Dravya Guna Paryaya - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Dravya Guna Paryaya," by Sukhlal Sanghavi, based on the provided pages:

The text, "Dravya Guna Paryaya," by Sukhlal Sanghavi, delves into the fundamental concepts of Dravya (Substance) and Paryaya (Mode/Attribute) within the Jain philosophical framework. It begins by tracing the etymological roots of the word "Dravya" in Sanskrit and Prakrit/Pali, noting its ancient origins and diverse usage across various disciplines like grammar, Ayurveda, and philosophy.

Etymology and Diverse Meanings of Dravya:

The author highlights the ancient nature of the words danna (Prakrit/Pali) and dravya (Sanskrit).
Panini, in his Ashtadhyayi, offers two grammatical derivations for dravya:
- From dru (tree/wood) + ya (derived quality or part), signifying something derived from wood or a part of it.
- From dru (wood) + ya (similar), implying that just as wood can be shaped into desired forms, a prince, upon receiving education, can acquire kingly qualities. Therefore, dravya refers to something capable of acquiring future qualities. Wealth is also called dravya due to its potential for various uses.
- A third derivation from the root dru (to move) with the suffix ya (object of action) implies something that attains various states.
These etymological explanations are seen as encompassing the diverse meanings of dravya found in both common parlance and scriptures.

Jain Usage of Dravya:

While Jain literature uses dravya in many of the same senses as other traditions, its paribhashik (technical) meaning in Jainism is distinct.
The text identifies key contexts in Jain philosophy where dravya is used:
- In the context of nikshepas (modes of presentation): nama, sthāpanā, dravya, bhāva.
- In relation to dravya, kshetra, kāla, bhāva (substance, space, time, mode).
- In the discussion of dravyārthika and paryayārthika nayā (standpoints).
- In references to dravya-acharya and bhāva-acharya.
- In terms of dravyakarma and bhāvakarma.
In the Jain context, dravya often refers to the fundamental, underlying reality. The author connects this to the bhāvya-yoga meaning derived from grammar, implying something that possesses potential or is capable of undergoing transformation.
Jain philosophy identifies six dravyas (substances) as the fundamental constituents of the universe: jīva (soul), pudgala (matter), dharma (principle of motion), adharma (principle of rest), ākāśa (space), and kāla (time).

Comparison with Other Philosophies:

In philosophies like Nyaya and Vaisheshika, dravya refers to the substratum of qualities and actions, exemplified by the nine dravyas (earth, water, fire, air, ether, time, space, soul, and mind).
The text notes that this Nyaya-Vaisheshika understanding of dravya as a substratum also appears in ancient Jain texts like the Uttarādhyayana Sūtra (28.6), where it's applied to the six Jain dravyas.

Patānjali's Mahābhāṣya and the Concept of Dravya:

The author references Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya, which discusses dravya in various contexts.
One interpretation from Mahābhāṣya describes dravya as the constant element that remains amidst transformations. For example, the clay or gold that persists through the changing shapes of a pot, a bowl, or ornaments (like bracelets and earrings). This interpretation is echoed in Vyāsa's commentary on the Yoga Sūtras and by Kumārila in the Mīmāṁsā tradition.
Another interpretation from Mahābhāṣya defines dravya as a collection or aggregation of qualities. This aligns well with Buddhist thought.
A concise definition from Mahābhāṣya posits dravya as that whose essential nature is not destroyed even when new modes (paryāyas) arise. This is a crucial concept for understanding dravya in Jainism.
The text emphasizes that the interpretations of dravya found in Mahābhāṣya, Nyāyabhāṣya, and Ślokavārttika are largely "collected" and supported in Jain tradition by Umasvati in his Tattvārtha Sūtra and commentary. Jinabhadr Gani Kshamashraman also compiled various interpretations prevalent in his time.
Acharya Hemachandra, in his own words, described the nature of the subject matter by using the term dravya and defining it as 'dhruva-bhāva' (eternal, unchanging), an understanding consistent with grammar and other philosophies. His etymology aligns with the kr̥t (verbal root) derivation of dru + ya.

