Sambodhi 1979 Vol 08

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

Page 65

64
J. C, Sikdar
Yugapadavasthāyīn,122 i.e. that which exists permanently and co-existingly or simultaneously with the substance, while Paryāya is kramabhāvin or ayugapadavasthayin123, i. e. that which exists in the substance successively. The distinction of the meanings of guna and paryāya is made very clear in the Uttarādhyayna śūtralas in this manner : "The mark of guna is that it is inherent in one single substance (ekadravyāśrita), while that of paryaya is that it exists in both the substance and quality (ubhayāśrita)"125. The characteristics of paryāya are oneness (or singleness), separatness, number, figure, conjunction, and disjunction.126
In the Nyāya-Vaiseșika system of thought these characteristics, viz. number oness or manifoldness), dimension, i.e. figure, separteness, conjunction and disjunction are mentioned as ubhaya-gunas, 127 i.e. they are mürtagunas as well as amūrtta gunas inasmuch as they belong to both the non-ubiquitous and ubiquitous substances. It is apparently clear here that the influence of the Nyāya-Vaiseșika school is reflected in the Jaipa definition of paryāya as considered above. It appears that Ācārya Kundakunda, Umāsvāti, Ācārya Pujyapāda, Akalanka and Vidyānanda defined the relation between guna and paryāya on the basis of āgamic definition and supported the same with a little change of interpretation. According to Umāsvati, guņa is inherent ip Dravya and itself is attributeless, 128 while paryāya is another state and another namel29 of a Dravya. Āc, Pūjyapāda difines this relation between guna and paryāya in this way : “Those characteristics which are always associated with a substance are qualities. Those which are not always associated with a substance are modes. A substance possesses both'. According to him, guna is a distinct category and thus it is different from paryāya. As for example, from the general point of view, knowledge, etc. are the qualities always associated with the soul, their modifications which are separable from the particular point of view, are modes, for instance, in living beings there are knowledge of pitcher, knowledge of cloth, anger, pride, etc.130 Vidyānanda also supports this distinction between the definitions of guna and paryāya in a Dravya from the points of view of generality (sämänya) and particularity (višeşa), as paryaya is not eternal but occasional, whereas guņa being inherent in eternal substanca (nityadravya) is eternal.131 But Akalanka, the predecessor of Vidyānanda, holds the view of identity-cum-difference between the meanning of guna and paryāya as two aspects of Dravya132. He further goes on to say that sāmānya (generality), utsarga (general rule), anvaya (association) and guņa (quaility) are synonymous words, and so are viseșa (particularity), bheda (difference) and paryāya (mode)133. This position was followed by Amộtacandra134 and Siddhasena Gaņin135. Siddhasena Gania explains that guņas are special capacities inherent in a Dravya; they exist in it simultaneously, such as, rūpa, (form)-(colour) etc, in pudgala (matter),