11-16-2022, 09:36 AM
The substance (dravya) is not the quality (guna) and, certainly, the quality (guna), due to difference in respective nature, is not the substance (dravya); this difference [between the possessor- of-quality (gunī) and the quality (guna)] is the difference of selfidentity (anyatva). There is no absolute difference between the two. The Omniscient Lord has expounded thus.
Explanatory Note: In a substance (dravya), that which is the substance (dravya) is not the quality (guna), and that which is the quality (guna) is not the substance (dravya); the difference is from the empirical (vyavahāra) point-of-view, as the two exhibit the difference of self-identity (anyatva). The difference between the two is not absolute; it is not that the absence of the substance (dravya) is the presence of the quality (guna), and the absence of the quality (guna) is the presence of the substance (dravya). If the two were to be considered absolutely different, three kinds of faults would arise: 1) it will indicate manyness of the substance – anekapanā, 2) both the substance (dravya) and the quality (guna) will become non-existent – ubhayaśūnyatā, and 3) only the absence of the one will entail the presence of the other – apoharūpatā. These are now explained.
The animate (cetana) and the inanimate (acetana) substances (dravya) are two absolutely different substances. The absence of animate substance (dravya) indicates the presence of inanimate substance (dravya), and vice versa. These, therefore, exhibit manyness (anekapanā). The same is not the case when the substance (dravya) and the quality (guna) of a single substance are considered. Considering the two as absolutely different will indicate manyness (anekapanā) in the single substance (dravya), which is not tenable.
As the absence of gold means the absence of its quality and the absence of quality (of gold) means the absence of gold, in the same way, the absence of the substance (dravya) will mean the absence of the quality (guna) and the absence of the quality (guna) will entail the absence of the substance (dravya) itself. Thus, if the two – the substance (dravya) and the quality (guna) – were absolutely different, both must become non-existent – ubhayaśūnyatā.
The absence of the pot must indicate the presence of the board and the absence of the board must indicate the presence of the pot; this is apoharūpatā. If considered in the same manner, the absence of the substance (dravya) must indicate the presence of the quality (guna), and the absence of the quality (guna) must indicate the presence of the substance (dravya). This is not true as there is no apoharūpatā – negation of the one must indicate the presence of the other – in case of the substance (dravya) and the quality (guna).
Those who wish to avoid the above-mentioned three faults must accept that there is the difference of self-identity (anyatva) between the substance (dravya) and the quality (guna). The difference is that of the possossor-of-quality (gunī) and the quality (guna).
Explanatory Note: In a substance (dravya), that which is the substance (dravya) is not the quality (guna), and that which is the quality (guna) is not the substance (dravya); the difference is from the empirical (vyavahāra) point-of-view, as the two exhibit the difference of self-identity (anyatva). The difference between the two is not absolute; it is not that the absence of the substance (dravya) is the presence of the quality (guna), and the absence of the quality (guna) is the presence of the substance (dravya). If the two were to be considered absolutely different, three kinds of faults would arise: 1) it will indicate manyness of the substance – anekapanā, 2) both the substance (dravya) and the quality (guna) will become non-existent – ubhayaśūnyatā, and 3) only the absence of the one will entail the presence of the other – apoharūpatā. These are now explained.
The animate (cetana) and the inanimate (acetana) substances (dravya) are two absolutely different substances. The absence of animate substance (dravya) indicates the presence of inanimate substance (dravya), and vice versa. These, therefore, exhibit manyness (anekapanā). The same is not the case when the substance (dravya) and the quality (guna) of a single substance are considered. Considering the two as absolutely different will indicate manyness (anekapanā) in the single substance (dravya), which is not tenable.
As the absence of gold means the absence of its quality and the absence of quality (of gold) means the absence of gold, in the same way, the absence of the substance (dravya) will mean the absence of the quality (guna) and the absence of the quality (guna) will entail the absence of the substance (dravya) itself. Thus, if the two – the substance (dravya) and the quality (guna) – were absolutely different, both must become non-existent – ubhayaśūnyatā.
The absence of the pot must indicate the presence of the board and the absence of the board must indicate the presence of the pot; this is apoharūpatā. If considered in the same manner, the absence of the substance (dravya) must indicate the presence of the quality (guna), and the absence of the quality (guna) must indicate the presence of the substance (dravya). This is not true as there is no apoharūpatā – negation of the one must indicate the presence of the other – in case of the substance (dravya) and the quality (guna).
Those who wish to avoid the above-mentioned three faults must accept that there is the difference of self-identity (anyatva) between the substance (dravya) and the quality (guna). The difference is that of the possossor-of-quality (gunī) and the quality (guna).