Nihnav Rohgupta Guptacharya Ane Trairashik Mat - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Nihnav Rohgupta, Shri Guptacharya ane Trairashik Mat" by Muni Trailokyamandanvijay, in English:

The article discusses three key figures and concepts in Jainism: Nihnav Rohgupta, Shri Guptacharya, and the Trairashik (three-category) view.

1. Nihnav Rohgupta and His "Nihnav" Status:

Definition of "Nihnav": The text begins by defining "Nihnav" as individuals who, despite being initiated into the Jain tradition, rejected or scorned Lord Jineshwar and his teachings.
Rohgupta as the Sixth Nihnav: Rohgupta is identified as the sixth such individual among eight known Nihnavs up to the seventh century after Lord Mahavir's Nirvana.
The Incident: The core event leading to Rohgupta's Nihnav status is described. Rohgupta visited Shri Guptacharya in the city of Antaranjika. He accepted a challenge for a debate from Pottashal, a scholar of heterodox sciences. Rohgupta defeated Pottashal and destroyed his "impure" sciences using the knowledge bestowed by Shri Guptacharya.
The Cause of Conflict: To win this debate, Rohgupta proposed a "Trairashik" view, categorizing existence into Jiva (soul), Ajiva (non-soul), and No-Jiva (non-soul). This contradicted the Jain principle of two categories (Jiva and Ajiva). Shri Guptacharya asked Rohgupta to apologize for this view.
Rohgupta's Refusal: Rohgupta, driven by arrogance, refused to apologize and stubbornly maintained his belief that his view was correct. Despite being explained by Shri Guptacharya for six months, Rohgupta remained unyielding. Consequently, Shri Guptacharya declared him a "Nihnav" and expelled him from the monastic order.

2. The Relationship between Rohgupta and Shri Guptacharya:

Seniority: The incident clearly indicates that Shri Guptacharya was senior and revered by Rohgupta within the monastic life.
Disputed Discipleship: A significant point of contention is whether Rohgupta was a direct disciple of Shri Guptacharya.
- Popular Belief: There is a widespread belief that they had a guru-disciple relationship.
- Kalpa Sutra's Sthaviravali: However, the Sthaviravali (list of elders) within the Kalpa Sutra, believed to be composed by Shri Devarddhigani or during his time, identifies Rohgupta as a disciple of Arya Mahagiri.
Commentarial Discrepancies:
- The commentary (Subodhika) on the Kalpa Sutra notes this discrepancy, stating that while the Sutra calls Rohgupta a disciple of Arya Mahagiri, other texts like Uttaradhyayana Vritti and Sthananga Vritti mention him as Shri Guptacharya's disciple. The commentator states they wrote as per the texts but the truth is known to the knowledgeable.
- Critique of the Discrepancy: The article questions the implication that texts mentioning him as Shri Guptacharya's disciple definitively prove the relationship. It points out that the Sthananga Vritti doesn't explicitly state the relationship, using phrases like "gurus said this" instead of "Shri Guptacharya said this." The use of "guru" for an elder, even if not a direct preceptor, was a common ancient practice, similar to how Arya Bhadrabahu is referred to as "guru" in relation to Arya Sthulibhadra, even without a direct guru-disciple bond.
- Shantacharya's Commentary: The commentary by Shantacharya on the Uttaradhyayana Sutra explicitly calls Rohgupta a "Shraddha" (one who holds reverence) towards Shri Guptacharya, rather than a disciple. While acknowledging that some printed versions might have a reading of "sheho" (disciple) which could have been present in the manuscript available to Vinayavijayji, the ancient palm-leaf manuscripts from Jaisalmer and Patan reportedly retain the reading "saddi" (revered one).
Conclusion on Discipleship: It is difficult to definitively confirm Rohgupta as Shri Guptacharya's disciple. The Uttaradhyayana Vritti reference might even suggest he was a disciple of someone else. The article argues that at least, the claim of him being Mahagiri's disciple in the Sthaviravali can be reconciled by stating that others called him Shri Guptacharya's disciple. This also creates a chronological inconsistency regarding Rohgupta's lifespan.

