Aspect of Jainology Part 3 Pandita Dalsukh Malvaniya

Author(s): M A Dhaky, Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 464

A Propos of the Boţika Sect
139
30. Ed. Muni Darsanavijaya, Sri Pattāvalı-Samuccaya. Sri-Cāritra
Smāraka Granthamālā, No. 22, Viramgam 1933, pp. 8 and 10. 31. १८--थेरस्स णं अज्जधणगिरिस्स वासिट्टसगुतस्स अज्जसिव भुइ थेरे अंतेवासी कुच्छसगुत्ते ।
१९--थेरस्स णं अज्जसिवभूइस्स कुच्छसगुत्तस्य अज्जभ द्दे थेरे अन्तेवासी कासवगुत्ते । and : वन्दामि फग्गुमित्तं च, गोयमं धणगिरि च वासिढें । कुच्छं सिवभूइम्पिय, कोसिय दुज्जत कण्हे अ॥१॥ This goes against the Āvaśyaka literature's statement that Arya Sivabhūti was a disciple of Arya Krsna. The Sthavirāvali being about five centu
ries earlier, for is certainly more reliable on this point. 33. Pt. Pannalal Sahityacharya, Kundakunda-bhārati, Faltan 1970, p. 263. 34. At gaat nafaqat FETTHIETTI
णामेण य सिवभूई केवलणाणी फुडं जाओ ।। -भावपाहुड ५३ । 35. Cf. Vincent A. Smith, The Jain Stüpa and Other Antiquities of Mathurā,
Allahabad 1901, Plate XVII, Fig. 2. 36. It is now more or less certain that the Kuşāņa Era is not identical with
the saka Era and hence did not commence in A.D. 78. The latest compu
tation by G. V. Mitterwallner favours A. D. 143 for K. E. to begin. 37. It would be nearer the truth if the V. N. S. date is later than B. C. 477.
Recent researches on the Buddha Nirvāņa date favour a century later than the traditional B. C. 483. If this can be established, V. N. S., too, will come down by a century, in which case the Botika schisin may have to be dated to c. A. D. 232. The Kanha-Samana plaque of K. E. 95, on Mitterwallner reckoning, is to be dated to A. D. 238. (The latter two
dates are close enough!) 38. Ed. Nathooram Premi, Bombay V. S. 1974 (A. D. 1917), p. 13. 39. Carot arhat H T IT TË ECI
जावणियसंघभावो सिरिकलसादो ह सेवडदो ॥२९।। 40. For a rejoinder, cf. Muni Kalyanavijaya Śramaņa Bhagavāna Mahāvira
(Hindi), Jālor V.S. 1998 (A.D. 1948), pp. 307-318. Muni Kalyana vijaya, as most others had, confused Boţika with the Digambaras, and to that extent (and also due to a few other historical errors) his rejoinder suffers. The existence of the Digambara sect as such was unknown to the Svetāmbaras, who otherwise knew Boţika (Yāpaniya) against whom of course they were bitter. Since Yāpaniya sect had for long disappeared in North, the later Svetämbara writers confused "Boţika" with “Digambara" because of the naganya (nudity) and their being pāni-tala-bhoji or using palms as a begging bowl.