Pravachanasara

SR No.: 003289
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram
Publication Year: 1964
Total Pages: 612
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 16 MB

Page 96

Introduction
63
DISTINCTION BETWEEN GUNA AND PARYAYA:- This tenet of qualities and modifications as mutually distinct needs further scrutiny. Gunas are a quite usual feature of Vaiseșika system; the notion of paryāya is peculiarly Jaina, though seen in its popular sense in later Nyāya works.1 In early Jaina works, like those of Kundakunda, the notion of guņas is very simple; guņas stand, to generalise from the illustrations, for the essential differentia of a thing; but in many later works the doctrine has been much more elaborated possibly after the manner of the Vaiseșika system. The presence of an illustration in the Indian syllogism has been as much beneficial as harmful to the process of thinking; if it has forced thought to keep pace with and correspond to practical life, it has equally hindered abstract thinking which is beyond illustrations from practical life; and the consequence has been that a principle is evolved with á few illustrations in view, and the details go on increasing as fresh illustrations are met with. If this method is kept in view, we can exactly understand the distinction drawn by Kundakunda between guņa and paryāya. Sentiency or the manifestation of consciousness is the guņa of Jivasubstance; while its modifications are god-hood, man-hood etc. Corporeality (rūpitva) is the guņa of pudgala or matter, and its paryāyas are manifold like wood etc. When these primary paryāyas have in turn sub-paryāyas, the position of guņa comes to be slightly different; and we are led to the distinction something like that of the general and particular guņas. When we have further paryāyas of wood like benches, tables etc., we are not satisfied with the guņa of pudgala but we try to formulate a guna or gunas of wood, or give the differentia of wood which will help us to distinguish wood from other inanimate entities. This process thus goes on and on. Farther we proceed from matter, more the number of qualities constituting the differentia of a particular object. So there is sufficient justification for Kunda kunda to distinguish guna and paryāya.
SIDDHASENA'S OBJECTIONS STATED This view of Kundakunda is wholly accepted by Umāsvāti in his Tattvārthasūtra (V, 29, 30, 38, 41 etc.); and his work being practically a common property of Digambaras and Svetāmbaras, this view is the most popular one. But Siddhasena, who has been a champion (p. 67:] of reason and who would state whatever he finds logically valid whether the scriptures support him or not, takes a different position. He attacks the position of those who accept that colour, taste, smell and touch are independent cognisable qualities that have substance as their substratum (davvāņugayā). He says guna and paryāya are synonyms signifying the same concept.: because lord Mahāvīra has described only two Nayas, Dravyārthika and Paryāyārthika, and there is no third Naya as Guņārthika which might have been necessary in case guņa was different from paryāya, because the lord has preached to Gautama and others as vannapajjavehim etc., and because the definitions of guna and paryāya that are given are of the same meaning; etc.
1 See Nyāyakosa, 3rd Ed., p. 491 under paryāya. 2 Alāpapaddhati (SJG I) pp. 155 etc.; Amộtacandra's commentary on Pravacanasāra,
p. 124. 3 See gathās 8-14 etc. of the 3rd kāņda of Sanmati-tarkaprakarana, with Abhayadeva's
commentary, Ed. by Becharadas and Sukhalal, in five parts, Ahmedabad, 1930.