Shraman Bhagvana Mahavira Part 4

SR No.: 008005
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Ratnaprabhvijay, D P Thaker
Publisher: Parimal Publication
Publication Year: 1989
Total Pages: 373
Language: English, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_English, Biography, History, & Religion
File Size: 24 MB

Page 358

: 334 :
Jinabhadra Gani's pted the doctrine of sa-parimāņa pratyākhyāna. They also admit the relation of Karina and Soul as intimate as that of water and milk. Gosthā Mahila tries to refute both these theories.
All the Nihnavas except Jamāli hold the view that “ kriyamaņa is krita while Jamāli believes that krita alone could be recognized as krita.
Those excepting Tisyagupta rightly believe that the whole region of Jiva is Jiva, while according to Tisyagupta, the last portion alone is Jiva.
In this manner, when Gosthā Māhila disbelieves two dootrines of the Tirthankara, each one of the rest disbelieves one. Since, each one of them holds a belief different from another, he attributes two faults to the other, For example, Jamāli the Bahurata Nihnava, accuses Tişyagupta first of 'disbelieving his own doctrine of “ krita is krita” and secondly of holding a wrong theory of “no-jīva”. The pradeśika nihnava (Tisyagupta) un the other hand, makes counterallegations on Jamali on the same grounds. Tisyagupta further attributes two faults of accepting a wrong belief and rejecting the right one to Avyaktavādin, who in his turn, accuses pradeśika of similar faults. The same is the case with Trairāśikas and others.
It should be noted here that since the abaddhika Nihnava believes in sprista-baddha karman and a-parimāņa pratyākhyāna he has to preach two doctrines. If these two doctrines are taken separately, he attributes three faults to the opponent who also in turn makes three allegations on him.
On the other hand, if the two doctrines are taken together as one, the allegation and counter-allegation will be based on two faults only. This is explained by the author clearly on the consideration that the abaddhika blames the opponent in as much as he (i. e, the opponent ) disbelieves the two doctrines laid down by abaddhika and wrongly asserts his own theory which is not acceptable to anyone else. The opponent, too, blames the abaddhika on the same grounds. 8–5 (2612-2614).