________________
up into multiples It is a different thing whether this rise of the multiplicity from the bosom of the unitary being is a matter of appearance (Vivarta) or real transformation (Parinama) The advocacy of Sargavada naturally leads Satkaryavada or Satharanavada (Vivai tavada) in the sphere of causation It also implies the autonomy, and perhaps self-sufficiency, of the causal stuff for effectuation This, strictly speaking, rules out the creative role of Karma orIsvara in the cosmic process and demands the postulation of a kinetic view of matter in which motion is inherent and not imparted from outside Of course, as a substitute for Karma or Isvara, Sargavada has to bring in the role of Purusa or Avidya
The Srstivada, on the other hand, starts with a pluralistic approach to reality The cosmic ground here is not an undifferentiated unitary entity, but it consists of infinite reals having homogeneous and heterogeneous differences This naturally leads to atomistic conception of mind and matter which we find in the NyayaVaisesika, Mimamsa, Jainism and Buddhism Matter is regarded here as static, all motion is coming to it from outside The cosmic process is regarded as the combination of diverse simple clements resulting into more and more complex wholes But for this a need is felt to postulate Karma or God as a catalytic agent in the creative process Arambhavada or its varient Prattyasamutpada, AvayavaAvayavı model of the 'wholes' etc are the natural outcome
Another philosophically significant difference between Sargavada and Srstivada in the field of ontology has been the acceptance of the Dharma-Dharmibheda (substance-attribute distinction) in the latter and its rejection in the former The Brahman of the Advaita Vedanta and the Purusa and Prakrti of the Samkhya are attributeless
Coming to the central theme of this paper, we find that the substance-attribute distinction has been the basic plank of Srstivada It is commonly accepted by the schools of Mimamsa, Nyaya-Vaisesika, Jainism, Buddhism and Carvaka The Buddhists do not accept this distinction at the ultimate level because of their adherence to Anatmvada, at the empirical level in the form of Samanya Laksana or Kalpana, it is not unacceptable to them
Now the most significant and singular contribution of the Jaina school in the field of metaphysics is to carry forward this distinction to a step further by introducing the concept of Paryaya Though the reality has substantival and adjectival aspects, both substances and attributes exist in a particular form or mode at a particular time under particular conditions This conditioned mode of existence of substance and attributes is known as Paryaya
The point is that substances and attributes are conceived to exist not in an absolute or isolated way but in relation to other reals So this non absolutistic or relativistic view of reality leads the Jaina thinkers to postulate Paryaya
2
