Historical Development Of Jaina Philosophy And Religion

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Z_Jaina_Literature_and_Philosophy_a_Critical_Approach_001936_HR.pdf

Page 22

Historical Development of Jaina Philosophy and Religion
Umāsvāti presents, the concept of seven elements (tattvas) including punya and papa under asrava, in the c. 3rd-4th. We find discussions of the seven-fold or nine-fold categories (tattva) in the later composed scriptures of both the Svetambara and the Digambara traditions. This shows that the concept of seven categories (tattva) has also its origin in Sutrakṛtänga and has taken final shape in due course of time and got finalised in c. 3rd or 4th A. D. During the c. 7th10th A.D. these ideas had properly conceptualised as it is described in details with their various classes and sub-classes.
We find that at the root of the formulation of the concepts of seven or nine-fold categories, six-fold substances and the six-fold jivanikaya, is the basic idea of Pañcāstikaya. The Jaina thinkers, of course, have developed the concept of six substances by synthesizing their conception of Pañcästikäya and the idea of substance as it is found in the other philosophical systems. In the following pages we will try to
see as to how it has worked out.
Substance
What is known as substance is the fundamental constituent of the universe. The sat, of the ancient Indian philosophical traditions, has taken the form of dravya (substance) later on. As a matter of fact, the philosophical traditions which regard the ultimate reality as one and unchangeable have adopted the world 'Sat' and those which consider the reality as many and changeable have used the word substance (dravya ), instead of 'sat'. In the systems of Indian thought like Nyaya and Vaiseṣika etc. the use of the word substance (dravya ) or padartha remains in vogue. So far as the Jaina philosophy is concerned though we find the term dravya in Acaranga yet the word is not used in any technical sense.
In Uttaradhyayana, the word 'dravya' is mentioned for the first time. That particular chapter of Uttaradhyayana, where indravya is discussed, is reg
43
arded as relatively later, ofc. 2nd or 3rd A. D., by the scholars. There we find that not only the word dravya (substance) is used, but the mutual relation among the substance, attributes and modes are also discussed. Substance is defined as substratum of attributes (guṇāṇām āsavo davvo ). In my opinion, this definition of substance, given in Uttaradhyayana, seems to be influenced by the Nyaya-Vaiseṣika school. Pujyapada Devanandi defined substance as an aggregate of attributes in his commentary on Tattvärthasutra, known as Sarvarthasiddhi (c. 5th or 6th A. D. ). This definition seems to be influenced by the Buddhist Skandhavāda. In favour of this view Pujyapāda has quoted 'gunaṇām samuo davvo' from the scriptures. This shows that this concept should have been prior to the c. 6th. Both the definition of substance as 'substratum of attributes' and 'aggregate of attributes' should have been in my opinion, prevalent before the c. 3rd. By synthesizing these two views through Jaina theory of Anekantavāda (non-absolutism) the substance is defined for the first time, as that which possesses attributes and modes in Umāsvāti's Tattvarthasutra.
Six-substances (Şaḍdravya)
We have already stated that the concept of saddravya (six substances) has been developed from the idea of pañcastikāya. By adding 'time' as an independent substance in pañcastikaya, the concept of six substances (şaḍdravya ) is formulated. Though from c. 2nd-7th A. D., 'Time' was always a matter of discu ssion whether it is an independent substance or not (as it is indicated in several works from Tattvärthasutra to Viseṣāvasyakabhāṣya ), yet finally it was accepted as an independent substance. It was c. 7th A. D. when both the Svetambara and Digambara traditions agreed to accept the idea of saddravya and no change occurred in the theory afterwards. The six substances are now classified into the following three main divisions-astikaya-anastikaya, jiva (living),