Spirituality Studies 71 Nishit Shah 2 Ontological Foundations: Dravya, Guna, and Paryāya in Jain Philosophy The questions of how liberation is possible without divine intervention and why karma is conceived as material depend on how Jain metaphysics conceives the relationship between permanence and change, substance and modification. In this sense, Jain soteriological questions are grounded in the structure of ontology itself (Balcerowicz 2021). If karmic bondage is causally effective yet reversible without destroying the soul’s essential nature, then ontology must simultaneously preserve individual identity and allow for transformation through lawful causation. Jain philosophy addresses this requirement through its articulation of dravya (Sa. “substance”), guṇa (Sa. “quality”), and paryāya (Sa. “mode”). Umāsvāti (1994, 142) provides the foundational definition of dravya in the Tattvārtha Sūtra, a text whose philosophical chapters have been examined in recent scholarship (Den Boer 2023). guṇa-paryāyavad dravyam (Tattvārtha Sūtra 5:37) – That which possesses qualities and modes is a substance. [1] This aphorism articulates a triadic ontological structure in which substance is constitutively characterized by both essential qualities and changing modes. Dravya is not a passive substratum underlying change but an ontological unity that is never encountered apart from its guṇa and paryāya. While essential qualities define what a substance is, modes express how it exists under a particular condition. A substance thus endures through time not by remaining static, but by undergoing continuous modal transformation without loss of identity. Jain thinkers illustrate this structure through analogies such as gold appearing as different ornaments: the “substance” (Sa. dravya) persists while its “modes” (Sa. paryāya) change. Such analogies are heuristic and do not fully capture the ontological complexity of conscious substances such as “souls” (Sa. Jīva). Umāsvāti (1994, 135) further formalizes this coordinated account of permanence and change in the following formulation: utpāda-vyaya-dhrauvyayuktaṃ sat (Tattvārtha Sūtra 5:29) – Origination, cessation, and persistence constitute existence. “Origination” (Sa. utpāda) and “cessation” (Sa. vyaya) describe the arising and passing away of modes, while “persistence” (Sa. dhrauvya) characterizes the continuity of substance and its essential qualities. A substance endures precisely because it is capable of “modal transformation” (Sa. pariṇāma) without forfeiting its ontological identity. Scholars have described this framework as Jainism’s distinctive “coordinative” ontology, in which what exists must be simultaneously permanent at the level of substance and changing at the level of modes (Bajželj 2013, 4; Tatia 1951, 206–208). This capacity for transformation without loss of identity provides the conceptual basis for understanding how karmic bondage can be causally effective while remaining ontologically reversible. Within this ontological scheme, classical Jain texts identify “six fundamental substances” (Sa. ṣaḍ-dravya): jīva and five “non-sentient substances” (Sa. ajīva) – “matter” (Sa. pudgala), “medium of motion” (Sa. dharma), “medium of rest” (Sa. adharma), “space” (Sa. ākāśa), and “time” (Sa. kāla). These categories are systematically articulated in the Tattvārtha Sūtra (Umāsvāti 1994, 123–144). The substances are eternal and co-existent, forming a pluralistic metaphysical system in which multiplicity is constitutive rather than provisional. The present analysis focuses on jīva and pudgala, the two substances directly involved in karmic bondage and liberation. This framework explains how karmic bondage can condition the soul without altering its essential nature, rendering the material conception of karma intelligible as a form of modal obstruction rather than essential transformation.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTUwMDU5Ng==