Schools and Sects in Jaina Literature

SR No.: 001972
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Amulyachandra Sen
Publisher: Vishwa Bharati Calcutta
Publication Year: 1931
Total Pages: 58
Language: English
Classification: Book_English & Philosophy
File Size: 4 MB

Page 21

SCHOOLS AND SECTS IN JAINA LITERATURE
No change can be effected in this long series of transmigrations by any effort on the part of an individual.
Dr. Barua has reviewed in an exhaustive manner all the matter available on the life and teachings of Gosala." We do not intend to go here into any detailed examination of Gosala's teachings, for which one must be referred to Dr. Barua's work. The conclusions reached by him hold up Gosāla and his teachings in a far better light of course. But the fact remains that his teachings were stubbornly opposed by Mahāvīra and Buddha alike. It is essential to remember that Mahavira's opposition das due to Gosäla's main doctrines of man's destiny being pre-ordained, that human effort could effect no change in it, and that emancipation was to be obtained only after a long series of transmigrations. These views come out prominently in both the Jaina and Buddhist accounts of Gosala's teachings.
12
Jacobi and Dr. Barua are of opinion that contrary to the Jaina account Mahāvīra was a disciple of Gosāla for sometime. The reasons put forward in support of this hypothesis are that Mahavira was a mere learner in the first twelve years of his monkhood, that he became a nude ascetic in the second year of his monkhood, that Gosala predeceased Mahavira by twelve years and was therefore his senior, and that Gosala was recognised as a teacher at least two years before Mahāvīra. Against this hypothesis may be urged certain considerations. Gosala's being a recognised teacher before Mahavira does not prove anything. Accepting the Jaina version Gosāla was not recognised as a teachcer so long as he was associated with Mahavira, and proclaimed himself as such only after his separation from the latter. Such proclamation may have taken place before Mahavira won recognition as a teacher. Again, if Gosala had ever been Mahavira's teacher we would have expected the Buddhists to record something to that effect. We would have expected also that Gosala would be made to say something regarding his claim when he visited Mahavira to upbraid him for the latter's calling Gosala a disciple."" Further, if Mahāvīra borrowed nudity from Gosäla he would not have continued in it when he renounced the discipleship of Gosala. Although the Bhagavati account of the relation subsisting between the two teachers cannot be accepted in full, it is doubtful whether a reversal of the relation can be accepted as truc. The truth very probably was that the two ascetics joined and lived together for
A History of Pre-Buddhistic Indian Philosophy, Chap. xxi. For a fuller treatment see Barua, The Ajivikas. 39 Bhag. 15.550.