The Relationship Between Dravya and Paryaya:

The text establishes that when defining the subject of pramāṇa (means of valid knowledge), the term Paryaya is used alongside Dravya.
While dravya is an ancient and well-known term in classical languages, its technical meaning in Jainism is unique and not found in other philosophies.
Paryaya in Jainism refers to the qualities, special characteristics, or states of being that undergo origination and cessation ( utpāda-vināśa ) or manifestation and disappearance (āvirbhāva-tirobhāva) within a dravya.
The author notes that in Nyaya-Vaisheshika and similar philosophies, the term "guṇa" (quality) is used for what Jainism calls paryaya.
Acharya Hemachandra uses the term paryaya to encompass all attributes of a dravya, including guṇa and kriyā (action).

The Debate on Guṇa and Paryaya:

The text delves into the historical discourse on the relationship between guṇa and paryaya within Jainism.
Ancient Āgamas like Bhagavati and Uttarādhyayana clearly distinguish between guṇa and paryaya, with Uttarādhyayana (28.13) explicitly detailing their differences.
Kundakunda, Umasvati, and Pujyapada supported this distinction.
Vidyānanda also supported this distinction through his logical arguments.
However, Akalanka, Vidyānanda's predecessor, held the view that guṇa and paryaya were indistinguishable ( bhedābheda ). This view was followed by Amritachandra and similarly by Siddhasena in his commentary on Tattvārtha Sūtra.
Siddhasena Divākara initiated a new perspective in Jain philosophy, asserting that "guṇa" and "paryaya" are synonymous. His argument is that if the Bhagavan (Lord Mahavira) intended a distinct meaning for guṇa separate from paryaya, He would have presented a third "guṇārthika" (guṇa-oriented) exposition, similar to the dravyārthika and paryayārthika expositions.
This reasoning influenced Haribhadra Suri, who also maintained the non-dualistic view.
Devasuri, despite attempting to differentiate guṇa and paryaya, also seems influenced by the non-dualistic perspective.
Acharya Hemachandra omitted the term guṇa from his Viśaya-lakṣaṇa sūtra and did not discuss the distinction or non-distinction between guṇa and paryaya, suggesting his support for the non-dualistic view.
Upadhyaya Yashovijayji also established this non-dualistic position.

Conclusion on Guṇa-Paryaya Debate:

The author concludes that while both terms were used in ancient Āgamas, the discussion of their distinction or non-distinction began with the emergence and development of logic.
This led to different scholars presenting and establishing their divergent viewpoints on the matter.

The Distinction/Non-Distinction Between Dravya and its Attributes:

Beyond the guṇa-paryaya debate, the text highlights the significant philosophical discussion regarding the interrelationship between dravya and its attributes ( guṇa and paryaya ).
Dualistic philosophies like Nyaya-Vaisheshika have always considered qualities and actions to be distinct from the substance.
Non-dualistic philosophies like Sāṅkhya and Vedānta consider them to be non-distinct from the substance.
These dualistic and non-dualistic positions are ancient, as even Patañjali in Mahābhāṣya initiates a detailed discussion on whether dravya is distinct from or non-distinct from qualities like sound and touch. Patañjali ultimately supports the dualistic perspective.
Importantly, the text notes that Jain logicians like Siddhasena and Samantabhadra, who championed the distinction or non-distinction between guṇa and dravya or guṇa and paryaya, found support in the clear and logical arguments of the Mīmāṁsā scholar Kumārila.
Acharya Hemachandra, like other Jain acharyas, accepted the non-dualistic perspective on the interrelationship between dravya and paryaya.

In essence, the provided excerpt lays the groundwork for understanding dravya and paryaya by exploring their etymology, diverse meanings, and specifically their unique technical definitions within Jainism. It then critically examines the historical evolution of the debate regarding the distinction or non-distinction between guṇa and paryaya, and more broadly, between dravya and its attributes, highlighting the significant contributions and differing views of key Jain scholars.