________________
Bimal Krishna Matulal
are at the focal point of a number of phtosophical problems that have their origia in the carly philosophical tradition of India It is significant to note that the paradox of permanence and change, of being and becoming, was as much alive issue for the early Indian philosophers as it was for the Greeks, 1. e, the pre-Socratics The doctrine of substance found favoor with those who were inclined toward permanence in the midst of fleeting states or moments However, those who gave primacy to change and flux were always suspicious of the notion of being' or substance. In the Indian context, the Buddhist belonged to the second group, and their 'non-soul' doctrine was in fact explalned as a variety of the 'non-substance' doctrine The Vaissikas believed in the reality of substance and attribute Broadly speaking, the Jaina position was a compromise between these two extremes.
The Tattvarthasūtra 5 29 asserts 2 "What there 19, has the nature of substance." And the next stitca (5 30 in the Digambara tradition) adds “What there 18 (the existent), is cadowed with the triple character, origin, decay and stability (persistence) " The Tattvarthabhasya explains that whatover origaates, perishes and continues to be 13 called the existent; anything different is called non-existent. The next sutra asserts that the existent 1s constant for it never gives up its being (essence ?).
In sutra 5.37, the substance 18 again characterized as follows: "The substance is possessed of qualities (guna) and modes (paryaya) " Here, the broad category 'attribute' is apparently broken into two subcategories, qualities and modes But the sutras do not give the definition of modes (paryaya); satra 5,40 defines quality (guna) as "What reside in a subst. anco, and are themselves devoid of any quality, are called qualities." The Tattvartha-bhasya adds:
“Though modes too reside in a substance are themselves devoid of any quality, they are subject to origin and destruction. Thus, they do not always reside in a substance. The qualities, on the other hand, are permanent, and hence they always reside in a substance. This is how qualitios aro to be distinguished from modes"
Pajyapada, in his commentary Sarvarthasiddhi, is more specific about the distinction of qualities and modes 7
2 Sat dravya-lak sanam, Tattvārthastitra 5, 29 3 "Utpadavyayadhrauvyayuktam sal," ibid. 5 30 4 Sou Umásväti, under satra 5 29 5 "Tadbhavāyyayan nityam" Tattvārthasutra 5 31 6 See Umasvati, under sutra 5.40. 7 See Pajyapáda under sutra 5.38, P 199,
