Digambar Parampara Me Acharya Siddhasena - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Digambar Parampara me Acharya Siddhasena" by Kailashchandra Shastri, focusing on Acharya Siddhasena within the Digambara tradition:

The article by Kailashchandra Shastri explores the significant position and recognition of Acharya Siddhasena within the Digambara Jain tradition, aiming to demonstrate that his respect was not always as diminished in the Digambara tradition as it might appear today compared to the Shvetambara tradition.

Early Mentions and Recognition:

Akalaṅka-deva: The earliest mention of Siddhasena in available Digambara literature is found in Akalaṅka-deva's Tattvartha Vārtika. Akalaṅka, while explaining the meaning of the word 'iti' in a verse from the Tattvartha Sutra, cites the example of Shri Datta and Siddhasena, implying their importance. Shri Datta is described as a great Digambara Acharya who defeated sixty-two debaters. The fact that Akalaṅka remembers Siddhasena alongside Shri Datta suggests their significant contemporary or predecessor status.
Jinasena Acharyas: Both Jinasena Acharyas of the 9th century Vikram era, authors of the Harivamsa Purana and the Mahapurana (Adipurana), respectively, remembered Siddhasena among their revered predecessors.
- The Harivamsa Purana lists Siddhasena alongside other prominent Digambara Acharyas like Samantabhadra, Devanandi, and Vajrasuri. The author praises Siddhasena's teachings as being as illuminating to the wise as the teachings of Rishabhadeva himself, even suggesting a higher regard for Siddhasena's suktis (wise sayings) than for Samantabhadra's.
- The Adipurana also includes Siddhasena in its list of revered Acharyas, mentioning him first, followed by Samantabhadra, Shri Datta, and others. This highlights Siddhasena's elevated status.

Siddhasena's Sanmati Sutra and its Impact:

The Adipurana specifically refers to Siddhasena's Sanmati Sutra (or Sanmati Tark), comparing Siddhasena to a lion among debaters, with his teachings of naya (perspectives) as his mane and his logical arguments (vikalpa) as his sharp claws. The Sanmati Sutra, while focusing on anekanta (non-absolutism), extensively discusses naya and saptabhangi (the sevenfold logic) in its first section, and the nature of knowledge and perception in its second. The emphasis on logic in these discussions is noted.
Virēna-svāmi's Commentary: Virēna-svāmi, a disciple of Jinasena, in his Dhavala and Jayadhavala commentaries, respectfully quotes verses from Siddhasena's Sanmati Sutra when explaining nayavāda. Virēna-svāmi considers the Sanmati Sutra as authoritative (agama-pramana).
The Abhedavāda (Non-Duality) Debate: A significant point of discussion is Siddhasena's concept of the non-duality of keval-jnana (omniscience) and keval-darshana (perfect perception) in the second chapter of the Sanmati Sutra. This concept was contrary to both the gradualist Shvetambara tradition and even the simultaneousist Digambara tradition.
- While Shvetambaras, like Jinabhadragani Kshamashraman, criticized this view, Virēna-svāmi, despite accepting the Sanmati Sutra as authoritative, did not accept this non-dualistic interpretation. He discussed it "sweetly" but ultimately rejected it.
- The author notes the interesting phenomenon of accepting a text as authoritative while rejecting specific doctrines within it, and still honoring the author.

Influence on Later Digambara Scholars:

