________________
1J0
INTRODUCTION
other, will easily convince the reader of the truth of this statement. Not only in the Nomenclature of the work but even in the choice of the subject matter as also in the style and treatment of the works, these three works bear a close resemblance with one another. Some of the statements made by Siddhaséna in his Nyāyā vatāra? are not necessarily levelled against the statenients made in these two works. It is equally uncertain whether statements were levelled against some other Bauddha works.' From a comparative study of the discussion of Pratyaksa and Anumāna as 'occuring in Nyāya-Mukha and Nyáya-Praveśa and that occuring in. Nyágávatāra of Siddhasena, one is easily led to the conclusion that Siddhasena directed his attack against the school which was respected by Din-Nāga.
Sankara-Swami: If we are to regard the Chinese tradition and the conclusions derived therefrom to be true, then the Nyāya-Praveśa referred to above must be considered as the work of Sankara-Swāmi, who is regarded as. the disciple of Din-Nāga, We have no means available at present to decide whether this Sankara-Swāmi the supposed author of Nyāya-Pravesa is identical. with that Sankara-Swami whom Kamala-Gila, the commentator of Tattva-Sangraha and Abhayaya-Deva3
1 Statements about the absence of illusion in inference and direct perception and the two divisions of direct perception as Svarther and Parartha etc.
2 See Tattva Sangraha Parijikă p. 199 3 Sanmati-Tîkā p. 664 line 15.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
