Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

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

Page 16

XV
(See Dr. BIRWE's learned Introduction and our General Editorial for the ed. of the sākațāyana Vyākaraņa published by the Bhāratīya Jñānapīķha). Srutasāgara says that they read Kalpa (-sūtra). The titles of some other texts, which the Yāpanīyas accepted as authoritative, may also be gathered from the commentary of Aparājita on the (Bhagavatī) Arādhanā. In short, some of the works, which are looked upon today as Svetāmbara Āgamas, were acceptable to Yāpanīyas.
A good deal of sectarian sentiment has coloured most of the studies about Siddhasena. Negative evidence is freely used; plenty of ‘if 's and 'why not’s are employed; and some of the evidence, which does not support a preconceived notion, is just explained away.
That Siddhasena Divākara was a Yāpanīya and that he hailed from the South, especially Karņāțaka, fully explain many a detail, both positive and negative.
i) Haribhadra, as an exponent of Syādvāda, did not fail to recognise the value of the Sanmati; but he clearly stated that its author was or called himself Śrutakeyalin, i.e., he belonged to the Yāpanīya Sangha.
ii) As Siddhasena belonged to the Yāpanīya Sangha, his Sanmati-sutra did not find any mention in the Prabandhas, because it showed certain differences from the Ardhamāgadhī canon. That it was in Prākrit and did not contain 32 verses are no sufficient and satisfactory reasons, as noted above, to omit it.
iii) Divākara's opinion on the relation between Darsana and Jñāna in a Kevalin is that of abheda, to be distinguished from yugapad (held by Kundakunda etc.) and krama (held by Jinabhadra etc). In operational effect abheda and yugapad are nearer to each other than to krama, though two different words are