________________
264 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Another difference which is said to be observed between guņa and paryāya is that when the one remains the same the other may vary. The qualities of gold, for instance, will remain the same when it is transformed into the various modifications like a ring, a bangle or a chain. Conversely, the modification of jarness will remain the same among several jars made from different substances like gold, silver or clay which vary in qualities from one another. Thus guna and paryāya are two distinct elements constituting, in their togetherness, the nature of a dravya in the Jaina ontology as expounded by Kundakunda and his commentators.
It is needless to give individual statements of the views held, among others, by Umāsvāti, Pūjyapāda and Vidyānanda, since all these writers substantially concur with Kundakunda in maintaining the distinction between guņa and paryāya.
Umāsvāti's view may, however, be briefly mentioned. He enunciates his bhedavāda in the sūtra : Substance is possessed of qualities and modifications (gunaparyāyavad dravyam). In contrast with Siddhasena's view that paryāya comprehends, and is another symbol (samjñāntaram) for, guņa, he categorically declares that paryāya is not merely a
dravya (vide, ibid., p. lxv), although he chooses a comparison which understates the case. Moreover, the epithet 'accident' as applied, in particular, to guņa, is, despite the adjective 'inseparable', inappropriate in view of the fact that no 'accident', however 'inseparable' it is from a dravya, can ade quately represent the depth of the intimateness commanded
by a guņa in its dravya. 1. STSU, V, Sū. 37. .
