Sambodhi 1979 Vol 08

SR No.: 520758
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1979
Total Pages: 392
Language: English, Sanskrit, Prakrit, Gujarati
Classification: Magazine, India_Sambodhi, & India
File Size: 8 MB

Page 66

The Conception of Reality in Jaina Metaphysics
while paryayas are modes which exist in a Dravya in succession 136. As pointed out, paryāya is another state and another name of a substance, e. g. lump of clay, pitcher, etc. Pudgaladravya, i.e. clay, does not give up its own inherent nature (svabhāva or guna) - clayness or earthness, while the particular forms - the lump of clay, form of pitcher, etc. are paryayas as another state and another name of the same substance. So the relation between guna and paryaya is one of somehow identity-cum-difference (Kathañcidbhedabheda)137.
In regard to this problem of the relation between guna and paryaya there began a new trend of thought with Siddhasena Divakara. According to him, the two words 'guna' and 'paryāya hava been interpreted as having one and the same meaning, and it is stated that they were mere synonyms. 137 His argument of non-difference of guna and paryāya is this that 'had there been intended the different meanings of the word 'guna' from that of the word 'paryāya', Mahāvīra would have made an explanation of Guņārthika stand-point as he had done in the case of that of the two well-known stand-points, viz. Dravyārthika and paryāyārthika Nayas (substantial and modal points of view).138 The influence of this argument seems to have led Haribhadra to adopt the doctrine of indentity of the meanings of the words 'guna' and 'paryāya'.139 It is also known that there was a feeling in the heart of Devasūri for the thesis of non-difference (i. e. identity) of guna and paryāya, though he had tried to speak of a distinction between the meanings of these two words140, Ācārya Hemacandra did not at all give a place to 'guna' in his aphorism 'Vişayalaksaņa' on the object of pramāņa (knowledge) nor did he make any discussion on the meaning of difference and identity of the words 'guna' and 'paryāya'141. The view of Ac. Hemacandra makes it apparently clear that he too was the advocate of non-difference (i.e. identity) of guna and paryāya. Upādhyāya Yaśovijayaji also tried to establish the theory of identity between guna and paryāya142. It can at any rate be said from this comprehensive discussion of the metaphysical question of relation between guna and paryāya that both the words were being used in the Age of the Agamas. There began a discussion on the problem of identity and difference of their meanings and relation with the development of the Age of Logic. As a result of the logical study of this subject different Ācāryas made their respective points of view clear in this matter and established also their theses on the problem of identity and difference between guna and paryāya143.
The other Indian systems of thought like the Nyāya-Vaiśesika, 144 etc. have propounded the theory of difference of guņa (quality) and karma (action), etc. from Dravya (Substance) since the very beginning up to the
Sambodhi Vol. 8(9)