What you are describing is a very specific historical / family tradition about:

• Mana village (which you connect with ancient Manipur)
• Three hidden Jain idols
• A king who destroyed everything there
• The idols being handed to Matang Vansh priests / families
• Migration of Matang Vansh to the Deccan to preserve Jain dharma
• Connection with “5th varna” / outcaste status and forest‑dwelling Vidhyadharas

From a Jain‑shastra point of view, we should separate clearly:

1. What is in pramāṇik (authoritative) Jain texts
2. What is local / family / community tradition (lok‑paramparā)

1. What Jain scriptures do not clearly say

In the preserved Jain Agamas and later standard śāstras, we do not find a clearly documented history that says:

• “At Mana village three specific idols were hidden for centuries,” or
• “A particular king destroyed Mana village and Matang Vansh took idols and migrated to the Deccan,” or
• “Matang Vansh is specifically recorded as a Jain Vidhyādhara clan in Mahavir’s time who then moved south with murtis.”

These kinds of very detailed, place‑specific stories usually belong to:

• local sthānik itihās (temple history)
• jāti / vansh traditions preserved orally
• or later granths / pothis of a certain region or sampradāy

They may be true, partly true, or symbolic – but they are not on the same level as universally accepted Jain Agamas or major historical works.

So, from the side of śāstra‑pramāṇa, we cannot firmly say: “This particular story is definitely historically proven according to Jain scriptures.”

2. What Jain principles do support in your story

Even though the exact narrative cannot be certified from core texts, several principles in your explanation are quite in line with Jain thought:

a) Protecting idols in times of danger

When there is:

• fear of destruction by kings / invaders
• or any serious āpada (emergency situation)

then hiding mūrtis underground, in caves, forests, or remote places has often happened in Jain history. This is consistent with:

• The Jain idea of āpaddharma – in an emergency one may do some exceptional actions to protect dharma and its symbols, while still trying to remain as non‑violent and honest as possible.

So, the idea that:

> “The community hid the idols to protect them from a destructive king, and later moved them”

is completely understandable and fits Jain ways of thinking, even if that exact episode is not scripturally recorded.

b) Forest‑dwellers and being treated as “outcaste”

In Mahavira’s time there was a strong varṇa / jāti hierarchy in North India. People:

• living in forests
• living outside main towns
• engaged in certain professions

were often labeled in society as “low,” “antyaja,” or outside the regular varṇa system.

Jainism, however, teaches very clearly:

• Every jīva is equal in its soul‑nature.
• There is no difference of soul by birth, caste, colour, or clan.

So if a group like “Matang” or any forest community:

• followed ahimsa,
• accepted Jain principles,
• worshipped Jinas sincerely,

then in true Jain dharma they are not “outcaste”; they are just sādhakas (spiritual seekers).

Society may have rejected them, but Jain tattva never rejects any soul.

c) Vidhyādharas and forest regions

In Jain Puranic literature, Vidhyādharas are:

• beings who live in mountains, forests, remote regions
• often with special powers (vidyās)
• sometimes shown as devotees of Jinas or as characters in Jain narratives

So connecting a forest‑living clan with Vidhyādharas is not against Jain narrative style. But again, this is more kathā / purāṇik than strict history.

3. “5th varna” and Jain view

You mentioned:

> “During Mahavir era 5th verna was rigid in North…”

Historically:

• Hindu social thinking used 4 varnas, and later spoke of antyaja / chāṇḍāla etc. sometimes called “5th varna” in modern language.
• Jain texts describe this social reality of their time, but do not accept it as spiritually valid.

For Jainism:

• The only true division is:

- Saṃyag-dṛṣṭi / mithyā-dṛṣṭi (right vs wrong view) - Virati / avirati (vowed vs non‑vowed)

• Birth‑based varṇa has no effect on the capacity for liberation.

So if Matang Vansh or any community was treated as “5th varna” or “outcaste” by others, Jain dharma still fully accepts them as capable of:

• samyak darshan,
• vows,
• and ultimately moksha.

4. How to view such a community story as a Jain

The balanced Jain way to see your tradition could be:

1. Respect the paramparā

- As a powerful family / community memory of sacrifice and devotion. - As a reminder that your ancestors were ready to face hardship to preserve Jain idols and Jain practice.

1. Differentiate it from śāstra

- Until there is strong historical / epigraphic evidence, we should not claim: “This is definitively recorded in Agamas or standard Jain history.” - We can say: “According to our vanshāvalī and tradition, this is what happened.”

1. Take the spiritual message

- Protection of Jin‑murtis with bhakti. - Remaining firm in Jain dharma even when labeled “outcaste” or forced to move into forests or to the Deccan. - Understanding that soul purity is higher than social status.

That spiritual message is 100% in line with true Jain principles.

---

So, in short:

• Your story about Mana village, hidden idols, and Matang Vansh is best treated as community tradition, not as a fully verifiable scriptural history.
• The essence you are drawing – protection of mūrtis in emergency, forest‑dwelling communities practicing Jainism, and rejection by caste‑based society – is very much compatible with Jain philosophy of equality of all souls and devotion to the Jina.