________________
SEN :SCHOOLS AND SECTS IN JAIN LITERATURE
85
opposed by Mahāvīra and Buddha alike. It is essential to remember that Mahāvīra's opposition was due to Gosāla'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 Gosāla's teachings.
Jacobi and Dr. Barua are of opinion that contrary to the Jaina account Mahāvira was a disciple of Gosāla for sometime. The reasons put forward in support of this hypothesis are that Mahāvīra 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 Gosāla predeceased Mahāvīra by twelve years and was therefore his senior, and that. Gosāla was recognised as a teacher at least two years before Mahāvīra. Against this hypothesis may be urged certain considerations. Gosāla's being a recognised teacher before Mahāvīra does not prove anything. Accepting the Jaina version Gosāla was not recognised as a teacher so long as he was associated with Mahāvīra, and proclaimed himself as such only after his separation from the latter. Such proclamation may have taken place before Mahāvīra won recognition as a teacher. Again, if Gosāla had ever been Mahāvīra's teacher we would have expected the Buddhists to record something to that effect. We would have expected also that Gosāla would be made to say something regarding his claim when he visited Mahāvīra to upbraid him for the latter's calling Gosāla a disciple.39 Further, if Mahāvīra borrowed nudity from Gosāla he would not have continued in it when he renounced the discipleship of Gosāla. Although the Bhagavatī 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 true.
39. Bhag. 15.550.
