________________
Parinama in Tarka-period
145
Siddhasena, the commentator of the Tsū. and its bhāşya, clearly endorses the view of Akalamka. According to Siddhasena, from the empirical standpoint, Guņas are distinguished from Paryāyas. The Guņas have simultaneous existence in a Dravya, whereas the Paryāyas have not. In reality, however, the Paryāyas themselves are the Gunas i. e. are identical with the Gunas?!
Vādideva, in his Syādvāda-ratnakara, accepts the distinction between Guna and Paryāya but defends it more cleverly by regarding Guna and Paryaya as two types of Višeşas. Višeşa or particular, he says, is of two kinds, Guņa and Paryāya. Guna is a coexistent characteristic, as for instance, the potentiality of the manifestation of consciousness etc. in the Ātman; and the Paryāya, on the other hand, occurs in succession one after another-as for
example, happiness, unhappiness etc. in the Ātman.22 : Haribhadra, in his SVS, seems to follow Siddhasena Divākara. by accepting only two categories, viz. Dravya and Paryāya. He assimilates the Guņas in the category of Dravya ? 8
Yaśovijayji, in his commentary on the SVS, not only follows Siddhasena Divakara's view but also discusses it, in detail, giving the same arguments as were given by Divakara.54
The same view is put forward by Yasovijayaji in his Gujarati work, 'Dravya-Guņa-Paryāya Rāsa', wherein he siates that the view of some who uphold that Guņa, as potentiality, is a distinct category and that it is the cause of Guņa-paryāya just as Dravya is the cause of Dravya-paryaya is not correct 25
The above discussion gives us some idea as to how the Jain Ācāryas extended the principle of Paryāya to Guņa. Once when 21 Siddhasena's Commentary on V. 37 (p. 428) 22 Syādvādaratnākara, Ch. V., p. 735 23 SVS VII. 31 24 Commentary of Yaśovijaya on SVS p. 261 25 'Dravya-Guņa-Paryāya Rāsa’ II. p. 10.
10
