Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
It is stated that both Pujyapad and Akalanka have referred to Dashavaikhalik and Uttaradhyayan; not only that, but the prominent Digambara acharyas, who are considered authoritative, have also written critiques on Dashavaikhalik. They have written critiques on Bhagwati-Aaradhana as well. In this context, how has Dashavaikhalik and Uttaradhyayan disappeared from the entire Digambara tradition? Moreover, when we observe that several texts like Mulachar and Bhagwati-Aaradhana, which also relate to the monk's association with the vestments and depict the paths of the Arhats, do not present the monk-ethics in relation to Dashavaikhalik and Uttaradhyayan distinctly, these texts are regarded uniformly within the entire Digambara tradition, and many renowned Digambara scholars have also written critiques on them in Sanskrit and their respective languages, the above question becomes even more compelling. Why does the Digambara tradition, which acknowledges texts like Mulachar and Bhagwati-Aaradhana, not accept Dashavaikhalik and Uttaradhyayan? Or to put it another way, how can the Digambara tradition, which abandons the Dashavaikhalik, accept the era of Mulachar? This inconsistency poses a question that is both simple and difficult. If we think historically, it is simple; however, when we consider it solely from the perspective of the sect, it becomes difficult. 1. See "Anekant," Year 2, Issue 1, Page 57.