Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

Author(s): Siddhasena Divakar, Vinayvijay, A N Upadhye
Publisher: Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal

Page 101

*70
Siddhasena and his Works
the middle of the 6th century or a little earlier. The Prabandhas about Siddha sena do not mention the Sanmati.
According to the Prabandhas, Siddhasena composed 32 Dvā.s, but only 21, or 22 if Nyāyāvatāra is included, are available. Every one of them has not got 32 verses. The flrst 5 Dvā.s are in praise of Mahāvīra and are influenced by the Svayambhūstotra of Samantabhadra. The 11th Dvā is in praise of some king; and according to Dr. HIRALALAJI, he is Chandragupta Vikramāditya. The Dvā.s 6 and 8 are samīkņātmaka; and the rest of them deal with different Darśanas. There are different opinions in these. Vedavāda-dvā describes Brahman in the Upanişadic language. The Niścaya-dvā shows that Mati and Sruta are abhinna so also Avadhi and Manaḥparyāya. Here Jīva and Pudgala alone are recognised as Dravyas. The colophon of this Dvā describes the author as dveșya-sitapata. The Dvā.s 1, 2 and 5 subscribe to the yugapad view as against the abheda of the Sanmati. On account of such differences it cannot be held that all the Dvā.s are composed by one and the same Siddhasena. They are important from the point of view of logical exposition. Some of them have been composed earliar than Pūjyapāda who quotes a portion of a verse from Dvā 3 in his Sarvārthasiddhi. Haribhadra and Malayagiri refer to one Siddhasena who held the Yugapad view: may be that he is the author of the Dvā.s.
The Nyāyāvatāra contains 32 verses and hence looked upon as one of the Dvā.s. It is one of the important and the earliest manuals on Nyāya. As to its contents, it accepts two Pramāņas, Pratyakşa and Parokşa, the latter includes Anumāna and Agama. Pratyakşa and Anumāna have two types each, Svārtha aud Parārtha. Pramāņa cannot be bhrānta. Hetu is the basis of Anumāņa. Lastly Āgama is required to be founded on Syādvāda. Haribhadra had written a commentary on the Nyāyāvatāra from which he has included a verse (No. 4) in his Şaddarsanasamuccaya (No. 56); so the Nyāyāvatāra was composed earlier than the 8th century. It takes the definition of the Agama from the Ratnakarandaka and the definition anyathānupa-pannatva of the Hetu from Pātrakesari; therefore the Nyāyāvatāra could not be assigned to earlier than 7th century. Commentaries on this work have been written by Haribhadra, Siddharşi and Devabadra. Taking