3. Chronological Inconsistency and Possible Resolutions:

The Discrepancy: If Rohgupta was a disciple of Mahagiri, then the Sthaviravali implies Shri Guptacharya was a contemporary or successor to Mahagiri. Mahagiri passed away in V.N.S. 245. If Rohgupta was his disciple, his period would be the 3rd century V.N.S. However, Rohgupta's declaration as a Nihnav is dated to V.N.S. 544. This creates a significant chronological gap.
Three Possible Explanations:
1. Rohgupta lived in the 3rd Century: This is unlikely because it would mean that if he was the sixth Nihnav after Gangeya (5th Nihnav in V.N.S. 228), then his incident would still be chronologically problematic with the V.N.S. 544 dating. Furthermore, if such a significant event occurred in the 3rd century, prominent monks of that era like Mahagiri, Suhasthi, Supratibuddha would likely be mentioned, but they are absent from the account. The fact that Shri Guptacharya himself declared him a Nihnav suggests his high standing in the Sangh at that time, which wouldn't fit a 3rd-century timeline. The consistent dating of the incident to V.N.S. 544 is also crucial.
2. Lineage of Disciples: Triputi Maharaj suggests that the eight disciples mentioned in the Sthaviravali might not be direct disciples but successive lineage holders. If Rohgupta was the eighth in this lineage, his existence could be around V.N.S. 544, considering each generation lasts 35-40 years. This also aligns with other texts that call Rohgupta a disciple of Sthavir Nagamitra. However, this is refuted because the fifth disciple mentioned is Sthavir Kaudinya. If Kaudinya was from the fifth generation, his disciple Ashvamitra (4th Nihnav, V.N.S. 220) would place Kaudinya before Mahagiri's time. Thus, Mahagiri's fifth generation cannot be accurately placed around V.N.S. 544.
3. Two Different Rohguptas: The most reasonable explanation is that the Nihnav Rohgupta is a distinct individual from the Sthavir Rohgupta, disciple of Mahagiri. The similarity in names, clan (Kushika), and the existence of different Shri Guptacharyas might have led the Sthaviravali compiler to conflate them. Historical instances of events attributed to one person being mistakenly recorded under another's name due to name similarity are common. Even scholars like Upadhyay Dharmasagar have conflated Arya Rakshit and Arya Rakshit due to slight name similarity.
Other Rohguptas: The name "Rohgupta" appears for more than one individual, including a principal disciple of Arya Suhasthisuri, who is distinct from Arya Mahagiri's disciple.

4. Shri Guptacharya:

Conflicting Accounts: Texts like Dushsamkalsamanasanghathayam and Vicharashreni mention Shri Guptacharya as the successor to Bhadragupta Suri and predecessor to Vajraswami, with a 15-year reign as Yugapradhan.
Lack of Mention in Authentic Texts: However, more ancient and authoritative texts like the Kalpa Sutra's Sthaviravali and Nandi Sutra's Sthaviravali, as well as some medieval Pattavalis, do not mention Shri Guptacharya at all. Narrative literature also describes Vajraswami becoming the Sangh leader after Bhadragupta Suri.
Questioning Authenticity: This leads to the conclusion that the mentions of Shri Guptacharya as Yugapradhan in the aforementioned texts might be unauthentic, and his very existence is doubted.
Reconciling the Discrepancy: The author argues against discarding the information wholesale. If Shri Guptacharya indeed declared Rohgupta a Nihnav in V.N.S. 544, then he must have been the Sangh leader after Bhadragupta Suri's demise (V.N.S. 535 or 533). The absence in some Sthaviralis can be explained by their focus on specific lineages.
Types of Pattavalis:
- Guru Parampara: These mainly describe the lineage of Ganadharas and their successors. Those not in the direct line might not be recorded. The Kalpa Sutra's Sthaviravali represents Devarddhigani's guru lineage, which differs from current prevailing guru lineages after Arya Vajra.
- Vachanaacharya Parampara: These list the successive Vachanaacharyas (teachers of scripture). They are not necessarily Sangh leaders but hold significant positions. They can also be appointed based on who is the most knowledgeable at a given time, even if not a direct disciple of the previous Vachanaacharya.
Two Types of Vachanaacharya Lineages:
- Mathuri Vachana Parampara: Primarily prevalent in North-East India, it listed Vachanaacharyas based on regional influence. Texts like Mathuri and historical accounts list important figures. This is also called "Mathuri Yugapradhan Pattavali."
- Valabhi Vachana Parampara: This lineage prioritized scriptural knowledge and listed those with the highest knowledge. It included the first two Kevalis, then six Chaudhapurvadharas, and ten Dashapurvadharas. This is also called "Valabhi Yugapradhan Pattavali." Texts like Dushsamkalsamanasanghathayam and Vicharashreni follow this.
Discrepancy in Lists: While the first ten names in both Mathuri and Valabhi lineages are similar (up to Arya Suhasthi), differences emerge from Vajraswami onwards. The Mathuri lineage omits the less famous but knowledgeable Gunavishala, Revatimitra, and Shri Gupta, preferring other renowned scholars. The Valabhi lineage, however, prioritizes scriptural attainment, including these three.
The 13-Year Discrepancy: The Valabhi calculation has a significant error. It incorrectly accounts for the Yugapradhan periods of Shri Guptacharya and Vajraswami. The Mathuri lineage directly places Vajraswami after Bhadragupta Suri, omitting Shri Guptacharya. The Valabhi lineage acknowledges both but miscalculates their periods, leading to a 13-year difference in events after V.N.S. 535. This discrepancy persisted even during the Valabhi Vachana under Devarddhigani, leading to dual dating in the Kalpa Sutra. This error in the Valabhi lineage also creates other inconsistencies, such as Arya Rakshit's initiation occurring after Bhadragupta Suri's death, making his presence at the time of his demise impossible. The Valabhi dating also contradicts the accepted date of Goshthamaahil's Nihnav status.

