________________
The Sankhya-Yoga und the Jaina Theories of Pariņāma”
essence, is proved by the fact that they have the same degree of grossness and perceptibility'. 31 Vijñānabhikṣu's explanation of the same is as follows:
'तत्त्वत्वं च द्रव्यत्वं तत्त्वान्तरत्वं च स्वावृत्तिद्रव्यत्वसाक्षाद्वयाप्यजातिमत्त्वम् ।'
“Tattvatva consists in the possession of substantiality (dravyatva), and tattvántaratva i.e. distinctness of tativa consists or lies in the possession of the generality (jātimatva, as e.g. 'puruşatva') which is directly pervaded by the generality ('dravyatva' i.e. substantiality which chəracterises the twenty-five tattvas) and which does not reside or inhere (Fatalet) in the other tattvas (as c.g. other twenty-four,.than the Puruşa).'
Thus according to Bhikṣu, the twenty-five principles of the Sāmkhya are distinct tattvas because each one possesses a distinct: *Jāti'. But this is only explaining away in the terminology of Vaiseșika, what is accepted as a dogma. Vacaspati, however, may be said to have attemptec a sort of rational explanation of 'tattväntaratva..22
;
21 पञ्चमहाभूतानि एकादश इन्द्रियाणीति षोडशको गणो विकार एव, न
प्रकृतिरिति । यद्यपि पृथिव्यादिनां गोघटवृक्षादयो विकाररा: एवन्तहिकारभेदानां पयोबीजादीनां दध्यकुरादयः, तथाऽपि गवादयो बीजादयो वा न पृथिव्यादिभ्थस्तत्त्वान्तरम् । तत्त्वान्तरोपादानत्वं च प्रकृतित्वमिहाभिप्रेतन , इति न
दोषः । सर्वेषां गोघटादीनां स्थूलतेन्द्रियग्राह्यता च समेति न तत्त्वान्तरम् । 22 Das Gupta's interpretation of the same is as follows: "The produc--
tion of these Višeşas and Aviseşas is called tattvāntaraparinäma, as distinguished from the changes that take place among the visesas themselves. Thus for example when the tanmātras are produced from ahamkära, the state of teirg, involved in the tanmātrās, is altogether different from the state of being of ahamkära. It is not merely a mere change of quality, but a change of existence or state of being. Thus though the tanmātrās are derived from mahat through ahamkāra, the traces of abámkāra caprot be easily found in them. This derivation is not such that the ahamkāra remains principally unchanged and there is only a c harce of qualis 0 ite ilirikala, lut it is a different exis.
