Swetambar Mulsangh Evam Mathursangh Ek Vimarsh - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Swetambar Mulsangh evam Mathursangh ek Vimarsh" by Sagarmal Jain:

The article, "Śvetāmbara Mūlasaṅgha Evaṃ Māthura Saṅgha: Eka Vimarśa" (A Discussion on the Śvetāmbara Mūlasaṅgha and Māthura Saṅgha), by Sagarmal Jain, explores a significant and previously unclear aspect of Jain history: the existence of a Mūlasaṅgha and a Māthura Saṅgha within the Śvetāmbara tradition.

The Catalyst: Archaeological Discoveries in Mathura

The author's exploration was sparked by the discovery of three ancient Jain sculptures from Mathura, dating back to the 10th-11th century CE, housed in the Lucknow Museum. What astonished Jain was the presence of inscriptions mentioning both the "Śvetāmbara Mūlasaṅgha" on one sculpture and "Śvetāmbara Māthura Saṅgha" on the other two. This was contrary to his prior understanding, which, like many Jain scholars, firmly associated the terms Mūlasaṅgha and Māthura Saṅgha exclusively with the Digambara tradition.

The Inscriptions and Scholarly Debate

Jain meticulously examines the inscriptions and the scholarly interpretations of them. He notes discrepancies in the readings, particularly concerning the sculpture with the Mūlasaṅgha inscription (J.143).

Furer's reading: Interpreted the inscription as mentioning "Śrī Śvetāmbara Mūlasaṅghena."
Professor K.D. Bajpai's reading: Interpreted it as "Śrī Śvetāmbara (Māthura) Saṅghena," finding difficulty in reading "Mūla" due to the apparent absence of the "ū" vowel marker and the presence of a potential "th" sound.
Author's observation: Upon direct examination, Jain found the word "Śvetāmbara" to be clear. While "Saṅghena" following "Mūla" was readable, the middle word, which scholars debated as "Mūla" or "Māthura," was indistinct. He acknowledges that the presence of "Māthura" in the other two sculptures strengthens the possibility of it being "Māthura" but also notes the difficulties in reading it as such, particularly the absence of the "ā" vowel and the letter "r".

Despite the debate on the Mūlasaṅgha inscription, the author emphasizes that the term "Śvetāmbara" is clear in all three, and "Māthura" is clearly legible in the other two.

Challenging Assumptions and Providing Evidence for Śvetāmbara Presence in Mathura

Jain then systematically refutes potential doubts about the Śvetāmbara nature of these inscriptions:

Post-excavation Alteration: The sculptures being under state control since their excavation makes post-inscription alteration by any sect unlikely. The placement of the terms in the middle of the inscriptions further negates this possibility.
Artistic Style and Script: The artistic style of the sculptures and the script of the inscriptions belong to the same period, ruling out later additions.
Iconographic Evidence: Sculpture J.143 features two monks on its base, depicting a woollen rajoharan (dust-sweeper), a characteristic item in Śvetāmbara tradition, rather than a peacock feather (morpicchi).
Excavation Context: Excavations near the Mathura stupa revealed separate temples for both Śvetāmbara and Digambara traditions, with the Śvetāmbara temple located near the stupa.
"Śrī Devnirmit" (Made by God): The consistent use of "Śrī Devnirmit" in all three inscriptions is significant. Śvetāmbara literary sources identify the Mathura stupa as Devnirmit from the 7th to 13th centuries. Jain refutes Professor Bajpai's interpretation that this refers to the statues being made in honor of Śrī Deva (Jina), asserting it refers to their installation at the Devnirmit stupa site.

Furthermore, Jain cites historical evidence of prominent Śvetāmbara monks like Jinabhadragani, Haribhadrasuri, and Bappabhaṭṭisūri visiting Mathura, engaging in textual work, and overseeing renovations of stupas and temples. This confirms the presence of the Śvetāmbara Saṅgha in Mathura.

The Core Question: Mūlasaṅgha and Māthura Saṅgha in the Śvetāmbara Tradition

The author then poses the central question: Did a Mūlasaṅgha and a Māthura Saṅgha exist within the Śvetāmbara tradition, and if so, when, why, and under what circumstances?

Mūlasaṅgha and the Śvetāmbara Tradition:

Jain reiterates that apart from Furer's reading of the J.143 inscription, there is no other epigraphic or literary evidence for a Mūlasaṅgha in the Śvetāmbara tradition. He then delves into the history of the Mūlasaṅgha, noting its common association with the Digambara tradition, specifically the Kundakundānvaya.

Origin of Mūlasaṅgha Association: He points out that the association of the Mūlasaṅgha with the Kundakundānvaya is first found in an inscription from Doddakanagal in 1044 CE. While Mūlasaṅgha and Kundakundānvaya existed independently earlier, their explicit connection emerged around the 11th century CE.
Other Saṅghas Adopting Mūlasaṅgha: Jain provides evidence that other ancient Śvetāmbara sects like the Draviḍānvaya (Dravida Saṅgha) and the Yāpanīya Sampradāya (Yāpanīya sects) began using the term "Mūlasaṅgha" in their inscriptions from the late 11th century onwards.
Reason for Adoption: This adoption of the Mūlasaṅgha title by various sects, even after Indranandi declared them as "Jainābhāsa" (false Jains), suggests a competitive claim to legitimacy. It indicates a trend in the 11th century where different traditions sought to associate themselves with the Mūlasaṅgha.
Potential Śvetāmbara Connection: Given this context, Jain suggests that the Śvetāmbara Mūlasaṅgha mentioned in the Mathura inscription, dating from around the same period, might also reflect this trend of associating with the Mūlasaṅgha title by the Śvetāmbara tradition.

