Jain Journal 1981 01

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 16

92
JAIN JOURNAL
3.
The pararüpa is related in Buddhism with substance while it is relatively not related with it in Jainism.
4.
Kşanabhangavāda is acceptable to both, but Jainism accepts it with the point of view of its modes which reflect its utpāda and vyaya.
The dhrauvya of Jainism may be called santana of Buddhism. There is neither $vāśvatavāda or ucchedavāda nor parināmavāda in the form of svajātiya or vijātiya dravya. The santana is also connected with its own niyata pūrvakşaņa and niyata uttarak şaņa in the form of kāryakāraņabhāva. The difference between dhrauvya and santana is as follows :
1.
Santana in Buddhism is kalpita while dhrauvya in Jainism is
paramārthasat.
2.
Santana appears to be vanished at the attainment of nirvana while dravya gets never vanished. It gets changes in the form of different modes.
3.
Dravya, guna and dhrauvya are synonymous words. The anvayansa may be observed in dhrauvya or dravya clearly but not in santana.
4. Buddhism accepts sāmānya as avastusat or kalpita while Jainism
accepts it vastusat based on anekāntavāda. Sāmānya of Jainism is anitya and avyāpaka.
4.
An entity is absolutely momentary in Buddhism based on pratityasamutpäda, while Jainism proposes upādānopādeyabhāva in place of pratityasamutpāda.
The nature of relation is also a controversial point among the philosophers. For instance, the Naiyayikas, the extreme realists, think that relation is a real entity. According to them, it connects the two entities into a relational unity through conjnuctive relation (samavāya sambandha). Conjunction is a subject of quite separate, while the other relates with inseparable realities. Samavāya is said to be eternal (nitya), one (eka) and all-pervasive (sarvavyāpaka)27.
The Vedantins and the Buddhists, the idealists, are against the view of the Naiyayikas. The Buddhists assert the subjective view of
27 Tarkabhasa, pt. 1, p. 5.