The Nature of Substance in Buddhism and Jainism

Bhagchandra Jain's paper investigates how substance or dravya is understood in Buddhist and Jaina traditions and highlights the philosophical implications of their differing views. He explains that Buddhists use terms like dharma rupa and samskrta to speak of reality and phenomena. According to Buddhaghosa dharma has four meanings; scripture as formulated; cause or condition; moral quality or action; and animistic entity. Of these meanings he singles out the last as the most important because it denotes the animistic entity that exists beyond mere phenomenality. Rupa or matter is divided into five heads in the Abhidhamma such as visible matter sense organs and various subtle forms; each is subject to constant transformation through origin destruction and change of state. The theory of momentariness implies that every entity is a point instant without duration so there is no permanence. Life is a flux without beginning or end and what appears as continuity is merely a sequence of momentary events that the mind connects through memory. Because everything is impermanent Buddhists classify reality under the doctrine of bhedavada or conception of difference and they hold that ultimate truth requires the cessation of all categories in nirvana. Jain then turns to the Jaina conception of dravya or padartha. In Jainism substance is that which persists through countless modifications and underlies qualities and modes. Dravya is one as a class but it manifests in diverse forms and cannot be created or destroyed. Jaina philosophy recognises both an absolute permanent reality and an ever changing reality. It classifies substances into sentient jiva and insentient categories and further distinguishes matter into paramanu or atoms and mahaskandha or composites. Matter can be gross or subtle indefinite or determinate. This theory allows Jains to accept both permanence and change; permanence resides in the substance itself while change is expressed through modes or paryaya. Jain notes that the Jaina doctrine of anekantavada synthesises all viewpoints by acknowledging that an entity has infinite characteristics and no single perspective can capture its entirety. He contrasts this dynamic pluralism with the Buddhist doctrine of momentariness which sees all phenomena as transient and denies any enduring substance. The paper concludes that while both traditions recognise the importance of causal efficiency and transformation Jainism differs by affirming the existence of permanent substances that undergo infinite modes. This dual emphasis on permanence and change forms the basis of the Jaina metaphysical system and sets it apart from the Buddhist focus on impermanence.

Summary reviewed by a volunteer editor.