4. The Trairashik View and Rohgupta's Association with Vaisheshika:

Six Categories and "Shatuluk": Rohgupta, due to his debate advocating for three categories (Jiva, Ajiva, No-Jiva), is also known as "Shatuluk" (one who propounds six categories). This is interpreted as "Uluk" (his clan) and "Kaushika" (his lineage) who propounded six categories. From Rohgupta, the tradition accepting three categories (Jiva, Ajiva, No-Jiva) originated, hence the name "Trairashik."
Rohgupta as a Vaisheshika Founder: The article notes that subsequent texts like V. Bhashya and Uttaradhyayana Vritti commentary identify him as the founder of the Vaisheshika philosophy, which warrants careful consideration.
Evidence for Vaisheshika Connection:
- V. Bhashya (2507) and Uttaradhyayana Niyukti (174): These texts explicitly state that Rohgupta propounded the Vaisheshika principles.
- Kalpa Kiralavali: This text mentions the sixth Nihnav, the Trairashik, and the subsequent emergence of the Vaisheshika philosophy.
Reason for Vaisheshika Association: The foundation of Vaisheshika philosophy is the concept of six categories, which is believed to have been first propounded by Rohgupta.
The Incident with 144 Items: The text recounts the debate where Shri Guptacharya challenged Rohgupta. In a divine marketplace, the Guru presented 144 items (derived from six main categories, each with four sub-categories: self, natural, non-self, non-natural). These were: 9 materials, 17 qualities, 5 actions, 3 generics, 13 specific, and 36 samavayas. When Rohgupta's "No-Jiva" category was sought, it couldn't be found because no part of the soul could be separated. This proved Rohgupta's three-category theory wrong.
Inconsistencies in the Argument: The article points out that many of the 144 items mentioned by Shri Guptacharya are not accepted by Jainism (e.g., general, specific, and samavaya as independent substances). The purpose of listing these was likely to have them rejected, thus disproving Rohgupta's assertion. The article questions why the denial of these items was necessary to prove the non-existence of "No-Jiva."
Rohgupta's Origination of Categories: The text suggests that the concept of these six categories, instead of the Jain six categories (Dharma, Adharma, etc.), might have originated from Rohgupta. The Uttaradhyayana commentary suggests Rohgupta "took" these six categories, possibly from another philosophy. However, V. Bhashya describes them as "self-conceived," indicating Rohgupta's original thought.
Rohgupta as Vaisheshika Founder: If Rohgupta indeed conceptualized these six principles, he would have to be considered the founder of Vaisheshika philosophy, as its entire framework is built upon this concept.
The Problem of Three Categories in Vaisheshika: A key question arises: Vaisheshika philosophy does not generally include the concept of three categories (Jiva, Ajiva, No-Jiva), which was Rohgupta's primary argument. How can Rohgupta, the Trairashik, be the founder of Vaisheshika? It's possible his disciples abandoned the three-category theory to strengthen the Vaisheshika philosophy.
Further Questions: If this is true, then Vaisheshika philosophy would be approximately 2000 years old. Are the Vaisheshika Sutras available today different from the ones Rohgupta wrote? Who was the original proponent of Vaisheshika, Kanad Rishi, and what was his relationship with Rohgupta? These questions require further research.
Kalpa Sutra's Sthaviravali: It's noteworthy that the Kalpa Sutra's Sthaviravali, being older than V. Bhashya and Uttaradhyayana commentary, only identifies Rohgupta as "Trairashik," not as a Vaisheshika philosopher.

