Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

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

Page 71

*40
Siddhasena and his Works
kara, but another Siddhasena, the disciple of Bhāsvāmi. All the quotations associated with Gandhahastin are taken from the commentary of Siddhasena, the pupil of Bhāsvāmi. Only the Prabhāvaka-carita mentions Siddhasena as Kumudacandra. Granting that Siddhasena is the author, it cannot be definitely accepted that Kumudacandra was his name.
A comparative study of the works of Siddhasena with those of other Jaina and non-Jaina authors will give a correct perspective about his indebtedness to and influence on others.
SIDDHASENA AND OTHER JAINA ĀCĀRYAS: Umāsvāti and Kunda kunda hold a high place, one writing in Sanskrit and the other in Prākrit. Both expose the scriptural tradition. Kundakunda shows more developed thought-pattern than Umāsvāti. The Buddhist Vijñāna vāda and Sūnyavāda influence is seen in Kundakunda's works, but not in Umāsvāti's Tattvārthabhāsya. This writer once held that Kundakunda was earlier than Siddhasena; but now he seems to have changed his view on the authority of Pt. MALAVANIA's findings. Kundakunda cannot be put earlier than 5th century of the Vikrama era. Siddhasena is possibly aware of the Sūtras and the commentary of Umāsvāti who is earlier than Siddhasena; and both of them have something common.
Between the works of Kundakunda and Siddhasena the are similarities of words, like the use of the word svayambhū; in style; in subject matter; and in the development of ideas: all these are duly illustrated by giving necessary contexts in the works of both the authors.
Siddhasena is earlier than Pūjyapāda. Comparison of Samantabhdra with Siddhsena is of special importance: 1) with reference to their relative priority; ii) influence of one over the other, or of any common influence; iii) a comparative estimate of their scholarly activities; iv) the way in which they have expounded the Jaina doctrines; and vii) their remarkable agreement despite difference in tradition and locality.
Both of them are held in great respect by their respective tradition as Stutikāras. Not that all the works of these two authors are available at present. Some of their verses have close agreement (Nyāyāvatāra 9, 28 and Ratnakarandaka 9 and