________________
CONCEPT OF SUBSTANCE QUALITY....: 79 Kundakunda explaining the distinction between guṇa and paryāya through illustrations says that 'Sentiency or the manifestation of consciousness is the guna of Jiva- substance; while its modifications are god-hood, manhood etc. Corporeality (rūpitva) is the guna of pudgala or matter and its paryayas are manifold like wood, table etc. When these primary paryayas have, in turn, sub-paryayas, the position of guna comes to be slightly different. We are led to the distinction something like that of the general and particular guņas.35
Siddhasena Divakara's view on the relationship of Guņa an Paryāya:
37
Abhedavāda: Siddhasena Divakara (5th cent. CE) introduced a new trend with regard to the relation between guna and paryaya. According to him the two terms guna and paryaya are but synonyms, 36 have one and the same meaning. He objects to those who accept that colour, taste, smell and touch are independent cognizable qualities having substance as their substratum. His argument is that 'had there been a difference of meaning between the terms guna and paryaya, Lord Mahāvīra would have spoken of a third stand point (naya) guṇārthika-naya, along with the dravyārthika and paryāyārthika. This theory of abhedavāda, propounded by Divakara, is not widely held and is strongly opposed. This argument, however, seems to have been supported by Siddhasena Gani38, Hemacandra, Haribhadra39 and Hermann Jacobi40. Though Devasūri has tried to make out a distinction between the meaning of the two terms- guņa and paryaya, he also seems to be under the influence of the thesis of identity. Ach. Hemacandra did not at all insert the term guna in his aphorism 'viṣayalakṣaṇa' on the object of a pramāṇa, nor did he raise the question as to whether the term guna and paryaya are identical or different in meaning. Thus, it is apparently clear that he too was the advocate of non-difference or identity of guna and paryaya11. Upadhyāya Yasovijaya (17th Cent. CE) worked on the same line and tried to establish the theory of identity between guna and paryāya.
Answering the legitimate question raised by Siddhasena Divakara
