________________
(guņa) and there may be figurative (upacarita) suggestion in the statement. The term vyavahāra implies analysis of the substance (dravya) with differentiation of its attributes (guņa) from the underlying substance. The complex nature of the self is analyzed with respect to its diverse qualities, and attention is directed to any particular attribute that may be of current interest.
Empirical point of view (vyavahāra naya), too, has two main subdivisions: a) sadbhūta vyavahāra naya: The term sadbhūta implies the intrinsic nature of the thing. Though essentially inseparable, this naya makes distinction between the substance (dravya) and its subdivisions like qualities (guņa), modes (paryāya), nature (svabhāva) and agent (kāraka). This naya envisages distinction in an indivisible whole. Sadbhūta vyavahāra naya has two subcategories:
a-1) anupacarita sadbhūta vyavahāra naya: This naya holds the self in its pure and uncontaminated state (nirupādhi state) but makes distinction between the substance (dravya) and its attribute (guna) - e.g., "Omniscience (kevalajñāna) is the attribute of the soul,” and “Right faith, knowledge and conduct constitute the path to liberation." a-2) upacarita sadbhūta vyavahāra naya: This naya holds the self as caught in the meshes of material environment (sopādhi state) and makes distinction between the substance (dravya) and its attribute (guna) - e.g., "Sensory knowledge (matijñāna) is the attribute of the soul.”
b) asadbhūta vyavahāra naya: The term asadbhūta implies importation of alien substance or its qualities into the substance under consideration or its qualities. In essence, asadbhūta vyavahāra naya envisages oneness in essentially distinct substances. The expression under this naya is figurative - e.g., an 'earthen-pot' is conventionally termed as a ghee-pot' due to its usage. Asadbhūta vyavahāra naya, too, has two subcategories:
b-1) anupacarita asadbhūta vyavahāra naya: This naya makes no distinction between two substances that stay together and appear to be indistinct. Anupacărita has no metaphorical or figurative implication. For example, the statement, “This body is mine," is sanctioned by the intimate interrelation that exists between the soul and the body. Another example of this naya is, “Soul is the cause of material karmas (dravya-karma)." b-2) upacarita asadbhūta vyavahāra naya: Upacārita is usage sanctified by convention but has no intrinsic justification. Here the alien thing with which the self is identified lacks intimate relation that exists between the soul and the body -e.g., "My ornament." Only in a figurative sense can one call ornament as one's
(6)