________________ Verse 44 depending on the standpoint. There is distinction between the aim (laksya) and the marks (laksana) if these are viewed from the point-ofview of the possessor-of-quality (guni) and the quality (guna). From this point-of-view, the possessor-of-quality (guni) is not the quality (guna) and the quality (guna) is not the possessor-of-quality (guni). If these are viewed from the point-of-view of the nature of the substance (dravya), there is no distinction between the aim (laksya) and the marks (laksana); both exist in the same space-points. Acarya Kundakunda's Pravacanasara: लिंगेहिं जेहिं दव्वं जीवमजीवं च हवदि विण्णादं / ते तब्भावविसिट्ठा मुत्तामुत्ता गुणा णेया // 2-38 // जिन चिह्नों से जीव और अजीव द्रव्य जाना जाता है, वे चिह्न (लक्षण) द्रव्यों के स्वरूप की विशेषता लिये हुए मूर्तीक और अमूर्तीक गुण जानने चाहिये। The marks (cihna, laksana) are specific to the substances (dravya) - the soul (jiva) and the non-soul (ajiva) - and the substances are known through these marks. These marks are the corporeal (murtika) and the non-corporeal (amurtika) qualities (guna) of the substances (dravya). The substance (dravya) is the substratum comprising infinite qualities (guna). Qualities (guna) exhibit eternal association (anvaya) with the substance. The qualities (guna) subsist on the substance (dravya). If the substance (dravya) is considered absolutely distinct from the infinite qualities (guna), on what would these qualities (guna) subsist? The proposition would attribute infiniteness (anantata) to the substance (dravya) so as to be able to support infinite qualities (guna). If the infinite qualities (guna) are considered absolutely distinct from the substance (dravya), what would constitute the substance (dravya)? The proposition would entail non-existence (abhava) of the substance (dravya) itself. . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
