________________
Parinamavada in the Agama
113
and Pariņamana. Similarly the discussion of the permanent and the changing aspects of reality from the Dravyārthika and Paryayārthika standpoints respectively, clearly visualises the theory of Parinama. We might say here that the later definition of reality in terms of ‘utpāda, vyaya and dhrauvya' is derived from these earlier discussions.
We may, now, consider an interesting problem, important both historically and philosophically, arising from the above discussion, in connection with the usage of the terms Pajjava (Paryāya) and Pariņāma.
Paryāya – Pariņāma
Both the words Paryāya and Pariņāma, grammatically mean one and the same thing and, therefore, can be used as synonyms. In fact, they are actually used as synonyms in the earlier and later Jain philosophical literature.
The problem, now, arises, whether we are to regard both terms of equal status historically in Jain literature or, whether there are any considerations, which would make us think, that the term Pariņāma might have been taken from common usage to elucidate the doctrine of Change and Permanence.
One consideration, which immediately changes to our view is, the word Pariņāma is of common usage in the Jain and other darśanas while, the term Paryaya in this particular sense, is a Jain
For Dravya and Paryāya, as we know, were already too familiar to the older Agamas, but the word Guņa in the sense of a 'quality' seems to be unknown to them. Guņa, in the Agamas (as we have already seen) is generally used in the sense of so many 'fold' or 'times'. The above passage of the Ut. Sū., however, introduces the category of Guņa for the first time in the Āgamas in the specific sense of quality', pro bably due to the Vaiseșika influence.....
