________________
LXVIII
PRAVACANASĀRA.
guyas are distinct, then why not have a Gunārathikanaya besides Dravya. , rthika and Paryāyārthika?. It is really an interesting and legitimate question raised by Siddhasena and needs explanation. The paryāya is an external imposition ; it may be of manifold kinds; the same paryāya may be possible on different substance-grounds; the same substance may be subjected to different "paryāyas at different times; and the paryāya is not essentially inherent in
the very nature of the substance. The only relation between substa parvãva is that a substance cannot be imagined without one or the other paryāya. Paryāya stands for the fluctuating aspect of substance and qualities, and requires to be stated when anything about a substance is to be said; and hence the necessity of a Paryāyārthikanaya. As distinguished from this, we have Dravyārthikanaya in which the attention is directed not towards the fluctuating 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 guna: 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 Guyārthika. It would have been neccessary, if the Jainas like Naiyāyikas admitted the possibility of substance without gunas at least for a while. Further the canonical reserences vanna-pajjavehim and gamdha-pajjavehimcan 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; so the phrase vanna-pajjarchim means 'by the modifications of colour'; and there is no implication at the colour is a paryāya. If it is to be taken as Karmadhāraya compound, the plural loses its force, vauna as a quality being only one. And moreover we do find passages in the S'vetāmbara canons itself where guụa and paryāya are distinguished.4
1 Bhagavatisūtra IVX, 4, sūtra 613, 2 I am aware that some later authors, who have confused the Jaina and Vais'eşiką ideas,
sometime call yellowness as a guna and sometimes as & paryāya. For instance pitatāda-paryüyena...... I, pītatādayo gunah...), etc. in Amrtacandra's commentary on Pravacanastira pp. 25, 110 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 Vais'eşikas
the various colours are guņas; so naturally the later authors confused these ideas. 3 Uttaradhyayancsūtra 28, 6. 4. The views on dravja, guna and paryāya of different authors like Kundakunda, Umā.
svāti, Pūjyapāda, Akalauka, Haribhadra, Siddhasenasūri, Amộtacandra, Vidyānanda, Vadidevasūri, Rūjamalla and Yas'ovijaya etc. have been quoted extensively in a footnote on pp. 631-33 of Sanmati-praharana (Ed. Ahmedabad ). Akalauka who shows & close acquaintance with the various works of Siddhasena, has in view the objections of Siddbasena. The necessity of a third naya, in case goņa pas distinct from paryāya, is smoothly set aside by Akalarka by appealing to the authority of Arhatpravacana, namely, Tatträrthasūtras. Further the substance has twofold nature general (sāmänga)
azd particular (vis'esa) corresponding to which we have two nayas. Lastly he would (not mind, so far as his interpretation of the sūtra guna paryäyarad dratyam is concerned
!
