Rishibhashit A Study

Author(s): Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Prakrit Bharti Academy
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/001742/1

Page #1

PRAKRIT BHARTI PUSHPA-54
RISHIBHASHIT : A STUDY
(AN EXAMINATION OF A 2400 YEARS OLD PHILOSOPHICAL TEXT AND COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE THOUGHTS OF VEDIC,
BUDDHIST AND JAIN THINKERS OF THAT AGE)
Dr. Sagarmal Jain
劉凱凱凱凱會
JUE TUE JE JU
PRAKRIT BHARTI ACADEMY, JAIPUR SHRI JAIN SWE. NAKODA PARSWANATH TEERTH, MEWANAGAR. PARSHWANATH VIDYASHRAM SHODH SANSTHAN, VARANASI.
JUT
ronal use only
www.inelibano

Page #2

PRAKRIT BHARTI PUSHPA-54
RISHIBHASHIT : A STUDY
(A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE PERIOD AND VIEWS OF VEDIC, BUDDHIST, AND JAIN THINKERS DETAILED IN A 2400 YEARS
OLD PHILOSOPHICAL WORK)
By
Dr. Sagarmal Jain
Editor
Mahopadhyay Vinay Sagar
Translated into English by Surendra Bothara
नम्र सूचन इस ग्रन्थ के अभ्यास का कार्य पूर्ण होते ही नियत
समयावधि में शीघ्र वापस करने की कृपा करें. जिससे अन्य वाचकगण इसका उपयोग कर सकें.
Publishers : O PRAKRIT BHARTI ACADEMY, JAIPUR, a SHRI JAIN SWE. NAKODA PARSHWANATH TEERTH,
MEWANAGAR. PARSHWANATH VIDYASHRAM ŞHODH SANSTHAN, VARANAŞI,

Page #3

Publisher : D. R. Mehta, Secretary, Prakrit Bharti Academy, 3826, Yati Shyamlalji Ka Upasara, Rasta Moti Singh Bhomian, Jaipur-302003
Parasmal Bhansali, President, S. J. S. Nakoda Parshwanath Teerth, P. O. Mewanagar, St. Balotra-344025 (Raj.)
Bhupendra Nath Jain, Secretary, Parshwanath Vidyashram Shodh Sansthan, I. T. I. Road, Varanasi-221005
First Edition : October, 1988
Price : Rs. 30/
© All rights with the Publisher
Printed at : Popular Printers, Nawab Saheb Ki Haweli, Tripolia, Jaipur.
RISHIBHASHIT : A STUDY/Philosophy. Dr. Sagarmal jain/1988

Page #4

Rishibhashit Sutra has been published as the 46th Book of Prakrit Bharti. It is worth mentioning that this ancient work provides a unique example of assimilation and goodwill within its contents. According to scholars, Rishibhashit was written about 2400 years ago when the first Shrut-skandha of Acharanga was also written. This is probably the first work, not only in Jain but Indian literature, where Rishis and Shramans of all the three traditions, Vedic, Buddhist, and Jain, have been revered without any discrimination. Generally, in every tradition such works are full of critical and drerogatory references. But this unique work is an unprecedented amalgam of the principles of the promoter Acharyas of various schools of philosophical thought. In the prevailing chaotic disintegration all around, where absolutism (intolerance) is getting prominence over nonabsolutism (tolerence), such assimilation is worth emulating.
Publisher's Note
Dr. Sagarmal Jain had accepted our request to write the preface to this book. During the writing, he felt it necessary that the preface to such work should be more elaborate and should include a comparative study of the Rishis detailed therein. And so he completed this assignment in a scholarly explorative style.
This book, written as preface to Rishibhashit Sutra, is of immense value for researchers/readers and as such we are pleased to present two independent editions of this book; one in Hindi and the other in English.
We are thankful to Shri Surendra Bothara for the English translation which is as close to the original as possible in a language in which many of the concepts and terms are almost alien. Thanks are also due to Popular Printers for the printing.
Bhupendra Nath Jain
Secretary
Parshwanath Vidyashram Shodh Sansthan, Varanasi

D. R. Mehta
President
Secretary
S.J.S. Nakoda Parshwanath Teerth Prakrit Bharti Academy
Mewanagar
Jaipur
Parasmal Bhansali

Page #5

Page #6

Publishers note.
The Place of Rishibhashit in Jain Literature.
Style and Period of Rishibhashit
The Writing of Rishibhashit.
The seperation of Rishibhashit from Prashnavyakaran.
Why the Rishis of Rishibhashit were called Pratyek Buddha.
Rishibhashit and Principles of Jainism.
Question of authenticity of Concepts preached in Rishibhashit The historic background of Rishis of Rishibhashit
The period and tradition of sages of Rishibhashit.
1. Dev Narad
2. Vajjiputta (Vatsiputra)
3. Asit Deval
CONTENTS
4. Angiras Bhardwaj
5. Pushpshalputra
6. Valkalchiri
7. Kummaputta
8. Ketaliputta
9. Mahakashyap
10. Tetaliputra
11. Mankhaliputta
12. Jannavakka (Yajnavalkya)
13. Metejja Bhayali
14. Bahuk
15. Madhurayan
16. Shauryayana (Soriyayana)
17. Vidur
18. Varishena Krishna
19. Ariyayan

1- 2
2- 5
5- 6
6
6-7
7-9
10-12
12-13
14-15
15-18
18-21
21-23
23-25
25-26
27
28
29
29-30
30-32
32-34
34-35
35-36
36-38
38-39
39-40 40-41
站
42
43

Page #7

43-45 45-46 46-48 48-49
49-50
51-52
52-53
53-54
54-55
55-57
20. Utkat (Bhautikwadi) 21. Gathapatiputra Tarun 22. Gardabhal (Dagbhal) 23. Ramaputta 24. Harigiri 25. Ambad Parivrajak 26. Maatang 27. Varattaka 28. Aardrak 29. Vardhaman 30. Vayu 31. Parshwa 32. Ping 33. Mahashalputra Arun 34. Rishigiri 35. Uddalak 36. Narayan (Tarayan) 37. Srigiri 38. Sariputra (Satiputra) 39. Sanjay 40. Dvaipayan (Devayan) 41. Indranag (Indanag)
57-58 58-60 60-62
62-63 63-64
64-65 65-66
66-67
67-69 69-71 71-72 72-73
42
to
45. Soma, Yama, Harun, and Vaishraman Rishibhashit Niryukti and Rishimandal The Language of Rishibhashit Conclusion
73-74 74-79 80-82
82 82-83 84-96
Acknowledgements
Appendix

Page #8

RISHI-BHASHIT: A STUDY

Page #9

Page #10

RISHI-BHASHIT : A STUDY
The Place of Rishibhashit in Jain Literature :
Rishibhashit is one of the oldest works in Ardhamagadhi Jain canonical literature. Under the accepted system of classification of Jain canons, this is classified as Prakeernaka (anthology). The Digambar tradition has 12 Angas & 14 Angabahyas, but Rishibhashit is not included in them. The Terapanthi and Sthanakvasi sects of the Swetambar tradition also do not include Rishibhashit in the 32 Agamas they recognise. The idol worshiping sect of the Swetambar tradition recognises 45 Agamas including 11 Angas, 12 Upangas, 6 Chhedsutras, 4 Moolsutras, 2 Chulikasutras and 10 Prakeernakas; Rishibhashita is not included even in these 10 Prakeernakas. However, it is included in the list of Kaliksutras mentioned in Nandisutra and Pakkhisutra.1 The Angabahya works listed in Tattvarthabhashya of Acharya Umaswati first mention six works including Samayik and then Dashvaikalika, Uttaradhyayan, Dasha (Achardasha), Kalp, Vyayahar, Nisheeth and Rishibhashit2. Haribhadra in the Vritti of Avashyak Niryukti mentions Rishibhashit once with Uttaradhyayans and at another place with an anthology titled Devinduthuya.4 The reason for this confusion may be that besides Rishibhashit Haribhadra also came accross Rishimandal Stava which gets a mention in Acharanga churni. His intension must have been to connect Rishibhashit, Uttaradhyayan, and Rishimandal Stava with Devinduthuya. It should be noted that Rishimandal not only mentions many of the Rishis (ascetics) of Rishibhashit but also refers to chapters and contents therein. This indicates that the author of Rishimandal must have been aware of and had studied Rishibhashit. The similarity between these two works is so much that with a little variation in sequence and names almost all Rishis of Rishibhashit can be found in Rishimandal. The mention of Rishimandal in Acharanga churni (Isinamakittanam Isimandalatthan, page 374) conclusively establishes that it predates Acharanga churni (7th century A. D.). Scholars should give a serious thought to this fact. It is believed that Rishimandal was written by
Note : For foot-notes please refer to the foot notes of original Hindi text,

Page #11

Rishibhashit : A Study
Dharmaghosh Suri of Tapagachchha sect, but I have my doubts as his period is 14th century A. D. In fact, the language and style of Rishimandal indicates that it is an ancient work and its author had studied Rishibhashit. in the course of studies of canons for mendicants prescribed by Acharya Jinaprabh in his work Vidhimargprabha the list of anthologies to be studied has been concluded with the mention of Rishibhashit. As such, according to the accepted system of classification, Rishibhashit can be classified as an anthological work.
In the ancient Jain tradition it was recognised as an important work. In Aavashyak Niryukti Bhadrabahu has expressed his intent to write a Niryukti on Rishibhashit.6 As no such work is available today, it is difficult to surmise if it was written at all. Of course, Rishimandal, which finds a mention in Acharanga churni, certainly appears to be a connected work. All this goes to prove that upto a certain period Rishibhashit must have been an important work in Jain tradition. Sthanang refers to it as a part of Prashnavyakarandasha.? Samvayang has mentioned about its fourtyfour chapters. 8 As already mentioned, Nandisutra, Pakkhisutra etc. include it in the classification Kaliksutra. Aavashyak Niryukti classifies it as a work of Dharmakathanuyog.
Style and Period of Rishibhashit :
According to its language, style, and subject matter this is an extremely old work among the Jain canonical works of Ardhamagadhi language. I consider this work being of a period slightly later than that of first Shrutaskandha of Acharanga but earlier than that of other ancient works like Sutrakritang, Uttaradhyayan, and Dashvaikalika. Even its present form can under no circumstances be dated later than 3rd or 4th century B.C. As per the information available in Sthanang this work was originally a part of Prashnavyakarandasha; the ten Dashas described in Sthanang include Rishibhashit also. Samvayang informs that this contains 44 Chapters. As such Rishibhashit certainly pre-dates these works. In Sutrakritang there is a mention of ascetics like Nami, Bahuk, Ramaputta, Asit Deval, Dvaipayan, and Parashar as also little indications about their ritual beliefs. They have been addressed as ascetics and great men. These ancient Rishis have been recognised by Sutrakritang, an exposition by Arhat. All these Rishis attained liberation inspite of their consumption of seeds and water.
This gives rise to the question as to which work predating Sutrakritang has accepted these people in the exalted position ? In my opinion only Rishibhashit is such a work. The term 'Iha-sammata', from

Page #12

Rishibhashit : A Study
the verse in Sutrakritang, appears to be refering to the antiquity of Rishibhashit rather than Sutrakritang itself. It should be noted that in both Sutrakritang as well as Rishibhashit, many Rishis of traditions other than Jain, e.g. Asit Deval, Bahuk etc., have found a revered mention. Although these two are mainly in verse, from the viewpoint of language first Shrutaskandha of Sutrakritang appears to be of a later period. This is because the language of Sutrakritang is nearer to Maharashtri Prakrit whereas that of Rishibhashit is ancient Ardhamagadhi, leaving aside a few later changes. Also, Sutrakritang has criticised the thinkers of other traditions but Rishibhashit has eulogised them.
This is a firmly established fact that this work was created prior to the institutionalisation of Jain religion and social organisation. Study of this work explicitly indicates that at the time of its writing Jain organisation was completely free of sectarian bias. Mankhali Goshalak and his philosophy find mention in Jain canons like Sutrakritang10, Bhagvati11, and Upasakdashang12 and Buddhist works like Suttanipata, Deeghnikaya (Sammanjafalasutta) 13. Although there is no specific mention of Mankhali Goshalak in Sutrakritang, Niyativad has been commented upon in its chapter titled Aardrak. Analysing from the view point of development of sectarian feelings, the portion of Bhagvati dealing with Mankhali Goshalak clearly appears to be of later period than even Sutrakritang and Upasakdashang. These two works as well as many works of Pali Tripitaka mention the Niyativad of Mankhali Goshalak and then counter it. Still, unlike Jain Canonical works, the Suttanipata has recognised the influential personality and value of the works of Mankhali Goshalak by including his name in the list of six Teerthankaras contemporary to Buddha14, Rishibhashit has gone a step further and eulogised him as Arhat Rishi.
As such from the viewpoint of religious tolerance, the period of Rishibhashit is earlier than that of Pali-Tripitak. This is because the growth of sectarianism sets in only after a religion becomes properly organised. Rishibhashit indicates that it had been written much earlier than the beginning of sectarianism in the Jain tradition. Except the first Shrutaskandha of Acharanga all the other Jain canonical works reflect sectarian views in varying degrees. This proves that, leaving aside first Shrutskandha of Acharanga, Rishibhashit is the oldest of all Jain canonical works. Even the language and style indicate it to be a work of a period some-where between first Shrutaskandha of Acharanga and first Shrutaskandha of Sutrakritang.

Page #13

Rishibhashit : A Study
The oldest work of Buddhist Tripitak literature is Suttanipatals, but even that is not as tolerant as Rishibhashit. The Tripitak literature refers to some of the Rishis of Rishibhashit, namely-Narad16, Asit Deva 7, Ping, 18 Mankhaliputta19, Sanjaya (Velatthiputta 20), Vardhaman (Nigganth Naataputra21), Kumaputta22 etc; but they have been considered at a lower level than Buddha. In other words these Buddhist works were also not free of sectarian bias, and as such they should be of a later period.
Many excerpts of the chapters in Rishibhashit are found, with similarity in content, language, and composition, in Sutrakritang, Uttaradhyayan, and Dashvaikalik of Jain tradition and Suttanipata and Dhammapada of Buddhist tradition. As such in terms of style of these works Rishibhashit proves to be of an earlier period. It may be argued that the ideas and verses may have gone from Buddhist Tripitak literature and Jain Uttaradhyayan and Dashvaikalik to Rishibhashit. But this is not true because the language and style of Rishibhashit is older as compared to that of these works; also it is much nearer to the language and style of the first Shrutaskandhas of Acharanga and Sutrakritang, and Suttanipata. Moreover, Rishibhashit has mentioned the ideas as general principles propagated by different Rishis, but Buddhist Tripitak literature and later Jain works have tried to include these ideas as belonging to their own respective traditions. For example philosophical cultivation has been dealt with in Rishibhashit23 twice and once in Suttanipata24. Whereas in Suttanipat Buddha says that he does this type of philosophical cultivation, in Rishibhashit the Rishi says that whoever does this type of cultivation gets liberated irrespective of his cast and creed. Thus Rishibhashit is conclusively proved to be of an earlier period than that of Jain or Buc works except first Shrutaskandha of Acharanga.
Considering from the view point of language we find that Rishibhashit has, to a larger extent, maintained the most ancient form of Ardhamagadhi Prakrit. For example in Rishibhashit Atma has been mentioned as Ata but in Jain Anga literature Atta, Appa, Aada, Aaya, and other words have been used which are variations belonging to later periods. The free use of the consonant Ta conclusively puts this work in an earlier period than Uttaradhyayan as in Uttaradhyayan there is a tendency of avoiding this consonant. Rishibhashit also abundently uses word-forms like, Janati, Paritappati, Gachchhati, Vijjati, Vattati, Pavattati. This also confirms the antiquity of this work in context to both, subject and language.
The story of the serpent of Agandhan clan is found in Uttara

Page #14

Rishibhashit : A Study
dhyayan25, Dashvaikalik 26 as well as Rishibhashit27. But examining all the three, it becomes evident that its mention in Rishibhashit is much older than the other two. Reason being that in Rishibhashit it has been quoted just as an example so that the mendicant does not stray from his path; but in Dashvaikalik and Uttaradhyayan it has been included as an incident in the life of Rajimati and Rathnemi.
As such Rishibhashit is older than Suttanipata, Uttaradhyayan and Dashvaikalik. That means it is of a period later than that of first Shrutaskandha of Acharanga but an earlier work than all other Ardhamagadhi canonical literature. Also being earlier to Suttanipat it becomes earlier to all Pali Tripitak.
As regards deciding its period on the basis of the historical Rishis mentioned in Rishibhashit, besides Vajjiyaputta all other Rishis were either contemporary to Mahavir and Buddha or earlier to them. According to
pitak Vajjiyaputta was also a young contemporary of Buddha; he was nearer to Anand in age. The Vajjiyaputtiya sect also came into existence within a hundred years of Buddha's Nirvana, which establishes that he was a young contemporary of Buddha. Accordingly, from historical viewpoint Rishibhashit must have been written in the first century after Nirvana of Buddha or Mahavir; later changes in the text cannot be ruled out. In my opinion the period of its writing is not earlier than fifth century B. C. and certainly not later than third century B. C. I have not come accross any evidence, within and outside the text, that may point toward its writing being outside this period.
From the angle of philosophical developments we find that it does not contain the finely developed forms of Jain or Buddhist principles. Only five fundamentals and eight Karma have been mentioned. It is also possible that these concepts were popular with the followers of Parshwa and trickled into Mahavir's tradition from there only. Concepts like Parishah and Kashaya are certainly ancient. Even the expositions of Vatsiyaputra, Mahakashyap, Sariputra and other Buddhist Rishi, in Rishibhashit also contain the ancient Buddhist principles like Santativad, Kshanikvad only. As such, from Buddhist angle also, Rishibhashit is older than Pali Tripitak.
The Writing of Rishibhasit :
Regarding the creation of Rishibhasit, Prof. Schubring and other scholars maintain that it must have been originally written in the tradition of Parshwa, as the influence of that tradition is clearly seen in the first

