinabhadra gani ksamasramana in his (incomplete) auto-commentary (c. A. D. 588 or

Page #2
M. A. Dhaky Nirgrantha 594) on his Vises=Avasyaka-bhasya (c. A. D. 585), Simhasura ksamasramana in his commentary (c. A. D. 675) on the afore-noted sa-bhasya Dvadasara-nayacakra, Kottarya vadi gani in his commentary (complementary to Jinabhadra's, C. A. D. 700-725) on the Vises= Avasyaka-Bhasya, and Gandhahasti Siddhasena in his commentary (c. A. D. 760770) on the sa-bhasya-Tattvarthadhigama-sutra of Vacaka Umasvati (c. A. D. 375-400) are the more notable. On prima facie grounds, therefore, the authorship as well as the date of the Nyayavatara poses a twin problem that needs fresh investigation. Had Siddhasena Divakara been the author, the known earliest commentator of the Nyayavatara, Siddharsi, would surely have so noted. But he is dumb on this point. The earlier of the two vartikakaras, Jinesvara suri, ascribes the work to adya-suri at the beginning of his commentary and to purvacarya at the end. Obviously, to him the author was anonyinous or unknown, though doubtless an earlier Nirgrantha logician. It is the subsequent vartikakara, santi suri, who uses such phrases as Siddhasenarka 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 santi suri whether this Siddhasena bore the epithet 'Divakara'. Seemingly, some sort of confounding at interpreting his source may have led Sariti suri 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 tai' of his monastic order, might have been Siddhasena, which is perhaps why santi suri does not qualify his Siddhasena as 'Divakara'.) The ascription of the Nyayavatara to Siddhasena Divakara 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 Nyayavatara 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 Nyayavatara is in point of fact sharply divided into three major camps : The first unhesitatingly ascribing it to Siddhasena Divakara 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 Svetambara 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.... Divakara 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 Nayayavatara 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 Divakara; 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 Svetambara. 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 Nayayavatara is terse and concise work, a mere dvatrimsika. With regard to size, then, it does not favourably compare with the works of the great Buddhist philosophers, logicians, and epistemologists such as Dinnaga and Dharmakirti. However, it does succeed in neatly codifying the main features of the Nirgranthist position on pramana (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 pramana 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 Vaisesika, the Nyaya, etc., the Nyayavatara largely has served the purpose. Coming back to the question. Had the Nyayavatara been authored by a luminary like Siddhasena Divakara, 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 Nyayavatara 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 pramana, 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 Nyayavatara 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 Nyayavatara 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 Nyayavatara with the works of Dinnaga, the founder of the systematic school of the Buddhist logic. Malwaniya, in the comparisons he instituted of the Nyayavatara with the works of other ancient and pre-medieval authorities, has included Dinnaga's famous works such as the Pramanasamuccaya, the Nyayamukha, and the Nyayapravesa. While he has drawn attention to certain similarities, as also the reflected thinkings of (and even oppositions to) Dinnaga's statements and views in the Nyayavatara, 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 Nyayavatara with Dinnaga's famous works : 1. Dinnaga has qualified the parartha-anumana with two characteristics, namely the lietu-vacana and the paksad-vacana. Both are included in the karika 13 of the Nyayavatara 2. The refutation of the karika 1. 23 of Dinnaga's Pramanasamuccaya is in the karika 28 of the Nyayavatara??. 3. The first foot of the karika 10 of the Nyayavatara is an adoption, with very slight" change, of Dinnagas. The Nyayavatara thus seems posterior to the works of Dinnaga (c. A. D. 480-540) and hence subsequent to c. A. D. 550. It cannot, therefore, be the work of Siddhasena Divakaraa Further weight to this surmise is lent by the wording of the first plirase of the opening verse of the Nyayavatara (Pramanam svaparabhasi) 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-vibhasakam, yatha pramanam buddhi-laksanam). Also, Mukhtar has demonstrated that the influence of Patrakesari alias Patrasvami, a Digambara epistemologist of note of the second (or first half of the seventh century A. D., is discernible on the definition of the anumana-pramana (cognition by inference) figuring in the Nyayavatara; moreover, the first foot of the karika 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 Patrasvami's (Patrakesari's) Trilaksanakadarthana cited by the Buddhist scholiast santaraksita 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 pramana in the opening karika of the Nyayavatara 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 karika 9 of the Nyayavatara is the wholesale appropriation of the verse 9 of the Ratnakarandaka ascribed to Yogindra by Vadiraja of Dravida Sanigha in Karnatadesa (A. D. 1025) and to Samantabhadra by Prabhacandra (c. A. D. 1050), probably of the Mula Saingha, in Malavadesa. 