Tattvartha Sutra (with commentary)
by Vijay K. Jain | 2018 | 130,587 words | ISBN-10: 8193272625 | ISBN-13: 9788193272626
This page describes definition of nitya (permanence) which is verse 5.31 of the English translation of the Tattvartha Sutra which represents the essentials of Jainism and Jain dharma and deals with the basics on Karma, Cosmology, Ethics, Celestial beings and Liberation. The Tattvarthasutra is authorative among both Digambara and Shvetambara. This is verse 31 of the chapter The Non-living Substances and includes an extensive commentary.
Verse 5.31 - Definition of nitya (permanence)
Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Tattvartha sūtra 5.31:
तद्भावाव्ययं नित्यम् ॥ ५.३१ ॥
tadbhāvāvyayaṃ nityam || 5.31 ||
Permanence (nitya) is indestructibility of own-nature (tadbhāva). (31)
Hindi Anvayarth:
अन्वयार्थ: [तद्भावाव्ययं] तद्भाव से जो अव्यय है-नाश नहीं होता सो [नित्यम्] नित्य है।
Anvayartha: [tadbhavavyayam] tadbhava se jo avyaya hai-nasha nahim hota so [nityam] nitya hai |
Explanation in English from Ācārya Pūjyapāda’s Sarvārthasiddhi:
In sūtra 5-4 it is mentioned that the substances (dravya) are eternal (nitya). What is ‘nitya’ or permanence?
Own-nature (tadbhāva) is explained now. That which is the cause of recognition–pratyabhijñāna–is own-nature (tadbhāva). Recognition pratyabhijñāna–does not occur accidentally; its cause is the continuance of the own-nature (tadbhāva) of the substance. The knowledge that ‘this is the same thing that I saw earlier’ is recognition (pratyabhijñāna). If it be considered that the old thing has completely disappeared and that an entirely new thing has come into existence, then there can be no recognition (pratyabhijñāna). Without the feature of recognition (pratyabhijñāna) all worldly relations based on it would come to naught. Therefore, the indestructibility of the essential nature–the own-nature (tadbhāva)–of the substance is its permanence (nitya). But this should be taken from one particular point of view. If the substance be permanent from all points of view, then there can be no change at all. And, in that case, transmigration as well as the way to liberation would become meaningless.
A contention arises. It is a contradiction to attribute permanence (nitya) as well as impermanence (anitya) to the same substance. If it is permanent, there can be no destruction and origination, and impermanence would be negatived. If it is impermanent, there can be no continuance in its nature, and permanence would be negatived.
The next sūtra explains that there is no contradiction in that.