Page #15

Rishibhashit: A Study
chapter where celibacy and non-possessiveness have been combined, as in the Chaturyam system29. The detailed chapter of Parshwa further confirms this inference.
Another basis of considering it to be a work of Parshwa's tradition is that that tradition was comparatively more tolerant; it was also much closer in conduct to other sects of ascetics and Shramans. With the assimilation of the followers of Parshwa's tradition into Mahavir's tradition this work also came along and was included as a part of Prashnavyakaran Dasha by Mahavir's followers.
The Separation of Rishibhashit from Prashnavyakaran :
It now becomes obvious to ask why it was first included in Prashnavyakaran Dasha and then separated from it. As it is purely a compilation of philosophical exposition, I feel, the earlier monks of Mahavir's tradition did not find any objection in including Rishibhasit in their own literature. But when the Jains formed an organised society with an independent tradition, it must have become difficult to include the monks of other tradition into their own ranks. In my opinion the separation of Rishibhasit from Prashnavyakaran was not accidental but with a purpose. It was not possible to preserve their exposition at one end and at the other criticise and demean Mankhaligoshalak in Sutrakritang, Bhagvati30 and Upasakdashang31; and Narad in Jnatadharma.32 By first century A. D., to keep Jain faith intact had become the primary task. It became difficult to accept the works of Narad, Mankhali Goshalak, Yajnavalkya, Sariputra etc. as the canonical expositions of Teerthankars; still, credit goes to Jain Acharyas for safe keeping of Rishibhashit as a work of anthology inspite of its being excluded from Prashnavyakaran. Also, in order to maintain its authenticity it was accepted as expositions by omniscients out of Jain tradition. The sectarian system, however, propogated that the persons named as Parshwa, Vardhaman, Mankhaliputra, etc. in Rishibhashit were not the same as their name sakes in Jain Agams.
Why the Rishis of Rishibhashit were called Pratyekbuddha ?
In the original text of Rishibhashit Ketaliputra has been referred to as Rishi; Ambad (25) as Parivrajak, Ping (32), Rishigiri (34) and Shrigiri as Brahmin (Mahan) Parivrajak Arhat Rishi; Sariputra as Buddha Arhat Rishi; and all others as Arhat Rishi. In the chapter titled Utkat (Utkal) the name of the expounder has not been mentioned at all, as such there is no need of an adjective. Although the appendix at the end of Rishibhashit33 and Rishimanda/34 has referred to all these persons as Pratyekbuddha, and twenty of them as contemporary to Arishtanemi, fifteen as contem

Page #16

Rishibhashit : A Study
porary to Parshwanath and remaining as contemporary to Mahavir; this appears to be a later addition to the text. In the original text there is no mention of them as Pratyekbuddha
in Samvayang, however, while detailing the subject matter of Prashnavyakaran it has been mentioned that it is a compilation of discourses of contemporary and other Pratyekbuddhas. As Rishibhashit had been a part of Prashnavyakaran, indirectly Samvayang provides the first acceptance of the Rishis of Rishibhashit as Pratyekbuddhas35. It is obvious that as majority of the Rishis of Rishjbhashit were not of Jain tradition, in order to accept their discourses, they were believed to be Pratyekbuddhas. In Jain as well as Buddhist tradition, Pratyekbuddha is a person who attains ultimate knowledge through his solitary practices commenced by his own inspiration; he neither becomes a disciple of someone nor makes disciples to form an organisation. As Such a Pratyekbuddha is not confined within a tradition or institutional organisation, but he is a respected person in society and his preachings are considered to be authentic.
Rishibhashit and Principles of Jainism :
A comprehensive study of Rishibhashit forces us to consider whether it propogates the beliefs of Rishis of other traditions or it is just a propogation of Jain beliefs in their name. A cursory glance makes one believe that only Jain beliefs have been propogated in their name. Prof. Schubring and, with his reference, Prof. Lallan Gopal have infered that the compiler lacks authenticity in quoting the discourses of Rishis and has presented them in his own way; the basis for this inference is the similarity of beginning as well as end of each discourse. This conclusion appears to be true looking at the Jain traditional terms like Panch Mahavrat, Kashaya, Parishah etc.
For example, in the chapter of Narad there is a mention of four ways of cleansing which is nothing but propogation of the Chaturyam conception of Jains. In the chapter of Vajjiyaputta the Karma principles have been propogated. This Chapter confirms that life is directed by Karma, and attachment is the cause of sorrow. It also explains that the transition of Karma in attachment and vice versa is cyclic like seed and plant. The cycle of Karma is terminated by wiping out attachment first as destruction of roots destroys leaves, flowers, and fruits of a tree. This concept of Karma can also be found in chapters 13, 15, 24, and 30 of Rishibhashit. Similar details are also available in Jain tradition in the thirty second chapter of Uttaradhyayan.
Similarly, the third chapter of Asit Deval in Rishibhashit contains

Page #17

Rishibhashit: A Study
the concept of sin being same as adhesive; this concept is popular in Jain tradition having a particular mention in Acharanga. This chapter also contains the mention of Panch Mahavrat, four Kashaya as well as eighteen sins from Himsa to Mithyadarshan Shalya. Also included is the form and details of Moksha which is Shiv, Atul, Amal, Avyaghat, Apurnabhava, Apunaravrata and Shashvat. Similar description of Moksha is available elsewhere in Jain canonical literature. The mention of Panch Mahavrat and four Kashaya can be found in many chapters of Rishibhashit.
The ninth chapter of Mahakashyap contains details of Punya, Papa, Samvar, and Nirjara. This chapter mentions Kashaya also. In the ninth chapter, while discussing inflow of Karma, the causes have been named as Mithyatva Drishti, Pramad, Kashaya, and Yoga, which is similar to that in the Jain tradition. It also contains many Jain traditional words like Upkram, Baddha, Sprishtha, Nikachit, Nirjirna, Siddhi, Shaileshi Avastha, Predashodaya, Vipakodaya, etc. The concept of the soul being eternal and transitory, the form of Siddha stage and the process of bondage and shedding of Karma, mentioned in this chapter are same as those in Jain philosophy.
Simin
Similarly the concepts of Dravya, Kshetra, Kala, and Bhava are also found in many chapters. The twelfh chapter of Yajnavalkya talks about process of Gochri and Shuddhaishana which are same as in Jain tradition. “Soul is the doer of Karma and sufferer of consequences bad or good," has been mentioned in the fifteenth chapter of Madhurayan. The seventeenth chapter of Vidur contains mention of Savadyayog Virati and Samabhava. Ninteenth chapter of Aariyayana refers to Arya Jnana, Arya Darshan, and Arya Charitra which are akin to Samyak Jnana, Samyak Darshan and Samyak Charitra. The twenty second chapter emphasises the predominence of male in the field of religion and demeans female which is same as in the Itthiparinna chapter or Sutrakritang.
In the twentythird chapter of Ramaputta, just like Uttaradhyayan (28-35), topics about seeing through Darshan, detachment, three disciplines, and dissolution of eight types of Karma through Tapa have been discussed. The concept of eight types of Karma is a speciality of Jainism. Again, there is mention of Jnana, Darshan, and Charitra in the twenty fourth chapter. The same chapter also includes the four Gatis namely, Deva, human, Tiryanch and Narak. The twenty fifth chapter titled Ambad discusses four Kashaya, four Vikatha, five Mahavrata, three Gupti, discipline of five senses, six life forms, seven fears, eight prides, nine Brahmacharyas and ten places of meditation. This chapter also discusses the six reasons for eating which are also found in Sthanang (Stha-6). It may

Page #18

Rishibhashit : A Study
be noted that although Ambad has been mentioned in Jain canons as a Parivrajak, it has been said that he respected Mahavir36; that is the reason that this chapter contains maximum number of Jain concepts.
In the twentysixth chapter of Rishibhashit the description of Brahmin has been included just like that in twentyfifth chapter of Uttaradhyayan. Same chapter also mentions Kashaya, Nirjara, six life forms and compassion towards all living. In the thirtyfirst chapter of Parshwa we again come across Chaturyam, Ashtavidh-Karm Granthi, Char Gati, Panchastikaya and Moksha Sthana. This chapter, like Jain concepts, conveys that living being moves upwards and matter downwards. However, the presence of Jain concepts in this chapter is not out of place because Parshwa has been accepted as one belonging to Jain tradition.
Lately, scholars have started believing that the knowledge of Jains has been inherited from the tradition of Parshwa. Schubring has also recognised the influence of Parshwa tradition on Rishibhashit. Again the thirtysecond chapter of Ping propogates the liberation of four Varnas just like the Jain belief. The thirtyfourth chapter also contains discourses about Parishah and Upasarg. This chapter also discusses the liberation of monk indulging in five Mahavrata, free of Kashaya, free of attachment and inflow of Karma. Thirtyfifth chapter of Uddalak, once again, contains mention of three Gupti, three Danda, three Ralya, four Kashaya, four Vikatha, five Samiti, Panchendriyasanyam, Yogasandhan, Navakoti Parishuddha, details of different clans free of ten Dosha, acceptance of eatables prepared for others, cold and lifeless. The same chapter also mentions Sangya and 22 Parishaha.
Thus, we observe that Rishibhasit contains many Jain concepts. It is natural to question if the Jain Acharyas have compiled their own concepts in the name of the Rishis of Rishibhashit or the concepts were originally of these Rishis and percolated into Jain tradition. It is evident that leaving aside Parshwa and Mahavir, all other Rishis of Rishibhashit were either independent ascetics or belonged to traditions other than Jain. Some of them, however, can be found in Uttaradhyayan and Sutrakritang. If we conclude that the concepts do not belong to the Rishis named, the authenticity of the work and its compiler becomes doubtful. On the other hand, to accept that all these concepts came to Jains from other traditions is also not satisfactory. So we proceed first to examine if the concepts mentioned in Rishibhashit are of the Rishis named or of Jain Acharyas.

Page #19

10
Rishibhashit : A Study
Question of Authenticity of Concepts preached in Rishibhashit : .
i Although all the concepts and related literature of all the Rishis of Rishibhashit are not available in traditions other than Jain, still, concepts and thoughts of many are available in other traditions, even today. Yajnavalkya is mentioned in Upnishads, Vajjiyaputta, Ma hakashyap, and Sariputta can be found in Buddhist Tripitak literature. Similarly, Vidur, Narayan, Asit Deval etc. find place in Mahabharat and other works of Hindu tradition. By comparing their ideas mentioned in Rishibhashit with other sources we can evaluate their authenticity.
In eleventh chapter of Rishibhashit, the discourse of Mankhali Goshalak are compiled. Bhagwati Sutra and Upasakdashang of Jains Suttanipata and Samanja Mahafal Sutta in Deeghnikaya of Buddhists; and 177th chapter of Shantiparva in Mahabharat of Hindus are other works where Mankhali Goshalak or Mankhirishi has been mentioned. All the three sources tell him to be a supporter of Niyativad. His discourses in Rishibhashit also contain indirect references to Niyativad. It is stated in this chapter that he who trembles, feels pain, is irritated, hurt, moved, inspired by seeing the transformation in matter is not detached. A detached one does not have all these effects on seeing the transformation of matter. This is an indirect confirmation of Niyativad in relation to the transformation of matter. The world has its own movement and parameters according to which it continues to move. A mendicant should look at and understand this movement, but should not be influenced by that.
The basic philosophical teaching of Niyativad ought to be that one should only remain as a witness in the eventful movement of this world, In this manner this chapter reflects only the basic philosophical teachings of Goshalak. On the other hand the description of the principle of Mankhali Goshalak in Jain and Buddhist literature is in fact a distorted inference. The author of Rishibhashit is, in fact, much more authentic than the authors of Tripitak and later Jain canons.
The preachings of Mankhi Rishi of 177th Chapter of Shantiparva in Mahabharat confirms Niyativad on one hand and preachings of detachment on the other. This chapter mainly preaches spectator's uninvolved attitude and detachment from the world. It preaches detachment through Niyativad only. The world has its own system of movement and man cannot convert it to suit his needs, as such he should become detached by maintaining an attitude of uninvolved witness. The uniqueness of this chapter of Mahabharat is that accepting Mankhi Rishi as supporter

Page #20

Rishibhashit: A Study
of Niyativad, he has been believed to be proceeding towards detachment through his Niyativad.
On this basis it can be concluded that the preachings of Mankhaliputra available in Rishibhashit are authentic.
Similarly preachings of Mahakashyap are compiled in 9th chapter and Sariputta in 38th chapter; both are connected with Buddhist tradition. When we contemplate the ideas expressed in these chapters the presence of basic tenets of Buddhism becomes clearly evident. The discourses of Mahakashyap first of all deals with the sorrows of the world. At the root of all sorrows is Karma and at the root of Karma is birth itself. This is just a form of Pratitya Samutpad of Buddhism.
i1
Another speciality in this chapter is the mention of Santanvad while propagating the Karma principle; Santanvad is one of the basic principles of Buddhism. In order to explain the concept of Nirvana the metaphor of lamp (Deepak) has been used; this is a popular and basic metaphor from Buddhism. The whole discourse preaches detachment through Santanvad and Karmasamskar. This makes us conclude that this chapter contains seedlings of Buddhism.
Similarly, 38th chapter of Sariputta contains basic tenets of Buddhism in the form of Madhyam Marg. Alongwith is mentioned the Prajnavad of Buddha. It has been mentioned in this chapter that a monk can meditate conveniently with the availability of desired living quarters, bed and eatables. Still the wise should not crave for mundane things. Same is the discipline of Buddha and so this chapter too presents the preachings of Buddha with authenticity.
Same is the story about the 12 th chapter, where the original preachings of Yajnavalkya have been included. Besides Rishibhashit, Yajnavalkya finds mention in Upanishads and Mahabharat37. In Upanishad, alongwith the dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi is mentioned their desire towards Sanyas. In Rishibhashit also Yajnavalkya preaches getting rid of wordly desires and desire for wealth, he also mentions that both of these are intertwined and inseperable. As such, knowing these both one should tread the Gopath not Mahapath. It appears that Gopath is the path of detachment and Mahapath is the path of attachment; Yajnavalkya seems. to be preaching the path of detachment.
1.
It is worth pondering if the development of the Hinayan and Mahayan concepts of Buddhism is not merely the evolved form of this

Page #21

Rishibhashit: A Study
concept of Gopath and Mahapath. Mahayan word in also found in Acharanga. In the chapters 310 to 318 of Shantiparva in Mahabharat are compiled the preachings of Yajnavalkya. This mainly expounds the Sankhya and Yoga concepts. This chapter of Rishibhashit also talks about the procedure of collecting alms by a monk, which is similar to the Jain method. Still this can be said that the author of Rishibhashit has not distorted the basic preachings of Yajnavalkya.
12
In the twentieth chapter of Utkata, Bhautikavad or Charvak Darshan has been propogated. Although there is no mention of the author of this chapter it is certain that the ideas of Charvak have been propounded with complete authenticity. The preachings of Vardhaman available in Rishibhashit are found in almost exact similarity in the chapter titled Bhavana of second Shrutaskandha of Acharanga and 32nd chapter of Uttaradhyayan.
On the aforesaid evidences we may conclude that generally the preachings of various Rishis have been presented authentically. However, mainly it contains only the meditational and moral aspects without any emphasis on philosophical background. This is also true that its presentation and writing has been done by Jain Acharyas; and so it is natural that some concepts of Jains reflect predominently in this work. Also there is enough evidence that what we today consider as Jain concepts, could originally have been concepts belonging to other traditions creeping in later into Jainism. As such the authenticity and originality of the preachings of Rishis of Rishibhashit cannot totally be set aside. At the most we may deduce that there is an indirect influence of Jain tradition over them.
The historic background of Rishis of Rishibhashit :
It is clearly established that most of the Rishis of Rishibhashit were not connected with Jain tradition. The adjectives like Brahmin Parivrajak indicate that they were from non-Jain traditions. Also, some names like Dev Narad, Asit deval, Angiras Bhardwaj, Yajnavalkya, Bahuk, Vidur, Tharishen Krishna, Dvaipayan, Aruni, Uddalak, Narayan have been popular in Vedic tradition and their teachings are intact in Upanishads, Mahabharat, and Puranas even today. The names of Dev Narad, Angiras Bharadvaj, Dvaipayan also find their mention in Sutrakritanga, Aupapatik, Antkritdasha besides Rishibhashit in Jain tradition as also in Buddhist Tripitak literature.
Similarly, Vajjiyaputra, Mahakashyap, and Sariputra are famous personalities of Buddhist tradition and are mentioned in Tripitak literature.

Page #22

Rishibhashit : A Study
13
Mankhaliputra, Ramputta, Ambad (Ambashta), Sanjaya (Velatthiputra) are names which belong to 'independent Sraman traditions and their mention can be found both in Jain and Buddhist traditions. Prof. C. S. Upasak, in his article "/sibhasiyam and Pali Buddhist Texts : A Study." has discussed in details those Rishis of Rishibhashit who have been mentioned in Buddhist literature. This article is being published in Pt Dalsukh Malvania Abhinandan Granth. Parshwa and Vardhaman are the famous, twenty third and twenty fourth Teerthankars in Jain tradition. Ardrak is found in Sutrakritanga besides Rishibhashit. Besides these, Valkalchiri, Kurmaputra, Ketaliputra, Tetaliputra, Bhayali, Indranaag are names most of whom are mentioned in Tsimandal and other Jain works. Valkalchiri and Kurmaputra etc. are also mentioned in Buddhist tradition. However, even those who are neither mentioned in Jain nor Buddhist tradition, cannot be termed as fictitious.
On looking at the complete list of Rishis of Rishibhashit we find that only Soma, Yama, Varuna, Vayu, and Viashraman are such names which may be said to be fictitious because they have been accepted only as Lokpals in the Jain, Vedic, and Buddhist traditions. But even out of these Vayu has been mentioned as a Rishi in Mahabharat. Yama has been said to be the father of Yamadagni Rishi in Aavashyak Churni. The possibility of Yama being a Rishi cannot completely be ruled out, although even Upanishads have described Yama as Lokpal. This is certain that he was a preacher, as the dialogue between Yama and Nachiketa is well known in Upanishadic tradition. Varuna and Vaishraman have also been accepted as preachers of Mantras in Vedic tradition. It is possible that till the writing of Rishibhashit Soma, Yama, Varuna, and Vaishramana were recognised as preachers and that is why their discourses were included in Rishibhashit.
Thus, we may conclude that excepting four or five monks all the other Rishis of Rishibhashit actually existed during prehistoric and historic periods, and are not just fictitious characters.
I would only like to conclude that Rishibhashit is a valuable work not only of Jain tradition but also of the Indian tradition as a whole. The religious tolerance of Indian thought is truly reflected in this work. It also has a historical importance because it provides valuable and authentic information about many known and some unknown Rishis and their preachings. The Jain Acharyas have done a valuable service to Indian literature and culture by preserving this work. In fact this work is an undeniable proof of historical existence of many Indian period between 10th and 5th century B. C.

