Jain Journal 2007 01

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

Page 12

SagarmalJain: How appropriateisthe Proposition of Ncodigambara School?
125
Harivamsapurāņa, there is a mention of liberation by the followers of other faiths. The concept of liberation of other crccds was accepted by the Svetāmbaras and the Yāpaniyas and not by the Digambaras. From this Harivamsapurāņa, in which liberation of Nārada, ordained as a Tāpasa, is clearly mentioned and it is clearly proved to be a work of the Yāpanīya tradition. If Dr. Nagarajaiah accepts the fact that the liberation of the Tāpasas was acceptable to the Neo-Degambaras, he will also have to variously accept the liberation of the clothed ascetics and that of the householders and the women. In that case there would be no difference between the Yāpuniyus and the Neo-Digambaras. Actually, those whom the Svetāmbaras but the Digambaras only because they too support the unclothed monasticism just like the Digambaras. The Yüpaniyas can be a branch of the Digambaras, but they are not different from the Digambaras, as the origin, development and merger of this sect is related to the Digambara tradition only. Today, their literature, temples, and icons, etc have been inherited by the Digambara sect and it is surprising that why are they so averse to the Yāpaniyas and unnecessarily coin terms like NeoDigambaras, etc for them. How far is it correct to call the Yāpaniya ācāryas and their literature to be of Neo-Digambara sect for the sake of self-satisfaction alone? Whereas there are ample literary and inscriptional evidences available to support the Yāpanīyu tradition, there are none that support the existence of the Neo-Digambara sect or tradition. If in the view of Dr. Nāgarajaiah, all those Ācāryas and their works whom Prof. Upadhye, Pt. Nathuramji Premi, Dr. Pushpalata Jain, and myself have proved to be Yāpaniya, are NeoDigambara, then which is the literature that belongs to the Yāpaniyas ? If Neo-Digambaras and the Yāpaniyas are the same, the term NeoDigambara becomes meaningless. In my opinion, Neo-Digambaras are nothing more than a flight of imagination of the learned author.
He calls Harişeņa, the author of Brhatkathākoša, also as NeoDigambara. But when Harişeņa mentions the liberation of a householder of minor vows, how can he be different from the Yūpanīyas ? In his lineage, Harişeņa has mentioned the names of Indra and Divākara yati. Indra has been mentioned as a Svetāmbara