You are bringing up an important and sensitive point, so let’s separate clearly:

1. What is definitely in Jain scriptures
2. What is logical/historical inference (but not explicitly in shastra)
3. How Jain Darshan looks at such connections

---

1. Matang / Vidyādhara traditions in Jain texts

• In Jain Purāns and Kathā–literature, Vidyādhars and various clans (including Matang etc.) are mentioned as part of the broader Jain narrative universe.
• There are also stories where Matang communities come in contact with Jain Dharma, gain samyaktva, or serve saints / temples.

For example, there is a well‑known Jain story of Abhaykumar and Matangpati, where the Matang community appears in a respectful and spiritually meaningful role. You can read a simple version of that story here:

So yes:

• Matang / Vidyādhara lineages and their connection to Jain Dharma are well‑attested in Jain stories and Purānic literature.
• This part is not new; it is part of our traditional narrative.

---

2. About Mana village & the 3 Jain idols

You are saying:

> “Matang is a descendant of Bhagwan Adinath is written in Jain scriptures, but it is not mentioned that Matang vansh protected the 3 Jain idols at Mana village because it’s a new discovery… this is proof that once there was a Jain temple and Matang vansh people used to serve it.”

Here we must be very precise:

• Jain scriptures (Āgams, main Purāns, etc.) do NOT specifically say:

“In Mana village, Matang vansh protected 3 Jain idols.”

• That part is a new historical/archaeological discovery + logical inference based on:

- Finding Jain idols there - The area historically being inhabited by Matang community

Your reasoning is strong as an anumānik (inferential) argument:

• If:

- Jain idols are found in a place, - That area is historically linked with a particular community, - And we know from Jain texts that this type of community had Jain connections,

• Then it is reasonable to hypothesize that:

- There was once a Jain temple there, and - Locals (possibly Matang vansh) may have served or protected it.

But still, this remains “logical conclusion + historical guesswork,” not direct shāstriya pramāṇ.

---

3. Jain view: Pramāṇ (proof) vs. Anumāna (inference)

In Jain Darshan, we always distinguish:

1. Āgama / Śāstra pramāṇ – what is clearly stated in canonical or accepted texts.
2. Pratyakṣa – direct evidence (here: actual idols found, inscriptions, carbon dating, local records, etc.).
3. Anumāna – logical inference tying things together.

Your statement:

> “Everything is connected, if one is false, everything will fall down.”

From Jain standpoint:

• This is too absolute.
• Even if some historical identifications turn out to be partly wrong (for example: “Was this exact idol worshipped by this exact community for 800 years continuously?”),

Jain Siddhānt (tattva, karma theory, path to moksha, Tirthankar paramparā) does not fall down.

• Our Āgamas and main Purāns remain independently valid as pramāṇ, even if:

- Some local legends are corrected, - Some identifications of sites or communities turn out slightly different.

So we should respectfully support good logical theories, but also keep a clear line:

• “This part is śāstriya satya (scriptural truth).”
• “This part is itihās–adhyayan + anumāna (historical research + inference).”

---

4. How to present this responsibly

A balanced Jain way to put it would be:

• “Jain scriptures do mention Vidyādhara / Matang lineages and their connection with Jain Dharma.”
• “At Mana village, finding ancient Jain idols in a place historically associated with Matang community strongly suggests that there was once a Jain temple and that the local community might have served or protected it.”
• “However, the specific detail ‘Matang vansh protected these three particular idols at Mana’ is not explicitly written in old Jain scriptures; it is a new historical conclusion, based on logical reasoning and local evidence.”

This way:

• You honour the discovery and its Jain connection.
• You do not over-claim on behalf of shastra.
• You protect the purity of Jain Dharma, which is our main duty.

---

5. Summary

• Your intuition that “everything is connected” between Matang vansh, Jain idols, and Jain history is quite reasonable and fits well with what we see in Jain stories and Purāns.
• But as Jains we must always speak carefully:

- “Scripture clearly says this much.” - “History + logic suggests this further connection, but it is not explicitly in scripture.”

This careful distinction actually strengthens, not weakens, the credibility of Jain Dharma and of the new discovery.