Sambodhi 1979 Vol 08

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 64

The Gonception of Reality in Jain Metaphysics
63
preponderance. In the first case, as explained above, he advocated the theory of non-difference of Dravya and paryāya from the point of view of the preponderance of the former.
In the Acârānga Sutra and the Bhagavati Vyākhyāprajñapti respectively it is further recorded that he explained soul-substance and its knowledge transformation as non-different from the aspect of substance (dravyatah).116 Knowledge is one quality-transformation of soul (aya), which is always changing from the point of view of modification. For this reason the difference of knowledg from soul has been admitted. If there would have been absolute non-difference between soul and knowledge, there would have taken place the destruction of soul with that of knowledge. From the point of view of paryāya (mode) soul and knowledge are different. The clarification of this problem has been made by him, while explaining the eight aspects of soul and admitting the distinction of it by transformation, according to them, as is evidenced in the Bhagavatı Vyākhyāprajõtapti. 117 Having put aside dravyātmā (substantial soul) among the eight aspects of soul, its remaining seven aspects have been explained by taking into consideration passion, activity, consciousness, knowledge, self-awareness, conduct and energy like the modes of the same soul-substance. In this light of discussion Dravya and Paryāya have been accepted as different, as emerged from an analysis of the above facts, otherwise the evident reply cannot be proper in regard to the subject of the existence of eight aspects of soul. It is made clear by the explanation that one who has dravyātmā may have kaşayātmā (passionate soul), etc. and may not have them. But if he has kaşāyātma, he has invariably dravyātmā (soul-substance).118 For this reason it is to be accepted that the problem of eight aspects of soul indicates the difference between Dravya and paryāya from the subjective point of view. Thus Lord Mahāvīra made an analysis of the difference between Dravya and paryāya, which evidently became clear and comprehensible by other āgamic and post-agamic works like that of Acārya Kundakunda.
Relation between Guņa (quality) and Paryaya (Mode) Acārya Kundakunda defines the relation between guna (quality) and paryāya (mode) in this way: "That which makes a distinction between a Dravya (Substance) and another is called guna and the modification of a Dravya is called paryaya. A Dravya is associated with these two. Further it is of inseparable connection and permanent."119 .
As pointed out, the words 'guna' and pajjava (Skt. paryāya) or Bhāva are found in the comparatively older Agamas like the Bhagavati Vyākhyāprajñapti,120 the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra121, etc. to signify quality and condition (or mode) of a Dravya respectively. Guna is defined as sahabhāvin or