________________
How appropriate is the proposition of Neo-Digambaras..
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 Mulasamgha along with the Śvetambara, Nirgrantha (Digambara) and the Yapanīya sects. Mulasamgha is the forerunner of the Yapaniya Samgha, which I have categorically proved in my book - 'Jaina Dharma Kā Yāpanīya Sampradaya'. 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 Sampradaya'. The interested readers may see that book. So far as the Kūrcaka Samgha is concerned, I have found a mention of Kurcaka Gaccha in the Śvetambara 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 5th century A.D. Was there any relation between Kūrcaka Gaccha and the Kurcaka Samgha, is a matter of further investigation.
4. 175
In his book Dr. Hampa Nagarajaiah has mentioned four sects - Yapaniya, Śvetāmbara, 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 Rama by Shri Vimalasūri is of the Yapaniya tradition.
2. Rama-stories by Śīlānka and Hemacandra Sūri are from the Svetambara tradition.
3. 'Adipurāṇa' by Jinasena, and descriptions about Rama by Gunabhadra (c. 898 AD) and Puspadanta (c. 965 AD) are of the Digambara sect and that
4. Padmapurāṇa 'by Ravisena, 'Harivamsa by Punnāța Jinasena and Bṛhatkathākośa' by Hariṣeṇa are from the Neo Digambara sect. For Private & Personal Use Only
Jain Education International
www.jainelibrary.org
