Pushkarmuni Abhinandan Granth

Author(s): Devendramuni, A D Batra, Shreechand Surana
Publisher: Rajasthankesari Adhyatmayogi Upadhyay Shree Pushkar Muni Abhinandan Granth Prakashan Samiti

Page 707

६६२
श्री पुष्करमुनि अभिनन्दन प्रस्थ : षष्ठम खण्ड
of Tattvas, which are nothing else then Padārthas, an anticipatory question seems to be answered saying one would be in a position to bring out each one of the Tattvas beginning with Jiva etc. by naming (nāma), idolization (sthāpana), substantiation (dravya) and consideration of state/ modality (bhāva) 18 This seems to indicate that each one of the Tattvas can also be considered as a Dravya. Now, if this contention is juxtaposed with the view that there are five Dravyas, there seems to arise some inconsistency. Perhaps Umäsväti did not realise that it so happened. It is likely that Umāsvāti intends to concentrate only on Ajivadravyas in the chapter under consideration. He also seems to mention in passing that the four Ajiva Dravyas along with the Jivadravya make five Dravyas. This may not perhaps give an impression that Dravyas are just five, no more and no less. Be that as it may.
There is another point which Umāsvāti makes with regard to Dravyas in his commentary on I. 5. He argues that (any) Dravya * is Bhavya.18 While explaining what he meant by this, he states that 'bhavya' is to be understood in the sense of acquirable. Hence, Dravya is that which acquires or can be acquired 14. It is doubtful whether Umāsvāti would allow this to be applied to Tattvas. If he has no objection in doing so, Tattvas too become either those which acquire or are acquirable. This would perhaps be acceptable to him, if Tattvas and Dravyas are the same.
It may, however, be contended that Umāsvāti did not mean to take seven Tattvas to be Dravyas and to hold that Tattvas either acquire (something) or are acquirable. For, one does not normally raise points of this kind with reference to Tattvas. Perhaps there is a substance in this contention. But Umāsvāti takes at least some Tattvas to be Dravyas. This should be taken to be just contingent feature. This means that, although Dravya and Tattva need not necessarily be the same, what is called Tartva may be a Dravya. In principle one may not dispute this. Yet one may object that this kind of contingency does not yield any necessary relation between them. It does not give rise to any reciprocity between Tattvas and Dravyas either. It is this which needs to be grasped. Perhaps it is likely that in the initial stages of philosophical inquiry and investigation boundaries of the significances of various expressions were not clearly demarcated. But this should not lead us to continue to do so even now.
Ambiguity of expressions in Umāsvāti does not seem to come to an end here. In the fifth chapter of the Tattvärthadhigamasutra there are in all two statements about a Dravya. They are : (i) Dravya is that which has Gunas (and) Paryāyas ;16 (ii) Dravya is Sat definitionally or symptomatically.16 Of these the former is important in one way, the latter in another. In the commentary on the former, Umāsvāti states that anything is Dravya which has both Gunas and Paryayas 17 It is needless for our present purpose to enter into the other nuences mentioned in the commentary. It seems that this statement is either about any Tativa that is considered to be a Drayya or about five Dravyas 18+ only. Whatever may be the case. We shall concentrate on the latter view, it being the least troublesome one as also being explicitly approved by Umāsvāti.
Even if we delimit our consideration to five Dravyas, there seems to be a certain ambiguity. Out of the five Dravyas, each one is said to have Gunas as well as Paryāyas. This may be the case But the question is: does each one of the Dravyas have a Guna as well as a Paryāya in exactly the same way and sense or in different way or sense? It does not seem to be sufficient to say symptomatically or definitionally that each one of the Dravyas has both Gunas as well as Paryāyas. For, each one of the five Dravyas is not physical. Where physical as well as extra physical Dravyas are considered together, it seems doubtful whether each one of them has a Guna or a Paryāya or both in exactly the same way. It seems equally doubtful whether mere symptomatic or definitional statement about all of them would establish the point. # Here word Dravya, by Umāsvāti, is dealt with according to the root, Dravya fluid matter By this explanation he means contiouity.
-Editor † There are five Astikāyas and not Dravyas, as the writer assumes.
- Editor