Shraman Bhagvana Mahavira Part 4

Author(s): Ratnaprabhvijay, D P Thaker
Publisher: Parimal Publication

Page 13

9
river-water on his feet. At this time, he formed a wrong notion that both the experiences took place simultaneously, and contradicted thereby the precept of Agamas which had laid down that two processes of feeling could never take place simultaneously. He reported the theory to his preceptor and quoted his personal experience in support of it. The preceptor replied that the processes of undergoing two different feelings seem to work simulta neously on account of one's own inability to mark the subtle gap of time between the two as well as the quickness of mind. He established the validity of Āgamas and refuted the nis-belief of Dvaikriya by proving an important principle of perception that there can never be more than one upayoga or application of mind, at one time, explaining the difference between general and definite types, of knowledge. Eventually, he was compelled by Maninaga to give up his false notion, and Gaṇgācārya had to do so out of fear. Ultimately, he resorted to his original school after tendering the apology.
Rohagupta, the pioneer of Vaiśesika System, was known as the Sixth Nihnava. He entered into controversy with a mendicaut ascetic in the court of king Balaśri of the city of Antaranjikā and defeated him by establishing the theory of three categories successfully. The defeated mendicant was expelled from the city, while victorious Rohagupta went to his preceptor and narrated the whole incident before him. Acārya Śrīgupta inquired about the theory of Trairāśikas. So, Rohagupta explained that he had established the existence of three categories of Jiva viz. Jiva, Ajiva and Nojiva, by means of various tricks and examples. The Acarya congratulated him on the success, but at the time he advised Rohagupta to declare before the people that although he had proved the validity of the Trairāśika theory, they should not follow the same, as it went against the Jaina Agamas. Rohagupta declined to do so. Consequently, Acārya had to enter into controversy with him in the Royal court. They discussed the principle of Trairāśikas at length for six months. Ultimately, it was agreed by both the parties to approach the kutrīkāpaņa (Universal Shop) where all the objects existing in
same
For Private Personal Use Only