Shwetambar Mul Sangh Evam Mathr Sangh

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Shwetambar Mul Sangh evam Mathur Sangh" by Sagarmal Jain, focusing on its arguments and conclusions in English:

Title: Shwetambar Mul Sangh evam Mathur Sangh: A Discussion Author: Prof. Sagarmal Jain Publisher: Z_Sagar_Jain_Vidya_Bharti_Part_3_001686.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/229153/1

Main Argument:

The article challenges the prevailing understanding among Jain scholars and researchers that the Mul Sangh and Mathur Sangh exclusively belonged to the Digambar tradition of Jainism. Through the analysis of inscriptions found on Jain statues in Mathura, the author presents evidence suggesting the existence of Shwetambar Mul Sangh and Shwetambar Mathur Sangh in the 10th-11th centuries CE.

Key Findings and Arguments:

1. Discovery of Inscriptions: The author recounts his surprise upon discovering three large (approximately 5 feet tall) seated Jin-statues from Mathura (10th-11th centuries CE) at the Lucknow Museum. Crucially, these statues bear inscriptions mentioning the Shwetambar Mul Sangh and Shwetambar Mathur Sangh. This discovery contradicted his prior assumption that these Sanghs were exclusively Digambari.

2. Analysis of Inscriptions:

   • Statue J143 (c. 1036/1038 CE): The inscription mentions "Shri Shwetambar Mul Sanghena" (or "Shri Shwetambar (Mathur) Sanghena" according to Prof. K.D. Bajpai). The author notes ambiguity in the word between "Shwetambar" and "Sanghena," which has been read as "Mul" by Furer and "Mathur" by Bajpai. The author finds issues with both readings: "Mul" lacks a clear 'u' vowel mark, and "Mathur" lacks the 'a' vowel mark and the 'r' sound. He is awaiting further clarification from Dr. Shailendra Kumar Rastogi and plans to re-examine the inscription himself.
   • Statue J144: The inscription mentions "Shwetambar... Mathur...".
   • Statue J145 (c. 1134 CE): The inscription clearly mentions "Shri Shwetambar Shri Mathur Sangh".

3. Confirmation of Shwetambar Identity: The author provides several reasons to believe these statues, and by extension the mentioned Sanghs, are indeed Shwetambar:

   • Presence of "Shwetambar": The word "Shwetambar" is clearly inscribed on all three statues.
   • Artistic Style and Script: The style of the statues and the script of the inscriptions are consistent and belong to the same period, ruling out later alterations.
   • Iconography on J143: The statue J143 depicts two monks on its pedestal, and importantly, in place of the typical morpicchi (peacock feather whisk), it shows a rajoharan (a whisk made of wool, as is prevalent in the Shwetambar tradition).
   • Historical Context of Mathura: Archaeological evidence confirms that both Shwetambar and Digambar temples existed near the Mathura stupa, with the Shwetambar temple being closer to the stupa.
   • "Shri Devnirmita" Inscription: The phrase "Shri Devnirmita" (created by gods) used for the statues is significant. Shwetambar literary sources consider the Mathura stupa itself to be devnirmita. The author refutes Prof. Bajpai's interpretation that "Shri Devnirmita" refers to the statues being created in honor of a specific deity named Shri Dev. Instead, he argues it signifies their installation at a devnirmita (divinely created) site.
   • Historical Presence of Shwetambar Munis in Mathura: Shwetambar texts confirm that prominent monks like Jinvabhra, Haribhadra, Bappattisuri, and Virsuri visited Mathura. Haribhadra was involved in rewriting texts and renovating stupas and temples, and Bappattisuri is explicitly mentioned for the reconstruction of Mathura's stupas and temples in the 9th century CE. This establishes the presence of a Shwetambar Sangh and temples in Mathura.

4. The Nature of "Mul Sangh":

   • The author discusses the historical context of the Mul Sangh. Generally associated with the Digambar tradition, particularly the Kundakundanvaya, the earliest epigraphic mention of the Mul Sangh in conjunction with Kundakundanvaya is from 1044 CE.
   • He notes that various other traditions like Dravidanvay (Drada Sangh) and Yapaniya groups also began to associate themselves with the Mul Sangh in the 11th century CE. This suggests a "rush" to claim the Mul Sangh identity during that period.
   • The author proposes that the Mul Sangh initially might have been associated with the ancient Nirgranth lineage of Bhadrabahu (I) in South India, which existed before the specialized names like Yapaniya, Kurchaka, and Shwetpat became prominent.
   • He suggests that the need to identify as Mul Sangh arose from internal divisions, particularly when the North Indian Nirgranth Sangh split into Achil (ascetic) and Sacel (clothed) traditions around the late 2nd century CE. The North Indian Achil tradition, possibly facing challenges from external naming conventions (like Botika given by Shvetambaras and Yapaniya given by Digambaras), might have adopted "Mulanya" as their identity. This lineage eventually evolved into various Sanghs and Gachs like Mulgan, Muladhara, and Punnaagamoolgan, all retaining the "Mul" prefix.
   • The author further argues that the "Mul Sangh" name was likely a general term used by various branches of the ascetic tradition in South India from the 9th-10th centuries onwards, possibly as a way to assert their originality, and the Shwetambar tradition might have also adopted it for similar reasons.

5. The Nature of "Mathur Sangh":

   • The Mathur Sangh is primarily known as a Digambar monastic order, with its origins traced to Acharya Ramsen in 953 CE. It is mentioned in works like Indranandi's Shrutavtar and Devsen's Darshansara, though with critical remarks.
   • The author strongly suggests that the Shwetambar Mathur Sangh mentioned in the Mathura inscriptions was not a monastic order but rather an organization of Shwetambar lay followers (shravakas) from Mathura.
   • His reasoning is that there are no other epigraphic or literary mentions of a Shwetambar Mathur Sangh outside of these three Mathura inscriptions. If it were a monastic order, its presence and activities should have been documented elsewhere.
   • Furthermore, the absence of names of monks or acharyas in these inscriptions indicates a lay organization. He points out that even today, Shwetambar communities often use the name of a city followed by "Sangh" to refer to their lay followers.

Conclusion:

The author concludes that the evidence strongly suggests the existence of a Shwetambar Mathur Sangh in Mathura during the 11th-12th centuries CE. However, this organization was likely a collective of Shwetambar lay devotees from Mathura, rather than a monastic order or a Gach within the Shwetambar monastic tradition. He invites further information from scholars to strengthen his findings. The existence of a Shwetambar Mul Sangh is also indicated by the J143 inscription, though its reading remains debated and the nature of this Mul Sangh within the Shwetambar context requires further investigation, possibly linked to the broader historical evolution and adoption of the "Mul Sangh" identity.