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 Nyayavatara is posterior to the first half of the seventh century A.D. This is further confirmed by the use of the term abhranta (inerrant) and the truths consequently emerging therefroin in the karikas 5-7 of the Nyayavatara. For abliranta, in lieu of the earlier term avyabhicari as one of the qualificatory as well as requisite attribute of the pratyaksa-pramana, was popularised (even perhaps revived, if Asanga and Maitreyanatha, c. 4th century A. D., had employed it) by Dharinakirti. The influence of the imposing figure of Dharmakirtis in the field of epistemology was all-pervasive since the days he wrote his famous Pramanavartika, tlie Nyayabindu, and other cognate works. The author of the Nyayavatara 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 Nyayavatara is posterior to Dinnaga, Samantabhadra, Kunarila, Yogindra, and Patrakesari, little wonder if he were also familiar with Dharmakirti'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 Nyayavatara 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 Nyayavatara has to be placed after the first half of the eighth century. And now we may look at the vivitti of Siddharsi. As noted in the beginning, Siddharsi does not ascribe the Nyayavatara to Siddhasena Divakara or to a different Siddhasena or for that matter to any other author. Nor does he mention it as a composition of a purvacarya, vrddhacarya, or some cirantanacarya. Also, in his verse by verse exposition, he nowhere uses qualificatory phrases such as the sastrakara, sutrakara, karikakara, acarya, etc., which may have denoted a second, an earlier revered personage, as the karikas' author. And had the original author been Siddhasena Divakara, the five

Page #6
M. A. Dhaky Nirgrantha centuries intervening between him and Siddharsi would probably have given rise to the pathantaras 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 karikas' 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 Nyayavatara : 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 sastrakara etc.; which is also why he avoids salutation to the author. Since Siddharsi 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 pramana 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 karika 2 of the Nyayavatara, to Mahamati (Siddhasena Divakara) by Yakinisunu Haribhadra suri (active c. A. D. 745-785) in his Astaka. And the karika 4 figures as a part of the Saddarsana-samuccaya of the same Haribhadra suris. Since Haribhadra suri ascribed the particular verse (karika 2) co Siddhasena Divakara, it must be so. However, this karika could be orginally from some dvatrimsika, one of the lost" 11 of Siddhasena Divakara, perhaps the Pramana-dvatrimisika, from which Gandhahasti Siddhasena quotes in his sa-bhaysa-Tattvarthadhigama-sutra-vrtti *. The karika 4 in the Saddarsana-samuccaya may likewise have been taken from one of the unavailable dvatrimsikas of Divakara. Alternatively, if that verse is Haribhadra's own, Siddharsi must have borrowed it from the Saddarsana. 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 Siddharsi : Why not, then, one of them could be the author of the Nyayavatara ? 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 Vadi-Vetala santi suri of the Tharapadragaccha in his Sukhobodha-vrtti (c. A. D. 1020-1030) on the Uttaradhyayana-sutra, differs in terms of style as well as content from Divakara's as well as Siddharsi's. The writings of Siddhasena ksamasramana (c. A. D. 575-625), a disciple most probably of the illustrious Jinabhadra gani ksamasramana, 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 darsanika pundit as is clear from his voluminous vitti on the sa-bhasya Tattvarthadhigama-sutra43. He could have composed the Nyayavatara. 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 vivitti. This negative but none the less significant evidence precludes the possibility of his being the author of the Nyayavatara. 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 Simhasura (c. A.D. 675) refers to the Nyayavatara alongwith the Sanmati (and hence the Nyayavatara is implied to be the work of Siddhasena Divakara.) However, what Simhasura refers to in that context is the Nayavatara, not the Nyayavataras. It seems that Divakara 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 pramana. I have elsewhere suggested that the two citations in prose figuring in Simhasura's commentary as of Siddhasena's *8 could have come from this lost work, the Nyayavatara : i. "Asti-bhavati-vidyati-padyati-vartatayah sannipata sasthah satt-arthah itya-visesen oktvat Siddhasenasurina." ii "Tathacacarya Siddhasena aha-yatra hyartho vacam yabhicarati nabhidhanan tat' iti'." Once more, though not sufficiently strong, indication comes from the so-called Vardhamana sakra-stava ascribed, though wrongly, to Siddhasena Divakara in the Svetambara Church. It reflects soine of the tendencies paralleled in the composition of the Nyayavatara. 