Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

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

Page 40

Siddhasena and his Works
disputant by both Jinasenas, Vādībhasimha, Subhacandra and Viranandi.
Likewise Svetambara authors like Haribhadra, Vādideva, Hemacandra and Malayagiri have referred to and quoted him. Haribhadra has called him Vadimukhya (the svopajña commentary explains the term as Samantabhadra) in his Anekānta-jayapatākā quoting a verse bodhātmā etc. quoted by Santyācārya in his Pramāṇakalikā and by Vadideva in his Syādvāda-ratnākara in the name of Samantabhadra, but not traced in any of his known works. Another verse (nayāstava etc.) from the Svayambhu-stotra of Samantabhadra is quoted by Hemacandra (in his Sabdānusāsana) and by Malayagiri (in his Avasyakaṭīkā) attributing it to (Adya-) stutikara. Thus both Siddhasena and Samantabhadra have won respect both among Svetambaras and Digambaras.
*9
8. S.C. VIDYABHUSANA: A History of Indian Logic (Ancient, Mediaeval and Modern Schools), Calcutta 1921, pp. 173 ff. He deals with Siddhasena Divakara alias Kṣapanaka, c. 480-550. The details about Siddhasena are given more or less as in his earlier work Indian Logic: Mediaeval School. He adds here that Siddhasena Divakara seems to have been a contemporary of Jinabhadra Gani Kṣamāśramaņa (484-588 A.D.) who criticises Dvātrimsad-dvātrimsikās of which the Nyāyāvatāra is a part. Then follows a detailed exposition of the contents of the Nyāyāvatāra.
9. H. JACOBI: Samaraiccakahā, B.I., Calcutta 1925. In the Introduction, p. iii, he assigns Haribhadra to c. 750 A.D. Haribhadra quotes Jinadasa Mahattara without mentioning his name. The latter's Cūrņi on the Nandisutra was finished in 676 A.D. To about the same time belongs Siddhasena Divakara whom Haribhadra quotes: for he uses no doubt, Dharmakirti, though he does not name him. Dharmakīrti qualifies pratyakṣa only as abhrānta and Dharmottara expressedly says bhrāntam hy anumanam; while Siddhasena Divākara in his Nyāyāvatāra 5ff. claims abhrānta for pratyakṣa as well as anumana; similarly he extends the distinction of svartha and parartha, which properly applies to anumāna only, to pratyakṣa also, ibidem 12 f. Apparently he thought to improve on Dharmakirti by a wholesome generalisation of nice distinctions. Dharmakirti is to be assigned to c. 650 A.D.