Sramana 2011 01

SR No.: 525075
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sundarshanlal Jain, Shreeprakash Pandey
Publisher: Parshvanath Vidhyashram Varanasi
Publication Year: 2011
Total Pages: 172
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Sramana, & India
File Size: 15 MB

Page 50

32 : Sramaņa, Vol 62, No. 1 January-March 2011
inability to change of the latter. (Tatia, 1951, 24) 6. Let us take an example of a definition of the existent as “sat
dravyalakṣaṇam" by Acārya Umāsvāti (Umāswāmi) in Tattvārtha sūtra V.29. The commentaries imply two different interpretations. Firstly, if the compound is taken as a tatpuruṣa, the meaning indicates that existence is a characteristic of dravya (sad eva dravyasya lakṣaṇam). Secondly, if the compound is taken as a bahuvrihi, the meaning implies that existence has a characteristic that is substance (yasya dravyaṁ lakṣaṇam tad dravyalaksanar. tasmāt sat lakṣaṇam dravya). A. Chakravarti Nayanar's commentary to Kundakunda's Pañcāsatikāyasāra- 9 gives an important note regarding the topic. He recognizes that Kundakunda distinguished between sattā and dravya, however he also attributed the same characteristics to them and stated that they are in fact not different. “Sattā or substance is distinguished from Dravya. Dravya means that which flows or changes. While changing through its different qualities and modifications its essential nature persists. But such development is also the characteristic of a substance. Hence according to Jaina attitude Dravya is not entirely different from Sattā or substance.” Drawing parallels with Hegel's philosophy, the commentator adds “Dravya refers to facts of experience. Sattā refers to existence or reality. One may be abstracted from the other but it is not different from the other as a fact." (Kundakunda, 2001-6). For convenience this paper refers to dravya as a substance.
See also: Pravacanasāra II.17-18. 7. Some Svetāmbara Jains do not accept time as a substance. 8. The Prakrit names for the substances are jiva, poggala, dhamma,
adhamma, āgāsa and kāla. 9. Walther Schübring translated atthikāya as a “mass of all that is”.
(Schubring, 1962, 126) 10. Jiva might seem like a problematic substance to fit this category. A.
Chakravarti Nayanar in a commentary to Pañcāstikāyasāra explains that the “soul is also considered to be an Astikāya because of its organic nature. Jiva exists as an organism and as such it is related to body and hence the spatial quality.” (Kundakunda, 2001, 3). Chatterjee similarly states that: “Though (the soul) it has no form (mūrti), it acquires like a light the size and form of the body wherein it lives. It is in this sense that a jīva, though formless, is said to