Date and Authorship of Nyayavatara

Author(s): M A Dhaky
Publisher: Z_Nirgrantha_1_022701.pdf and Nirgrantha_2_022702.pdf and Nirgrantha_3_022703.pdf

Page 2

M. A. Dhaky
Nirgrantha
594) on his Višes=Āvasyaka-bhāsya (c. A. D. 585), Simhaśūra ksamāśramana in his commentary (c. A. D. 675) on the afore-noted sa-bhasya Dvādaśāra-nayacakra, Kottārya vādi gani in his commentary (complementary to Jinabhadra's, C. A. D. 700-725) on the Viseś= Avasyaka-Bhāsya, and Gandhahasti Siddhasena in his commentary (c. A. D. 760770) on the sa-bhasya-Tattvārthādhigama-sūtra of Vācaka Umāsvāti (c. A. D. 375-400) are the more notable. On prima facie grounds, therefore, the authorship as well as the date of the Nyāyāvatāra poses a twin problem that needs fresh investigation.
Had Siddhasena Divakara been the author, the known earliest commentator of the Nyāyāvatāra, Siddharsi, would surely have so noted. But he is dumb on this point. The earlier of the two vārtikakāras, Jineśvara sūri, ascribes the work to adya-sūri at the beginning of his commentary and to purvācārya at the end. Obviously, to him the author was anonyinous or unknown, though doubtless an earlier Nirgrantha logician. It is the subsequent vārtikakāra, śānti súri, who uses such phrases as Siddhasenārka sutritam and who explains at another place the phrase 'Siddhasenasya' as sutra-kartrho, so regards. Next, at one other place, in a verse, he once more projects Siddhasena as the author of the work under reference. It is, thus, from the beginning of the 12th century A. D. that the work began to be looked upon as of Siddhasena, although it was not explicitly clarified by śānti sūri whether this Siddhasena bore the epithet 'Divākara'. Seemingly, some sort of confounding at interpreting his source may have led Sariti sūri apparently to an erroneous identification (unless he had some other Siddlasena in mind) and the Svetambara church till this day, as well as several scholars of this century, lent (and still lend) an unqualified credence to that ascription. (Alternatively, Siddharsi's fuller appellation before he attained the pontifical status with the specific suffix tại' of his monastic order, might have been Siddhasena, which is perhaps why śānti sūri does not qualify his Siddhasena as 'Divakara'.)
The ascription of the Nyāyavatāra to Siddhasena Divākara had in the recent past led to erroneous conclusions both on the side of the protagonists of a late date as well as the advocates of an early date for Siddhasena Divakara, the confusion to a large extent is continuing in the writings of the present generation as well. In point of fact, the Nyāyāvatāra has proven a dead and a heavy weight on the issue of the chronological position of Siddhasena Divakara as I shall shortly show.
The opinion on the authorship of the Nyāyāvatára is in point of fact sharply divided into three major camps : The first unhesitatingly ascribing it to Siddhasena Diväkara and hence to the first half of the fifth century A. D. or even earlier, to the first century B. C., depending on the date-perception of the scholars concerned for Vikramaditya whose contemporary, according to the prabandhas, Siddlasena had been. Among them are Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi", Pt. Dalsukh Malwaniya, P. N. Dave 3, and several Svetāmbara munis. The second camp is represented by S. C. Vidyabhusana", H. Jacobi's, P. L. Vaidya! (and seemingly also perhaps Satakari Mookerjee) who do ascribe the work to Siddhasena