________________
Tattvārthasūtra
admitted, it is open to the same defects as pointed out in reference to substance (dravya) and 'substancenesss' (dravyatva). But do the same defects not apply to the definition given, that which attains attributes or is attained by attributes - undergoes modifications - is a substance'? No. For both, distinction (bheda) and non-distinction (abheda), are admitted between the substance (dravya) and the quality (guņa), depending on the point of view. Hence the name 'substance' (dravya) is justified. Neither the substance (dravya) nor the quality (guņa) exists without the other; there is, thus, nondistinction (abheda) between these. But the two have distinction (bheda) from the point of view of name (samjñā), mark (laksaņa), purpose (prayojana), etc. The name substance (dravya) will apply only to the four mentioned in the first sūtra. Hence the next sūtra is intended to include the other two.
GIATS 11311
[ viat: ] 319 [] *t sal di
The souls (jīva) also are substances (dravya).
The word “jīva'- soul – has been explained already. The plural is used to indicate the different classes of souls (souls at different stages of development). The particle 'ca'is intended to supply the word 'dravya' - substances - from the previous sūtra. That is, the souls also are substances. Thus these five, along with the time (kāla), which is mentioned later, constitute the six substances (dravya). Now the definition of substance is given later (see sūtra 5-38) as: 'that which has qualities and modes is a substance'. From this definition it follows that the medium of motion (dharma) and the medium of rest (adharma), etc., are substances. Then what is the need here to
180