The Origin of Mūlasaṅgha:

To understand this further, Jain explores the history of the Mūlasaṅgha itself:

Early Mentions: Early mentions of "Mūlasaṅgha" appear in copper plates from Nanamangal (circa 370 CE and 425 CE) in South India. However, these don't specify a connection to specific sects like Nirgranthas, Kurchakas, Yāpanīyas, or Śvetapaṭas.
Co-existence of Saṅghas: Inscriptions from Devagiri and Halsi (late 5th century CE) indicate the existence of Nirgranthas, Yāpanīyas, Kurchakas, and Śvetapaṭa Mahāśramaṇa Saṅghas in South India. The Mūlasaṅgha appears even earlier (late 4th century CE).
Nirgrantha Saṅgha: Jain posits that the Nirgrantha Saṅgha in South India was the ancient one, possibly a continuation of Bhadrabahu (I)'s tradition. He argues that this Nirgrantha Saṅgha was distinct from the Yāpanīya, Kurchaka, and Śvetapaṭa Saṅghas. He believes the term "Mūlasaṅgha" might have been adopted by this Nirgrantha Saṅgha, and later, when other sects began to call themselves "Mūlasaṅghīyas," the original Nirgrantha Saṅgha likely adopted the name "Yāpanīya."
North Indian Division: The need to use the "Mūlasaṅgha" title arose from a division within the North Indian Nirgrantha Saṅgha in the late 2nd century CE into Śacela (white-clad) and Aceala (unclad) streams. The Aceala stream, particularly in North India, may have chosen the name "MūlaGaṇa" to assert its foundational status, especially since the terms "Bhaṭika" and "Yāpanīya" were given by others. Jain views "MūlaGaṇa," "Bhadrānvaya," and "Āryakula" as connected to this North Indian Aceala stream, which later became known as Yāpanīya. Upon reaching South India, this stream began to be called Mūlasaṅgha.
Later Fragmentation: The Mūlasaṅgha further fragmented into various Gaṇas like Śrī Vṛkṣamūla Gaṇa, Puṭāṅgavṛkṣamūla Gaṇa, etc. However, they all retained the term "MūlaGaṇa" and were collectively known as Mūlasaṅgha.

The Māthura Saṅgha:

Jain then turns his attention to the Māthura Saṅgha:

Śvetāmbara Māthura Saṅgha: The three Mathura inscriptions are the primary evidence for the existence of a Śvetāmbara Māthura Saṅgha in the 11th-12th centuries. However, he notes the absence of any mention of monks or ācāryas in these inscriptions. This leads him to conclude that the Śvetāmbara Māthura Saṅgha was not an organization of Śvetāmbara monks but rather a community of Śvetāmbara lay followers from Mathura. This is supported by the common practice of referring to lay communities by the city's name followed by "Saṅgha."
Digambara Māthura Saṅgha: In the Digambara tradition, a Māthura Saṅgha of monks is recorded, originating from Vikram Samvat 953 (CE 896) under Ācārya Rāmasena. Literary mentions of this Digambara Māthura Saṅgha are found in Indranandi's Śrutāvatāra and Devasena's Darśanasāra, where it is categorized among "Jainābhāsa" and "Niṣpicchika" (meaning those who criticize others). The earliest epigraphic mention of this Digambara Māthura Saṅgha is from 1166 CE, followed by another in 1226 CE. This Digambara Māthura Saṅgha became part of the Kāṣṭhāsaṅgha.

Synthesis and Conclusion:

Jain concludes that:

The Mūlasaṅgha, as evidenced by inscriptions, was likely a title adopted by various South Indian Āceala traditions in the 11th century CE. The Śvetāmbara Mūlasaṅgha inscription from Mathura might reflect a similar trend of adopting this prestigious title by the Śvetāmbara tradition.
The Śvetāmbara Māthura Saṅgha was primarily a lay organization of Śvetāmbara devotees in Mathura, not a monastic order or Gaṇa. The lack of monastic names in its inscriptions supports this.
The Digambara Māthura Saṅgha was a monastic order with a historical lineage and was recognized in both literary and epigraphic sources.
The emergence of the Śvetāmbara Māthura Saṅgha is contemporary with the Digambara Māthura Saṅgha, both appearing in inscriptions in the 11th-12th centuries.
The author invites further scholarly input to enrich the understanding of the Śvetāmbara Māthura Saṅgha.

In essence, the article presents a groundbreaking argument for the existence of a Mūlasaṅgha and a Māthura Saṅgha within the Śvetāmbara tradition, primarily based on the re-examination of inscriptions from Mathura, thereby challenging long-held assumptions in Jain historiography.