Shraman Bhagvana Mahavira Part 4

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

Page 14

10
three lokas were available. Accordingly, the Ācārya asked for nojiva at the Kutrikäpana but it was not available. Consequeutly, Rohagupta was declared as Nihnava and was expelled from the gaccha in a humiliating condition. He attracted a number of followers by propagating the Trairāśika theory and started a separate school of Vaišeşikas which, unlike Jaina Ayamas, esta blished the principle of sıx entities viz. Dravya, Guņa, Karma, Sāmānya, Viseșa and Samavāya.
Gosthá-Māhila was the Seventh Nihnava. He belonged to the Iksugriha Gaccha of Daśapura Nagara. He was angry with the preceptor Rakṣitasari for having appointed Durbalika Puspamitra as the head of the Gaccha after him. So, when Puspawitra gave sermons on the eighth and ninth Porvas, Gustha -Māhila did not even care to listen to him. He heard the same from Vindhya who had carefully attended and understood the sermons. In course of discussion of the Karmapravada parva, when he heard from Vindhya that Karman is tied, attached and infused with all the regions of Jiva, he contradicted that principle of āgama and tried to assert that Karman was attached to Jiva only on the surface like the skin of a snake. He did not accept the relation of Jiva, and Karnan as that of milk and water or that of fire and iron. Further, he objected to the predicament which laid down that the practice of pratyākhyāna is to be followed by all the monks in mind, speech, and action till the end of their life, and asserted that the sanctity of the vow could be preserved only if it were to be practised without a time-linit. Vindhya tried to explain the purport of the āgama, but GosthăMāhila: did not listen to him. The matter was then reported to Acārya Durbalıkā Puspamitra. The Acārya repudiated the viewpoint of Goștha Māhila by means of various pramaņas and pro. pounded the commandment of Scriptures that pratyākhyāna could never continue after (leath on the ground that Muktātmā is free from duty of observing vow after leaving the mundane workl. But Gosthā Māhila arrogantly rejected the Acārya's view-point and quoted the authority of Sramàņa Bhagavān Mahavira in support of his own. Eventnally it was decided in the assembly