________________
1 SIDDHASENA DIVĀKARA
59
sense by the author of San matiand, therefore, the verse in question cannot have anything similar in the Sanmati.
(3) In the 57th and 58th Gathas chapter 1st of Pravacanasāra of Kundakunda, the definitions of Pratyakşa and Paroksa as given by the author are obviously contrary to the current definition. After giving the definitions, the author ably defends them. As a Jaina Acārya he is the first to give satisfactory answers to the objections raised against the definitions by rival disputants. Siddhagena also in his Nyāyā vatāra (verse 4) defines the words Pratyakşa and Parokşa. He is the first Jaina logician to define these words in a manner fitting to the Jaina point of view. There is an obvious. mistake in sticking to one extreme view of a thing. In order to expose this mistake, both these authors Kundakanda and Siddhasena, have employed the same arguments (in Pravecanasāra 1. 46 and Sanmati 1. 17-18) namely that if we stick to an extreme point of view we cannot account for Mokşa (Salvation) as well as this worldly life. Samantabhandra in his advocacy of Anekanta bas advanced the same sort of argument in Swayambhū stotra verse 14. In course of time these arguments became a common stock-in-trade for all the Jaina authors to come. Kundakunda in his Pravacanasāra has discussed Dravya by taking reconrse to Anekanta view and Siddhasena in the third chapter of Sanmati has explained Jñeya ( object ) by taking his stand on the same Anekānta view. The words Sat and Asat that are used in the theory of Causation have been discussed even in
1- Sanmati 3. 8–25.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
