Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

SR No.: 003992
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Siddhasena Divakar, Vinayvijay, A N Upadhye
Publisher: Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal
Publication Year: 1971
Total Pages: 376
Language: Sanskrit, Hindi
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 24 MB

Page 61

*30
Siddhasena and his Works
4) In the Niscaya-dvā., No. 19 (13, 17) Srutajñāna is not accepted as different from Mati; likewise difference in Manahparyāya and Avadhi is refuted. This is contradictory to what is said in the Sanmati (3, 19, 26-8).
This Drā. must have been composed by some Siddasena other than the author of the Sanmati. Likewise the author of the Nyāyāvatāra (8, 9, 30) who accepts Sruta and Mati as distinct is different from that of the Niscaya-dvā. Pt. SUKHALAL explains this by saying that Siddhasena is giving traditional view in one text and his independent view in another. Such explanations are based on the presumption of common authorship which is not proved at all. An independent thinker cannot be a traditionalist at the same time.
5–6) The enumerative pattern of jñāna, darśana and cāritra in the Niscaya-dvā. (19.1) is different from that in the Tattvārthasūtra and inconsistent with the Sanmati (II. 32-3, III. 44). Some other views in the Niscaya-dvă are inconsistent with those in other Dvā.s (1.29, 17.27; cf. also 19.24 with the Sanmati (III.32-4). Thus Niscaya-dvā contains views which are not consistent with the Sanmati and Nyāyāvatāra. In some Mss., at the end of Niscaya-dvā, Siddhasena is qualified dveşya-sitapata, perhaps by some intolerant copyist. Thus it cannot be attributed to the author of the Sanmati.
7) The Nyāyāvatāra is composed centuries later than the Sanmati-sútra, because it shows the influence of Pātrasvāmi (later than Samantabhadra) as well as Dharmakirti and Dharmottara. JACOBI has pointed that Dharmakirti added the word abhrānta in Dinnāga's definition of Pratyakşa, and this is followed by Siddhasena. Likewise his definition of anumāna shows the influence of Pātrasvāmi who is quoted by Akalanka and Vādirāja.
In the light of the known dates of Dharmakīrti (625-50 A.D.) Dharmottara (725-750 A. D.), Pātrasvāmi (3rd quarter of the 7th century of the Vikrama era), the author of the Nyāyāvatāra cannot be identical with that of the Sanmati who is earlier than V. Sam. 666. The explanation that abhrānta or avyabhicări was in vogue even before Dharmakīrti is hardly satisfactory for a number of reasons. Thus Nyāyāvatāra and some Drā.s cannot be ascribed to Siddhasena, the author of Sanmati.