Nirgrantha-1

Author(s): M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre

Page 59

M. A. Dhaky
Nirgrantha
594) on his Vises Avasyaka-bhasya (c. A. D. 585), Simhasüra ksamāśramana in hist commentary (c. A. D. 675) on the afore-noted sa-bhasya Dvädaśara-nayacakra, Kottarya vādi gani in his commentary (complementary to Jinabhadra's, c. A. D. 700-725) on the Vises Avaśyaka-Bhāṣya, and Gandhahasti Siddhasena in his commentary (c. A. D. 760770) on the sa-bhasya-Tattvärthadhigama-sutra of Vacaka Umäsväti (c. A. D. 375-400) are the more notable. On prima facie grounds, therefore, the authorship as well as the date of the Nyāyāvatära poses a twin problem that needs fresh investigation.
40
Had Siddhasena Diväkara been the author, the known earliest commentator of the Nyayavatāra, Siddharsi, would surely have so noted. But he is dumb on this point. The earlier of the two värtikakäras, Jineśvara sûri, ascribes the work to ddya-süri at the beginning of his commentary and to purvācārya at the end'. Obviously, to him the author was anonymous or unknown, though doubtless an earlier Nirgrantha logician. It is the subsequent värtikakära, Sänti süri, who uses such phrases as Siddhasenärka sütritam and who explains at another place the phrase 'Siddhasenasya' as sūtra-kartṛḥ, 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 Santi sûri whether this Siddhasena bore the epithet 'Diväkara'. Seemingly, some sort of confounding at interpreting his source may have led Santi sūri apparently to an erroneous identification (unless he had some other Siddhasena in mind) and the έvetambara church till this day, as well as several scholars of this century, lent (and still lend) an unqualified credence to that ascription. (Alternatively, Siddharși's fuller appellation before he attained the pontifical status with the specific suffix 'rşi' of his monastic order, might have been Siddhasena, which is perhaps why Sänti süri does not qualify his Siddhasena as 'Diväkara'.)
The ascription of the Nyayavatara to Siddhasena Diväkara 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 Diväkara, 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 Diväkara as I shall shortly show.
The opinion on the authorship of the Nyayavatära is in point of fact sharply divided into three major camps: The first unhesitatingly ascribing it to Siddhasena Divakara 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, Siddhasena had been. Among them are Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi", Pt. Dalsukh Malwaniya", P. N. Dave", and several Svetämbara munis. The second camp is represented by S. C. Vidyabhusana", H. Jacobi's, P. L. Vaidya16 (and seemingly also perhaps Satakari Mookerjee)" who do ascribe the work to Siddhasena