________________
14
TULSI-PRAJNA
and the bhedābhedavāda.2 The bhedavāda represents the view that the attributes and the modifications are a combination with the substance which gives birth to the triple characters (dravya, guņa and paryāya) of an entity. Both guna and paryāya are two distinctive elements in this view. The former is called sahabhāvī or intrinsic. while the latter kramabhāvī or extrinsic. This ideology was promulgated by Kundakunda and supported by Umāsvāmi, Samantabhadra and Pujyapāda.
According to abhedavāda, the guņas and the paryāyas are synonymous signifying the conception of change inherent in which are both. external modifications of all realities without creating any contradictory position. Siddhasena Divākara is the chief supporter of this view and he is supported by Siddhasenagani, Haribhadra and Hemachandra.
The third view (bhedabheda) held by Akalarkadeva has been accepted by all his commentators and followers such as chandra, Vādirājasuri and Ananta virya. This view appears in a more developed and hormonized form and clarifies further the relation between guna and paryāya in the opinion of Dr. Padmarajiah. On commenting on the Sūtra "Guna paryāyavaddravya" of the Tattvā. rthasūtra, Akalanka suggests that gunas are themselves a distinct category from, as well as identical with paryāyas. It means guņas always exist with realities and their modifications which follow one after another. Prabhāchandra' gives a more critical and comprehensive explanation.
All these three views are not fundamentally different from one another, since they unanimously accept the common factors, utpada, vyaya and dhrauvya simultaneity (sahabhāvitva) and modifications with successivity (kramabhāvitva). The Buddhist philosophers are familiar with the first and the last view, but they do not make any distinction between them.
Samantabhadra explains the triple characters which abide with a substance at one and the same time. They are not mutually independent. Utpāda can never exist without vyaya and dhrauvya. The other two characters are mutually dependent. Samantabhadra uses an example to clarify this view. If a jar made of gold is turned into a crown it will please a man who has an attachment to the crown, but it will displease the man who dislikes the crown, while the third man who is neutral about the crown but is interested in the gold, will have no objection to it at all. Here origination, destruction and permanence abide in one reality,
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
