________________
प्रवचनसार
(vyaya) of the lump (of clay); without destruction (vyaya) of the lump (of clay), it is not possible for the pot to come into existence. 2) If origination (utpāda) could take place without permanence (dhrauvya) of the substance (dravya) then there should be origination (utpāda) of non-existent (asat) objects; it would mean origination (utpāda) of the ‘sky-flowers'. Considering destruction (vyaya) only as the mark of the substance (dravya), too, suffers from two anomalies. 1) Destruction (uyaya) itself, without origination (utpāda), will become non-existent, as the cause of destruction (uyaya) of the lump (of clay) is origination (utpāda) of the pot. 2) It would entail destruction (uvava) of the existence (sat) and on destruction (vyaya) of the existence (sat) even knowledge etc. will cease to exist. Considering permanence (dhrauvya) only as the mark of the substance (dravya), again, suffers from two anomalies. 1) It would mean non-existence of the mode (paryāya). 2) Momentariness (anityatua) will have no existence, making everything absolutely permanent (nitya). If mode (paryāya) is nonexistent, the substance (dravya), too, cannot exist; the clay cannot exist without its modes (paryāya) such as the pot and the lump (of clay). Without acceptance of momentariness (anityatva) even the thoughts in the mind would become absolutely permanent (nitya). It is clear, therefore, that all three-origination (utpāda) of the new mode (paryāya), destruction (vyaya) of the prior mode (paryāya) and permanence (dhrauvya) of the basic object - together, constitute the marks (lakṣaṇa) of the substance (dravya).
उप्पादट्ठिदिभंगा विज्जते पज्जएसु पज्जाया। Gooi fe vifa furug af Good Eafe Hool 112-911
उत्पादस्थितिभङ्गा विद्यन्ते पर्यायेषु पर्यायाः । goui fe afar faretai ahigaj Hafa Hai 112-911
........................
123
