________________
148
INTRODUCTION
identity of Darśana and Jõāna; but incidentally Siddhasena has also advanced his own doctrine of the identity of Jñana and Sraddhã. The remarkable feature of this second chapter is the identity of Darśana and Jñana, as well as of Ŝraddhā and Jñāna. Hari Bhadra who wrote a commentary on Nandi Sūtra on the lines of Cũrạis, Abhayadeva, the commentator of nine Angas and Malayagiri who followed him ascribe Saha-Vada ( simultaneity of Darśana and Jñāna) to Siddhasena and attribute Abheda-Vāda to Vțddhācārya. The commentator of Sanmati, however, our present Abhayadeva, regardsSiddbasena as the advocate of Abheda-Váda. In this respect, it is proper to regard Abhayadeva as an authority and not Hari Bhadra or Malayagiri. The following are the three reasons why we should regard Abhayadeva as a more reliable authority :
1. After the refutation of Krama-Vāda and Saha Vāda, Siddhasena has consistently supported the doctrine of Abheda (i. e, oneness or identity) upto the end of the chapter
2. Abhayadeva being the commentator of Sanmati had inherited naturally the legacy of the commentaries preceding his work. All these commentaries he had studied critically. Naturally, therefore, his statement must be regarded as having greater authority than that of Hari Bhadra.
3. Siddhasena is regarded, according to Jaina tradition, as the advocate of Abheda-Vāda. Yasovijayaji also is quite definite on this point, Siddhagena thus is the advocate of Abheda-Vāda and has devoted the whole of
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
