Studies in Jainism

Author(s): M P Marathe, Meena A Kelkar, P P Gokhle
Publisher: Indian Philosophical Quarterly Publication Puna

Page 21

6
STUDIES IN JAINISM
whereas modes are in both the substance and qualities.11 What are qualities and what are modes? Those characteristics which are always associated with a substance are qualities and those which are not always associated with it are modes. A substance possesses both. Thus that characteristic of a substance which distinguishes that substance from the other is called quality (guna) and that characteristic of a substance or a quality which distinguishes one modification of that substance or quality from another modification is called mode (paryāya).
The Tattvarthasutra upholds the definition given by the Uttaradhyayana at one place12 but formulates another definition at another place.13 In one aphorism it maintains that a substance is possessed of qualities and modes, whereas in another aphorism it makes the substance identical with existent' or 'real' and then defines it as characterised by origination, destruction and permanence. Origination is the attainment of another mode by a substance by means of external and internal causes without giving up its essential characteristics. Similarly, the loss of the former mode is destruction. As there is no origination or annihilation of the inherent nature or essential quality of the substance, it is permanent. Thus, origination and destruction are nothing but the changing forms or modes of the existing or real substance and permanence is the same as the essential attributes or fundamental qualities of the same. Hence, a real (sat) or substance (dravya) is possessed of both change and permanence. Change means origination (utpāda) and destruction (vyaya) of different modes (paryayas). Permanence (dravya) means indestructibility of the essential quality (guna).14
a
It is evident from the above account that the tradition of discussing the nature of loka and aloka as well as soul and matter was comparatively old, that of discussing the nature of five extensive substances is comparatively recent and that of discussing the nature of six substances is comparatively more recent. It seems that the tradition of discussing the nature of 'real' in general is still more recent. This problem as such seems not to have been raised in the old canonical texts. The Uttaradhyayana hints at the problem and the Tattvärthasutra discusses it in a little detail and comes out with a well-formulated answer of which there is no trace in these old texts. The Bhagavati etc.