________________
CHAPTER VIII
267
Thus we see a divergence of opinion among the three views so far outlined, regarding the relation between guņa and paryāya. But it does not materially affect the fundamental conception of a real which is the foundation of the Jaina metaphysics: A real has been observed in Jaina ontology to be an enfoldment of the permanent and the changing elements within its being. Whether the changing element is a comprehensive and unitary (abheda) concept, designated by Divākara as Paryāya, or a dual (bheda) concept consisting of two distinct elements known as guna and pāryāya, it does not impair the basic structure of the real in so far as it (the changing element) remains an inseparable complement of permanence. This approach has been envisaged by Vādideva who endeavours to combine the two elements in his bhedābhedavāda' in which bheda is represented severally by the 'peculiar nature' (svarūpāpekṣayā) of guņa and of paryāya and abheda by the common residence (dharmyapekṣayā) of guna and paryāya, in their inseparable togetherness in the dharmi.
On a critical analysis of this situation we find that the spirit of Vadideva's argument is largely agreed to by the two so-called extreme theorists also, viz., the abhedavādin and the bhedavādin. For, all the three schools now under consideration agree on the following three factors as being indispensable for anything to be a real : 1. Continuance (dhrauvya); 2. Quality which is internal to (sahabhāvi) the real; and 3 transformation (pariņāma) which consists in the process of
See supra, pp. 265-6.
