________________
hands (pāņipātri) only, which is even today a hallmark of Dig. saints. Mysteriously, all scriptural and epigraphic evidence about Ajivakas vanished from 6/7th c. onwards. Probably they were called Yapaniyas thereafter notice the etymological similarity in the words ājīvaka and yāpaniya) which ultimately merged totally in Dig. sect and was a powerful sangha in Dig.s till 16/17h C. It is significant to note that although Ajivakas and Yāpaniyas observed total nudity [8; p. 340], they believed in emancipation for women and clothed saints and also accepted that kevalis (enlightened ones) take solid food - all these things being vehemently opposed by Dig.s. There were Dig. ācāryas (or they might have belonged to Ajīvaka or Yāpaniya tradition) who supported theory of emancipation for women and clothed saints and consumption of food by Kevalis as is apparent from Aparajitasüri's commentary on Mülācāra, Srutasāgarasuri's commentary on TS, works of famed Dig. grammarian Skatayana; Aparājita even wrote commentary on Daśavaikalikasūtra, one of Agamic works of Sve.s. and commentary on Sanmatitarka of Sve. Siddhasena Divākara, revered by ācāryas of both sects. [1; p.47-49).
Evidence of copper plates and inscriptions of 5th C. shows king Mrgesavarman donating land for the maintenance of monks belonging to the sects of Nirgranthas (note that word Dig. was not current then) which also included Yāpanīyas and Kurcakas (bearded naked saints?), Svetapatas (word Sve. was not current then), and Arhats (Buddhists) - the land to be equally divided between them. [5]. It further appears that even up to 9th C. there must be free flow of thoughts among the sects of Jainism. We find Aklanka quoting Siddhasena Divākara of Sve. sect and Virasena quoting from Sve. Agamas. Scriptures like Mülācāra, Bhagavati Arādhanā supporting some of Sve. tenets are even today owned by Dig.s. Some scholars believe that composers of these scriptures were Acāryas belonging to Yāpanīya sangha which ultimately merged in Dig. sect. :
It appears, beginning with 5/6th C. the gulf between Dig. and Sve. sects started widening and by 12/13th C., probably with advent of Bhattāraka movement in Dig.s the rift became so large that the differences became the cause of mutual hatred. Sukhalalji feels that rise of Terāpanth movement made Dig.s so fanatic that they totally rejected Šve.s, their scriptures and their practices. [1; p. 50). Naturally there was equally vehement reaction from the other camp (Sve.s). VI. CONJECTURE.
We have earlier seen that great scholars start with certain assumptions. For example Sukhalalji accepts common belief among Sve.s that TS and TB were authored by same writer, i.e. Umāsvāti, and that he preceded Pūjyapāda at least by a century. Even more contentious was his argument that SS, commentary on TS by Pujyapāda is sectarian in character and that Pujyapāda altered the original
62
376
07, 23(3), 2011
