Date And Authorship Of Nyayavatara

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text on the date and authorship of the Nyāyāvatāra:

The article by M. A. Dhaky critically examines the traditional attribution of the Nyāyāvatāra, a significant Jain work on logic, to Siddhasena Divākara (c. early 5th century AD). Dhaky presents a compelling case suggesting this attribution is likely incorrect and offers an alternative perspective on the work's authorship and dating.

Traditional Attribution and Its Flaws:

• Svetambara Tradition: The Svetambara tradition firmly attributes the Nyāyāvatāra to Siddhasena Divākara, a renowned Jain scholar. Many scholars have accepted this without question.
• Stylistic Discrepancies: Dhaky argues that the Nyāyāvatāra, written in Sanskrit in the Anustubh meter and comprising 32 kārikās (verses), does not exhibit the characteristic style of Siddhasena Divākara. Compared to his other known works, the Nyāyāvatāra appears less brilliant, with variations in quality and style.
• Lack of Early Citations: A significant point is the absence of quotations from the Nyāyāvatāra in the works of early Svetambara writers who were well-acquainted with Siddhasena Divākara's oeuvre. Prominent figures like Mallavadi, Jinabhadra Gani Kshamashramana, Simhaśūra, Kottarya Vadi Gani, and Gandhahasti Siddhasena, all writing between the 6th and 8th centuries AD, do not cite the Nyāyāvatāra.
• Digambara Ignorance: The Digambara tradition is completely unaware of the Nyāyāvatāra, with no quotations or commentaries found in their works. This suggests it wasn't part of their recognized canon, which would likely include works of a prominent author like Siddhasena Divākara.

Emergence of the Siddhasena Attribution:

• Siddharși's Commentary: The earliest known commentator, Siddharsi (c. 870-920 AD), is notably silent on the authorship of the Nyāyāvatāra.
• Jineśvara Sūri's Ambiguity: The first vārtikakāra (commentator who writes glosses), Jineśvara Sūri (early 11th century AD), refers to the author as "adya-sūri" and "purvācārya," indicating an unknown or anonymous earlier logician.
• Śānti Sūri's Role: It is the later vārtikakāra, Śānti Sūri (c. 1100-1110 AD), who first explicitly links the work to "Siddhasena." However, even he doesn't specifically mention "Divākara." Dhaky suggests this might stem from a misinterpretation or a confusion with another Siddhasena. The attribution to Siddhasena Divākara seems to gain traction from the early 12th century onwards.

Scholarly Divisions on Authorship and Date:

Dhaky outlines three main camps of scholars regarding the Nyāyāvatāra's authorship:

1. Attributing to Siddhasena Divākara: This view, held by scholars like Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi and Pt. Dalsukh Malwaniya, places the work in the first half of the 5th century AD or even earlier, depending on their dating of Siddhasena Divākara.
2. Attributing to Siddhasena Divākara but a Later Date: Scholars like S. C. Vidyabhusana and H. Jacobi date Siddhasena Divākara (and thus the Nyāyāvatāra) to the 6th or 7th century AD.
3. Attributing to a Different Siddhasena: Digambara scholars, including Pt. Jugal Kishor Mukhtar and Pt. Kailashchandra Shastri, attribute the work to a different, later Siddhasena, possibly from the 7th or 8th century AD.

Dhaky's Argument for a Later Date and Potential Authorship:

Dhaky's own research points to a later dating for the Nyāyāvatāra based on several factors:

• Influence of Dinnāga: The Nyāyāvatāra shows clear influences from and engagement with the works of the Buddhist logician Dinnāga (c. 480-540 AD). Specifically, it incorporates concepts like hetu-vacana and pakṣād-vacana, refutes Dinnāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya, and even adopts phrases from his works. This indicates the Nyāyāvatāra is posterior to Dinnāga, likely after c. 550 AD.
• Influence of Samantabhadra and Kumārila Bhatta: The opening verse shows correspondence with Samantabhadra (c. 600 AD). The qualification bādha-vivarjitam for pramāṇa appears to be adopted from Kumārila Bhatta (c. 575-625 AD), and this specific qualification is not found earlier in Jain, Buddhist, or Brahmanical works.
• Influence of Pātrakesari and Dharmakīrti: The definition of anumāna-pramāṇa in the Nyāyāvatāra shows influence from Pātrakesari (2nd or early 7th century AD). Furthermore, the use of the term abhrānta (inerrant) for pratyakṣa-pramāṇa, popularized by Dharmakīrti (active in the 7th century AD), suggests familiarity with his epistemology. Dhaky notes that the Nyāyāvatāra sides with Dharmakīrti rather than refuting him.
• Influence of Akalaṅkadeva: The work also shows a sense-correspondence with the Digambara dialectician Akalaṅkadeva (c. 725-760 AD), suggesting the Nyāyāvatāra is later than the first half of the 8th century AD.
• Wholesale Appropriation: Verse 9 of the Nyāyāvatāra is a direct appropriation of a verse from the Ratnākaraṇḍaka, a work whose authorship is debated between Samantabhadra and Yogīndra (both attributed around the 6th-7th century AD).
• The Case for Siddharsi as Author: Dhaky makes a bold proposal: Siddharși himself might be the author of the Nyāyāvatāra. He bases this on several observations:
  • Siddharși's silence on authorship is significant if he were commenting on a work by a renowned figure like Siddhasena Divākara.
  • Siddharși doesn't use honorifics like śāstrakāra or sūtrakāra when referring to the author.
  • The absence of variant readings in Siddharsi's commentary suggests it was not a text that had undergone significant textual transmission over centuries.
  • Siddharși does not offer obeisance to the author in his introductory or concluding verses, which is unusual for a commentator on a master's work.
  • These points, taken together, suggest that Siddharsi is referring to his own work.

Addressing Potential Objections:

• Haribhadra Sūri's Citations: Dhaky acknowledges that Haribhadra Sūri (c. 745-785 AD) attributed a verse from the Nyāyāvatāra (verse 2) to Siddhasena Divākara and included verse 4 in his Ṣaḍdarśana-samuccaya. He suggests these verses might have been from lost works of Siddhasena Divākara, or that Haribhadra and Siddharsi drew from common sources.
• Other Siddhasenas: Dhaky briefly considers other Siddhasenas who flourished between Divākara and Siddharsi but dismisses them as potential authors based on stylistic and contextual differences or the lack of evidence for their authorship of such a work.

Conclusion:

Based on the stylistic analysis, the influence of later thinkers, and the silence of early commentators, Dhaky concludes that the Nyāyāvatāra is likely posterior to the first half of the 7th century AD. While the traditional attribution to Siddhasena Divākara is questioned, Dhaky presents a significant argument for Siddharși, the commentator, as the actual author. This conclusion is supported by the evidence of Siddharsi's commentary and the lack of any clear attribution elsewhere. Dhaky also notes that Pt. Dalsukh Malwaniya, upon reviewing Dhaky's findings, has also moved towards a modified view on the date and authorship, indicating a potential shift in scholarly consensus.