Akalaṅka-deva's Influence: Akalaṅka-deva is seen as a confluence of Samantabhadra's and Siddhasena's teachings. While he wrote a commentary on Samantabhadra's Aptamimamsa, he also incorporated and accepted logical arguments established by Siddhasena in his other works.
- Nayavāda: Siddhasena is identified as a proponent of shad-naya-vada (the theory of six perspectives), differing from the traditional sapta-naya-vada by not considering naigama as a separate naya. Akalaṅka, in his Tattvartha Vārtika, discusses naya and saptabhangi, treating dravyarhtika and paryayartika as foundational and referencing six nayas. In his Laghiyastraya, he adopts verses from the Sanmati Sutra when discussing naigama.
- Abheda of Quality and Modification (Gunaparyaya Abheda): Siddhasena's concept of the non-difference between a quality (guna) and its manifestation (paryaya) in the third chapter of Sanmati is also discussed. Akalaṅka, in his Tattvartha Vārtika, addresses this by proving the existence of qualities based on scriptural authority and then stating "guna eva paryayah" (quality is indeed modification), aligning with Siddhasena's view. Akalaṅka's explanation for the term "gunaparyayavad dravyam" (substance endowed with qualities and modifications) is to refute non-Jain views that separate qualities from substance, clarifying that modifications are changes in substance and qualities are not fundamentally different.
Vidyānanda and Siddhasena: Vidyānanda, a follower and commentator of Akalaṅka, also engaged with Siddhasena's ideas.
- In his Tattvartha Shloka Vārtika, Vidyānanda briefly discusses nayavāda, referring readers to the Naya Chakra for detailed explanations. The author speculates this might be Mallavadi's Naya Chakra.
- Vidyānanda, however, did not accept Siddhasena's shad-naya-vada, arguing that naigama does not fit within the other nayas. He criticizes those who consider only sangraha and subsequent nayas as the primary ones. The term "prapareekshakaih" (examiners) is possibly a reference to Siddhasena due to his establishment of the six naya theory based on examination.
- Regarding the non-duality of quality and modification, Vidyānanda, while acknowledging it, presented a nuanced interpretation of the phrase "gunavad dravyam" (substance endowed with quality) as signifying sahānekaanta (simultaneous non-absolutism) and "paryayavad dravyam" (substance endowed with modification) as signifying kramānekaanta (sequential non-absolutism). This distinction between simultaneous and sequential aspects of anekanta is considered significant.
- Despite these disagreements, Vidyānanda clearly shows respect for Siddhasena by quoting a verse from his Sanmati Sutra in his work, highlighting Siddhasena's contribution to logical reasoning (hetu-vada).
Sumatideva, the Commentator:
- Sumatideva, an Acharya predating or contemporary with Akalaṅka, is praised in the Shravanabelgola inscription.
- Vadiraja, in his Parshvanatha Charita, praises "Sanmati" for elaborating upon it for the benefit of those trapped in the cycle of birth. This "Sanmati" is likely Siddhasena's work, and "Sanmati" may be a poetic reference to Sumatideva himself, meaning "good mind" or "good intention."
- Buddhist philosopher Shantarakshita criticizes a Digambara scholar named Sumati in his works, likely referring to Sumatideva and his commentary on Sanmati.
- The author concludes that Sumatideva, possibly from the 7th century Vikram era, wrote a commentary on Siddhasena's Sanmati. This commentary's loss and the subsequent emergence of Shvetambara Acharya Abhayadeva's commentary might have led to the Sanmati Sutra being perceived as primarily a Shvetambara text within the Digambara tradition.

Other Works and Recognition:

Siddhasena is also credited with some Sanskrit dvātrinśatikā (thirty-two-verse compilations). Verses from these are quoted by Pūjyapāda in his Sarvartha Siddhi, Akalaṅka in his Tattvartha Vārtika, and Virēna-svāmi in his Jayadhavala. This indicates that some of these dvātrinśatikās were accepted in the Digambara tradition from the 6th century onwards.
The Nyayāvatāra, also attributed to Siddhasena, is considered the first text on logic in Jain tradition. However, the author notes some inconsistencies and lack of acceptance for it within the Digambara tradition, thus not elaborating further on the associated disputes.

Conclusion:

Acharya Siddhasena is highly regarded in the Digambara tradition, primarily for his philosophical masterpiece, the Sanmati Sutra or Sanmati Tark. His logical acumen and the influence of his teachings on subsequent Digambara scholars like Akalaṅka and Vidyānanda are evident, even when some of his specific doctrines were debated or rejected. The article emphasizes that his historical stature within the Digambara lineage was significant and should not be overlooked.