5. Rohgupta's Sectarian Affiliation and the "Trairashik" Term:

V. Bhashya on Nihnavs: The V. Bhashya (verses 2617-2620) discusses whether food offered to Nihnavs is permissible for Jain monks. It states that food for Digambaras (who are considered to have different views, attire, and practices) is permissible. However, for the other seven Nihnavs (including Rohgupta), whose disciples shared similar practices and views with Jain monks, and whose views were not as divergent from Jainism as those of the Digambaras, the food is permissible only under certain conditions.
Implications: Given the 500-600 year gap between Rohgupta's time and the composition of V. Bhashya, if Rohgupta had established an independent philosophy, his disciples' practices would likely have diverged significantly. Their practices should have been markedly different from Jain monks. The fact that the V. Bhashya treats them more favorably than Digambaras suggests that, despite differing in their "Trairashik" principles, they still adhered to Jain monastic conduct. This raises questions about whether Rohgupta was truly a proponent of Vaisheshika.
Rohgupta's Clan and Vaisheshika: Rohgupta belonged to the Uluka clan, and the Amar Kosh lists "Aulukya" as a synonym for Vaisheshikas, deriving from "Uluukaptyani" (offspring of Uluka), suggesting Uluka as their original proponent. This might refer to Rohgupta.

6. "Trairashik" in Nandi Sutra:

Nandi Sutra's Classification: The Nandi Sutra, in its description of Drishtivada (one of the twelve Angas), mentions seven categories of "Parikarma" (methods of investigation), including six "Sasamaityas," seven "Aajivikas," six "Chatukranaiyas," and seven "Trairashikas."
Commentary Interpretations:
- The commentary explains that the seven "Trairashikas" are those following the Trairashika doctrine. It states that the followers of the Goshala-promoted Aajivika sect accepted the world as tri-atomic (Jiva, Ajiva, Jiva-Ajiva; Lok, Alok, Lok-Alok; Sant, Asant, Sant-Asant). They also accepted three Nayas (perspectives): Dravya-based, Paryaya-based, and Ubhaya-based.
- The commentary also links the seven Parikarmas to three Nayas (Dravya-arthita, Paryaya-arthita, Ubhaya-arthita), interpreting "Trairashika" as referring to this tri-fold Naya perspective.
Two Interpretations: This leads to two conclusions:
1. The Aajivika doctrine itself was known as the "Trairashikamat."
2. The Trairashikas (or former scholars according to the commentary) accepted the seven Parikarmas and viewed them through the lens of three Nayas.
Nandi Sutra's "Drishtivada" Section: The Nandi Sutra further categorizes 88 Sutras within Drishtivada based on different Nayas: 22 Sutras understood with Chhinnachedanaya (Jain perspective) become Jain-approved; understood with Achhinnachedanaya (Aajivika perspective) become Aajivika-approved; understood with three Nayas become Trairashik-approved; and understood with four Nayas become Jain-approved again.
The Aajivika-Trairashik Connection: The commentary suggests that the Aajivikas and Trairashikas were considered one. However, the Nandi Sutra itself distinguishes between them. The commentators' unification might stem from the fact that these two traditions, originating from former Jain ascetics, held similar practices influenced by Jainism. Over time, these traditions might have merged or become indistinguishable by the time of the Nandi Sutra's commentaries.
Origin of the Trairashik View: The article raises the question of when the Trairashik view truly originated. If it was considered in the Drishtivada, it must be as old as Drishtivada. However, the Kalpa Sutra's Sthaviravali suggests the Trairashik tradition originated from Rohgupta. These are conflicting statements.
Possible Reconciliation:
1. The Trairashik concept related to Drishtivada is different from the one established by Rohgupta.
2. Both concepts are the same, but the Drishtivada's view is a relative acceptance of a different doctrine, whereas Rohgupta's view is a direct, independent assertion of three categories, disregarding Jain principles. If this is true, Rohgupta didn't introduce a completely new doctrine but adapted an ancient one in an absolutist manner. His firm assertion of three categories suggests prior contemplation.
Lack of Pre-Rohgupta Evidence: The article notes that, apart from the Drishtivada mention, there is no evidence of the Trairashik doctrine existing before Rohgupta.

8. Merging of Traditions:

Possible Fusion: The article speculates that the Trairashik tradition might have eventually merged into the Digambara tradition, particularly within the Kundakundanvaya, as suggested by Triputi Maharaj. The mention of Trairashik Acharya Padmanandi in the Punyashravakathaakosh further supports this.
Intermingling of Doctrines: The author concludes that the Trairashik doctrine likely incorporated elements from Aajivika, Vaisheshika, and Jain philosophies. Over time, this tradition may have split, with one part merging into Aajivika, another leaning towards Vaisheshika, and the third rejoining the Jain path. The conflicting statements about the Trairashik view are seen as reflections of these splits.

In conclusion, the article thoroughly examines the historical and philosophical aspects of Nihnav Rohgupta, his conflict with Shri Guptacharya, and his association with the Trairashik and potentially Vaisheshika philosophies. It highlights the challenges in establishing definitive historical timelines and relationships due to conflicting scriptural accounts and the complex evolution of early Indian philosophical traditions.