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 'Siddharsist 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 Santi suri had ascribed the Nyayavatara to Sidhlasena. in recent years, I had chances to discuss the problems of the date and authorship of the Nyayavatara 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 Nyayavatara as the work of Siddhasena Divakara, and had vigorously argued in favour of that stand in his stimulating Introduction to the Nyayavatara-vartika

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 Nyayavatara with this commentary are available. The details of these publications are as follows: i) Ed. S.C. Vidyabhusana, Nyayavatara (First edition), Calcutta 1909; (Second Edition), Sacred books of the Jaina Society, Arrah 1915. Also incorporated in A.N. Upadhye, Siddhasena's Nyayavatara and other works, Bombay 1971, pp. 30-107. ii) Ed. Pt. Bhagwandas Harakhchand, Nyayavatarah, Ahmedabad 1917. The Tippana of Devabhadra is included in this edition. The text alone has been published alongwith Divakara's other works in JDPS, Bhavnagar 1909. 3. Pramalaksanam, Ahmedabad 1927. 4. Ed. Pt. Dalsukh Malwaniya, Nyayavataravartika-vrtti of Sri Sanci Suri, (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 karika of the Vartika (ibid., pp. 5 and 11). 9. ibid., p. 13. (Naityaha-'siddha senarkasutritam iti / Siddhasena eva jagaj =jantu- manomoha santatitamasitanah samuhrapoha-karitvat arka iva arkah tena sutritam). 'Arka' here is not in the sense of 'Divakara' but 'essence.') 10. Ibid., p. 107. 11. "Sri-Siddhasena Divakara-na Samaya.no Prasna" (Gujarati), Bharatiya Vidya, Pt. III, Bombay 1945. 12. "Prastavana," Nyayavataru., p. 141. 13. "Upodghat," Dvatrimsaddvatrimsikah, Ed. Vijaysusilasuri, 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 Jyotirvindabharana. In 1909, he made him contemporary with (the Aulikara monarch) Yasodharma of Malava (c. early 6th century A. D.) whom he identified with Vikramaditya. 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 masramana (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 abhranta he used in the Nyayavatara. 16. In his 'Introduction to the Nyayavatara, Bombay 1928. He takes him to be Digambara if identified with the ksapanaka (of the Jyotirvindabharana). 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 Nyayavatara 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. "Sanmatisutra aur Siddhasena" (Hindi), Jaina Sahitya aur Itihasa par Visada Prakasa, Calcutta 1956, pp. 538-543. 21. "Prstabhumi," Jaina Nyaya (Hindi), Calcutta-Delhi 1966, pp. 19-21. 22. "Parisista 2," Jaina Darsana aur Pramanasastra parisilana, 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 "Upodghata" (Gujarati) to Dvatrimsaddvatrimsikah, Botad 1977, pp. 14-16. 25. This problem has been discussed in my Introduction in Gujarati (with Jitendra Shah) to Siddhasena's 21st hymn to be shortly published. 26. Malwaniya, Nyayavatara, "Parisista 1, Nyayavataraki Tulana," pp. 292-293. 27. Ibid., p. 294. 28. Ibid., p. 291. 29. There is no unanimous agreement on the date of Dinnaga 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 Itihasa., p. 46. 31. His "Parisista 1," lbid., p. 287. 32. Mukhtar, "Sanmatisutra.," 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 Nyayavatara, Malwaniya of course then had noted that Akalanka had made a fair use of the Nyayavatara. The position is now reversed. 38. Malwaniya, pp. 287-288. 39. Ibid., p. 288. 40. Tattvarthadhigamasutra, 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-sutra of Jinabhadra. Citations from his works also figure in the Nisitha-curni of Jinadasa 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 "Upodghata," p. 20. 46. "purvacarya-viracitesu sanmati-Nayavataradisu nayasastresu" : Cf. Ed. Muni Jambuvijaya, "Prakkathana," 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, Bhakramara, Kalyanamandira and Namiuna, SDLJPFS No. 79, Surat 1932, p. 243. It has been edited also by J. Mukhtar, "Siddhasenka Siddhisreyasamudaya stotra" (Hindi), Anekanta 1/8-9-10, pp. 499-504. Also, it has been edited by Muni Kirtiyasavijaya (with translation in Gujarati ) in the Arhannamaskaravali, 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. OM namo'rhate sarvadevamayAya sarvadhyAnamayAya sarvajJAnamayAya sarvatejomayAya sarvamaMtramayAya sarvarahasyamayAya sarvabhAvAbhAvajIvAjIvezvarAya arahasyarahasyAya aspRhaspRhaNIyAya acintyacintanIyAya akAmakAmadhenave asaGkalpitakalpadrumAya acintyacintAmaNaye caturdazarajjvAtmakAjIvalokacUDAmaNaye caturazItilakSajIvayoniprANinAthAya paramArthanAthAya anAthanAthAya jIvanAthAya devadAnavamAnavasiddhasenAdhinAthAya // 8|| 51. lokottamo niSpratimastvameva, tvaM zAzvataM maGgalamapyadhIza ! ! tvAmekamarhan ! zaraNaM prapadye, siddharSisaddharmamayastvameva // 1 //