Page #23

14
Rishibhashit : A Study
THE PERIOD AND TRADITIONS OF SAGES OF
RISHIBHASHIT
According to the Jain tradition, out of these 45 sages, twenty are believed to be contemporaries of Arishtnemi, fifteen that of Parshwa and remaining ten that of Mahavir38 Isimandal also confirms this fact. However, this division does not follow the order that the first twenty belong to the period of Arishtnemi, the following fifteen belong to the period of Parshwa and the last ten belong to the period of Mahavir. If they are considered to be in that order then the 29th sage, Vardhaman will have to be accepted as contemporary to Parshwa and the 40th sage Dvaipayan will have to be accepted as contemporary to Mahavir. On the contrary, the truth is that Dvaipayan was contemporary to Arishtnemi and Vardhaman was Mahavir himself. As such it would not be correct to believe that the list of sages can be divided into the periods of Arishtnemi, Parshwa, and Mahavir in the same order as mentioned in Rishibhashit; which sage belongs to what period has to be re-evaluated. Schubring himself has not given any clear indication in this context.
Schubring has made an effort to evaluate the traditions of the sages in his preface to Isibhasiyam39. According to him Yajnavalkya, Bahuk (Nala), Arun Mahashalputra or Aruni, and Uddalak clearly appear to be of Upanishadic tradition, at the same time Ping, Rishigiri, and Shrigiri have been titled Brahmin Parivrajak and Ambad as Parivrajak. As such, these four are also connected with Brahmin tradition. Yogandharayan, who had dialogue with Ambad, also appears to be a sage of Brahmin tradition. Similarly Madhurayan, Aryayan, Tarayan (Narayan) also seem to be belonging to Brahmin tradition. Angiras and Varishen Krishna are also believed to be from Brahmin tradition. According to Schubring, Mahakashyap, Sariputta, and Vajjiyaputra are connected with Buddhist tradition. I feel that he is correct. Schubring has expressed his inability to attach any tradition to Pushpshalputra, Ketaliputra, Vidu, Gathapatiputra, Tarun, Harigiri, Matang and Vayu, in absence of any evidence.
If we examine Schubrings views on the basis of available evidence, Narad, Asit Deval, Angiras Bhardwaj, Yajnavalkya, Uddalak, Ping and Narayan can be conclusively accepted as sages of Vedic or Upanishadic tradition. Similarly, I have no objection in accepting Mahakashyap, Sariputta and Vajjiputta as belonging to the Buddhist tradition. Parshwa and Vardhaman are conclusively from Jain tradition. The remaining names need to be studied from a variety of angles,

Page #24

Rishibhashit : A Study
15
Although it is difficult to ascertain the historical existence and tradition of Pushpshalputra, Valkalchiri, Kummaputra, Ketaliputta, Bhayali, Madhurayan, Sauryayan, Aryayan, Gardabhali, Gathapatiputra, Tarun, Varatraya, Aardrak, Vayu, Sanjaya, Indranaga, Som, Yama, Varun, Vaishraman etc., if we analyse their histroical existence on the basis of their mention available in the Jain, Buddhist, and Vedic traditions we may arrive at some conclusion,
Prof. C. M. Upasak has given such an evaluation in his article titled "Isibhasiyam and Pali Buddhist text.," but he has limited this study only to Buddhist Tripitak literature. In this preface I am trying to go a step ahead of the efforts of Schubring and Upasak, with authenticity based on comparative and critical analysis. As such I now take up a more serious study of each individual sage of Rishibhashit one by one.
1. DEV NARAD
The first chapter of Rishibhashit is about Arhat Rishi Dev Narad. Mentions about Narad are found in Jain, Buddhist, as well as Hindu traditions. In Jain tradition, Narad finds place, besides Rishibhashit40, in Samvayang41, Jnatadharmakatha12, Aupapatik 43, Rishimanda/44, and Avashyak-churn;45. Samvayang states that Narad shall be re-incarnated as the twenty first Teerthankar Vimal in the coming time-cycle (ascending). As such Rishibhashit and Samvayang both have referred to Narad with reverence. He has been accepted as Pratyekbuddha indirectly in Samvayang and directly in Rishibhashit. But we shall have to recall that there are differences in the concepts of Arhat Rishi, Pratyekbuddha and Teerthankara.
According to Jain tradition Arhat and Pratyekbuddha get liberated in the same life, whereas future Teerthankara gets liberated after two rebirths. As per Jain tradition there is no scope of Arhat or Pratyekbuddha becoming a future Teerthankara. This proves that the concepts of Pratyekbuddha and future Teerthankara evolved only after the writing of Rishibhashit. Although, from one point of view, both these concepts are efforts towards eulogising a person, future Teerthankara is acceptable to Jain tradition but Pratyekbuddha is not. in this process of rejecting, most of the Rishis of Rishibhashit have been termed as Pratyekbuddha and in process of accepting, some of them have been termed as future Teerthankaras.
The Dev Narad of Rishibhashit has been mentioned as Kalchhul Narad in Jnatadharmakatha and Isimandal (Rishimandal), but this is just

Page #25

16
Rishibhashit : A Study
another name of the same person. This is because, in the appendix of Rishibhashit he has been shown as contemporary of Arishtanemi and the Narad of Jnatadharmakatha was also contemporary of Krishna and Arishtanemi. In Jnatadharmakatha he has been described as sober and a scholar of many subjects at one place and as evil and quarrelsome at another. In Aupapatik Narad has been mentioned as Brahmin Parivrajak. Aupapatik and Jnatadharmakatha both describe him as scholar of four Vedas and many subjects as also propagator of Purgationism (Shauch-Dharma). In Rishibhashit also his preachings abound in Purgationism but the emphasis is on inner purity. In Avashyak-churni also the available details about Narad convey that he was son of Brahmin Yajnadatta and Som-yash of Shoripur
In Rishimandal he is presented as the author of first chapter titled 'Truth is purgation'. This indicates that this information has been taken from Rishibhashit only. All this goes to show that Narad of Rishibhashit, Samvayang, Jnatadharmakatha, Aupapatik and Rishimandal are not different persons but one. This is certain that the exalted position given to him as Arhat Rishi and future Teerthankara in Rishibhashit and Samvayang has not been given by later canonical and other literature of the Jains. This is a proof of the total absence of sectarian dogma in Rishibhashit.
As regards the preachings of Narad in Rishibhashit, the five great vows of Jain tradition have been converted into four purgations and he has been shown as the propagator of these. Celibacy and non-possessivess have been combined in this. Rishibhashit and other Jain canons have accepted him as the propagator of Purgationism. Whereas other Jain canons believe that he emphasized on outward purgation or physical purity, Rishibhashit states that he was propagator of inner purity through virtues.
In the first chapter of Rishibhashit Arhat Rishi Dev Narad stating that purgation is worth listening about and the basis of liberation from all sorrows, has mentioned the four types of purgations :
1. Purgation of violence; 2. Purgation of lie; 3. Purgation of stealing/grabbing; 4. Purgation of lust and possesiveness.
With these this chapter directs to embrace total apathy and mentions that a mendicant should, in all circumstances, be equanimous, He who

Page #26

Rishibhashit : A Study
17
practices purgation is apathetic and equanimous achieves liberation soon. He is not reborn.
Schubring believes that the compiler of this work was clearly influenced by the Chaturyam (four dimensional) of Parshwa. That is the reason that celibacy and non-possessiveness have been put in one category. Accepting ahimsa and truth as the basis of purgation or purity indicates that Narad propagated inner purity as well, besides physical purity. Narad has been mentioned as preacher of apathy, detachment and liberation also. At the end of this chapter there are directions for a mendicant to be truthful, light eater, and celibate. It is worth speculating if it is not the three dimensional (Triyam) concept mentioned in Acharanga.
Generally speaking, the concepts of ahimsa, truthfulness, nonstealing, celibacy, non-possesiveness, inner purity, and apathy have been common to almost all schools of Indian thought. As such there should be no objection in accepting that these preachings of Narad were his independent thoughts.
This should also be kept in mind that in Jain tradition Narad was such an influential personality that in later periods with the conception of nine Baldevs and nine Vasudevs, nine Narads were also conceived. In Aupapatik there is a mention of separate tradition of Naradiya Parivrajaks.
In Buddhist tradition also we find mention of many Narads. First is that out of the supposed twenty four Buddhas the ninth Buddha has been named Narad 46. Besides this, in the Atthakatha of Thergatha there is a Brahman named Narad, who is contemporary of the Padmottar Buddha. Similarly, there is another Brahman Narad contemporary of Arthadarshi Buddha in the same book48. Also in Buddhist literature the name of a minister of King Brahmadatta of Varanasi is Narad49. A ruler of Mithila is also named Narad50. But in my opinion there is no connection of all these Narads with the Narad of Rishibhashit.
In Buddhist literature there is a mention of Narad belonging to Kashyap clan51. He has also been stated as Brahman Rishi Narad Dev. At some places he has been called as Narad Deval. But, to me, it appears that Narad and Deval are two seperate individuals. In Mahabharat there is a mention of dialogue between Narad and Deval. As such it can be infered that Narad and Deval were contemporaries. In my opinion Narad Dev of Buddhist literature and Dev Narad of Rishibhashit must have been the same person,

Page #27

18
Rishibhashit: A Study
In Vedic and Hindu tradition Devarshi Narad finds a wide mention. The author of some parts of Rigveda52 was Kanva Narad and author of some parts of Atharvaved 53 was Kanva Narada. Similarly, Narad also finds mention in the tradition of Samveda54. In Chhandogyopanishad Narad is said to be a versatile scholar55. In the same Upanishad a dialogue between Narad and Sanat Kumar is also narrated. Like Chhandogyopanishad, Jain canons Jnatadharmakatha and Aupapatika also believe that he was proficient scholar of all the four Vedas and many other subjects. Chhandogyopanishad states that inspite of being knower of many subjects he was scholar of Mantras not soul. As such, it appears that earlier Narad indulged in physical rituals, purgation, and a variety of mundane and exhibitionistic subjects, but later on his interest must have become inclined toward Shraman tradition from Vedic tradition and consequently attained a revered place in that tradition also. The dialogue between Narad and Sanat Kumar confirms this. Besides Chhandogyopanishad Narad finds mention in Naradaparivrajakopanishad36, Naradopanishad57 and many other Upanishads.
According to Gita58, Narad is supposed to be a divine entity. In Mahabharat59 one comes accross dialogue between Narad and Asit Deval. Bhagwat60 also mentions about Narad. In a list of divine incarnations (Avatara) he is the third incarnation of Vishnu in the creation of Rishis. Whereas Hindu tradition believes him to be incarnation of Vishnu, Buddhist tradition believes him to be an earlier Buddha predecessor of Gautam Buddha and Jain tradition believes him to be a future Teerthankara. On studying details about Narad available in all these three traditions, the first thing which stands out is that there was an independent tradition of Narads. The Jain canon Aupapatika conveys that a particular tradition of Naradiya parivrajaks prevailed for many centuries. Dev Narad of Rishibhashit can be accepted as one of this tradition of Narads, who must certainly have existed earlier to Buddha, Mahavir, and Parshwa during the period of Arishtanemi.
In this chapter the five great vows accepted in Jain tradition have been turned into four purgations. The peculiarity is that celibacy and nonpossessiveness have been combined. This indicates that the compiler of this work was influenced by the Chaturyam concept (four diemensional concept) of the tradition of Parshwa. This is because in the Chaturyam of Parshwa also, celibacy and non-possessiveness have been put in one category.
2. VAJJIPUTTA (Vatsiputra) In Jain tradition, Vajjiputta has been mentioned in Rishibhashit alonebl. But in Buddhist tradition Vajjiaputta Ther finds mention at many

Page #28

Rishibhashit: A Study
places62. Schubring and Upasak both believe Vajjiputta to be connected with Buddhist tradition63. In Buddhist tradition there was a separate sect of Vajjiputtaks who maintained a difference of opinion with general Buddhist monks on certain points. However, Prof. C. S. Upasak has put forward a doubt in accepting Vajjiputta as connected with Buddhist tradition. According to him the sect of Vajjiputta was formed at a latter period than the writing of Rishibhashit. But his doubt appears to be ill-founded, because the Vajjiputtiya sect mentioned in Buddhist tradition had already come into existence in the 4th-5th century B. C. Also, Vajjiputta was, in fact, contemporary of Buddha.
The emergence of Vajjiputtiya sect within the Buddhist organisation signifies that Vajjiputta must have been an influential monk in the Buddhist tradition and his disciples must have been large in number to have formed a sect under his own following. Buddhist literature also reveals that Vajjiputta was contemporary of Buddha and Mahavir. In Thergatha Atthakatha he has been shown as a Lichchhavi prince from Vaishali, who became so impressed with Buddha that he accepted Buddhism; and becoming a monk, started meditation in forests around Vaishali. The reason for his inclusion in Jain tradition, specially in Rishibhashit, may be that he belonged to the same clan, Lichchhavi, to which Mahavir belonged.
19
The Vajjiputtiya monks have been considered as moderates in the Buddhist tradition. They had demanded for some moderations in the disciplines for the monks, viz.. snacks after meals, keeping gold coins etc. There is also a mention in Buddhist literature and inscriptions, of some sub-sects of Vajjiyaputtiya sect. The sub-sects are as follows:
1. Dharmottariya Nikaya : Although it was quite popular and had good following, there is no information about its principles.
2. Bhadrayanik Nikaya : Details can be seen in works like Mahavansha, Deepvansha etc.
3. Chhannagarika Nikaya : The literal meaning of Chhannagarika is those who live in covered abodes. The followers of this sect were those who practiced meditation in institutionalised buildings and not under trees or inside caves.
The Vajjiputta mentioned in Rishibhashit is the Vajjiputta of Buddhist tradition. He belonged to the Lichchhavi clan and was a contemporary of Buddha and Mahavir, He was still alive after Buddha's

Page #29

20
Rishibhashit: A Study
Nirvana. Also, his preachings compiled in Rishibhashit have no contradiction with Buddhist philosophy.
As regards the preachings of Vajjiputta compiled in Rishibhashit, they mainly clarify the Karma principle. According to him the sequence of life and death continues like that of seed and sapling. At the root of karma he postulates attachment. This theory about karma is generally accepted both in Jain and Buddhist traditions. Preachings similar to those of Vajjiputta can be found in the thirtieth chapter of Uttaradhyayan. The discussion about Karma-santati, which shows the influence of Santativad of Buddhism, provides the basis of authenticity of ideas put forth in this chapter. This chapter also indicates that Vajjiputta emphasizes more on knowledge rathar than conduct. Vajjiputtiya (Vatsiputriya) sect of Buddhists also emphasizes on the path of knowledge and purity of soul as against the stagnant rules of conduct. In my opinion he is none else but Vajjiputta Ther of Buddhists.
in the Vedic tradition there is a mention of Vatsiputra which is the Sanskrit form of Prakrit Vajjiputta. In the last clan list of Vrihadaranyaka Upanishad, Vatsiputra can be found. He was a disciple of Parasharputra according to Kanva branch and that of Mandaviputra according to Madhyamdin branch.
Although there is nothing more but his name in the Vedic tradition, but still it can be deduced that he was some sage belonging to the Upanishad period. All this naturally gives rise to the question that Vajjiputta of Rishibhashit, Buddhist Vajjiputta, and Vatsiputra of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad are three different persons or just one. As no philosophy or thought of Vatsiputra are available in the Vedic tradition, it is difficult to establish his sameness with Vajjiputta of Rishibhashit. Whereas due to similarity of thoughts the proximity of Vajjiputta of Rishibhashit and Vajjiputta of Buddhists is established. The existence of a sect of Vajiputtiyas in Buddhism also proves that he must have originally belonged to the Buddhist tradition.
The question that who was Vatsiputra of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad still remains to be answered. As no other Buddhist monk has been mentioned in the Upanishads, it is difficult to say that Vatsiputra of Brihadaranyaka and Vajjiputta of Buddhist tradition were same. Had he been a common Ther of Buddhist tradition it would have been possible that he had been accepted in Buddhist tradition like Narad and others. But in Buddhist tradition his place is as the leader of a sect and not an ordinary monk, However, one cannot deny the possibility that earlier he

Page #30

Rishibhashit : A Study
21
was connected with the tradition of Upanishadic sages and, being influenced by Buddha, had joined the ranks of Buddhist monks at a later date. Being a Buddhist and still living in jungle is certainly an evidence of his diverseness. Also, the fact that first voice of decent within the Buddhist organisation came froin his disciples indicates that roots of his tradition were a little different. The absence of any information other than his name in the tradition of Upanishadic sages also indicates that he shifted to some other tradition in the later part of his life.
3. ASIT DEVAL
The mention of Asit Deval can be found in all the three streams of Indian thought-Vedic, Jain, and Buddhist. The religious canon of Deval was popular during the ancient period and its quotes can be seen even today in works of later periods. On this basis we can definitely infer that Asit Deval was not simply a mythological name but a historic person.
In Jain tradition Asit Deval finds mention in Rishibhashit64 and Sutrakritang65. Rishibhashit addresses him as Arhat Rishi. His preachings compiled in Rishibhashit convey the following postulations :
"Abandoning the four directional world, every individual should strive for the unfathomable, endless and eternal abode that is Moksha. Discussing the means towards this goal, it has been conveyed that by being apathetic toward all desires, passions, attachments, and activities, as well as anger, conceit, illusion and greed, and with the help of detachment, apathy, and discipline one can save himself from all adhesions or binding karmas, to attain liberation. After that, eleven stages explain the activities resulting in bondage of evil Karma. In the end it has been said that ordinary fire can be exitinguished with the help of water but the fire of attachment is difficult to extinguish. He who understands this reality can rid himself of the cycles of life and death and liberate himself."
These details indicate that Asit Deval was a preacher of the path of detachment. The adjective Arhat Rishi also confirms the same fact. Sutrakritang has mentioned that Asit Deval attained liberation inspite of consuming seeds, vegetables, and plain water. This proves that he did not originally belong to the Jain tradition, but still enjoyed a coveted place. This was because the monks belonging to Jain tradition were supporting the trend of seeking conveniences by giving examples of Rishis like Asit Deval, Nami, etc.

