________________
Pariņāma in Tarka-Period
165
behave as an independent reality and such may have the triple characteristic. The reduction of the triple character to a unitary character is also a matter of point of view. The mode and the substance may be viewed as identical and also as different, as they are both in one. Thus the consequences, alleged to be inevitable by the opponent, are not inevitable, as they are based upon exclusive identity and exclusive difference. But the identity is not exclusive of difference and vice versa as both are the attested traits of reality. A mode and a substance are different because they are two, and they are identical because one is not independent of the other. If identity is to be asserted on the evidence of experience, difference also should equally be asserted on the strength of the same evidence. The compartmental way of looking at things leads to the affirmation of one and to the nega. tion of the other, since it concentrates on one and ignores the other. The besetting sin of philosophers has been the habit to put the telescope upon the blind eye and then to deduce that the other aspect is not real. The Jain philosopher voices the necessity of using both the eyes and of seeing the obverse of the coin of reality
Recapitulation
Āgamas frequently refer to Paryāya and Pariņāma. As in the Samkhya-kārikā, here also the terms are not clearly defined and probably for the same reason viz. that the terms were too wellknown to require explanation. The elements of Parināma are, however, clearly mentioned, viz. Dravya - the permanent or abiding element, Pariņāma - the process of transformation, and Paryāya, the state of Dravya. Only these are not put together to form a definition,
The term Paryāya, however, has a wider connotation signi'fying both a state due to Pariņāma or any other aspect due to division in space such as desa and pradera of Dharma, Adharma and Akasa.
