________________
: 168: Jinabhadra Gani's
[ The sixth in discussion in the Royal Assembly, Rohagupta, who was also known as *Saduūlka, came to the preceptor and requested him to hear the whole incident of his success. “His theory of two categories' he said” was refuted by me by advancing a third category of no-jiva supported by the example of a house lizard with its tail dissected."
Acārya :-You have done a good deed by defeating him But while leaving the ass.lmbly at the end, why did you not declare that the theory of the third cacegory of No-jiva is not acceptable to us? Even, now, you may go to the assembly and declare that this is not our theory but it was advanced hy us only for the sake of bringing down the pride of Pottaśāla.
Robagupta --Revered sir, how can we take as an unacceptable theory? What difficulty does it give rise to? For, if a dissected part like the tail of an animal like house-lizard were apprehended as no-jiva or slightly animate. I do not see any harm in holding the theory of three categories. 160-164 (2455-2459)
Rohagupta, now tries to justify his theory in this way:जं देसनिसेहपरो नोसबो जीवदव्वदेसो य। गिहकोइलाइपुच्छं विलक्खणं तेण नोजीवो ॥१६५॥२४६०॥ 165. Jam desanisehaparo nosa do jivadavvarleso ya !
Gihaköilāipuccham vilakkhaṇam teņa no-jivo. (2460) (1 dalit t37067 fagsteam गृहकोलिकादिपुच्छं विलक्षणं तेन नोजीवः ॥१६५॥२४६०॥ 165. Yad deśanised haparo nosabdo jivadravyadeśaśca |
Grihakolikādipuccham vilakṣaṇam tena no-jīvah. (2460) ]
Trans. 165. As the term 'no' suggests the removal of a portion and that (too) a portion of the animate body, the tail of a house-lizard etc. being separated (from the animate
* Sadulaka- A believer in six substances with Ulūka as his gotra, ie Rohagupta, who belonged to Ulūka gotra.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