Page #31

22
Rishibhashit : A Study
Sheelanka, the commentator of Sutrakritang imagined of two persons-Asit and Deval, based on the word Asite-Devile', but according to Rishibhashit it is proved that Asit Deval is one person, not two. Isimanda/66 has referred to him as a person devoid of lust. Isimandal Vritti, a work of 13th-14th century A. D., has given the full life history of Asit Deval. It mentions that he became infatuated with his own daughter, but with the help of true knowledge he got rid of his lust. This also proves that he was basically connected with ascetic tradition.
Buddhist Tripitak literature also refers to him as a Rishi. Aslayana Sutta67 of Majjhim Nikaya gives us some details about him. The story narrated is that once seven Brahman scholars lived in a jungle. They believed that Brahman is the highest cast and they are the true progeny of Brahma. When Asit Deval opposed the belief the Brahmans cursed him. When the spell of the curse did not effect Asit Deval the Brahmans considered their practices to be useless and sought clarification of their doubts from Asit Deval. Asit answered their questions and in the end they became his followers.
Buddhaghosh has referred to Asit Deval as Bodhisattva in Mahavansh (-705). Besides this. Indriya Jatak 68 also mentions Deval as Kala-Deval. In this Jatak tale Narad is younger brother of Asit Deval and there is a mention of Asit Deval as a Sanyasi who also tries to free his younger brother Narad from the worldly ties.
In the Hindu tradition we find mention of Asit Deval in Mahabharat and Gita. In Mahabharat Asit Deval has been mentioned in Adiparva69 Sabhaparva, 70 Shalyaparva71, Shantiparva72 and Anushasanparva73. In Shalyaparva Asit Deval has been shown as a house-holder practicing religious asceticism, this is also confirmed by Jain sources. It is also stated here that Asit Deval was equanimous and highly advanced ascetic, This chapter also relates the dialogue between Asit Deval and Jegishavya. The most important fact related in this chapter is that he left the duties of a house-holder and became sanyasi through the influence of Jegishavya's preachings.
Shantiparva has also presented Jegishavya preaching equanimity to Asit Deval. These facts indicate that in the begining Asit Deval was practicing as a house-holder and latter, becoming sanyasi, practiced equanimity. In another chapter of Shanti-parva (275) is mentioned the dialogue between Narad and Asit Deval. In this chapter Deval establishes, five fundamentals, time, existence and void; the eight eternal basics; and proposes the origin of creation from these basics. In this chapter he

Page #32

Rishibhashit: A Study
also preaches the discipline of senses to Narad. As such, the attempt to connect Narad and Asit Deval by Buddhist tradition certainly appears to be partly true.
Besides this, Gita,74 Maathar Vritti,75 Brahmasutra Bhashya and Yajnavalkya Smriti (Aparaditya Commentary) also contain mentions of Deval. Although, in Mahahharat at some places Deval has been presented as a mythic figure, his mention in all the three traditions confirms that Deval was a historic person. However, the question that how ancient a sage Deval was, still remains unanswered.
23
In this context there are two three points worth considering. Mahabharat and Gita have presented him as contemporary of Narad. In Jataka tales of Buddhist tradition too he is supposed to be the preacher of Narad. In Rishibhashist the chapter of Asit Deval follows those of Dev Narad and Vajjiputta. All this goes to prove that Asit Deval too was a Rishi of the Mahabharat period. In the Jatak tales it is related that he was present during the period of Gautam-Buddha in his later incarnation. This proves his antiquity as compared to Buddha. However, it is difficult to pin-point his exact period on the basis of all this information. It is certain that he preceded Mahavir and was a Rishi present during the Mahabharat period. He must have been popular for quite some time and possibly left a tradition after himself, otherwise we could not find his mention in Jain and Buddhist canons.
4. ANGIRAS BHARDWAJ
The fourth chapter of Rishibhashit contains the preachings of Angiras Bhardwaj. Besides Rishibhashit, the mention of Angiras is also available in Avashyak Niryukti,76 Avashyak Bhashya,77 Avashyak Churni78 and Rishimandal (Isimandal).79 Here he is said to be an ascetic disciple of Upadhyaya Kaushik. As compared to other chapters, this chapter of Rishibhashit is adequately elaborate. Besides the prose part, this contains 24 couplets. In this chapter, first of all the illusive nature of human life has been described. It has been related that to know the human mind is very difficult because there are contradictions in his thought, speech, and actions. Also, that man himself knows what is good or bad for him. He who observes his attitudes, curbs the evil consequences. Analysing the duality of the inner and outer world, it has been said that often a person indulged in benevolent or good work, outwardly appears to be an evil doer and vice versa. Under many circumstances people praise a thief and criticise a monk. On the basis of apparent observations calling a

Page #33

24
Rishibhashit : A Study
person thief or a monk does not make him so. In fact the person himself alone knows if he is a good or bad.
As such, this whole chapter mainly elaborates the dualities of the inner and outer world. This duality is much difficult to understand. The basis of goodness and evil nature of a person is not the apparent praise or criticism but his inherent attitude.
In Buddhist tradition Angiras Bharadwaj has been mentioned at many places as a Vedic Rishi. Majjhimnikaya80 mentions, a pratyekbuddha named Angiras Bharadwaj. Angiras Bhardwaj is also one of the eleven mendicants attaining Brahmlok as mentioned in Jataka 4/99. Besides this, Suttanipata81 has a mention of Krishi Bhardwaj and Sundarik Bhardwaj. But Bhardwaj being the name of a clan, inspite of the same clan name these two should be considered as different from Angiras Bhardwaj on the basis of difference in first name. In the Basetthsutta of Suttanipata also there is the dialogue between Vasishtha and Bhardwaj on the question that a person is considered Brahmin on the basis of his birth. When we compare this dialogue from Basetthasutta with the preachings of Angiras Bhardwaj from Rishibhashit, an important fact is revealed. Both appear to emphasize on the inner purity of individual and not on birth or apparant conduct. As such, giving preference to feelings and soul on the path of religion and meditation is found predominently in both.
Detailed description about Angiras is availabe in Atthakatha of Thergatha 82. First of all in the Choo/panthak Thergatha, Angiras has been shown as ascetic of the calibre of Aditya. In the Veni Thergatha he has been addressed as Mahamuni (great ascetic) and compared with Chandrama (moon). In the Buddhist tradition the most important information from historical view point is that while discussing Angiras there is a mention of Champanagar. In Jain tradition in Isimandal Vritti and Avashyak Churni it has been stated that he was a disciple of Kaushik Upadhyaya of Champanagar,
In complete pali literature one finds mention of seven persons named as Angiras. It is worth giving a thought that which one of these is the Angiras mentioned in Rishibhashit. Most probably the Angiras mentioned with ten Rishis in Suttanipata is the Angiras of Rishibhashit. In my opinion, of the persons mentioned as Angiras in Chhandogyopanishad, Suttanipata, and Rishibhashit, Avashyak Niryukti and Avashyak Churni are one and the same. All the three traditions have presented his story in

Page #34

Rishibhashit: A Study
their own typical styles. Pandit Kailash Chandra has tried to establish that Angiras, the preacher of Devakiputra, of Chhandogyopanishad was Arishtanemi. But in my opinion this is a farfetched imagination. This much, however, is true that Angiras was a contemporary of Krishna and Arishtanemi and a Rishi of the Upanishadic period of the Shraman tradition predating Buddha, Mahavir, and Parshwa.
In the Vedic tradition the first mention of Angiras is found in Rigveda83. After that he has been mentioned in Chhandogyopanishad84 as Ghor Angiras and he has been shown as teacher of Devakiputra Krishna. Besides Chhandogya, Mahabharat mentions a Rishi named Angira, one of whose sons was named Ghor. This indicates that the Ghor Angiras of Chhandogya must have been Ghor, the son of Angira Rishi of Mahabharat85. This is because the mention of father's name with son is an age old tradition in India. Also, Angiras too means son of Angira.
25
As such we may conclude that Angiras Bhardwaj of Rishibhashit, Ghor Angiras of Chhandogyopanishad and Angiras Bhardwaj of Suttanipata is one and the same person. He has been well known as Rishi and all the three traditions have accepted him in their own way.
5. PUSHPSHALPUTRA
The fifth chapter of Rishibhashit is the collection of the preachings of Pushpshalputra. Besides Rishibhashit86, Pushpshalputra has been mentioned in Avashyak-niryukti87, Visheshavashyak-Bhashya88 and Avashyak-churni89. The Acharanga commentary by Sheelank90 also has a mention of Pushpashala. In Avashyak-churni Pushpshal has been mentioned at two places. One Pushpshal was a resident of Gobar village and the other of Vasantapur. The Pushpashal of Vasantpur has no connection witth Pushpshalputra of Rishibhashit, as he has been stated to be a musician. But the Pushpashalputra of Gobar village is same as that of Rishibhashit. The reason for this is also that in Avashyakchurni Pushpashal of Gobar village has been stated as a person devoted to public welfare. In Rishibhashit also he appears to emphasize on humility. As such they can be the same person.
The only contradiction is that Pushpshalputra of Gobar Village is supposed to be a contemporary of Mahavir, whereas the appendix to Rishibhashit shows him as a disciple of Arishtanemi. But this appendix does not appear to be correct as far as the periods are concerned. This is because here Mankhaliputra Goshalak has been mentioned
as a

Page #35

26
Rishibhashit : A Study
disciple of Arishtanemi, but he was actually a contemporary of Mahavir and Buddha. On the basis of the preachings in Rishibhashit and description in Avashyak-churni we can only infer that Pushpshalputra was a thinker giving primary importance to humility.
During the period of Mahavir and Buddha there was a tradition preaching humility. In my opinion Pushpshalaputra must have been a prominent Acharya of that tradition. In his preachings in Rishibhashit the direction are mainly about abandoning evil deeds like violence, libido, possessiveness, falsehood and anger, conceit etc. He says that the being who is free of evil attitudes like anger, conceit etc. and follows the conduct specified in canons gains knowledge about soul. As such in his preaching importance appears to have been given to riddance from evil and humility in conduct.
Besides Jain tradition, in Buddhist tradition also we find mention of Pushpsthavir (Fussather). In Atthakatha of Thergatha91 and Apadan his preachings have been given in details. in his preachings, available in Pali litarature, mostly the evil attitudes of the future monks and nuns have been detailed. As such he appears to be giving more stress on following the canonical conduct. The same can also be seen in Rishibhashit in simple terms. Still we can not conclusively say that Pushpshalputra of Rishibhashit is same as Pushpsthavir of Pali literature.
One indication from Buddhist literature is that he was a Pandar monk. Information about Pandar monks comes from Jain as well as Buddhist sources. It is possible that Pushpshalputra might have been from the tradition of Pandar monks and that tradition might have been the tradition preaching humility.
His preaching in Rishibhashit commences with "Palms joined he put his forehead on the ground and abandoned all activities including eating." A strong possibility is that he was a monk belonging to some tradition other than the Nirgranth. In the end he must have fasted unto death. But in absence of detailed information it is not possible to infer much.
from
Vedic
We have not been able to get information about him sources.

Page #36

Rishibhashit : A Study
27
6. VALKALCHIRI
The sixth chapter of Rishibhashit92 contains the preachings of Valkalchiri. Besides Rishibhashit mention of Valkalchiri is also available in Aupapatik93, Bhagvatis utra94 Avashyak-churn 95 and Rishimanda/96. The story of Valkalchiri is a famous story in Jain tradition and is available in Avashyak-churni and Rishimandal Vritti. According to Avashyak-churni this story is also mentioned in Vasudev-hindi97.
According to the story available in Avashyak-churni and other works, Valkalchiri was son of King Soma Chandra and brother of Prasanna Chandra of Potanpur. Being the brother of Prasanna Chandra Rajrishi, it is obvious that he was a contemporary of Mahavir. The story of Prasanna Chandra Rajrishi is a popular story in Jain tradition; Avashyakchurni carries this story also. All these sources convey that his father indulged in Dishaproshak ascetic practices. The Dishaproshak ascetics have also been mentioned in other Jain works like Aupapapatik.
As Valkalchiri was brought up by his father in jungle, he was incapable of discriminating between man and woman, horse and deer etc.
educated while looking after the meditational aids of his father.
From the preachings of Valkalchiri in Rishibhashit it appears that he was particularly apathetic towards women. Emphasis on practice of celibacy forms the base of his teachings. He says, "O! man do not become your own enemy by getting infatuated with woman, fight lust as far as possible, because you will attain as much calmness as distant you are from women."
From these details it is evident that Valkalchiri was a sage who specially emphasized on practice of celibacy. The adjective 'Bhagwan' preceding his name, in Jain tradition, confirms his importance. The name Valkalchiri indicates the fact that he must be wearing dress made of Valkal (skin of tree).
Ra
Besides Jain tradition we find mentions of Valkalchiri in Buddhist98 tradition also. There he is mentioned as Valkalither, and a Brahman scholar of three Vedas from Shravasti city. According to details available in Pali literature, he was inducted in Buddhism but later expelled from the monk organisation. There are mentions of his meditation on Gridhakoot hills. Buddha is said to have praised his devotion. There is no mention of him available in the Vedic tradition. Although the Buddhist tradition has tried to own him, in my opinion he must have been a sage of the Tapas tradition.

Page #37

28
7. KUMMAPUTTA
Seventh chapter of Rishibhashit99 contains the preachings of Kummaputta (Kurmaputra). In Jain tradition, alongwith Rishibhashit, mention of Kummaputta can also be found in Visheshavashyak-bhashya100 Avashyak-churni 101, commentry of Aupapatik102 and Visheshanvati103 of Haribhadra. Isimanda/104 (Rishimandal) also mentions him. But in all these works his detailed life history is not available. That is available in the vritti of Rishimandal and Kummaputtachariyam, but both these works are of a period later than the twelfth century. In the ancient Jain Literature he has been shown as a dwarf and his height was said to be about three feet. He is supposed to have attained omniscience while he was a house-holder. These details confirm that he was a Rishi of the ancient Sraman tradition.
Rishibhashit A Study
In Rishibhashit he preaches desirelessness or non attachment. The most important part of his preachings is that he considers desire to be the cause of sorrow. He stipulates that if a lethargic person can be happy by becoming desireless there can be nothing against an intelligent and deligent ascetic deriving happiness through being desireless. In fact this preaching of his is parallel to Anasakta-yoga of Gita.
Besides Jain tradition we also find mention of Kummaputta Ther in Buddhist tradition. In Thergatha105 and Atthakatha of Apadan106 the story of Kummaputta can be found in detail. In his previous birth he had given oil for massage on feet to Vippasi Buddha. As a result of this good deed he was born in the family of a house-holder in Velutkantaka city of Avanti. His mother's name was Kumma, that is why he was called Kumma-putta (the son Kumma). He accepted monkhood on hearing preachings of Sariputta. While meditating about Karmasthan he attained Arhat-hood through Vipashyana (a yogic practice).
A mention of Kummaputta Sayather is also available in Thergatha. This person was, infact, an assistant of Kummaputta, or a monk near to him. As such he is different from Kummaputta. Both Jain and Buddhist traditions are concommitant on the fact that his name was Kummaputta because of his mother's name. At the same time it is true that the essence of his preachings is detachment and purity of thought. It is possible that he was either of an earlier period or a contemporary of Mahavir and Buddha. As regards vedic tradition, no reference could be found about Kummaputta.

Page #38

Rishibhashit : A Study
29
8. KETALIPUTTA
The preachings of Ketaliputta have been compiled in the eighth chapter of Rishibhashit107. Besides Rishibhashit no other source provides any information about him. Other Jain canons or later works of fiction do not have any mention of Ketaliputta. Buddhist and Vedic traditions are also silent about him. As such it is difficult to say who he was. Even in Rishibhashit no more than his short discourse is available. The tenth chapter of Rishibhashit is about Tettaliputta. Teftaliputta is also mentioned in Jnata, Anuttaropapatik, Avashyak-churni, Isimandal and its Vritti.
There is a possibility that due to variation in pronunciation, two names of the same person were in use and on this basis the two names were later accepted as two different persons. However, in absence of conclusive evidences nothing more can be said about this.
in Rishibhashit Ketaliputta preaches that in the mundane life (Aram) an individual has two attributes and in the liberated state (Param) only one. As such, like a silk worm, one should break all the ties and attain liberation. The use of the terms Aram for this world and Param for liberation can also be found in Acharanga and Sutrakritang. This proves antiquity of these preachings.
The statement, 'life has two attributes and liberation one', can be explained and elaborated in many ways. Some examples are : Life has knowledge and acitivity and in liberation only knowledge is there. Life has attachment and aversion but liberation has only detachment. This discourse of Ketaliputta indicates that he must have been some mystical ascetic of that period. In absence of any concrete information about him, it is difficult to comment about his historical details as well.
9. MAHAKASHYAP
The ninth chapter of Rishibhashit108 has the discourse of Mahakashyap. In India Kashyap is a well known clan name. Even Mahavir and Rishabha are supposed to be of Kashyap clan. Sutrakritang109 has even mentioned Mahavir as "Virena-kasaven Mahesina." Similarly in Bhagavati Sutra110 also there is a mention of a monk named Kashyap belonging to the tradition of Parshwa. As such it is difficult to decide who is this Mahakashyap. in Uttaradhyayan-churnilli, the father of Kapil Brahman is said to be Kashyap. Also in Antakritadasha112 we find a mention of Kashyap Gathapati. But in my opinion non of these have any

Page #39

30
Rishibhashit : A Study
connection with Mahakashyap of Rishibhashit. The adjective Maha (great) prefixed to Kashyap indicates that he must have been some prominent person.
In Buddhist113 tradition we find mention of Mahakashyap as an extraordinary monk. He is said to be a very close disciple of Buddha. As such it is probable that Mahakashyap of Rishibhashit is non other but Mahakashyap of Buddhist tradition. This presumption gets support from the fact that two other monks of Buddhist tradition, Vajjiputta and Sariputta, are also included in Rishibhashit. As such this can be accepted that Mahakashyap of Buddhist tradition is the Mahakashyap of Rishibhashit,
The preachings of Mahakashyap compiled in Rishibhashit confirm that he was a Rishi connected to the Buddhist tradition. This is because his preachings contain discourse about Santativad and stability of Deapak (candle flame) has been mentioned as a metaphor for Nirvana. Both these are established and popular concepts of Buddhist tradition.
In Mahabharat114 is found a mention of a famous chanter of Mantras, named Kashyap who is coming to save King Parikshit. But he cannot be taken as Kashyap of Rishibhashit because one belongs to the period of Mahabharat whereas the other to the period of Mahavir and Buddha. Similarly Kashyap is mentioned in Shatpath Brahman115 and Taittiriya Aranyak116 also, but there it is used as a clan name, and cannot have any relation with Kashyap of Rishibhashit, As such in my opinion Mahakashyap of Rishibhashit is the Mahakashyap from Buddhist tradition.
10. TETALIPUTRA
The tenth chapter ot Rishibhashit contains collection of preachings of Tetaliputra, 117 In the ancient Jain literature Tetaliputra has been mentioned in Jnata-dharma-katha, 118 Vipaksutra, 119 Visheshaveshyakbhashya120 and Sutrakritang-churn;121 besides Rishibhashit. In the fourteenth chapter of Jnata-dharma-katha detailed information about Tetaliputra is available.
According to the Jnata he was a minister of the ruler of Tetalipur named Kanakrath. He married Pattila, daughter of a goldsmith. Due to the fear that his own progeny might dethrone him, he used to mutilate his sons. The queen put this problem before Tetaliputra. Coincidentally the queen and Tetaliputra's wife concieved and gave birth to children at the same time. Tetaliputra's wife gave birth to a still daughter and the

Page #40

Rishibhashit: A Study
4.
queen to a son. Tetaliputra exchanged the newly born and celebrated the birth of the son.
31
Some how Tetaliputra becomes apathetic towards Pottila. A Jain nun Arya Suvrata comes to the city with her disciples. Some nuns come to Tetaliputra's house for alms. Pottila seeks advice from the nuns to attract the husband. The nuns reply that giving of such advice is prohibited for them; they could only give religious discourses. Pottila listens to the discourse and accepts nunhood.
After the death of Kanakrath the king's son, brought up by Tetaliputra, ascends the throne and honours Tetaliputra profusely for his help. According to the story Pottila is reborn as god and wants to convert the husband of her previous birth. She instigates the King against him. Not getting due respect from king Tetaliputra is disconcerted and attempts suicide. Inspite of repeated attempts he fails to commit suicide. As such his life becomes full of disbelief and skepticism. Finding an opportunity, Pattila, turned into a god, preaches Tetaliputra. who becomes a monk. Meditating hard he attains liberation. The same story is also available in Rishibhashit in brief. In order to compare both narratives we give parts of both texts here (See orginal in Hindi).
On doing a comparative study of these two texts we find that: (1) As compared to Rishibhashit the description about Tetaliputra in Jnata-dharma-katha is more elaborate and includes much more supernatural incidents; (2) The language of Rishibhashit uses the syllable 'T' much more frequently, it is nearer to Ardhamagadhi and so, ancient as well; on the other hand, the language of Jnata uses the syllable 'Y' more frequently, contains influence of Maharashtri Prakrit and comparatively recent.
As regards the basic teachings contained in the chapter are concerned, they are vague. In fact the preaching content in this chapter is very low, and Tetaliputra narrates the experiences of his life. He says, "Inspite of having relatives friends, sons, I feel helpless; inspite of having wealth I am poor. Hopelessness led me to suicide but there also I failed; consequently, my life is full of doubt; where other Sraman Brahmans talk of faith, I alone preach skepticism. This lack of faith and skepticism was the cause of his detachment.

