________________
80: Śramana, Vol 64, No. 2, April-June 2013 Dr. A. N. Upadhye maintains that the paryāya is an external imposition; it may be of manifold kinds; the same paryāya may be possible on different substance grounds; the same substance may be subjected to different paryayas at different time; and the paryāya is not essentially inherent in the very nature of the substance. The only relation between substance and paryāya is that a substance cannot be imagined without one or the other paryāya. Paryāya stands for the fluctuating aspect of substance and qualities and requires to be stated when anything about a substance is to be said; and hence the necessity of a paryāyārthika-naya. As distinguished from it we have dravyārthika-naya in which the attention is directed not towards the fluctuating aspect of the thing but to the permanent aspect of it, namely the substance with qualities. Guņa cannot be perceived anywhere else than in substance; and a substance cannot be conceived without guņa. Guņas being embedded in and coeval with the substance, there is no necessity of a third-point of view as guņārthika. It would have been necessary only if the Jains like Nyāya-Vaišeșika would have admitted the possibility of substance without guņas at least for a while. Further the canonical references vaņņa-pajjavehiṁ and gardha-pajjavehiṁ can be thus explained.42 Dr. A. N. Upadhye's logic seems to be valid because had guna and paryāya been identical, there would not have been the existence of the two - guna and paryāya as separate entity. Thus, on the basis of the history of the relationship of guna and paryāya it can be said that both the terms were being used in the age of the Agamas. With the advent of the age of Jain logic, a discussion as to whether the two terms are identical or different in meaning, got prominence. As a result, the different teachers adopted and defended different standpoints and established also their theses on the said problem.
Bhedavāda: The upholders of this view are Umāsvāti, Kundakunda, Pūjyapāda and Vidyānanda. They maintain distinction between guņa and paryāya. Umāsvāti enunciates his bhedavāda in the sūtra: (guņaparyāyavaddravyam)meaning by that substance is possessed of qualities and modifications. Kundakunda criticizing the false
