Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

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

Page 72

Siddhasena and his Works
Aptamīmāṁsā 102). A verse nayāstava etc. occurring in the Svayambhu-stotra of Samantabhdra is attributed by Abhayadeva to Siddhasena. The object of these two teachers is the establishment of the Anekanta logic. Their works can be compared with reference to i) similar expressions; ii) style; and iii) subject matter (all these duly enumerated).
*41
As to their relative priority, Siddhasena was once assigned (in 1932) to the 5th century of the Vikrama era and now it appears that he should be assigned to the 2nd half of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th century of the Vikrama era.
It has been shown elsewhere that Samantabhadra flourished after Dharmakirti. Pūjyapāda's reference to Samanta bhdra in the Sutra catuṣṭayam Samantabhadrasya can be explained away thus: There is no evidence for there being a grammar of Samantabhadra and no confirmation of the catusṭayam is found in his available works. Under these circumstances it is possible that Pujyapāda has in view a Buddhist Samantabhadra Vyakaraṇa of Candrakirti mentioned by Budon(?). If there was any Vyakarṇa by Jaina Samanta bhdra, Sākaṭāyana and Hemacandra should
have mentioned it.
Pt. JUGALKISHORE has taken three different Siddhasenas as the authors of the Sanmati, Dvā.s and Nyāyāvatāra, and that the author of the Sanmati belonged to the Digambara tradition. All this is not acceptable to me as yet.
The Mulācāra is not an original work but a compilation. Four Gāthās from the Sanmati (2, 40-3) are found in its Samayasārādhikāra (10, 87-90). This work must have been compiled after Siddhasena. The Mulācāra contains many Gāthās from the Niryukti of Bhadrabahu. Vaṭṭakera appears to be later them 6th century of the Vikarama era.
Mallavādi who is said to have conquered the Buddhist in V. Samvat 414 appears to be the same as the author of the Dvādaśāra-nayacakra. Hemacandra describes him as a great disputant (vādi), and Abhayadeva mentions him, in his commentary on the Sanmati, as one who upheld Yugapad-upayogavāda. The entire Nayacakra is not available. Haribhadra and Yasovijaya have possbly this very Mallavādi in view. Siddhasena and Mallavādi appear to be contemporaries, may be even