________________
How appropriate is the proposition of Neo-Digambaras..
:
175
or epigraphical evidence available to support the existence of NeoDigambaras? If not, then what is the basis of the deliberation of Dr. Nagarajaiah. As far as I know, we have the ancient inscriptional proof regarding Kūrcaka and the Mūlasamgha along with the Svetāmbara, Nirgrantha (Digambara) and the Yāpanīya sects. Mūlasamgha is the forerunner of the Yāpaniya Samgha, which I have categorically proved in my book - Jaina Dharma Kā Yāpaniya Sampradāya'. Although the Digambara scholars relate it to the Nirgrantha Samgha but how far this belief is tenable, to go into can be a controversial issue. I have presented ample arguments to my stand in my book, 'Jaina Dharma Kā Yāpanīya Sampradāya'. The interested readers may see that book. So far as the Kürcaka Samgha is concerned, I have found a mention of Kūrcaka Gaccha in the Śvetāmbara tradition also. However, firstly, this mention is later, and secondly, it is related to a place Kuchera in Rajasthan, while the inscription regarding the Kūrcaka Samgha is found from the South dated 5h century A.D. Was there any relation between Kūrcaka Gaccha and the Kūrcaka Samgha, is a matter of further investigation.
In his book Dr. Hampa Nagarajaiah has mentioned four sects - Yāpanīya, Svetāmbara, Digambara, and Neo-Digambara, and has considered the Neo-Digambara sect as different from the Digambara sect. He has simply categorized the following literary works:
1. 'Paumacariyam', a work on the story of Rāma by Shri Vimalasūri is of the Yāpanīya tradition.
2. Rāma-stories by Śīlānka and Hemacandra Sūri are from the Śvetāmbara tradition.
3. 'Adipurāna'by Jinasena, and descriptions about Rāma by Guņabhadra (c. 898 AD) and Puşpadanta (c. 965 AD) are of the Digambara sect and that
4. 'Padmapurāņa by Ravişeņa, 'Harivaṁsa by Punnāta Jinasena and Bệhatkathäkośa'by Harișeņa are from the Neo Digambara sect. Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
