[Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth

[Joy Vriens]

Thank you for the information Dan.

>Since Kundakunda is considered one of the eary Digambaras, the earlier one 
>can push his dates, the older the Digambaras as a whole can claim to be. If 
>there is an inscription that can clearly be dated and that mentions his 
>name, then (with some adjustments of math) we would be in the ballpark. 

Sometimes I dream of a non partisan treatment of the data of all religious movements in India, focussing on the ideas and how they spread. 
 
>The traditional dating has been, as you've said, around the second-third 
>cent. or so. Dundas doesn't give any detailed arguments, but defers the 
>argument to a work I don't have. Here is some of what he says: 
> 
>The Jains. London, NY: Routledge, 2nd edition, 2002. 
> 
>"Nothing is known of Kundakunda's life. Although scholarship has 
>conventionally located him in the second or third century CE, hagiographical 
>accounts do not appear until the tenth century, a fact which has prompted a 
>recent radical reassessment of his dating which would locate him after 750 
>CE. [an endnote reference is here, which I'll get to in a moment] ... 
>Tradition regards Kundakunda as being the founder of the Muula Sa'ngha, the 
>main Digambara ascetic lineage..." 
>(p.107) 

That hagiographical "accounts" appear later can be for various reasons. Hagiography is propaganda. E.g. most hagiographical accounts about Joan of Arc were written in the 19th century (Michelet) for the sake of forging national unity etc. Advayavajra rediscovered and revived (or so the hagiography goes) the Ratnagotra-vibhaga in the 10-11th century, translated into Chinese centuries before. People and works can be resuscitated years later when it is convenient, thought necessary etc. Think of the Renaissance. And moreover it is from the 10th century onwards (?) that the fashion of tracing back lineages (parampa) came in vogue. 
 
Joy