Book Title: Theories Of Parinama
Author(s): Indukala H Jhaveri
Publisher: Gujarat University

Previous | Next

Page 157
________________ Parināma in Tarka-period 143 to Dravya paryāya and Guņa-Paryāya. We saw that the older Āgamas did not make this distinction but a late passage in the Uttarādhyayana-sūtra, Umāsvāti and Kundakunda, have recognised Dravya and Guņa as two distinct categories. The recognition of Guņa as a distinct category over and above Dravya category led to the discussion as to whether this Guņa should be considered as different from paryāya or identical with it. The distinction between Guņa and Paryāya has not been unanimously accepted by later writers. I give below the views of those writers who accept it as well as of those who do not, in order to study their arguments and see if they reflect any development of philosophic thought. Siddhasena Divākara? 6 regards them to be non-different on the following grounds. In the Āgamas only two view-points are mentioned, viz., Dravyāstika and Paryāyāstika. They should have mentioned the third view-point viz., Guņāstika if they really wanted to give guņa, the status of an independent category. Secondly, Guņa is identical with Paryāya and not something independent of Paryāya as the former is synonymous with the latter. Guņa differentiates one (universal) into many individuals); Paryāya differentiates one (individual) into many (states). Of course, the shades of meaning of these two words are different. Yet, in the that 'the function of space, as we conceive it, is by the Jains, distributed among three different substances; this seems highly speculative, and rather hyperlogical' (Studies in Jainism. p. 18). Dr. Jacobi, further, compares Dharma and Adharma with Rajas and Tamas of the Sāṁkhya. He says, 'Rajas is necessary for motion and immobility is caused by Tamas. Immobility or rest is, however, but one aspect of Tamas; another is 'iniquity' adharma. This character of Tamas, consisting in Adharma, proves the near relation between Sämkhya Tamas and Jain Adharma and, explains at the same time, why the substratum of immobility has been named by the Jains, by the strange name Adharma'. (Studies in Jainism, p. 85). 16 This Siddhasena is different from Siddhasena, the commentator of the Tsu and its Bhāşya

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208