Jain Journal 1981 04

SR No.: 520062
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication
Publication Year: 1981
Total Pages: 79
Language: English
Classification: Magazine, India_Jain Journal, & India
File Size: 6 MB

Page 34

148
JAIN JOURNAL
The occurrence of the Rsabha story in the Purāņas in the context of the origin of Jainism and Buddhism, both of them opposing the validity of the Vedas, proves that these Purāṇas have adopted the story from the Jaina sources.
Both of these Purānas though against Jainism and Buddhism are unanimous in praising an unattached way of life and they adopt the theory of non-violence, non-attachment and equanimity as is preached by the Jaina Tirthankaras. They are opposed to Jainism and Buddhism only for their non-acceptance of the validity of the Vedas..
There was no way but to accept Rsabha and Buddha as an incarnation of God because nothing in this world happens without the will of God and none can deny the fact they were great persons held in high esteem by the general public and so they were accepted as incarnations of God.
V Comparison of Paumacariya of Vimala (PC) and Avasyaka
niryakti (AN)
In the next stage we find the sectarian bias of Svetambara and Digambara in the story. So it is proper that before we discuss those books pregnant with bias Paumacariya of Vimala should be discussed and compared with AN as it is certainly earlier than those books and also it contains some of the peculiarities of both the Svetambaras and Digambaras (Paumacariya, Intro., pp. 18-21).
Generally in Paumacariya (3,4, and 20) the story is the same as it is in Avašyakaniryukti (AN)
Paumacariya mentions :
Qummi thovasese mihuņam jaņiūņa pavaralayannam/ kālam kāūņa tao suravarasokham puna labhanti // (3.39)
This theory of mihuna or the birth of twins also called jugalia is also accepted by AN (188), Vasudevahindi (p. 157) and Ravisena (pp. 3.51). But this is not accepted by Jinasena in his MP. But about Kulakaras AN (148) is not clear as to whether all of them were of the same lineage i.e. the descendants of the first Kulakara, while Vasudevahindi clearly mentions as such (pp. 157-8). Both the AN and VH accept seven Kulakaras beginning with Vimalavahana and ending with Nabhi (also Samavāyānga, 246). But Paumacariya accepts 14 Kulkaras (3.50-6) and it is not clear that they belong to the same lineage. Same is the case with Ravisena