________________
अध्याय-५
substance is called its mode (paryaya). The substance (dravya) is inseparable (residing in the same substratum -ayutasiddha) from its qualities (guna), and permanent (nitya). That which distinguishes one substance from other substances is its distinctive (bhedaka) quality (guna). The presence of this quality proves its existence. The absence of distinctive qualities would lead to intermixture or confusion between substances. For instance, the substance of soul (jīva) is distinguished from the matter (pudgala) and other substances by the presence of its distinctive qualities, such as knowledge. The matter (pudgala) is distinguished from the souls (jiva) by the presence of its distinctive qualities, such as form (colour), etc. Without such distinguishing characteristics, there can be no distinction between the souls and the matter. Therefore, from the general (sāmānya) point of view, knowledge, etc., are qualities always associated with the soul, and qualities like form, etc., are always associated with the matter. Their modifications, which are known from particular (viseṣa) point of view, are modes (paryāya). For instance, in the souls (jiva), the modes (paryaya) are knowledge of the pitcher, knowledge of the cloth, anger, pride, etc., and in the matter (pudgala) these are intense or mild odour, colour, etc. The collection or aggregate of qualities (guna) and modes (paryaya), which somehow is considered different from these, is called the substance (dravya). If the aggregate were completely (from all points of view) the same, it would lead to negation of all the substance (dravya), the qualities (guna) and the modes (paryaya). This is explained thus: if the aggregate of mutually different qualities be considered one and the same as qualities, the aggregate itself would become non-existent, as these are mutually different. The form (colour) is different from the taste, etc. If the aggregate is same as the colour, and the colour being different from the taste, etc., the aggregate is bound to be different from the taste, etc. Therefore, the conclusion would be that colour alone is the aggregate. But one colour is not fit to become an aggregate or a collection. Hence it leads to the negation of the aggregate. And, with negation of the aggregate, its constituents too are negated. It would lead to negation of the
223
