________________
1 SIDDHASENA DIVĀKARA
15
Moreover even supposing that Siddhasena had before him Dharmakirtř while writing all this, the question remains as to who was before him when he wrote in the sixth verse of his Nyaya vatar "न प्रत्यक्षमपि भ्रान्त प्रमाणत्वविनिश्चयात्' (न्यायावतार verse 6). It cannot be Dharmakirti for obvious reasons. For Dharmakirti has already added the word Abhrānta in the definition of Pratyakşa. Siddhasena must have, therefore, directed his argument against somebody else, and that somebody must be such a person as would not admit the necessity of the word Abhrānta in the definition of perception. Such authors as can be safely regarded as the opponents of Siddhasena are Vasubandhu, Dinnāga and Sankaraswami. The Bauddhas of the school of Vijñānavāda do not admit Pratyakşa as Abhrānta while Bauddhas of the Sautrāntika school do qualify Pratyaksa by the word Abhrānta. From all this, it can be easily concluded that Siddhasena had in his mind these two schools of Bauddhas when he made his definition of Pratyakşa. As has been already remarked, the Sautrāntika school of logic existed before Dharmakirti. If, therefore, Siddhasena can be placed before Dharmakīrtion the strength of other evidence, it has to be admitted that the statements about Pratyaksa and Anumāna made by Siddhasena were directed against the Bauddhas of the Sautrāntika school. Dharmakirti was certainly not the person who was in the mind of Siddhasena at the time of writing these definitions.
The ninth verse of Nyāyāvatāra beginning with the words -1719 ATCASETT" occur in the Ratnakarandaka
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
