Jain Journal 2007 01

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 11

124
JAIN JOURNAL: VOL-XLI NO.3 JANUARY. 2007
the best status of an Arvikā. Not only this, further it has been said therein that having shed all encumbrance and having gained the wealth of liberation she was resplendent like unblemished Moon. Here, we find two indications first of her liberation and second of her freedom from all forms of encumbrance (parigraha), whereas both these facts will not be acceptable even to the so called Neo-Digambara sect also. Further, it has been mentioned that where there was the monastic group of the monks, nearby there had also gathered the group of the halocd nuns. Thus, that congregation was resplendent with many a lotus in the form of monks and nuns. Also, there were a number of householders of purity of mind who were well-endowed with austerities and righteousness. Actually, who is not liberated when the Sun of knowledge rises? Meaning that they are liberated. Thus, even today this parva contains indirect references to woman-liberation and layliberation as well. Therefore, there remains no doubt about Ravisena's Padmacaritra to be a work of the Yāpaniya tradition. Dr. Hampa Nagarajaiah has also mentioned an unavailable story of Rāma by Srivijaya (circa 865 AD) and Ponna (circa 965 AD). However, when they are not available, it is difficult to say whether they were Yāpaniyas or Neo-Digambara. Also, by the mention of Vimalasūri and Yäpanīya Ravisena, bi Ācārya Udyotanasūri of the Svetambura tradition, in his lineage, it shows that Ravisena was a Yapanīva, bacause the Svetambaras had always enjoyed good and affectionate relations with the Yāpanīvas.
After this Dr. Nagarajaiah has tried to show that the author of Harivarsapurāna, Punnāta Jinasena was also from the NeoDigambara tradition. Although he has agreed that in many ways the stories of Harivansapurūņa are different from the ones in the Digambaru tradition, even then he does not want to accept him (Punnāta Jinasena) as belonging to the Yāpaniya tradition, but says that he belonged to the Neo-Digambara tradition. In support of his view he says that Harivamsapurāna does not contain mentions of woman-liberation and of eating by the Kevalins. Therefore, his views are different from those held by the Svetambara and the Yāpaniya traditions, and he is a Neo-Digambara. However, in the 65th sarga of