Dvadasharnaychakram Part 4

Author(s): Mallavadi Kshamashraman, Labdhisuri
Publisher: Chandulal Jamnadas Shah

Page 64

13
known as 'Ksapanaka'. If so, since Siddhasena Divakara Suri alone is up till now identified with Ksapanaka, one of the nine jewels of Vikrama, there is no 'hitch' arising in believing contemporaneity of Siddhasena with Vikrama.
prestiging it with lits basis the fact ayacakra, but ne
Siddhasena Divakara Suri is traditionally believed to be the author of Nyayavatara. This tradition must have originated by identifying Nyayavatara with Nayavatara. The name "Nayavatara is mentioned along with 'Sammati', in the commentary on Nayacakra, but not the name "Nyayavatara or it may be that this tradition may have as its basis the fact that a couplet of Nyayavatara is quoted by Haribhadra Suri by prefixing it with "FETHÍCl3tat". In its commentary Jinesvara Suri may have mentioned the name of Siddhasena Suri, a veteran scholar. But it should be carefully investigated as to whether this Siddhasena Suri is some as Siddhasena Divakara or some other,
In the end of this Scripture Nayacakra, Nayavatara and not Nyayavatara is mentioned as a scientific work dealing with view-points. In Nyayavatara 'nayas' are only referred to, but not therein there is any exposition of them. In this work (Nyayavatara) only valid proofs are extensively treated So this Nyayavatara is not same as Nayavatara composed by Divakara (Suri), Its author must be other Siddhasena, 'Mahamati'. The mention of Mahamati' instead of the current word Divakara, leads us to believe that probably there must be some other Siddhasena Suri.
is not same as Nagation of Mahamati inshasena Suri.
(Vacaka) Umasvati. Tattvarthasutra composed by this Suri, is accepted by both the sects of the Jainas viz. Svetambara and Digambara. The author of Nayacakra has extracted (cited) as authorities sentence from (this) Tattvarthasutra and its bhasya (commantary) composed by the authar himself. The following sentence occurs in the available 'bhasya' (p. 118)
" 26TH 39=RETT faedaraf qaers:” According to the Svetambaras the author of this 'bhasya' is Umasvati. It seems that there must have been only this commentary Tattvarthsutra up to the time of Mallavadin Suri, Amonst the available commentaries excluding this bhasya, the earliest one is the one composed by Digambara Devanandin who is known by the name of Pujypapada' and whose date is believed to be the fifth or the sixth century of the Vikrama era. Not a single sentence from this commentary is cited by Mallavadin Suri.
This Suri (Umasvati) has said in Tattavartha (sutra ch-V) “JU 93114 ag 2074" (s. 37). It means a substance is endowed with attributes (gunas) and modifications (paryavas). Both guna and paryaya are really gunas (properties. There is no difference between them, for the author of the 'Bhasya' has said “ Tai praia qua:” (p. 427) For that very reason the commentator (Siddhasena Gani) has mentioned the succeeding and simultaneous 'bhedas' (varieties) as 'gunas And this being the opinion of the author of the 'bhasya, ) he has given ahead the characteristic of only the guna as' foarjo gut:”. (ch. V s. 40) If a praya was to be looked upon as different as a 'guna' he would have certainly defined par,yayay. This very fact is elucidated by Divakara Suri, moreover, the following ophorism of Umasavati is fostered in Sammati :
"grargatashi ta." (ch. VS. 29)
177 Juta In its commentary (p. 435) it is said :गुणग्रहणच्च मर्याया गृहीता एवत्यतो न भेदेन प्रश्नः, प्राक्च प्रतिपादितमेव गुणा: पार्याया इति चैकमिति"