Besides, Jnata and Rishibhashit, Sthanang122 also contains information about Tetaliputra. It mentions that the title of the eighth chapter (Dasha) of Anuttaraupapatik was Tetali. But the version of Anuttarau

Page #41

32
Rishibhashit : A Study
papatik avalable today does not contain the chapter. It may have been deleted from there because the same details had already come into Jnata. In absence of any information it is difficult to surmise what was the subject matter dealt in this missing chapter.
Besides Jain literature both Vedic and Buddhist literature do not contain any mention of Tetaliputra. As such it appears that Tetaliputra was basically connected with Nirgranth (Jain) tradition only.
11. MANKHALIPUTTA
The eleventh chapter of Rishibhashit123 is about Mankhaliputta. It is natural to ask who this Mankhaliputta was. In Jain and Buddhist traditions mentions of Mankhali Goshal or Makkhali Goshal are available. The fifteenth Shatak of Bhagavatisutra124 presents details of the life and philosophical beliefs of Mankhali Goshal. In the Jain tradition details about Mankhali Goshal can be found in Upasakdasha,125 Avashyak-niryukti,126 Visheshavashyak-Bhashya,127 Avashyak-churni 28 and many other works besides Bhagavati sutra. According to the available details he was called Mankhaliputta because he was son of a Mankha named Mankhali, and Goshal because he was born in a goshala (cow hut). According to Jain tradition he met Mahavir during the second monsoon after Mahavir accepted monkhood, and remained with him for almost six years, Later they had a difference of opinion on the question of Niyativad. According to Bhagwati-sutra 24 years after Mahavir accepted monkhood Mankhaliputta Goshal declared himself to be a Jin or Teerthankar. Details on this episode are available in Bhagvati-sutra. But in my opinion this description is one sided and exaggerated. The only conclusion we may draw from these narratives is that Mankhaliputta Goshal established his own school independent of Mahavir, and it had a wide influence over the society, This sect founded by him later became famous as Ajivak sect.
In the Buddhist Tripitak 129 literarure also Makkhali Goshal has been recognised as one of the six teerthankars contemporary of Buddha. Besides this, in Thergatha130 also there is a mention of Makkhali Goshal. However, in the Atthakatha he has been said to have been born in the state of Magadha. Although other details in Jain and Buddhist description are not similar, both the traditions equivocally convey that Mankhaliputta Goshal was the founder of Niyativad and a prominent Acharya of his age. Pali Tripitak and Jain canonical literature contain detailed comments about his philosophical thoughts, Both accept him as follower of Niyativad.

Page #42

Rishibhashit : A Study
33
Niyativad is that school of thought which emphasizes on an preordained system of the world as against the human endeavour. 1 would not like to go into a detailed discussion on this matter but would certainly like to express that the details available about Mankhaligoshal in Jain and Buddhist traditions are biased and critical. They present the personality and philosophical beliefs of Mankhaligoshal in a distorted manner. Probably Rishibhashit is the only work that presents Mankhaliputta as a revered Arhat Rishi and his preachings as valid.
It is true that ideas of Niyativad can also be found in the preachings of Mankhaligoshal available in Rishibhashit; but here the Niyativad of Mankhaliputta is a means to win over creator's ego in a person and give him a detached view point. He explicitly states that the ascetic who wavers, who is influenced, who is disturbed, who is hurt by seeing the transformation of things (matter), can not become protector of self due to the reactions so evoked.
The preachings of Mankhaliputta convey that activites of the world continue in their own regulated order. Even against the wishes of a person, adverse circumstances do prevail. He alone can save himself and others from the four life-consequences (Chaturgati) of this world, who remains uneffected, undisturbed, and unhurt in adverse circumstances, considering them to be nothing but mere transformations of matter. This preaching clarifies that the central theme of his Niyativad is for leading detached life. Same idea is propagated in Bhagvadgita. There also, the preaching of Niyativad is directed toward ending the reward oriented thinking of human beings.
In Mahabharat131 we find preachings of Manki Rishi under the title Manki Gita, I believe that this Manki Rishi of Mahabharat is non else but Mankhaliputta of Rishibhashit. This is because Manki Gita clearly propagates Niyativad. It says that whatever happens is not due to human effort but due to divine will. Luck is everything. Insisting doggedly on human effort when one fails, the divine will could be traced as the cause of failure.
On this basis it can be infered that Mankhaliputta of Rishibhashit, Mankhali-goshal mentioned in Jain canons like Bhagvati-sutra, Makkhaligoshal of Pali Tripitak literature, and Manki Rishi of Mahabharat are one person. In fact with the establishment of sectarian organisation in Jain and Buddhist traditions, efforts were made to distort the life history and preachings of Mankhaliputta-goshal. Literature and inscriptions also prove that Mankhaliputta was a prominent sage of Sraman tradition in

Page #43

34
Rishibhashit: A Study
his age. His Ajivak sect continued to exist even one thousand years after his death. Mankhaliputta of Rishibhashit was the learned acharya Mankhaligoshal of the Ajivak tradition. The 15th chapter of Bhagvatisutra also mentions other Acharyas of this tradition
12. JANNAVAKKA (YAJNAVALKYA)
The twelfth chapter of Rishibhashit is related to Jannavakka (Yajnavalkya). Besides Rishibhashit132 no other work of Jains provides any information about Yajnavalkya. In the appendix to Rishibhashit it has been mentioned that he was a Pratyek-buddha contemporary of Arishtanemi. For detailed information about him we have to depend on sources other than Jain. Buddhist sources also do not provide detailed information about him.
In the Vedic works mention of Yajnavalkya is found in Shatpath Brahman,133 Shankhayan Aranyak,134 Brihadaranyak Upanishad,135 and Mahabharat136. There is the famous Yajnavalkya Smriti also in his name. The text available in Shankhayan Aranyak is almost same as that in Shatpath Brahman. Leaving aside Mahabharat and Yajnavalkya Smriti, Brihadaranyak Upanishad is the only Vedic work which provides detailed information about Yajnavalkya. On the basis of the story in Brihadaranyak Upanishad, Oldenberg, Waber and other scholars have deduced that he was a citizen of Videh because of his connection with Janak.
However, Shri Suryakant, in Vedic Kosh, has expressed his doubts on his being a citizen of Videh, based on his connection with Uddalak of Kuruanchal. In my opinion his connection with Uddalak does not provide proper ground for doubting his citizenship of Videh because the Rishis keep traveling. Uddalak is also mentioned in Rishibhashit.
According to me, on the basis of the details from Brihadaranyak Upanishad, we may only infer that although during his early life he may have been a supporter of the Yajna tradition, in the end he shifted to the detachment oriented Sraman tradition due to the influence of Atmavad of Janak. In Brihadaranyak Upanishad he says that getting knowledge of Atma (soul) a Brahman abandons desires for son, wealth, and the world, and moves around taking alms. This is because the desire for son is same as the desire for wealth and the desire for wealth is same as the desire for the world.
On comparing these preachings from Brihadaranyak Upanishad with those of Yajnavalkya in Rishibhashit137 we find astonishing similarity. In

Page #44

Rishibhashit : A Study
35
Rishibhashit he says that as long as the desire for the world is there, the desire for wealth also remains, and vice-versa. As such a mendicant should abandon both, the desire for the world and the desire for wealth, and proceed on Gopath not Mahapath. Probably, Gopath here means that as the cows wander grazing in bits, the mendicant should wander taking alms and not giving trouble to anyone. Here Mahapath may have been used in the sense of normal wordly life or possession oriented tradition. This proves that in the end Yajnavalkya became a preacher of the path of detachment138.
In the vedic tradition, besides Brihadaranyak Upanishad, mentions about Yajnavalkya are also available in Mahabharat. In Shanti-parva he has been presented as giving discourse to Janak. This indicates that he must have been a Rishi contemporary of Janak.
The information according to the Jain tradition that he was a Rishi of the period of Arishtanemi does not appear to be correct. He was probably a Rishi of a much older period. However, on the basis of the comparative study of the preachings of Yajnavalkya, available in Brihadaranyak Upanishad and Rishibhashit, we can certainly infer that Jannavakka (Yajnavalkya) of Rishibhashit was none else but the Yajnavalkya of Upanishads.
13. METEJJA BHAYALI
The thirteenth chapter of Rishibhashit139 is about Metejja Bhayali. In Jain literature, besides Rishibhashit, Bhayali is mentioned in Samvayang140. According to Samvayang he is going to be the nineteenth Teerthankar (named Samvar) in the coming cycle of time (ascending), Two other Prakrit forms of the word Bhayali are available-Bhagali and Bhaggai. The seventh chapter of Antakritdasha in Sthanang-Sutra141 is supposed to be about Bhagali. Although this chapter is missing from the available editions, I am sure, in the ancient edition of Antakritdasha, this chapter must have existed and contained the life story or preachings of Bhagali. In Aupapatik there is a mention of a Kshatriya ascetic Bhaggai and his followers. It is possible that the followers of Bhayali or Bhagali were known as Bhaggai.
The main theme of Bhayali's preachings in Rishibhashit is liberation of soul. He states that only he, who is desirous of fruits, waters a plant. One, not wanting fruit does not water a plant. Only by fostering a plant fruit is available. If the plant is destroyed the fruit is automatically destroyed. As such he wants to convey that in order to get liberated from

Page #45

36
Rishibhashit : A Study
the wordly life, the fundamental cause of wordly life will have to be destroyed. Besides this, from philosphical angle Bhayali propagates that neither Sat (the existant reality) nor Asat (non-existant reality) has any cause. The Asat (non existant reality) does not enter the chain of cyclic rebirth.
Thus in his preachings we find that basic premise of Upanishad, Gita, and Sankhya, according to which it is believed that Sat is never destroyed and Asat never comes to existance. The same hypothesis has been stated in this chapter in a different way.
As regards the first name Metejja is concerned, the tenth Ganadhar (principle disciple) of Mahavir was also named Metejja. But in my opinion this was a different person. Besides this there is a mention of another Metejja Sraman who was living in Rajasthan and sacrificed himself adhering to the vow of Ahimsa. This person is also mentioned in Avashyak-Niryukti,142 Visheshavashyak-Bhashya,143 Avashyak-churni,144 Sthanang, 145 and the Abhaya Dev Commentary of Sthanang.146 Although this person and Metejja Bhayali of Rishibhashit appear to be the same person but in absence of any conclusive evidence nothing more can be said,
In Buddhist tradition mention is available about one Mettai Ther147 who was connected to a Brahman family of Magadh. On becoming adult he became a forest dwelling monk. Later he met Buddha, had a discussion and joined the Sangha (Monk organisation); he became Arhat in the end. Besides him is also available in Buddhist tradition a mention of Mettagu Ther, a disciple or Bavari. However, it is difficult to say if Mettai and Mattagu Ther had any connection with Metejja Bhayali.
Besides this, another mention of one Mettiya Ther is also available This Mettiya Ther was also supposed to be the leader of the Chhabbagiya monks. Buddhist tradition also mentions about a Metteya who is believed to be the Ajit Buddha of the future fifth Kalpa. He has been mentioned in the Anagat-vamsh of Mahavamsh. Suttanipata148 also has one Arhat Metteya who was a friend of Tissa. But it is difficult to state as to what connection Metejja Bhayali of Rishibhashit had with Metteya of Buddhist tradition. Buddhist tradition also mentions one Bhaddali Ther. Although there is literal similarity between Bhagali and Bhaddali, it is difficult to establish any similarity between the two.
14. BAHUK The fourteenth chapter of Rishibhashit149 contains compilation of the preachings of Bahuk. Besides Rishibhashit Bahuk has also been

Page #46

Rishibhashit : A Study
mentioned in Sutrakritang;150 Sutrakritang-churni,151 and commentary on Sutrakritang written by Sheelankacharya. 152 However, we do not get any information about the life history of Bahuk in all these works. Sutrakritang mentions Bahuk along with other Rishis like Nami, Narayan, Asit-deval, Dvaipayan, and Parashar. It says that, recognised in preachings of Arhat, this Bahuk Rishi attained liberation inspite of drinking water infested with living organisms. Sutrakritang-churni clearly states that his mention is found in Rishibhashit and that he attained liberation inspite of living in jungles and consuming vegetables, seeds, and cold water. This confirms that the Bahuks mentioned in Rishibhashit and Sutrakritang are same. But non of these works detail his life history.
Rishimandal-vritti is also silent about his life, as such nothing much can be said about his life history. According to Sthanang-sutra, the tenth chapter of Prashnavyakaran-dasha was about Bahu. Although the available editions of Prashnavyakaran-dasha do not contain these chapters; I have explained in one of my articles elsewhere that this chapter must have been a part of the oldest edition of Prashnavy akaran and it must have contained the preachings of Bahuk.
The central theme of the preachings of Bahuk in Rishibhashit is that if correct information is presented with incorrect thoughts, it is not authentic; infact the meaning of this statement is that if view point or thought process is impure, the evident activity, even though it appears ethical, would be considered as unethical. In this chapter, emphasizing detachmant, it has been shown that the detached practices alone lead to liberation. All ascetic practices done with attachment lead to hell. As such Bahuk appears to be a propagater of the path of detachment.
The name of Bahuk does not appear anywhere in the Buddhist tradition,153 however there are mentions of Bahik and Bahi. It is difficult to surmise if these Bahi & Bahik are same as Bahuk of Rishibhashit. In the Buddhist tradition the only information available is that they were disciples of Buddha, as such it is all the more difficult to give any conclusive comment about them.
As regards Vedic tradition 154 a Rishi named Bahuvrakta is mentioned. He is believed to have written some aphorisms in Rigveda, But it is hard to find some connection with Bahuk of Rishibhashit. Mahabharat155 also mentions Bahuk. There he has been stated to be a warrior of the Vrishni clan. Also in Mahabharat, the name of the father of king Sagar is mentioned as Bahuk. King Nala was also known by the

Page #47

38
Rishibhashit : A Study
name Bahuk. But none of these mentions indicate that these names had any connection with the Bahuk mentioned in Rishibhashit. This matter is subject to further investigation and scholars should do some efforts in this direction..
15. MADHURAYAN
Madhurayan Arhat Rishi is the preacher of the 15th chapter of Rishibhashit.156 He has not been mentioned anywhere else in Jain or Buddhist traditions. As such it is difficult to give any comment about his life and personality.
In this chapter many words have been used in some special context and meaning. As long as those words are not clearly understood the preachings of Madhurayan cannot be properly apprehended. In the context of the meaning of this chapter neither the Sanskrit commentators are clear nor the Hindi translation, based on these, by Manohar Muni is any clearer, The Hindi and English translations in this edition are also not without doubts. Although Schubring in his notes and Manohar Muni in his explanations have done efforts to clarify the meanings, they have also accepted that the subject in the chapter is not clear.
in my view some particular words will have to be understood in order to elaborate the subject of this chapter. The three words that require an elaborate explanation are 'Sata-dukkha', 'Asata-Dukkha' and 'Santam', As far as 'Sata-dukkha' is concerned,' everyone including the Sanskrit commentator, has accepted that it means woe (dukkha) born out of pleasure (sukha). Here sukha should mean the desire for pleasure. So the meaning of Sata-dukkha is the woe born out of the desire for pleasure. A person who has craving for mundane pleasures can be termed as the one plagued with Sata-dukkha. In other words the craving for pleasure itself is Sata-dukkha.
Asata-dukkha is opposite of this, that is the suffering which naturaly comes because of being desireless. With this meaning of Satadukkha the answer to the first question of the chapter becomes clear. The question is who attracts dukkha (affliction, which here means the bondage of Karma); the one who is plagued with woes born out of the desire for wordly pleasures, or he who suffers sorrows desirelessly. The answer is : He who is mad after the lust for wordly pleasures attracts affliction. One who remains desireless, even inspite of being surrounded with natural sufferings does not attract afflictions or does not enter into bondage of Karma. In fact, the desire for pleasure is the invitation to woe.

Page #48

Rishibhashit : A Study
39
A person who suffers because of desire for pleasure ends up in the bonadge of Karma. He who suffers due to painful circumstances does not attract Karma bondage. Thus Madhurayana finds the roots of afflictions in the mundane desires.
The word Santam does not mean peaceful (Shant) here; it has been used to mean existence. "Santam dukkhi' here means being woeful. And being woeful here only means to be full of desires. Thus the meaning of "Santam dukkhi dukkham udeerei" would be that by being woeful alone afflictions are invited. That means only a person with desires triggers woes. Similarly, 'No, asantam dukkhi dukkham uderai'. means that by not being woeful by pain, afflicitions are not invited. That means a person without desires does not trigger woes.
After this, this chapter mainly propagates that sin is the chief cause of non-liberation and continued rebirth. On the basis of this, it has been deduced that as sprouting of a plant is natural consequence of the existence of seed, woes are natural consequence of existence of sin. In the end it has been established that soul is the doer of all deeds and sufferer of all consequences. As such, a mendicant should abandon the path of sin for the benefit of his own soul. As a snake charmer destroys the poison pouch of a snake, a mendicant should destroy roots of woes. In Madhurayan's view the root of woe is the desire for pleasure (mundane pleasures) and as such a mendicant should be free of desire for mundane pleasures.
On a comparative srudy we find that the subject matter of this chapter is in line with the subject matter of other chapters of Rishibhashit. This 15th chapter is similar to the 9th chapter in subject matter. This fact has also been accepted by the author of this work by stating "Navam ajjhayanagamarannam vaneyavvam."
In absence of any information about him elsewhere in Buddhist and Vedic traditions it is not possible to present a comparative study about Madhurayana.
16. SHAURYAYANA (SORIYAYANA)
The 16th chapter of Rishibhashit157 is about the Arhat Rishi named Shauryayan, (Soriyayana). Besides Rishibhashit Soriya has been mentioned in Sthanang158 and Vipak-Sutra159,
In Vipak-Sutra he has been mentioned as Soriyadatta. According to Sthanang, the title of the seventh chapter of Karmavipak-dasha is Soriya,

Page #49

40
Rishibhashit : A Study
but in the available edition of Vipak-Sutra mention of Soriyadatta is found in the eighth chapter. In this chapter he is said to be the son of a fisherman, Samudradatta, of Soriyapur town. As the story goes, once a fish bone stuck into his throat. All efforts to take it out were in vain and he had to suffer extreme agony.
Some relation between Soriyadatta of this chapter of Vipak-Sutra with Soriyayana of Rishibhashit can be established on the basis that Soriyayana, in his preachings, has mainly preached not to indulge in pleasures of the senses. Same thing has been stated in the Vipak-Sutra in a little different way, that involving himself in fulfilment of needs of the senses, a being suffers anguish.
In this chapter, clarifying the influence of physical senses, it has been stated that getting the means of satiation of the five senses (sound, sight, smell, taste and touch) one should not become attached, desirous, or greedy. These unsatiable physical senses are the cause of continued rebirth. One should neither get attached to the desired things nor get vexed at the undesired things. He who gets attached to the desired things or gets vexed at undesired things, enters bondage of evil Karma.
In the Buddhist tradition 160 Soriya has been refered to as Soreyya. There he is said to be a merchant's son. However, there hardly appears to be anything common between Soriya of Jain tradition and Soreyya of Buddhist tradition. In the Vedic tradition 161 we find a Shauri, son of Shoorsen, in Dron-parva 144/7. He is said to be related to Vasudev, who is said to be the father of Krishna. Still it is difficult to say that Soriyayana of Rishibhashit, Soreyya of Pali literature and Shauri of Mahabharat are one person, or different persons. On the basis of their names it can be accepted that they may have been connected with the geographic area-Shoorsen. In the list of Acharyas in Brihadaranyakopanishad162 a disciple of Kashayan is mentioned as Sokarayan. It is possible that this transformed to Soriyayan in prakrit.
17. VIDUR
The seventeenth chapter of Rishibhashit163 contains discourse of Vidu (Vidur). Rishibhashit has mentioned him as Arhat Rishi. In Jain literature mention of Vidur is also available in Jnata-dharma-katha. 164 There only his name has been listed along with Arjun, Bhimsen, Nakul, Sahdev, Duryodhan, Gangeya and others. Besides this there is no other mention of Vidur in the canonical literature.

