Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

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

Page 43

Siddhasena and his Works
commentaries on the Nyāyāvatara before that of Siddharsi (A.D. 906).
The title Nyāyāvatāra seems to have been suggested by similar manuals like the Nyayapravesa of Dinnaga and Nyāyabindu of Dharamakirti. Many expressions and contexts in the Nyāyāvatāra can be justified and better interpreted only by presuming that Siddhasena has before him the works of Dharmakirti (see the Notes).
*12
12. SUKHALALAJI and BECHARDAS Sanmati-tarka and its Importance (in Gujarati) (Jaina, Silver Jubilee Number, Samvat 1985, Bhavnagar, pp. 109-121).
It is the Jaina scriptures and their study that have kept Jainism alive. The Sanmati has been valued like the Agama. What Nemicandrasuri says in his Pravacanasāroddhāra about it and its author deserves special attention. In the comm. on the Jitakalpacurni great praise is lavished on the Sanmati. Likewise Yasovijaya, Srimad Rajachandra and Atmārāmaji are highly attached to it. The term Sanmati, in the title Sanmati-tarka, refers to the name of Mahāvīra, and hence obviously indicates the greatness of this work.
The Sanmati-tarka (St) is composed in Prakrit, has three divisions (kanda), is composed in Aryās (54+43+70=167); and thus externally bears a good comparison with the Pravacanasara (Ps) of Kundakunda which has three Srutaskandhas and is composed in Prakrit Aryas (92+108+75=275). Ps devotes a section to caritra which is not touched in St. St devotes a kāṇḍa to the discussion of Nayas which the Ps does not cover at all. Ps has a concise reference to Saptabhangi which is dealt with in details in St. The catching discussion about Subha-, Asubha- and Suddha-bhavas of the Ps is not found in St. Both the works deal with jñana and jñeya, but there is obvious difference between the two. Ps explains pratyakṣa and paroksa as accepted in Jainism and the traditional view about jñāna of the Jainas, rather isolated from that in other systems. The St, however, adopts a different approach by reviewing and critcising contemporary theories about jñāna and by establishing its point of view, namely, that there is no difference between Kevala-darśana and -jñāna logically pointing out fallacies in other views. Ps. describes six Dravyas in the traditional canonical way: this has no place in St. All that St presents is the nature of Jñeya from the Jaina point of view.