Nyayavatara and Nayakarnika

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

Page 81

*50
Siddhasena and his Works
cause worldly life and liberation. It is the mamatā that is the cause of misery in this world. In the Dvā 18 the subject is how to follow the instruction. The Dvā 19 deals with jñāna, darsana and cāritra. The Dvā 20 sheds light on the three-fold character of dravya. The Dvā 22 is a manual of Nyāya dealing with the logical details such as pakşa, sādhya, hetu etc. A commentary of Udayasāgara (16th century) is available on the 21st Dvā; and the famous author Siddharşi has written a commentary on the 22nd Dvā, i.e., the Nyāyāvatāra.
SUPPLEMENT—-Pt. JUGALKISHORE MUKTHAR (Anekānta, Nov.Dec. 1949, nos. 11-12) has taken exceptions to some of our views about Siddhasena Divākara and his works. As already discussed, the age of Mallavādi is tha early part of the 5th century of the Vikrama era. Siddhasena is earlier than him, and therefore he is to be assigned to the 2nd half of the 4th century A.D. Pt. JUGALKISHORE has confused between two Mallavādis.
Siddhasena is clearly indebted to some of the contexts in the canonical works, therefore he is described as Svetāmbara. If Siddhasena is mentioned in Digambara works it is because of the greatness of his works, just as Samantabhadra and Akalanka etc. are mentioned by Svetāmbara authors. It is not correct that the Niryuktis are composed in the 6th century, because there is ample evidence to show that they were still carlier. In the Anuyogadvāra there is a reference to niryukti etc. Niryukti Gāthās are found in the works of Kundakunda. They seem to be common inheritance. The canon mentions the Krama-vāda and Kundakunda mentions the Yugapad-vāda. Though Siddhasena advocated the Abheda-vāda on logical grounds, it does not mean that he denied the authority of the canon.
Pt. JUGALKISHORAJI has not correctly interpreted some of the expressions in the Dvā.s. The use of Yasodā-priya (5.6) clearly confirms that Siddhasena follows the Svetāmbara tradition. Likewise he has avoided referring to Drā, 2.3 and misconstrued Dvā (2.52. The use of yugapad by Siddhasena is not correctly underStood. Some of his arguments are not acceptable. The result of our own thought is that Samantabhadra flourished somewhere between Dharmakīrtia and Akalanka, and he is to be put in A.D.