Page #50

Rishibhashit : A Study
41
In this chapter, regarding his preachings, the first thing stated is that the knowledge that provides deliverence from all sorrows alone can be termed as the best knowledge or the supreme knowledge. Subsequently it has been stated that the knowledge that makes one comprehend about the reincarnations, past and future; bondage and liberation; and revealation of the self is the knowledge that liberates from sorrows. This statement of Vidur is akin to the Upanishadic statement"Sa vidya ya Vimuktaye", "that is knowledge which liberates."
It has also been stated that as all knowledge about disease, its diagnosis, and medicine is essential for its treatment; knowledge is essential for liberation. With all this, particular emphasis has been given on study and meditation in this chapter. Also that an ascetic with disciplined senses should, after alround comprehension of mundane life and indulgence in studies and meditation, abandon attachment and indulge in detached activities. Al activities, considering them to be characterless activities, should he abandoned. One who acts thus becomes all pervading, omniscient, and liberated.
Thus this chapter mainly stresses first on study, meditation, and right knowledge and then steers towards Ahimsa-attitude and conduct, getting away from attachment.
Besides Jain tradition Buddhist tradition 165 also mentions Vidhur (Vidur). However, there is no similarity between the Buddhist story of Vidhur with those of Vidur in Jain and Vedic traditions. In the Buddhist tradition he is believed to be one of the two prominent disciples of Kakusandha Buddha. According to Milindaprashna Vidhur was a name of Bodhisatva in one of his reincarnations. As such it is difficult to find any similarity to the Vidur of Jain tradition, in these stories about Vidhur from Buddhist tradition.
in Vedic tradition and specially in the Mahabharat Vidur has been mentioned in details. He is said to be son of Vyas and a maid named Ambika. As such he was a son of a Brahman from a Shudra mother. Details about him are mentioned in Adiparva and Sabhaparva of Mahabharat. His preachings have been compiled in the Streeparva of Mahabharat166. On properly studying these preachings it becomes evident that although there is no literal similarity in ideas these are very similar to the preachings in Rishibhashit. On this basis we can infer that Vidur of Mahabharat and Vidur of Rishibhashit must have been the same person.

Page #51

Rishibhashit : A Study
18. VAIRISHENA KRISHNA
The 18th chapter of Rishibhashit167 is about the discourse of Varishena Krishna (Varisava Kanha). Besides Rishibhashit Varishen has also been mentioned in Sthanang168. In Samvayang 169 the four Jin idols mentioned are Rishabha, Mahavir, Chandranan, and Varishena; Chandranan and Varishena are said to be the first and last Teerthankars of Airavata sector. Besides this, in Sthanang a branch of the Kashyap clan has been named as Variskanha'. In Antkritdasha170 Varishen is said to be a Antkrit Rishi and son of Vasudev.
All this at least confirms that he was a Rishi contemporary to Krishna and Arishtanemi. The second syllabie Kanha' (Krishna) of his name in Rishibhashit calls for a further study. Being the son of Vasudev is he not Krishna himself ?
In this chapter it is stated that one who indulges in the prohibited or evil activities, from violence to possessiveness and passions to illusions, begets amputation of limbs. He who does not indulge in these begets omniscience. (The imputation of limbs is also refered to in 9th and 15th chapter of Rishibhashit.) In conclusion it is stated that as bird pierces a fruit, enemy divides the state, and lotus leaf is uneffected by water, the seeker should pierce and destroy the fruit of karma and remain uneffected by evil karma;
In the Bhishmparva of Mahabharat171 one of names of Krishna is said to be Varshneya. He is called Varshneya because he belonged to the Vrishni clan. In Upanishads and Brahmans172 as well, people belonging to the Vrishni clan have been mentioned as varshneya or varshnya. The Prakrit form of vrishni is vanhi and that of Varishen is Varisava and there is a possibility that the Sanskrit form of varis may be vrishni.
However, all this confirms that he was an ascetic contemporary of Arishtanemi. In Pali literature, Ambatthsutta of Deeghnikaya mentions one Krishna Rishi suggesting that Ambattha was a follower of his tradition. Similarly in Aupapatic sutra a branch of Brahman mendicants is named Kanha. It is possible that Varisava Kanha was the founder of this branch. In Aupapatik another branch of Brahman mendicants is named Deevayan Kanha (Dvaipayan Krishna). As such the former must have been connected with Varisava Kanha only.

Page #52

Rishibhashit : A Study
19. ARIYAYAN
The nineteenth chapter of Rishibhashit173 is about the Arhat Rishi named Ariyayan. Besides Rishibhashit Ariyayan has not been mentioned anywhere else. Buddhist and Vedic traditions are also silent about him. As such nothing conclusive can be said about his personality and history.
This chapter states that in the begining only Aryas existed. Consequently, as preachings, it states that non-Aryan thought, activities and friends should be curbed, because indulging in them leads to continued rebirths in this world. As against this, one who has Arya thoughts, activities, and friends attains Aryatva (Aryahood). In the end it states that Arya-perception, Arya-knowledge, and Arya-conduct are right and should be followed.
Besides this brief discourse, nothing more is available about Ariyayan.
20. UTKAT (BHAUTIKWADI)
The title of the twentieth chapter of Rishibhashit174 is Utkal or Utkat. There is no mention about any author of this chapter. Although, at the end of the chapter, like other chapters in the book, the stock phrase, has been mentioned; it has hardly any relevence to the preceding statements. The stock statement has been given in persuance with the style of all other chapters. In fact as this chapter contains the propagation of Bhautikvadi (materialistic) principles there is no mention of any Rishi as its preacher.
This chapter classifies five types of Utkat: Dandotkat, Rajjootkat, Stenotkat, Deshotkat and Sarvotkat. In this context, first of all the meaning of the word utkat should be understood. Although the word utkat has a variety of meanings, it would be best here to take the meaning as agitated or confused. One of the meanings of utkat is intoxication also. Infact the materialistic lifestyle was opposed to the spiritual life style and as such it was called utkat. This is also possible that the spiritualists gave the name 'agitated' (utkat) to the believers of materialism. The materialists consumed wines etc. and did not consider that to be wrong, that may also be one of the reasons. Another possibility is that the original Prakrit word ukkal may be the utkul of Sanskrit; which means a degraded or despicable family. If we take it as utkool it means that which flows beyond bank or breaking the banks, this indicates that

Page #53

Rishibhashit: A Study
those people who propagated ideas opposing to the spiritual thinking were called utkool.
44
In this translation the use of the form utkal does not appear to be appropriate to me, it should have been utkat, utkul, or utkool. The five types of utkal refered to in this chapter are in fact the view points that used to propagate rhe materialistic doctrines through typical examples. Dandotkat are those who use dand (staff)) as an example and propagate that as the begining, middle, and end parts of a staff can not remain in seperate existence, it is a united whole, there is no entity of soul seperate from body.
Rajjootkat are those who use Rajju (fibre) as an example and propagate that as a rope is a conflagration of many different fibres, a living being too is a conflagration of five fundamentals and disintegrates with the disintegration of these constituents.
Stenotkat are those who re-interpret the examples of other scriptures and confirm their own beliefs. They are intolerant of other doctrines and continue to deny them by misinterpretation. May be, at some later period, Anekantvad (non-absolutism) developed in the Nirgranth (Jain) tradition as an opposition to this Stenotkatvad. This is because those who maintain that their statement is the only truth are said to be the antithesis of compassion towards others.
Deshotkat are those who accept the existence of soul but maintain it not to be the doer. In fact, this non-activity of soul eliminates the basis of defining concepts like good or bad deeds, bondage etc. Due to this partial acceptance of materialism the are called Deshotkat.
Similarly Sarvotkat are those who deny the existence of fundamentals and through vaccuum accept the origin of all creation. They believe that there is no fundamental that continues to exist every where at all times. Thus they propagate nihilism and that is why they are called Sarvotkat. This must have been the basis of non-existentialism.
Detailing these five types of utkat or materialists and giving brief details of principles of materialism the soul as an entity seperate from body has been denied. It has been stated that after destruction the body is not created again; that is, their is no rebirth. This life is the only life, there is no other world, there is no fruit of good or bad deeds, there is no rebirth and their is nothing like good or evil deed.
The body between

Page #54

Rishibhashit : A Study
45
head and toe is the living being or soul. As burnt seeds do not sprout, a destroyed body is not created again.
Thus this chapter presents pure materialistic theory which is also known as the Charvak philosophy in Indian philosophies. Mention of this type of materialistic doctrines is available in details in ancient Jain, Buddhist, and Vedic literature. The thoughts propagated in this chapter are available in Sutrakritang175 and Rajprashniya176 also. Similarly Buddhist tradition also has parallel theories in Payasi-sutta.177 As such, this chapter can be taken as representative of prevailent materialistic ideas of that period. Samvay ang178 mentions about 44 chapters of Rishibhashit. If is possible that this chapter may be a later addition to Rishibhashit, because this is the only chapter out of place with the other 44 chapters uniformly propagating spiritualistic ideas. The use of the term utkat for materialists is its originality. Also the five classifications : Dandotkat, Rajjootkat, Snetotkat, Deshotkat and Sarvotkat, are not available anywhere else, making it a speciality of Rishibhashit. The classifications like dehatmavadi, paramatmavadi, mano atmavadi etc, available in various works of Indian philosophy are different than those of Rishibhashit.
21. GATHAPATIPUTRA TARUN
The 21st chaptero f Rishibhashit179 contains the discours of Gathapatiputra Tarun. Besides Rishibhashit, his mention can not be found anywhere else in Jain, Vedic, or Buddhist traditions. His basic teaching in Rishibhashit is propagation of the path of knowledge. According to him ignorance is the ultimate anguish.
That again is the cause of fear. This world is the end product of this void of knowledge, in other words the living continues to be reborn in this world because of absence of knowledge, or ignorance. He states about himself, "Earlier I did not know, perceive, or comprehend due to ignorance; but now, due to knowledge, I know 'percieve', and comprehand, in the past, due to ignorance, I indulged in many immoral and unethical deeds under influence of passions; but now, having knowledge, I shall bring all the sorrows to an end and obtain the permanent and eternal abode, which is liberation.
Giving examples it has been shown in this chapter that because of ignorance how deer, bird, or elephant are caught in trap, how the fish
ait, and how the moth burn themselves kissing a flame Because of ignorance alone an aged lion jumps in water to fight its reflection, and ends its own life. Similarly mother Subhadra consumes her own son Supriya due to ignorance.

Page #55

Rishibhashit: A Study
Showing the sad consequences of ignorance the discourse guides towards the path of knowledge and states that it is because of knowledge that the arts such as tracing, refining and formulating medicines are made possible. These statements indicate that Gathapatiputra Tarun must have been a Rishi of the tradition of the path of knowledge. However, in absence of any information about him in Jain, Vedic, or Buddhist traditions, nothing much can be said about him. The story of the old lion and his reflection in water is also available in Panchtantra, 180 this confirms the antiquity of both Panchtantra and Rishibhashit.
46
22. GARDABHAL (DAGBHAL)
The 22hd chapter of Rishibhashit181 is concerning Gardabhal Rishi. Regarding his personality, we find a mention in Uttaradhyayan Sutra 182 also, besides Rishibhashit. Here he has been mentioned as teacher or Acharya of Sanjay and also as Bhagvan and Vidya-Charan-Paraga; this shows his importance. Uttardhyayan-sutra thus confirms that Sanjay and Gardabhal of Rishibhashit were historical persons. In Jain tradition there is also mention of a king Gardabhill of Avanti who was a contemporary of Acharya Kalak and who kidnapped Kalak's sister, Saraswati (a nun). But this Gardabhill is a different person, not the Gardabhal of Rishibhashit. There is not a trace of doubt that Rishi Gardabhal of Rishibhashit and Acharya Gardabhal of Uttaradhyayan are one and the same person.
As regards his preachings detailed in Rishibhashit are concerned, he first states that karma are infested with himsa (violence), but the enlightened are free of himsa, and as such, like a lotus leaf in pond, they are not infested with Karma particles. After this the complete chapter is full of prominence of male and condemnation of female. Supporting the prominence of male it has been stated that all religions (Dharma) begin with man, and have man as supreme, elder, supporter, illuminater, coordinator, and focus. As an ulcer is dependent on body, ant-hill on earth, lotus on water, and fire on wood, religion is dependent on man.
It is worth mentioning that the Sanskrit Commentator of Rishibhashit, Schubring as well as this translation of Rishibhashit have indicated the meaning of Dharma, here, as Gramya Dharma, which means religion of mundane passions. But in my opinion, Dharma here carries its popular meaning of religious traditions, religious sects or religion. In Jainism, of the ten Kalpa (religious texts), purush (man) is the senior kalpa which maintains that in context of religious organisation man is all

Page #56

Rishibhashit: A Study
important and a nun with a seniority of one hundred years has to bow before a freshly inducted monk. Thus it has propagated seniority of man over woman. This system of male superiority was also accepted by Buddha in his organisation. As such the word Dharma here should be understood to mean religion or religious organisation and not the mundane duties, on the style of Acharanga.
In the initial couplets of this chapter the condemnation of woman also indicates that supremacy of male over female, in context of religious organisation, was an established fact. Condemning woman, it has been stated that those villages and towns which are ruled by women should be depricated. Similarly those individuals who are governed by women should be lampooned. Woman is like a golden cave inhabited by lion, a poisonous garland, and a river full of whirlpools. She is like a wine that intoxicates. The Villages and towns, where women dominate and are free like untethered horse, are despicable like dancing in a condo
lence meeting.
47
This confirms that Gardabhil Rishi was a propagater of male prominence and dominence. However, there is an isolated couplet in this chapter which praises woman. It conveys that woman is like a panegyric of a good family, sweet water, a fully blossomed lotus flower, a malati creeper with a snake, But even here she has been condemned in the end with the statement: 'malati creeper with snake'.
Towards the end of this chapter detailing the causes of bondage, the path of meditation has been recommended. He states at the end that as body thrives due to mind, as a tree thrives due to roots, all the mendicants thrive on meditation. The decorations endowed on Gardabhil in Uttaradhyayan confirm his being connected with meditational tradition. He has been called as Tapodhan (proficient in ascetic practices), an adherent to religious practices comprising of studies and meditation.
On a comperative study we find that Gardabhill has not been mentioned anywhere in Buddhist tradition. But in Vedic tradition we find a mention of an acharya named Gardabhi or Vibhit, contemporary of Janak, in Brihadaranyak Upanishad.183 However in absence of any conclusive proof it is difficult to confirm if Gardabhi-Vibhit of Brihadaranyak Upanishad and Dagbhal-Gaddabhal of Rishibhashit are same.
In the Anushasanparva of Mahabharat184 there is a mention of a Brahmavadi (believer in Brahma) son of Vishwamitra, named Gaardabhi. Here he has been mentioned as a Brahmavadi and great Rishi. This

Page #57

48
Rishibhashit: A Study
indicates that he was a prominent Rishi of that age. To me, his being son of Vishwamitra appears to be wrong. Because not only him but Gargi, Yajnavalkya, Narad, Kapil etc. also are said to be Vishwamitra's sons, which does not appear to be true. The only possibility is that he was one of the line of Vishwamitra's disciples. However, one thing can certainly be infered, or Gardabhill or Gardabhi was a historic Rishi and possibly of the Upanishadic period.
23. RAMAPUTTA
The 23rd chapter of Rishibhashit185 contains the compilation of the preachings of Ramaputta. His mention is also available in Sutrakritang, 186 Sthanang,187 and Anuttaropapatik. 188 In Sutrakritang189 he has been mentioned alongwith Asit Deval, Nami, Narayana, Bahuk, Dvaipayan, Parashar, etc. He has been said to be accepted in the discourses of Nirgranths (Iha sammata) and is supposed to have attained liberation inspite of eating food etc. It should be known that in some printed editions of Sutrakritang and commentary by Sheelank, his name has been mentioned as Ramagutta, which is not correct. Rama-utte, mentioned in Sutrakritang-churni is correct and its Sanskrit transliteration is Ramaputra. The proof of this has been mentioned in details in an article by me and Prof. M. A. Dhaki in the Pt. Bechardas Doshi memorial publication.
Besides Sutrakritang, according to the information available in Sthanang also, there was a chapter titled Ramputta in ancient editions of Antakritdasha, which is not available in the current editions of Antakritdasha. It is possible that this chapter contained life and works of Ramaputta. Also the sixth chapter of third part of Anuttaropapatik is about Ramaputta. Here he is said to be a contemporary of Mahavir and inhabitant of Saket. Besides these two facts, authenticity of other information in this source is not impeccable. Sutrakritang and Rishibhashit both conclusively indicate that Ramaputta did not originally belong to the Nirgranth tradition, still he was given a respectable place there.
We find mention of Ramaputta in Buddhist tradition also. According to the information available in Pali Tripatak 190 his full name was Uddak Ramaputta and he was older than Buddha. In the begining Buddha took training of meditational practices from Ramaputta, and when he attained omniscience he wanted to go and preach him; knowing his potential. But it was too late, as Ramaputta had died by then. Thus he was an elder

