________________
INTRODUCTION
XOVI
These two verses are quoted by Sānti Suri in his Pramanakalika änd by Vädin Dera Suri in his Syndvādaratnā. kara (pt. I, p. 92). On p. 93 of the latter work there are three other verses. Are they also from the pen of this very Samantabhadra? Whether this Samantabhadra is a Jainas or a Bauddhas, remains to be finally ascertained.
Süldhascna, He is refered to in the com. (p. 52) on Nandi. As stated there he believes that kevala-jñeira and kevala-darsand are not identical though they co-exist,* and so he is different from Siddhasena Divākara.
Siddhasena, a Nitikäras There is another Siddhasena, a non-Jaina, probably a Vaidika. He along with the following nine other non-Jaina writers is mentioned in Dharmabindu (IV, s. 6-20)
“अथाभिधीयते योऽयं शब्दात्मा विदितः सताम् ।
चेतनोऽचेतनश्चायमित्यमभ्युपगमो मम ॥ सिद्धयत्वेप तवायुष्मन्निःप्रत्यूहतया यतः।
विवादोन च नामास्ति नाम्नि वस्तुपरीक्षिणाम् ।
कश्चिन्न कचिदाचष्टे राममन्यस्तु रावणम् ॥" 3 Sukhlal in his foreword (pp. 8-9) to Akalarkagranthatraya says: (i) Digambara Samantabhadra is later than Pujyapada; for,
Vidyānanda in his Āptapariksiä and Astasahasrā. say that Aptanimāńzsű was composed with a view to corroborating the
aptatva praised by Pujyapāda. (ü) Samantabladra is probably the vidyāguru of Akalanka, (ii) In Sar värthasiddhi of Pujyapada there is no mention-moh
less the exposition of saptabhangi so well expounded by
Samanta bhadra. (iv) Patrssvāmin referred to by Såntarakşita in Pattvasangraha
is perhaps this very Samantabhadra. In connection with the last point I may say that Pâtrasyāmin is mentioned in the Panjikā (p. 405 ) by Kamalasila and not in
Tattvasangraha by Santarakzita. 3 In Vadanyāya (p. 3) we have: "T: HTT".
Umāsvāti bolds tbis viow. Vide bis Bhāsya (p. 110) on TS (1, 31). The author of Süyaradacunni, too, is of the same opinion.
Soo its p. 97. 5 In Sarvodarsanasangraha (p. 52) the verse gas NEO occurring in
Anyayoga yavacchedadvätrinsika of Hemaoandra is quoted with the words and fac e rto." Is this not a slip? 13