________________
168
The Samkhya-Yoga and the Jain Theories of Parinama
word, so long it appears as having a sort of abiding quality. This type of Paryaya is Vyañjana-Paryāya. The actual transformation which goes on continuously every moment is the Artha-Paryāya which is not cognisable to ordinary intelligence and therefore not capable of being named.
The theory of Pariņāma is explained in greater detail, in the commentaries on the relevant sūtras of the Tattvārtha. What we have to note is that the word 'agira' in the definition of nitya (amatoud facea' 1) which was explained objectively in the Tattvārtha-bhāşya as 'Tra' comes to be explained by Pūjyapāda, Akalamka and Vidyānanda as formaat on the basis of our experience which vouches for the knowledge of recognition of the identity in a thing. In the same way, Vidyānanda adds that utpäda and vyaya refer to that which is the cause of the knowledge of difference, - 'This is different from that, i.e. the previous one'.
Siddhasena, the commentator of the Tbh., explains utpada and vyaya in terms of manifestation (stfaufa) and non-manifestation (faratha) like the author of Yuktidipika and Vacaspati.
Lastly, the Jain thinkers of this period, defend the doctrine of Pariņāma on various grounds and try to answer the objections of the rival schools of thought. This is done by showing how the principle of causality, the facts of memory and recognition and dogmas of kartștva, bhoktặtva, sukhaduḥkhānubhava, bandha, mokşa etc. - which are the accepted postulates of almost all the darśanas - will not hold good on the assumption of absolute permanence or absolute change without anything abiding. All these postulates, avers the Jain, can be properly explained only on the acceptance of the doctrine of Pariņāma, i.e. utpada, vyaya and dhrauvya.
To conclude, the Jain analysed reality, first into Dravya and Paryaya and then into Dravya, Guņa and Paryāya. The relation between Diavya and Paryāya (i.e. the state of Dravya) is explained
