________________
14
INTRODUCTION
Asanga is somewhere in the middle of the fourth century A.D. It is quite clear, therefore, that this word Abhranta, its use and conception were quite well-known even before the fifth century of Vikrama era, Merely because Siddha. sen used this word, it is not at all necessary to place him after Dharmak Irti. Siddhasena may be regarded as living after Asanga, but certainly there is no objection in thinking that he lived before Dharmakirti.
Now the second argument of Jacobi is this:- -"In Nyāyāvatāra, Siddhasena has shown a difference between Swartha Pratyakṣa and Parartha Pratyakṣa. This difference has been based by him on these two kinds of inferences in Dharmakirti's work." It seems to us that this is not a sound argument, for to suppose that Siddhasena's two fold classification of perception was specially based on Dharmakirti's classification of inference is obviously without evidence. If Siddhasena would be proved as living prior to Dharmakirti on the strength of independent evidence then it would remain to be proved as to who was the person on whom this classification was based by Siddhasena. Now we know that in Vaiseṣika and Nyaya systems of logic this twofold classification of inference is found. This can also be seen clearly from such Budhist works on logic as-Nyayamukha and Nyayapravesa which are prior to Dharmakirti, Probably, therefore. Siddhasena had his eye on these two scholars of logic when he wrote his Nyāyāvatāra. There is no evidence to prove that the classification of Siddhasena was based on that of Dharmakīrti.
1 I. L. A. p. 23.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
