________________
109
by Ramanuja that contradictory features oannot be attributed to one and the some object at one and the same line (Tadanimeva ), If, by Tadanimova, Ramanuja means 'with reference to the same contexts of place, nature, time and mood,' the Jainas would have no objection to what he has stated. But if these contexts are varied, there is no reason why varying features would not be applied to the object. Rāmānuja contends that origin-and decay are non-eternal features and that they are necessarily different from eternality. How can these contradictory features be attributed to the Dravya or the substance ? The Jainas would reply that if by substance is meant the abstract eternal, immutable self-identity, then, of course the noneterpal features of origin and annihilation oannot be applied to the substance. But if by Dravya one means the substance which persists in its substantiality, while undergoing ceaseless modifi. cations, there is no reason why eternality and non-eternality cannot be attributed to the Dravya. As the persisting substratum, the Dravya is eternal; as a particular modification of itself at a particular moment, the Dravya which is then technically called the Paryaya is non-eternal. In other words, in one context, the Dravya is eternal; in another context viz., in the content of the
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
