Theories Of Parinama

SR No.: 023179
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Indukala H Jhaveri
Publisher: Gujarat University
Publication Year: 1990
Total Pages: 208
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 18 MB

Page 157

Parināma in Tarka-period
143
to Dravya paryāya and Guņa-Paryāya. We saw that the older Āgamas did not make this distinction but a late passage in the Uttarādhyayana-sūtra, Umāsvāti and Kundakunda, have recognised Dravya and Guņa as two distinct categories. The recognition of Guņa as a distinct category over and above Dravya category led to the discussion as to whether this Guņa should be considered as different from paryāya or identical with it. The distinction between Guņa and Paryāya has not been unanimously accepted by later writers. I give below the views of those writers who accept it as well as of those who do not, in order to study their arguments and see if they reflect any development of philosophic thought.
Siddhasena Divākara? 6 regards them to be non-different on the following grounds. In the Āgamas only two view-points are mentioned, viz., Dravyāstika and Paryāyāstika. They should have mentioned the third view-point viz., Guņāstika if they really wanted to give guņa, the status of an independent category. Secondly, Guņa is identical with Paryāya and not something independent of Paryāya as the former is synonymous with the latter. Guņa differentiates one (universal) into many individuals); Paryāya differentiates one (individual) into many (states). Of course, the shades of meaning of these two words are different. Yet, in the
that 'the function of space, as we conceive it, is by the Jains, distributed among three different substances; this seems highly speculative, and rather hyperlogical' (Studies in Jainism. p. 18).
Dr. Jacobi, further, compares Dharma and Adharma with Rajas and Tamas of the Sāṁkhya. He says, 'Rajas is necessary for motion and immobility is caused by Tamas. Immobility or rest is, however, but one aspect of Tamas; another is 'iniquity' adharma. This character of Tamas, consisting in Adharma, proves the near relation between Sämkhya Tamas and Jain Adharma and, explains at the same time, why the substratum of immobility has been named by the Jains, by the
strange name Adharma'. (Studies in Jainism, p. 85). 16 This Siddhasena is different from Siddhasena, the commentator of the
Tsu and its Bhāşya