12-17-2022, 08:55 AM
Gatha-21
A man cannot be a deva and a deva cannot be a man or the Siddha; how can the substance (dravya) in all these different modes (paryāya) be the same?
Explanatory Note: States of existence – like the man, the deva, or the Siddha – do not happen at the same time. Therefore, these states of existence – paryāya – are different from one another. The substance (dravya), which is the doer (kartā), the instrument (karaõa), and the substratum (adhikaraõa) of the mode (paryāya), and which is not distinct from the mode (paryāya), changes, conventionally, with each change of mode (paryāya). As the mode (paryāya) changes, the substance (dravya) must change, albeit conventionally. From the the standpoint-of-modes (paryāyārthika naya), origination (utpāda) takes place in the substance (dravya) – asadbhāva-utpāda or asat-utpāda. As gold is referred to as the ‘bracelet-gold’ or the ‘earring-gold’, in the same way, the soul (jīva) is referred to as ‘human-soul’, ‘deva-soul’, and ‘Siddha-soul’. Thus, in reference to asat-utpāda, it is proper to accord a new form to the substance (dravya) with a change of the mode (paryāya).
Gatha-22
From the standpoint-of-substance (dravyārthika naya), as the substance (dravya) remains the same, the object (vastu) is ‘notother’ (ananya) in different modes (paryāya). From the standpoint-of-modes (paryāyārthika naya), as the object takes the form of the mode (paryāya), it is said to be ‘other’ (anya) with each change of the mode (paryāya).
Explanatory Note:
The object (vastu) has two kinds of attributes, general (sāmānya) and specific (viśeÈa). The standpoint-of-substance (dravyārthika naya) and the standpointof-
modes (paryāyārthika naya) are the two eyes that see these two kinds of attributes, general (sāmānya) and specific (viśesa). When viewed with one eye of the standpoint-of-substance (dravyārthika naya) while closing the other eye, the soul (jīva), with its general (sāmānya) attribute, appears to be the same in all modes (paryāya) – as the man, the infernal being, the deva, or the Siddha. When viewed with the eye of the standpoint-of-modes (paryāyārthika naya) while closing the other eye, the soul (jīva), with its specific (viśesa) attributes, appears to be different in all modes (paryāya) – as the man, the infernal being, the deva, or the Siddha. The soul (jīva) appears to have taken the form of its existing mode. Just as the fire, while burning, takes the form of the fuel – dung, grass, leaves, wood – in the same way, the soul (jīva) takes forms according to its modes (paryāya) of existence. When viewed with both the eyes – the standpoint-of-substance (dravyārthika naya) and the standpoint-of-modes (paryāyārthika naya) – the soul (jīva) appears to be one as well as different, with change of modes (paryāya). Viewing the object with only one eye – standpoint – does not provide the whole picture; viewing it with both the eyes gives the complete picture. When the object is viewed with both the eyes, there is no contradiction in the statement that it is ‘not-other’ (ananya) as well as it is ‘other’ (anya), in different modes (paryāya).
A man cannot be a deva and a deva cannot be a man or the Siddha; how can the substance (dravya) in all these different modes (paryāya) be the same?
Explanatory Note: States of existence – like the man, the deva, or the Siddha – do not happen at the same time. Therefore, these states of existence – paryāya – are different from one another. The substance (dravya), which is the doer (kartā), the instrument (karaõa), and the substratum (adhikaraõa) of the mode (paryāya), and which is not distinct from the mode (paryāya), changes, conventionally, with each change of mode (paryāya). As the mode (paryāya) changes, the substance (dravya) must change, albeit conventionally. From the the standpoint-of-modes (paryāyārthika naya), origination (utpāda) takes place in the substance (dravya) – asadbhāva-utpāda or asat-utpāda. As gold is referred to as the ‘bracelet-gold’ or the ‘earring-gold’, in the same way, the soul (jīva) is referred to as ‘human-soul’, ‘deva-soul’, and ‘Siddha-soul’. Thus, in reference to asat-utpāda, it is proper to accord a new form to the substance (dravya) with a change of the mode (paryāya).
Gatha-22
From the standpoint-of-substance (dravyārthika naya), as the substance (dravya) remains the same, the object (vastu) is ‘notother’ (ananya) in different modes (paryāya). From the standpoint-of-modes (paryāyārthika naya), as the object takes the form of the mode (paryāya), it is said to be ‘other’ (anya) with each change of the mode (paryāya).
Explanatory Note:
The object (vastu) has two kinds of attributes, general (sāmānya) and specific (viśeÈa). The standpoint-of-substance (dravyārthika naya) and the standpointof-
modes (paryāyārthika naya) are the two eyes that see these two kinds of attributes, general (sāmānya) and specific (viśesa). When viewed with one eye of the standpoint-of-substance (dravyārthika naya) while closing the other eye, the soul (jīva), with its general (sāmānya) attribute, appears to be the same in all modes (paryāya) – as the man, the infernal being, the deva, or the Siddha. When viewed with the eye of the standpoint-of-modes (paryāyārthika naya) while closing the other eye, the soul (jīva), with its specific (viśesa) attributes, appears to be different in all modes (paryāya) – as the man, the infernal being, the deva, or the Siddha. The soul (jīva) appears to have taken the form of its existing mode. Just as the fire, while burning, takes the form of the fuel – dung, grass, leaves, wood – in the same way, the soul (jīva) takes forms according to its modes (paryāya) of existence. When viewed with both the eyes – the standpoint-of-substance (dravyārthika naya) and the standpoint-of-modes (paryāyārthika naya) – the soul (jīva) appears to be one as well as different, with change of modes (paryāya). Viewing the object with only one eye – standpoint – does not provide the whole picture; viewing it with both the eyes gives the complete picture. When the object is viewed with both the eyes, there is no contradiction in the statement that it is ‘not-other’ (ananya) as well as it is ‘other’ (anya), in different modes (paryāya).