________________
vii
Upanişads. I have tried to show, in conclusion, that though in these passages explaining creation there is no explicit mention of Pariņāma, the idea may have been taken for grantd as implicit in the process, for as already noted, the concept was well-defined as early as the in Nirukta.
In the third and the fourth chapters I have attempted to study the theory of Pariņāma, in its various aspects, as discussed in the important works of the Sāṁkhya and the Yoga darśanas proper because there is no vital difference between the metaphysical theories of the Samkhya and the Yoga excepting that the latter accepts one puruşa as Išvara, not as the creator but as guiding the course of evolution. The fifth chapter is devoted to the critical exposition of the other topics related to Pariņāma. At the end of this chapter, I have given a resume of all these five chapters.
In the sixth chapter I have given an account of the main Jain sources on which our discussion is going to be based.
In the seventh chapter I have discussed the Jain theory of Parinama as found in the oldest extant Canonical literature of the Jainas, viz. the Āgamas.
In the treatment of the Agamas I have consulted only those that contain discussion of philosophical doctrines - such as the Bhagavati-Sūtra, Sthanamga, Prajñápana, Uttaradhyayana-sútra, Anuyogadvārasūtra, Jivabhigama etc. In this seventh chapter which deals with Parinama in the Agamas, I have tried to show that despite the absence of any explicit and precise definition of the theory of Pariņāma, there are in them, all the elements of it viz., Dravya, Paryāya and Pariņāma.
In the eighth chapter, I have examined the relevant passsages from the Tattvårtha-sútra, and its Svopajña-bhäşya by Umásváti and the important Prākst a works of the Digambarācārya Kudakunda - such as the Pañcâstikāya, the Pravacanasära, and the Sama
