Loṅkā-gaccha
A grouping recorded within Śvetāmbara. The disagreements in the sources are shown rather than settled.
Loṅkā-gaccha is recorded within Śvetāmbara. The sources read do not establish whether it is extant. Also written Lonka Gaccha, Lumpaka.
Origin
Founder named in the sources: Bhāṇa (disciple of Loṅkā). No founding year is given below, because the sources read do not agree on one and a date has not been chosen for them. Jainpedia, Śvetāmbara page: 'The Loṅkā-gaccha - "Loṅkā's monastic order" - was not founded by Loṅkā himself, but by his first disciple, Bhāṇa', between 1471 and 1476; the Sthānakavāsī page gives the same ('Bhāṇa, who [initiated] himself and 45 followers of Loṅkā's [doctrine]. This happened some time between 1471 and 1476.'). [CORRECTION] The first pass claimed the source gave 'two different datings on two different pages' that 'are not reconciled in the source'. The source reconciles them explicitly: 1415-1489 is Loṅkā's lifespan, not a dating of the order. foundedYear left empty because the source gives a range, 1471-1476, not a year.
Continue reading this article
Sign in free to read in full. Become a member to join the discussion without limits.
Sign in free to read- ✓Read every article
- ✓Comment and reply (up to 100 words, 10/month)
- ✓Browse the community
- ✓Reader badge
- ✓
Citation
English
The language and the date you read it belong in the citation: this corpus is multilingual and articles are revised after publication.
John Shaqi. “Loṅkā-gaccha.” English version. 11 August 2026. https://johnshaqi.com/articles/sect-lonka-gaccha.
@misc{johnshaqi-sect-lonka-gaccha-en,
author = {John Shaqi},
title = {Loṅkā-gaccha},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {English version},
url = {https://johnshaqi.com/articles/sect-lonka-gaccha},
note = {Accessed n.d.}
}The word count is counted from this edition. The minute estimate uses 238 words a minute, the silent reading rate for English non-fiction reported by Brysbaert (2019). The Urdu, Hindi and Roman Urdu editions carry a word count and no estimate, because no comparable rate has been published for those scripts.