Dr. Samani Mangal Pragya
The concept of astikāya is a unique contribution of Lord Mahavira to the world of philosophy. No other philosophies discuss about concepts such as dharmāstikāya and adharmāstikāya. This is an original contribution of the Jain philosophy.
Modern scholars try to compare both of these with the Sānkhya philosophy's rajas and tamas guṇa (qualities) - ''A comparative study of these two substances - dharma and adharma can be made with two guṇas of Prakṛti tattva (primordial matter) of the Sānkhya philosophy viz. rajas (energy) and tamas (inertia). Rajas being mobile is dynamic in nature. It keeps the action of Prakṛti in motion, i.e. it gives an impetus to action to be set in motion, while tamas puts restraints on the motion...though they have the same significance in regard to their origin with the attributes of gatiśīlatā of rajas (motion or dynamism of rajas) and sthitiśīlatā of tamas (static state or rest).[1]''
The comparison of dharma and adharma with rajas and tamas, the attributes of Prakṛti- does not completely fit in the frame work of Jains because rajas and tamas are attributes of Prakṛti whereas Jainism describes dharma and adharma to be independent substances.[2] According to Jainism, dharmāstikāya in itself is not a moving substance. It is inactive.[3] It renders direct assistance in the movement of soul and matter without however, exercising any activity. Assisting in the movement is its specific characteristic.[4] The Rajas attribute in prakṛti is in itself a dynamic energy.[5]
Similarly, tamoguṇa generates heaviness and obscuration.[6] So how can these be compared with dharmāstikāya and adharmāstikāya? Prakṛti is corporeal as the pudgalāstikāya. Dharma and adharma are incorporeal substances.[7] In Syādvāda Mañjarī, rajas, tamas and sattvaguṇa have been considered as the cause of origination, cessation and persistence.[8] Hence, in some respects sattva, rajas and tamas can be compared with utpāda, vyaya and dhrauvya but any other kind of comparison demands analysis.
