Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

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

Page 41

*10
Siddhasena and his Works
. In this context another observation of JACOBI, in the same Introduction, p. xiii, deserves to be noted. Siddhasena Divākara had written a Nyāyāvatāra which unmistakably presupposes Dharmakirti's Nyāyabindu apparently intending to provide the Jainas with a manual of Logics. But it is decidedly inferior to the masterly work of Dharmakīrti, which it was designed to supersede; nor had it any lasting success. Haribhadra, however, instead of founding a logical school of the Jainas, induced them, by commenting on Dinnāga, to study the original works of Buddhist Logicians. He apparently appreciated their paramount importance, though he controverted, at great length, some logical propositions of Dharmakirti in his Anekāntajayapatākā. The interest of the Jainas in Buddhist Logics continued long after his time; we owe to it the preservation of Dharmakirti's Nyāyabindu and Dharmottara's Nyāyabindu-tākā in the original Sanskrit; for the oldest Mss. of these works and of a fragment of a commentary on the latter come from Jaina Bhandars.
10. SUKHALALAJI: Nyāyāvatāra-sūtra, Gujarati Intro., Ahmedabad Saṁv. 1983, pp. 122 f.
He controverts the opinion of H. JACOBI by instituting a comparison in details of the three works Nyāyapraveśa, Nyāyāvatāra and Nyāyabindu; and his conclusion is that even if the Nyāyāvatāra is not superior to Nyāyabindu it is in no way inferior to it. These three texts are studied putting side by side their outward and internal details. He has also marked out the stages through which the Jaina pramāņa-mīmāṁsā has developed. си, а и
11. P. L. VAIDYA: Nyāyāvatāra, Bombay 1928, Intro. pp. xi f. Siddhasena Divākara wanted to controvert the Buddhists who had perfected the science of pure logic from the point of view of their religion, and that is why he composed the Nyāyāvatāra. He presents in this manual a polemic against the Buddhists. His claim, thus, to be the first Jaina writer on pure logic is well-founded. As to his style in the Stutis, it is ornate and appears to be post-Kālidāsian; the images are characteristic of the age of Kālidāsa, Bāņa and Bhavabhūti. His discussion about Sāṁkhya, Vaišeşika etc. give no clue to his age. The doctrines presented are fragmentary; and the few of them mentioned there as belonging to these systems are the common places of the standard works on these systems as known