In Jain śāstra some of the points you are using are correct, but the final historical conclusion about today’s “Matang vaṃś” and the specific case of Mana village goes beyond what our texts actually say.

Let’s separate clearly what is scripturally grounded and what is historical / logical inference:

---

1. Vidyādhara and vaṃśas in Jain texts

• Jain Purāṇas (like Ādi–Purāṇa, Uttarapurāṇa, Padma–Purāṇa, etc.) do describe:

- Vidyādhara as special human beings with vidyās (supernormal powers), often called ākāśa‑gocārī (moving in the sky). - Different Vidyādhara clans/vaṃśas, including Vānara vaṃśa, Rākṣasa vaṃśa, etc.

• In Jain retellings of Rāmāyaṇa and other Itihāsas:

- Personalities like Rāvaṇa, Hanumān, Vāli etc. appear as Vidyādhara kings or warriors, and Jain authors give them a Jain‑dharma‑based background and karmik journey.

So yes:

• Vidyādhara vaṃśa, Vānara vaṃśa, etc. are well established in Jain Purāṇic literature.

---

2. Were Vidyādhara vaṃśas “Jain” in the sectarian/community sense?

From the Jain viewpoint in Purāṇas:

• Dharma frame:

Many Vidyādhara kings and people are shown: - Listening to Tīrthaṅkaras. - Taking vows (vrata). - Following ahiṃsā, satya, etc. to some degree.

• But that does not mean:

- Every single person of every Vidyādhara clan was a dṛḍha–Jain śrāvaka in the later social sense. - Or that all their descendants in today’s world can be simply labeled “Jain” on that basis.

Jain śāstra gives:

• Spiritual narratives and lineage stories, centred on karma, upāsanā, and mokṣa.

It does not give:

• A detailed mapping from those ancient/bhava‑based vaṃśas to current castes/communities like today’s “Matang” across India.

So, saying:

> “If Vidyādhara Matang vaṃś was not Jain, then Vinamī would never have founded Vidyādhara vaṃś, and then no Vānara vaṃś etc. would exist.”

This is a logical argument (anumāna), not an explicit line from Jain scripture. Śāstra does not state this chain of “if–then” in so many words.

---

3. About Matang vaṃś today and Mana village idols

Your main points are:

1. Vidyādhara / Matang are mentioned in Jain Purāṇas.
2. At Mana village, three Jain idols were buried for centuries on land associated with “Matang vaṃś”.
3. Therefore, Matang vaṃś must have been Jain and hid the idols to protect them.

Some clarifications from a Jain-dharma angle:

a. Burying idols to protect them

• Across India, in many places, Jain idols have been buried, hidden in walls, or submerged:

- During invasions, temple destruction, or fear of theft or desecration. - Often by Jain laypeople, sometimes with help from non‑Jain neighbors.

• So your general idea — “idols are buried away from the temple to protect them” — matches a known protective practice.

But:

• This does not automatically prove:

- That every person who buried or protected an idol was Jain by dīkṣā or saṃpradāya. - Or that an entire caste/vaṃś in that area was Jain.

It proves:

• There was Jain presence and Jain idols there.
• Someone acted respectfully towards those idols.

b. Link between ancient “Matang” and present “Matang” community

From the standpoint of Jain Dharma:

• Our authentic texts do not clearly say:

- “The present Matang caste/community = the same continuous historical line as the Purāṇic Vidyādhara/Matanga vaṃś, and they are Jain.”

• This is a historical, anthropological question, not a purely scriptural one.
• Jain dharma is very careful about pramāṇa:

- Śruta‑pramāṇa (scripture) – what is actually written. - Anumāna‑pramāṇa (inference) – what we logically derive.

• Your reasoning belongs to anumāna. It may be possible, but it is not explicitly certified by Jain Āgama or main Purāṇas.

So, from a śuddha Jain perspective, we should say honestly:

• Yes – Vidyādhara and their vaṃśas are present in Jain Purāṇas.
• Yes – Jain idols in Mana village strongly indicate some historical Jain activity and reverence there.
• Possible but not scripturally proven – that local Matang people, at some time, were directly involved in protecting the idols or had Jain faith.
• Not directly stated in Jain scriptures – that today’s Matang vaṃś as a whole must be Jain or must be the same as Purāṇic Vidyādhara Matanga vaṃś.

---

4. How a Jain should view this

From the angle of Jain tattva:

• We should respect:

- Any community or person who protects Jain mūrtis or Jain heritage.

• At the same time we must:

- Avoid giving absolute religious labels without clear śāstric or strong historical evidence. - Distinguish between devotion/respect for idols and formal belonging to Jain dharma.

So, your feeling that:

> “If they buried idols to protect them, they had reverence for Jain Dharma.”

is very understandable and quite sympathetic to them. But turning that into:

> “Therefore the whole Matang vaṃś must be Jain”

goes beyond what Jain Dharma texts themselves confirm.

---

In summary:

• Vidyādhara, Vānara vaṃś, etc. = clearly described in Jain Purāṇas.
• Matang / Vidyādhara having Jain connections in stories = acceptable within Purāṇic narratives.
• Mana village idols buried for protection = fully consistent with how Jains (or well‑wishers) often tried to save mūrtis.
• But: Jain Dharma does not explicitly state that present‑day Matang vaṃś is fully Jain, nor that such conclusions must be drawn only from the burial of idols.

As followers of Jain Dharma, we should keep respect for both:

• The scriptural boundaries of what is clearly said.
• And the good actions (like protecting idols) of any community, without forcing labels that śāstra itself does not strictly give.