Page #58

Rishibhashit : A Study
49
contemporary of Buddha and Mahavir. Pali Tripitak also conveys that he had his own peculiar style of yoga practices as well as a respectable number of followers. Buddha respected him.
The preachings of Ramaputta in this chapter are in prose. First of all it mentions about two types of death, one is the pleasant death (death within meditation) and the other is the unpleasant death (death out of meditation). It has also been explained here that in order to get liberation from the mundane bondages one should practice Jnana (knowledge), Darshan (perception), and Charitra (conduct). A mendicant should comprehend through Jnana, percieve through Darshan, and discipline through conduct, and disintegrate the microparticles of Karma through ascetic practices.
A developed form of this school of thought can be seen in an ancient canon like Uttaradhyayan sutra. In the fifth chapter of Uttaradhyayan the two types of death have been explained in details. The 28th chapter states about knowing through Jnana, believing through Darshan, accepting through conduct, and cleaning through ascetic practices. Uttardhyayan also says about shedding of Karmic particles through ascetic practices. But still the text of Rishibhashit is older than Uttaradhyayan. This is because the language and style of Rishibhashit is older than Uttardhyayan. For 'Dasanena Saddahe' it mentions 'Dasanaina pasitta' which is of older style; because the transformation of meaning of Darshan from perception to faith is a much later incident in Jain tradition. Also it appears that the prevailing conception of eight classifications of Karma must have had its origin in theories of Ramaputta. All this goes to prove that Ramaputta was a revered Acharya of Sraman tradition, senior to Mahavir and Buddha. Also, that Ramaputta of Rishibhashit, Sutrakritang and Pali Tripitak are one person. He has also been named as Uddak Ramaputta.
24. HARIGIRI
The twentyfourth chapter of Rishibhashit191 contains the preachings of Harigiri. We do not find any information about Harigiri from any source other than Rishibhashit. As such it is difficult to say much about his personality. As regards his preachings, the first thing he says is that earlier all was Bhavya (decided or preordained) but now everything is Abhavya (undecided or not pre-ordained). The meaning of this statement is that as long as an individual is ignorant (illusioned) his present is dependent on bondage of the earlier (previous life) karma or decided or

Page #59

50
Rishibhashit : A Study
pre-ordained. But on getting knowledge he becomes the maker of his destiny and so his future depends on his endeavour or is undecided or not pre-ordained. Or in other words, past is the maker of our present but we ourselves are also the makers of our future. As such the past is Bhavya (pre-ordained) and future is Abhavya (not preordained). Infact, his preaching is that the present is dependent on the past and pre-ordained but the future can be made through endeavour and knowledge. As such the future of a proficient mendicant is not preordained or is Abhavya. in fact this matter of pre-ordained and not preordained is connected with the Karma principle. According to the Karma principle our present is result of our Karma in the past, but we can become the mouiders of our future. This capacity of being or not the moulder of the future has been discussed in this chapter.
The Karma principle and its importance has been detailed in this chapter. Which is similar to other chapters. After detailing the Karma principle, attachment or ignorance have been discussed as the root causes of bondage of karma. It has been explained that how under the influence of attachment a person enters the bondage of Karma. In this context it has also been explained that an individual enters the bondage and can come out of it on his own. As such an ascetic should properly understand the complex nature of cycle of Karma and transcend through meditation in order to be free from the bondage of Karma.
Thus we see that the thoughts of Harigiri compiled in Rishibhashit deal elaborately with the consequences of attachment with reference to proper and organised human endeavour and Karma principle. But all these facts have been explained in the preachings of other Rishis in a similar fashion. As such, it is difficult to say that Harigiri had some original line of thinking. We can only state that he presented the Karma principle as an assimilation of Niyativad and Purusharthvad.
There is a mention of Harit-ther in the Buddhist tradition.192 But it is difficult to conclude that this Harit-ther and Harigiri of Rishibhashit are same. Although he has been said to be an Arhat and a proficient ascetic, in absence of details, nothing can be said conclusively. Besides Buddhist tradition, the lineage of Acharyas given in Brihadaranyakupanishad 193 mentions one Harit Kashyap, a disciple of Kashyap. I feel that there is a probability of Harit Rishi of Brihadaranyak-Upanishad being Harigiri of Rishibhashit. But in absence of conclusive proof it is difficult to accept this statement also.

Page #60

Rishibhashit : A Study
51
25. AMBAD PARIVRAJAK
The twenty fifth chapter of Rishibhashit194 is about Ambad Parivrajak. In Jain canonical literature his mention can be found, besides Rishibhashit, in Samvayang,195 Bhagwati 196 Aupapatik,197 and Sthanang,198 also. In Samvayang he is believed to be a future teerthankar in the next time cycle (ascending). According to Bhagwati-sutra he was a parivrajak living in Sravasti town. The incident of Ambad Sanyasi accepting Sravak Dharma (Jain religion) after a dialogue with Mahavir is narrated in Bhagwati and Aupapatik sutras. This indicates that inspite of having faith in Mahavir's religion he maintained his independent tradition.
Aupapatik also conveys that a branch of Brahman Parivrajaks carried his name. This branch probably continued till the present edition of Aupapatik was concluded, which was around 4th-5th century A. D. Similarly according to Sthanang the tenth chapter of Antakritdasha was about Ambad Parivrajak. However, this chapter is not found in the present edition of Antakritdasha. Aupapatik has also described in details the system of conduct of Ambad and other Brahman Parivrajaks. However, complete analysis of all that is not possible here, due to lack of space.
Aupapatik narrates in details the incident of how Ambad Parivrajak and his disciples courted death, accepting the vow of Sallekhana (fast till death) in a forest on the banks of the Ganges while they were on their way to Purimtaal town. It was during summer, on sand, and was done following their discipline of not taking water without being offered by someone. For a comparative study this narration is important and presents a vivid picture of the conduct followed by the tradition of Amdad Parivrajak. In the Jain canonical literature Ambad has been mentioned everywhere with due reverence.
In Buddhist tradition 199 we find a mention of Ambatth Manavak. According to the Buddhist tradition Ambatth was a disciple of Brahman Poshkar Saati. He had a debate with Bhagvan Buddha on the subject of superiority of Brahmans. Whereas Ambatth accused the Shaky as of belonging to lower caste, other people demeaned Ambatth by calling him son of a slave woman. In conclusion of this discussion Buddha asserts the importance of conduct in the formulation of the caste system. In this narration the point worth considering is that Ambatth has been addressed as Krishnayan or belonging to the lineage of Krishna Rishi. As is known, a school of Brahman Parivrajaks is named Kanha according to Aupapatik. It is a possibility that the Krishna Rishi mentioned in Ambatth-sutta was Varişaya Kanha of Rishibhashit,

Page #61

Rishibhashit : A Study
As far as the Vedic tradition 200 is concerned, the term Ambashtha has been mentioned as a particular clan-name which originated with Brahman father and Vaishya mother. In Buddhist tradition this name is used for the clan originating from Kshatriya father and Shoodra mother. As regards the mention of Ambad or Ambashtha as a Rishi, both Vedic and Buddhist traditions do not provide any information.
The chapter of Rishibhashit titled Ambad also mentions Yogandharayan Rishi. In the Jain tradition, besides Rishibhashit Avashyakchurni.201 also provides details about him. Avashyak-churni states him to be a minister of king Udayan. As such Ambad and Yogandharayan were certainly contemporaries of Mahavir.
26. MAATANG
The twentysixth chapter of Rishibhashit202 contains the collection of preachings of the Arhat-rishi named Maatang. In Jain tradition besides Rishibhashit there is no mention of Maatang anywhere. Although Avashyak mentions about a Maatang Yaksha, it is difficult to connect him with Maatang of Rishibhashit in any way. In this chapter of Rishibhashit first of all the attributes of a true Brahman have been stated. These attributes are similar to those mentioned in the twenty fifth chapter of Uttaradhyayan 203, as well as the Brahman section of Dhammapad.204 However, here these attributes have been briefly mentioned only in six couplets, whereas in Dhammapad and Uttaradhyayan comparatively more detail is available. Even than, besides a difference in language there is hardly any difference in the subject matter.
Besides this, this chapter also discusses spiritual-cultivation (Adhyatmic Krishi). This subject is also available in the thirtysecond chapter of Rishibhashit, titled Pingiya, and the Kasi-Bhardwaj-sutta of the Buddhist work Suttanipat.205 At the end of this chapter it has been mentioned that he who indulges in such cultivation that involves compassion towards all beings, attains purity; be he Bhrahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, or a Shudra. It should be recalled that the fourth couplet of thirty-second chapter titled Pingiya is same, verbatim.
Besides Jain tradition Buddhist tradition also mentions Maatang. In Buddhist literature Maatang has been stated as a Pratyeka Buddha and resident of Rajgriha. According to Maatang Jatak206 he was born in a chandal (a lower cast Hindu) family and he stripped the Brahmans of their bloated pride. The true image of a Brahman conveyed in his preachings in Rishibhashit also indicates that he rejected the supremacy

Page #62

Rishibhashit : A Study
53
of Brahman caste on the basis of birth. The word Maatang indicates chandal caste. It is worth mentioning that the Maatang Jatak tale of Buddhist tradition is similar to the 12th chapter of Uttaradhyayan 207 titled Harkeshi.
In Brahman tradition we find mentions of Maatang Rishi in Mahabharat208 also. The preachings of Maatang Muni in Mahabharat
convey that a brave person should always continue his endeaurs. He should not bow before any one, because to work is the duty of man. The brave may perish under blows of adverse predicament but they would never bow down. When we compare this message of Maatang with the preachings in Rishibhashit, one similarity becomes evident that both direct an individual to follow the conduct as per his family tradition. In Rishibhashit Maatang expresses astonishment at Brahmans becoming warriors, and rulers and traders indulging in relgious rituals. He considers such acts to be blind acts. This chapter mainly conveys that Brahman should neither wear a bow nor ride a chariot or carry other armaments. True Brahman should neither resort to falsehood nor stealing.
All this information leads us to the conclusion that Maatang was an important pre-Mahavir and Buddha Rishi, born in lower caste and propagated spirtualism. His preachings were accepted with reverence by all the three traditions, Jain, Buddhist and Vedic.
27. VARATTAKA
The 27th chapter of Rishibhashit209 compiles the preachings of Arhat Rishi named Varattaka. In Jain tradition, besides Rishibhashit, Avashyakchurni, 210 Nisheeth-Bhashya,211 Vrihatkalp-bhashya, 212 Haribhadra commentary of Avashyak 213 etc. also mention him. The ninth chapter of the sixth section of the available edition of Antkritdasha is about Varattaka. Here he is said to be a trader of Rajagriha city who accepted monkhood through Mahavir and got Nirvana on Vipul mountain. But in Avashyakchurni, Nisheeth-bhashya, and Vrihatkalpa-bhashya he is said to be a minister of king Abhayasen of Varattapur town. According to Avashyakchurni he was inducted into monkhood by Acharya Dharmaghosh.
Besides Avashyak-churni the story of Varattak is also available in Rishimandal-vritti. According to this story, during his monk life he did a forecast which resulted in the victory of king Dhundhumar of Sunsumar city, over Chanda Pradyot. Knowing the cause of Dhundhumar's victory,

Page #63

54
Rishibhashit : A Study
Chanda Pradyot addressed Varattaka as Naimitik-Muni (a forcasting monk). Knowing the folly of his unbridled utterings, Varattaka devoted himself to repentful meditation and attained moksha. How true is this story is hard to tell, but these details about Varattaka indicate that he must have been an important Rishi.
This chapter contains, in form of preachings of Varattaka Rishi, an outline of what an ideal sraman should be like. According to this a monk should be averse to the contacts with worldly people or householders. At the same time, leaving ties of affection, he should pursue the path of liberation by keeping away from mental abberations and indulging in studies. Entertainment of house-holders by reading dreams, predictions, satisfying vain curiosities etc., accepting and utlising charity ; joining the marraige and other cerimonial rituals of disciples; accompanying rulers in war; all such acts, done for mundane pleasures and attracting disciples and followers, are against the conduct of a monk, A sraman who tolerates pleasure and pain by becoming poor and religious and does not abandon his goal, becomes victor of senses, detached and is not reborn.
These preachings of Varattaka, with slight verbal variations, are found also in the Sabhikshu and Paap-sraman chapters of Uttaradhyayan, However, there the names of the preachers are not clear. In Buddhist tradition there is a mention of a Varana--ther214 who became a monk influenced by the preachings of some jungle dwelling monk. However, it is difficult to connect him in any way to Varattaka. We do not find any reference of Varattaka in Vedic tradition. As such it is difficult to infer any thing about him on the basis of sources other than Jain and Buddhist.
28. AARDRAK
The twenty eighth chapter of Rishibhashit215 is about Aardrak. Available Prakrit forms of Aardrak are Adda-a and Addag. However, we should remember that Rishibhashit contains details of two monks with similar names-Aardrak and Uddalak. In Prakrit Uddalak is called Uddalava; as such a note should be taken of the variation in the Sanskrit forms of these two names.
Besides Rishibhashit, we find mention of Aardrak also in Sutrakritang, 216 Sutrakritang-niryukti 217 and Sutrakritang-churni218 In Avashyak219 also, he has been mentioned as Aardrak Kumar. According to Sutrakritang when he goes to become a monk, he meets monks from

Page #64

Rishibhashit : A Study
55
other Sraman traditions like Ajivak, Buddhist, and Hasti-tapas etc. and they present the special attributes of their respective traditions.
Sutrakritang-churni also gives stories of his present and past births. According to the story he was the son of the king of Aardrakpur. Abhay Kumar had presented him an idol of Rishabh.Which inspired him to abandon the mundane life. In the Basantpur town a girl playfully took him as her husband and ultimately he had to marry her. But a few days later he once again moves out to become a monk and meets various monks as stated earlier. It is difficult to adjudge the authenticity of this story but one thing is certain, that he was some historical monk of the period of Buddha and Mahavir. The details of his discussions with monks of various traditions, narrated in Sutrakritang, confirm that he was either influenced by or belonged to the Nirgranth (Jain) tradition.
As regards his preachings in Rishibhashit are concerned, he preaches to be away from the lusty pleasures of the mundane world. According to him sexual desires are ailments and are the root cause of degradation. The people afflicted with sexual desires are sufferers of woes. Sexual desire is a sharp knife, it is poison. As long as a being does not destroy this knife or poison of sex he can not be liberated from the cycles of birth. The intellectual and scholar should try to remove his tarnishments every moment. When a single good deed of one moment is enormously beneficial, why would the efforts towards liberation not result in infinite benefits.
This discourse does not contain anything special or original. Many couplets of this chapter can be found in Uttaradhyayan and Dash-vaikalik with little verbal variations. The mention of Aardrak in an old work like Sutrakritang proves that he must have been a historical person. Besides Jain tradition, Aardrak does not find any mention in Buddhist and Vedik tradition, as such it is difficult ro present comperative study of his life and works. Absence of his name in other traditions indicates that he was connected with Nirgranth (Jain) tradition also.
29. VARDHAMAN
In the 29th chapter of Rishibhashit220 are collected the preachings of Arhat-rishi named Vardhaman, According to the traditional belief of Jains he is said to be a Pratyek-Buddha or Arhat Rishi of the sect of Teerthankar Parshwa, but in my opinion this Vardhaman is none else but Bhagwan Mahavir himself. The family name of Mahavir, according to Jain tradition, is Vardhaman. Kalpsutra and Chaturvinshat-stav refer

Page #65

56
Rishibhashit : A Study
to Mahavir by this name. As regards the story of Vardhaman's life is concerned, we find detailed description of his personality and philosophy in many ancient canonical works like Acharanga, 221 Sutrakritang,222 Bhagwati,223 Kalp-sutra224 etc. In my opinion, there is no scope of any doubt in accepting that the Vardhaman of Rishibhashit is Bhagwan Mahavir recognised as the twentyfourth Teerthankar by Jains. Another
of of this is that there is complete similarity in the preaching of Vardhaman in Rishibhashit and Mahavir in the 32nd chapter of Uttaradhyayan and the 'Bhavana'225 chapter of the second Srutaskandha of Acharanga.
in the begining of this chapter he says:
There is influx from all around, why do you not stop this influx ? How this influx is blocked ? When the five senses are awake the soul sleeps and when these five sleep soul is awake. Through these five the particles (Karmic-particles) are ingested and through these five only the ingestion is blocked. The subjects, like words etc., of the five senses like hearing etc. are pleasant and unpleasant. One should not be attached to the pleasant ones and should not be averse towards the unpleasant. His influx is blocked, who is alert and unrevolting. That pure soul, who conquers his mind and its passions and indulges in right penance shines like the flame of a yajna. In this manner, this chapter emphasizes on the discipline of mind and the five senses.
This theme of this chapter, with slight verbal variations, is also available in the second shrutaskandha of Acharanga in the chapter titled Bhavana and in Uttaradhyayan in the 32nd chapter titled Pramad-Sthan. This proves that this must have been the original discourse of Vardhaman Mahavir, The sentence 'Deva Vi Tam Namasanti' is also available in the first chapter of Dash-vaikalik.226
This was his original discourse and its language also is accordingly. Another proof of this inference is that in the Pali-Tripitak,227 in the discourse of Nigganthanataputta (Nirgranth Jnata-Putra or Vardhaman) a part of a sentence is 'Savva Vari Varito. In Rishibhashit in this chapter there is a similar sentence : Savva Varihim Variye. It should be recalled that Pt. Rahul Sankratyayan has interpreted 'Vari' as water, which is not correct. Here Vari means that which should be abandoned or washed, or the evil deeds; Sutrakritang228 also mentions in preachings of Mahavir : Se variya itthi sarayabhattam.'
Besides Jain literature the mention of Mahavir Vardhaman is also available in Pali Buddhist literature. Here he has been mentioned as

Page #66

Rishibhashit : A Study
57
Nigganth Nataputta and believed to be a senior contemporary of Buddha. According to the Nirvana years of Buddha and Mahavir, Buddha appears to be approximately 30 years younger to Mahavir. He has been recognised as one of the six Teerthankar contemporaries of Buddha. The references about him in the Pali literature have been thoroughly researched by Indian as well as Western scholars, As such I do not feel the need to discuss much about the subject here.
I would only like to discuss one point from Thergatha Atthakatha,229 that has been neglected by scholars. In the Atthakatha of Thergatha, Vaddhaman-ther has been mentioned as a Lichchhavi prince of Vaishali. This is the information which relates him to Vardhaman Mahavir. After a comparative study I have arrived at the conclusion that not all the Thers of Thergatha belonged to the Buddhist tradition. Thoughts of many famous pre-Buddha Sramans have been included in it. However, due to sectarian polarisation, efforts have been made in Atthkatha to connect them to Buddhist tradition.
As Rishibhashit and Uttaradhyayan of Jains have compiled thoughts of Rishis of other Sraman traditions, Thergatha also has compiled thoughts of Rishi's of other Sraman traditions. On this basis, I believe that Vaddhaman of Rishibhashit and Vaddhaman of Thergatha are same. At the same time Nigganth Nataputta of Pali Tripitak and Vardhaman Mahavir of Jains are same as Vaddhaman of Thergatha and Rishibhashit. On this basis the historicity of Vardhaman is also clearly established in Thergatha also Vardhaman-ther has talked of abandoning attachment just like in Aacharanga and Uttaradhyayan.
30. VAYU
The thirtieth chapter of Rishibhashit230 is about the Rishi named Vayu. Besides Rishibhashit nowhere else in Jain canonical literature can one find a mention of Vayu Rishi. Although the third out of eleven chief disciples (Ganadhar) of Mahavir was named Vayubhati,231 it is difficult to say that he was same as Vayu Rishi, Because, on this issue no evidence is available within or without the tradition, in Buddhist tradition Vayu has been mentioned only as a god.
In Vedic sources also, Vayu has been accepted only as a god. Only Shantiparva of Mahabharat mentions an ancient Rishi Vayu who visited Bhishm while he was on the arrow-bed. Similarly Shaly aparva of Mahabharat mentions about Vayu-chakra, Vayu-jwal, Vayubal, Vayu

