Sramana 1996 01

SR No.: 525025
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Ashok Kumar Singh
Publisher: Parshvanath Vidhyashram Varanasi
Publication Year: 1996
Total Pages: 122
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Sramana, & India
File Size: 6 MB

Page 104

Yāpaniya Sect : An Introduction
: P03
prejudices called them Botikas, i. e. corrupt or expelled.
Thus, I have attempted to present an account of the different possible explanations of term Yapanīya, but it is difficult to arrive at the exact explanation as well as ground, which is the most convincing one, in designating the sect as Yāpaniya. Yāpaniya Boţika
Upto the 8th century A. D., the term Boţika was used for Yăpanīyas.13 Probably, Haribhadra, for the first time used the term Yāpaniya, in svetāmbara tradition, yet the explicit mention that Yāpanīyas and Boţikas were identical, is missing. Often Ācārya Haribhadra explained these two terms separately but nowhere indicated that the two were synonym, though the evidences in Svetāmbara tradition, clearly hint that they refer to the same tradition. We must also be aware that Svetămbara ācāryas were misled in their assumption that Boţikas were Digambaras.
This fact has been established emphatically by Padmabhūşana Pt. Dalsukha Malvania in his article “Kyā Boţika Digambara Hain" ? His article appeard in "Aspects of Jainology, Vol. III", Pt. Bechardas Doshi Commemoration Volume, P. V. Research Institute, Varanasi, 1987. Herein he writes, “In the elaborate description of Višeşāvaśyaka Bhāşya, the points of controversy are clothes and utensils, negation of women liberation is missing there. In Digambara tradition clothes and utensils along with women liberation have been prohibited.”
Till, Jinabhadra's period, Botikas were not considered to be Digambaras. The account, pertaining to Botikas in published edition of Āvaśyaka-cürņi, has been bracketed as “The Origin of Digambara' but the editor, appears to be misled here. There is no reference to women liberation in the context of Botikas in Cūrni. So the two must be discriminated from each other. It is also remarkable that Hemacandra commenting on the gāthā 2609 of Viseșāvaśyaka Bhäsya in which the description of Boţikas has been concluded, the commentator has advised to see the commentary of 36th chapter of Uttarādhyayana for women liberation. According to Pt. Malvania this is also due to their wrong identification of Digambaras with Botikas. It is clear from the above discussion that Boţikas were not Digambaras and in addition, two other conclusions also may be drawn. The first, that the sect referred to in
Svetämbara texts as Botikas is not a Digambara onerather it is known as