________________
Introduction
65
aspect of the thing but to the permanent aspect of it, namely the substance with qualities. Guna cannot be perceived anywhere else than in a substance; and a substance cannot be conceived without a guņa: so one without the other is an impossibility. The guņas being embedded in and coëval with the substance, there is no necessity of a third view-point as Guņārthika. It would have been necessary, if the Jainas like Naiyāyikas admitted the possibility of substance without guņas at least for a while. Further the canonical references vanna-pajjavehim and gamdhapajjavehiml can be thus explained. No doubt colour, taste, smell and touch are the qualities of matter or pudgala, and being inherent and essential characteristics of matter they continue to remain even upto the stage of primary atoms. As seen above the qualities too have their paryāyas or modes: the colour as a quality has five modifications such as black, blue, yellow, white and red;2 so the phrase vannapajjavehim means 'by the modifications of colour'; and there is no implication at all that the colour is a paryāya. If it is to be taken as Karmadhāraya compound, the plural loses its force, vanna as a quality being only one. And moreover we do find passages in the Svetāmbara canon itself where guna and paryāya are distinguished.4
(p. 69:) 3. NATURE OF SPIRIT AND MATTER, OR JIVA AND PUDGALA.-The Jiva is essentially constituted of sentiency (cetanā) and manifestation of consciousness (upayoga) (II, 35); but from beginningless time it is already tainted with karman (II, 29). The development of its sentiency is threefold: with regard to knowledge which consists in the comprehension of the objectivity, with regard to Karma which consists in whatever is done (samāraddham) by the soul, and with regard to the fruit of Karma which is either happiness or misery; and these three are predicated of the soul (II, 31, 32, etc.). Likewise the manifestation of consciousness (upayoga) is towards jñāna and darśana (II, 63) and flows in three channels; inauspicious,
1 Bhagavatisūtra IVX, 4, sūtra 513. 2 I am aware that some later authors, who have confused the Jaina and Vaiseșika ideas,
sometime call yellowness as a guna and sometimes as a paryāya. For instance pitatādiparyāyena..../, pītatādayo gunah..., etc. in Amstacandra's commentary on Pravacanasāra pp. 22, 99 etc. The original Jaina idea was that colour is a guna and different colours like yellow etc. are paryāyas of that guna; but according to Vaiseşikas the various col
ours are guņas; so naturally the later authors confused these ideas. 3 Uttarādhyayanasūtra 28, 6. 4 The views on dravya, guna and paryāya of different authors like Kundakunda, Umā
svāti, Pūjyapāda, Akalanka, Haribhadra, Siddhasenasūri, Amstacandra, Vidyānanda, Vädidevasūri, Rājamalla and Yasovijaya etc. have been quoted extensively in a footnote on pp. 631-33 of Sanmati-prakarana (Ed. Ahmedabad). Akalanka who shows a close acquaintance with the various works of Siddhasena, has in view the objections of Siddhasena. The necessity of a third naya, in case guna was distinct from paryāya, is smoothly set aside by Akalanka by appealing to the authority of Arhatpravacana, namely, Tattvärthasūtras. Further the substance has twofold nature general (sāmānya) and particular (višeşa) corresponding to which we have two nayas. Lastly he would not mind, so far as his interpretation of the sūtra guna-paryāyavad drayyam is concerned even if it is taken as guņā eva paryāyāḥ (Rājavārtikam p. 243). Thus Akalanka, in view of his Anekānta-stand, partly accepts Siddhasena's view. Haribhadra and Yasovijaya too partly follow Siddhasena.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
