Jaina Literature and Philosophy a Critical Approach

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 49

Historical Development of Jaina Philosophy and Religion
Umāsvāti presents, the concept of seven elements (tattvas ) including punya and pāpa under āsrava, 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 Sūtraktănga and has taken final shape in due course of time and got finalised in c. 3rd or 4th A. D. During the c. 7th- 10th 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 jivanikāya, is the basic idea of Pañcâstikāva. The Jaina thinkers, of course, have developed the concept of six substances by synthesizing their conception of Pañcastikāya and the idea of substance as it is found in the other philoso- phical 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 Nyāya and Vaiseșika 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 Ācārānga yet the word is not used in any technical sense.
In Uttaradhyayana, the word 'dravya' is men- tioned for the first time. That particular chapter of Uttaradhyayana, where in dravya is discussed, is reg-
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 (guņāņām āsavo davvo ). In my opinion, this definition of substance, given in Uttarādhyayana, seems to be influenced by the Nyāya-Vaiseșika school. Pujyapāda Devanandi defined substance as an aggregate of attributes in his commentary on Tattvārthasatra, known as Sarvărthasiddhi (c. 5th or 6th A. D.). This definition seems to be influenced by the Buddhist Skandhavāda. In favour of this view Pujyapada has quoted 'gunanam 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 Anekāntavāda (non-absolutism) the substance is defined for the first time, as that which possesses attributes and modes in Umāsvāti's Tattvārthasutra.
Six-substances ($addravya )
We have already stated that the concept of saddravya ( six substances) has been developed from the idea of pañcāstikāya. By adding 'time' as an independent substance in pañcâstikaya, the concept of six substances (șaddravya ) is formulated. Though from c. 2nd-7th A.D., 'Time' was always a matter of discussion whether it is an independent substance or not (as it is indicated in several works from Tattvārthasūtra to Visesavasyakabhäsya), 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-anastik Tya, jiva ( living ),