________________
148
The Samkhya-Yoga and the fain Theories of Parining
in a thing. Akalamka uses the word 'bhāva' to include both kriyā and Pariņāma. Vidyānanda uses the word kriyā in the same sense (i. e. Parispanda), but, while applying Pariņāma to Dharma and Adharma, he uses the word kriyā, in a wider sense, to include both Parispanda and Pariņāma, 1. e. in the sense in which Akalamka uses the word 'bhāva'. Siddhasena also follows the distinction made by Pūjyapāda and others in the passage quoted in fn. 31. However, what is to be noted is that Vidyānanda calls kriya a Paryayaviseşa of Dravya, and Siddhasena too calls it a Pariņativiseșa. This is likely to cause some confusion. For, if we follow the distinction between Pariņāma and kriyā (gatikarma or Parispanda), it would not be quite proper to include either, Pariņāma and kriyā or Parispanda, as two varieties of Kriya as Vidyānanda and Siddhasena do or to calí kriyā a paryaya. viseșa as Vidyānanda and Siddhasena do. If we confine the word Paryaya to denote a state due to Pariņāma, then it cannot be used to denote Kriyā, which is distinct from pariņāma. But the Jain Ācāryas seem to have allowed this looseness to remain on purpose because Pariņāma-Paryāya express the nature of realty as such. Hence every kind of change, either internal (of qualities of a thing) or due to movement in space, has to be regarded as a case of Pariņāma-Paryāya. Akalamka tries to avoid the difficulty, by using the word bhāva to include both Pariņāma and Kriya but if he be asked to define 'bhāva', he would have to include Parinama as a part of his definition. The narrower meaning that is sometimes given by the commentators is scientifically more useful in as much as it clearly distinguishes between the change which we call transformation or evolution, and the change due to movement in space, which may not affect the internal qualities of a thing. But philosophically, it delimits the principle of Pari. nama, which was supposed to characterise the whole of reality, and therefore, kriyā also. So, the Jain Acaryas could not help being loose and indefinite in the usage of these terms.