Page #67

58
Rishibhashit : A Study
mandal, Vayureta, and Vayuveg Rishis. But first of all they appear to be Pauranic (pre-historic) not historical, and secondly there is no apparant similarity with Vayu Rishi. Besides this, another Rishi named Vayubhaksha has been mentioned; he was present in the assembly of Yudhishthar232 and also met Krishna on the way. Vayubhakshi ascetics have also been mentioned in Aupapatik.
As regards the preachings of Vayu Rishi are concerned, he chiefly propagates the Karma principle. He says that as one sows so he reaps, good deeds bring good results and bad deeds bad. No act goes in vain. How the fruitition of Karma takes place after death has been asserted by stating that it is the roots that are watered but fruits grow on branches, which means that fruit is displaced by time and space from the act of watering. Similarly, the effect of the deeds takes place at a different place at different time. Besides this simple propagation of Karma principle, no other original thought is found in this chapter.
31. PARSHWA
The thirty first chapter of Rishibhashit233 contains the philosophical thoughts of Arhat Parshwa. Although the traditional belief of Jains is that this Arhat Parshwa was a Pratyek Buddha contemporary and not Teerthankar Parshwa himself. But all scholars unanimously aco he is Parshwa himself. The Propagation of Chaturyam (four dimensional religion) in his preachings is a conclusive evidence of this theory234. Although the Buddhist and Vedic sources do not provide any information about Parshwa, the propagation of Chaturyam sanyam by Nirgranth Jnata putra in Buddhist tradition is in fact the Chaturyam of Parshava.
Similarly, Buddhist literature contains information about Buddha's uncle, Vappashakya, being a follower of Nirgrantha tradition. Vappa also must have been from the tradition of Parshwa, because Mahavir's tradition was only at the developing stage during that period. The historicity of Parshwa is established by various evidences and many Eastern and Western scholars have accepted this. In this context I have dealt in my book Arhat Parshwa and His Tradition'235; readers may consult it for further details.
In Jain canonical literature details about Parshwa and his tradition are available in Acharanga236, Sutrakritang237, Samvayang238, Bhagwati239, Aupapatic240, Rajprashniya241, Niryavalika242, Kalpa-sutra243, Avashyakchurni 244 etc. Besides this, many story books contain story of Parshwa's life partly and fully. Uttaradhyayan, Sutrakritang and Bhagwati have

Page #68

Rishibhashit A Study
explained the difference between traditions of Parshwa and Mahavir245. Main points of contradiction were Chaturyam and Panch Mahavrata (five major vows) and cladness and uncladness. But besides these there were other points of contradiction like form of discourse regarding Pratikraman (re-evaluation) and Ahimsa; information about Samayik, discipline, blockage of Karma influx, morals and penance; these have been discussed in Sutrakritang and Bhagwati. According to Bhagwati Sutra, Kalasya-Vaishik putra, an ascetic follower of Parshwa, while being inducted to Mahavir's monk organisation, accepted five vows and Sapratikraman dharma (rites of daily re-evaluation of actvities), and also as discipline, uncladness, head shaving, non-bathing, not brushing teeth, uncovered head and feet, sleeping, on floor, sleeping on sheet, sleeping on wood, plucking hair, continence, entering others house for alms246, equanimity for available and non available. This shows that these disciplines did not prevail in the tradition of Parshwa.
The rules about keeping umbrella, shoes, leather bags, and cutting of nails, mentioned in the Chhed sutras, were adopted in Mahavir's school through the influence of the Parshwa followers. This is also true that due to the luxurious inclinations of Parshwite monks, Pasath (Parshwath) became a synonym of laxness in conduct. Jnata and Avashyak-churni contain mentions of laxness of many monks and nuns belonging to the tradition of Pasrhwa247. All this indicates that Parshwa was a historical Rishi whose tradition, which was comparatively easy going, prevailed during Mahavir's period and many Parshwite monks were shifting to Mahavir's school.
59
As regards the philosophy of Parshwa described in Rishibhashit, it is the most ancient and authentic form of religious and philosophic beliefs of Parshwa available. Rishibhashit contains both philosophical and religious thoughts of Parshwa. It should be noted that Rishibhashit also contains that variation of Parshwa chapter which was included in the book titled Gativyakaran248. From philosophical view point it contains form of the Universe; movent of matter and soul; Karma, its precipitation, fruitition, and various consequences. Also discussed are panchastikaya (five fundamentals) and form of Moksha. From view point of conduct it contains discussion about Chaturyarm, passions, the eighteen evil activities from killing to misconception, sterile food etc.
First of all it conneys that the Universe and five fundamentals are eternal. But with the acceptence that the Universe is eternal, it has also been stated that it is transient; the fact that Parshwa believed the

Page #69

60
Rishibhashit : A Study
Universe to be eternal is also mentioned in Bhagwati sutra. Again, soul and matter both are said to be dynamic and soul tends to move upwards and matter downwards. Originally four movements, Dravyagati (movement of matter), Bhavagati (movement of thought or feeling), Kshetragati (Movement of space) and Kaalgati (movement of time) have been discussed. but in text variation Prayogagati (movement inspired by others) and Visrasagati (self inspired movement), have also been discussed. Also narrated is the discussion about eight types of Karmic bondages and four categories of life forms. Text variation also details Audayik and Parinamikgati. (self evolved and consequentially evolved life forms). Along with is mentioned that a being suffers the consequences of evil and good deeds done by him. In the end presenting the moral thoughts it has been said that one who follows Chaturyam, is devoid of passions, and eats sterile food, does not enter the eight types of Karmic bondages, and ultimately gets liberated249.
32. PING
In Rishibhashit250 Ping has been mentioned as Brahman Pari vrajak Arhat Rishi. The adjective Brahman Parivrajak clearly indicates that he was a Rishi of Brahman tradition. His discourse in Rishibhashit mainly propagates details about spiritual cultivation. An unknown Rishi asks Ping, "Which is your farm (working area)? What is irrigation ?" The reply given is "Soul is the farm or working area, penance is the seed, discipline is irrigation and Ahimsa and attitude are the oxen. This is spiritual cultivation. For a dispassionate monk only this cultivation is proper, and it begets happiness in the next life. Being compassionate towards all beings, if one indulges in this cultivation; be he Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya or Shudra; he attains omniscience251. This is the description of spiritual cultivation, which on one side explains the spiritual cultivation and on the other hand clarifies that practicing such cultivation leads to liberation irrespective of caste and creed. The most important information that this chapter provides is that a Brahman Parivrajak propagates the concept of liberation for all the four castes.
in Rishibhashit itself this type of spiritual cultivation has been described with a little variation in the 26th chapter of Maatang. This chapter of Ping has only four verses on this topic whereas in the Maatang chapter eight verses describe the same topic. Thus this chapter contains just a brief version of the spiritual cultivation detailed in the 26th chapter titled Maatang.
in Jain tradition I have not come across this type of spiritual cultivation, but in Buddhist tradition Suttanipat and Sanyutta Nikaya describe

Page #70

Rishibhashit : A Study
61
this spiritual cultivation. In the fourth chapter, Kasi Bhardwaj, of Suttanipat we find its details. There, Buddha himself is presented as a farmer. He says, "Faith is seed, penance is rain, knowledge is yoke, humility is the stud of yoke, memory is my plough. I am disciplined about food and speech. I un-weed the truth. The endeavour towards nirvana are the oxen drawing my plough. They perpetually move in the direction leading to the place where there is no pathos. Such cultivation gives nectar as fruit. Doing such cultivation man becomes free of all sorrows."
Sanyutta Nikaya also provides almost same description. The description about spiritual cultivation conveys that in society at some point their was an aversion towards sramans seeking alms. These sramans were told that instead of begging alms they should indulge in cultivation. In reply to such suggestion the sramans presented the details of spiritual cultivation.
Besides Rishibhashit, details about Ping are found in Buddhist252 tradition as well. In Anguttar Nikaya of Buddhist tradition there is a mention of a Brahman named Pingiyani, who lived in Vaishali and was a follower of Buddha. Sanyutta Nikaya also mentions a Pingi Bhikshuk who attained Arhathood. Suttanipat also mentions Maharshi Pingi. In the Parayan Vagga of Suttanipat, initially Maharshi Pingi is said to be a disciple of Bavari. Maharshi Pingi is one of the sixteen disciples of Bavari. He has been addressed with adjectives like-Lok Vishrut (famous), Dhyani (mendicant), having refined past life Karma, Gani (leader). In the Pingi Manavak Puccha Sutta of Parayan Vagga the dialogue between Buddha and Pingi has been narrated. Here Pingi describes his old age to Buddha and says that he is delapidated, weak, bad complexioned; his eyes and ears are not fully functioning. Stating thus he seeks discourse from Buddha so that he may be rid of life and death and does not, in process, beget death with attachment.
Buddha preaches Pingi to be alert and end desires. These details from Suttanipat clearly indicate that Ping was contemporary of Buddha but senior to him in age. The information about his being a disciple of Buddha, availabie in Suttanipat, is for the purpose of glorifying Buddha's field of influence. As such the description available in Suttanipat, cannot be accepted verbatim. Prof. C.M. Upasak253 has conveyed the possibility of Pingi or Pingiyani of Pali literature being a different person and not the Ping of Rishibhashit. According to him, Ping of Rishibhashit was an ancient Rishi who started the tradition of Pingi or Pingiyani monks.
I have no objection agreeing to the inference drawn by Prof. Upasak. It is a possibility that some Pingiyani of the tradition of Ping

Page #71

62
Rishibhashit : A Study
Rishi may have been converted into Buddhism. But, probably, Prof. Upasak has not noticed the above mentioned narration from Suttanipat. He is probably refering to the Pingiyani of Anguttar-Nikaya and SamyuttaNikaya. Suttanipat has mentioned that he was a disciple of Bavari, as such here Ping indicates person not sect. Also the adjectives like leader of the people, famous in the land, mendicant and others have been given to his name as an individual. He was certainly elder to Buddha.
It is a matter of doubt, if Pingi of Suttanipat should be taken as Ping of Rishibhashit or his disciple, but all this goes to prove the historicity of the Arhat Rishi of Rishibhashit named Ping. In the Atthakatha of Suttanipata Pingi has been addressed as Arhat254. As such there is a possibility of Ping of Suttanipat being non else but Ping of Rishibhashit.
Mahabharat255 mentions one Rishi named Pingal. But it is difficult to connect him with Ping of Rishibhashit on basis of their period and other facts.
33. MAHASHALPUTRA ARUN
The thirtythird chapter of Rishibhashit is about the preachings of Mahashalputra Arun. Besides Rishibhashit mention of Arun is not found anywhere in canonical and other Jain literature. Rishibhashit calls him Mahashalputra Arun 256 Question is that who is this Arun Rishi ? In fact Arun is a Upanishadic Rishi. Schubring egates Arun with the Upanishadic Rishi Aarun;257, which is incorrect because Aaruni's other name is Uddalak and Rishibhashit contains an independent chapter on Uddalak. The word Aaruni itself indicates that he was either a descendent or disciple of Arun. As such Mahashal Arun was either father or teacher of Aaruni Uddalak. In the Vedic encyclopidia and names appendix of Mahabharat258 Aaruni-Uddalak is one person and Arun is his father. According to Shatpath Brahman and Brihadaranyakopanishad his full name was "Arun Aupaveshi Gautam". He was called Aupaveshi as he was a disciple of Upaveshi and Gautam as he belonged to the Gautam clan259.
Now the question is that what is the reason behind adding Mahashalputra before his name mentioned in Rishibhashit ? According to Chhandogyopanishad the Brahmans trained by Ashwapati were called Mahasha 260; as Arun was also trained by Ashwapati, he may have been called Mahashalputra. Thus it is proved that Mahashalputra Arun of Rishibhashit is the Upanishadic Rishi Arun Aupaveshi Gautam and father and teacher of Aaruni Uddalak. The name of Sanjaya, the ruler of Mithila,

Page #72

Rishibhashit : A Study
63
has also been used in this chapter. We shall discuss about this while discussing the 39th chapter titled Sanjaya.
As regards the preachings of Arun Rishi stated in Rishibhashit, he says a person's wisdom and foolishness can be judged only on the basis of his language, behaviour, and conduct. Rustic language, evil deeds, and lack of morality about his conduct are signs of foolishness. On the other hand civilized language, good deeds, and morality in conduct are signs of wisdom. With this it has been revealed that the company one keeps has the maximum influence on a person. This fact has been elaborated with many examples. In conclusion it has been stated that a wise and disciplined ascetic should completely understand equanimity and Ahimsa and keep company of inspiring freinds.261
Although Buddhist tradition mentions five persons named Arun, 262 none can be connected with Arun of Rishibhashit on the basis of available details. As such the conclusion remains that Mahashal putra Arun of Rishibhashit is Arun Aupaveshi Gautam of Upanishads.
34. RISHI GIRI
The thirty fourth chapter of Rishibhashit contains the discourse of Brahman Parivrajak named Rishigiri. He has not been mentioned anywhere else besides Rishibhashit. Although mentions of Rishidatta, Rishi-gupta etc. are available, it is difficult to establish any connection with Rishigiri. Similarly there is no mention of Brahman Parivrajak named Rishigiri in Buddhist and Vedic traditions. As such it is difficult to provide any information about his personality.
His preachings263 advise to tolerate with equanimity the pains inflicted by evil and foolish people. He states that if some one criticizes in absentia one should be equanimous by thinking that he is not criticizing in your presence. If someone criticizes in your presence you should think that he is infliciting by words and not physically. If some one gives physical pain you should think that he is not using a weapon to disfigure. If he disfigures, you should think that he is not killing. And if he kills you should think that he is not depriving you of your Dharma (duty or religion). “An ignorant is foolish by nature, he is not aware of good or bad consequences", thinking thus you should be equanimous towards him.
It should be noted that same details are also available in Pali literature. Here Buddha asks a monk, "If some one criticizes you, what shall

Page #73

64
you do?" The monk replies, "I will think that he is only criticizing me, he is not beating me." In this manner complete discourse is repeated. The only difference is that in Buddhist tradition it as in the form of a dialogue between Buddha and a monk, whereas in Rishibhashit it is in the form of preaching of Rishigiri.
Rishibhashit: A Study
Besides this the chapter directs to become practitioner of five great vows, devoid of passions, and disciplined in thought and senses, by knowing the form of the universe. A weak person deeply involved in passions and pleasures sometimes wishes for death and sometimes for life, ultimately destroying himself. But the one who is not allured by lust begets liberation, that is without bondage and attachment. This discourse of Rishigiri is also available elsewhere in simple terms. As such on the basis of these preachings we do not get any inkling of any speciality in his concepts.
35. UDDALAK
The 35th chapter of Rishibhashit contains the discourse of Uddalak (Uddala-a). In the Jain canonical and other literature Uddalak has not been mentioned anywhere else besides Rishibhashit. In fact Uddalak is a Upanishadic Rishi. He was son of Arun Aupaveshik Gautam. His famous name was Uddalak-Aaruni. He has been called Aaruni because of being son of Arun. His mention is found in Shatpath Brahman, Kausheetaki Brahman, Etereya Brahman, Brihadaranyak Upanishad, Chhandogyopanishad,264 etc. He was a disciple of his father Arun, Patanchal Kapya of Madra (a geographical area). His son was Shvetaketu. Although he is also said to be the father of Nachiketa, Shri Suryakant has expressed his doubt in Vedic encyclopedia.265
In Uddalak Jatak of Pali literature we find mention of Uddalak266. According to this he was son of the state priest of Benaras, born to a slave mother. He went to Takshashila for education and after completing his education he became leader of a group of monks. He traveled back to Varanasi and earned ample respect of masses. But the state priest, knowing of the ambiguity of his conduct, forced him to abandon monkhood and made priest under himself. Shwetaketu has also been mentioned in this context. In Vedic tradition Shwetaketu is said to be Uddalak's son. All these references indicate that this story has been presented in the Buddhist tradition after distorting it.
On these grounds we may infer that Rishibhashit, Jatak Katha and Upanishads is same person,

Uddalak mentioned in

Page #74

Rishibhashit A Study
Coming to his preachings in Rishibhashit, 167 he has first of all prohibited the four Kashayas (passions). He who indulges in these, wanders (in cycles of birth) in this world. And who does not indulge in these, is without anger, vanity, illusion, and greed, three vices in three media (mind, speech, and body), ego, four Vikathas, and with five Samitis (attitudes), isolated from five senses. He accepts food, bed, and seat that are totally pure, without the faults of their origin, obtained from various sources, made by others, without heat and smoke, without any implement but cured by implements, specifically and only for survival and development. After that, is stated the discussion on problem of activities for self and others and the directions for purification of soul. His view is that only a seeker of soul can become an instrument of welfare in true sense. How can he indulge in welfare of all, who cannot even control his own passions and lust. Without development of soul even the welfare becomes cause of bondage. Because only a pure soul imparts peace to self and others.
In this chapter five senses, ambitions, medias of expression, ego and twenty two types of pain, have been mentioned as thieves; because these commit theft of the wealth of inner peace. As such the mendicant has been advised to be alert always.
65
The uniqueness of this chapter is that here only the terminology of traditional Jain conduct has been used. As such a natural doubt arises that if the ideas propagated belong to Uddalak or the compiler, put forward in the name of Uddalak. In absence of any evidence, for or against, nothing conclusive can be derived on this issue. Still the possibility that the ideas have been accepted according to the then prevailing Jain beliefs can not be ignored.
36. NARAYAN (TARAYAN)
The thirty sixth chapter of Rishibhashit is about the discourse of Tarayan (Narayan) Rishi. In Jain literature, besides Rishibhashit, Narayan Rishi has been mentioned in Sutrakritang268 and Sutrakritang-churni.269 In Rishibhashit a prefix 'Vitta', has been added to his name; what it indicates is not clear. Sutrakritang 'and Rishibhashit both indicate that he was an outsider for Jain tradition, but due regards were being given to him.
The central theme of the preachings of Narayan Rishi is the irrepressable nature of anger.270 It has been stated that fire can be quenched by water but the fire of anger is difficult to quench. Fire destroys only this life but anger destroys many future reincarnations. Man

Page #75

66
Rishibiashit : A Study
inflicted with anger suffers agony and disturbance recurrently. Simple darkness can be removed by light but the darkness of anger is difficult to remove. Also, anger burns self as well as others. Because of anger all the three good attributes of Dharma (religion), Artha (wealth), and Karma (vitality) are destroyed. As such, anger should be curbed
Although the eighth Vasudev in Jain tradition is also named Narayan, who has also been refered to as Laxman; but he is some one else, not Narayan (Tarayan) of Rishibhashit. He may be recognised as Narayan Rishi of the Vedic tradition. In Vedic or Hindu tradition Narayan is the name of the God himself; but Narayan Rishi, who is believed to be a reincarnation of God, is also mentioned there. Generally he is known as one of the pair of Rishis named Nara-Narayan;271 They are believed to have done penance for thousands of years at Badrikashram.272 There is a mention of their dialogue with Narad in Shantiparva 273. The tenth section of Taittiriya Aranyak is popularly known as Narayanopnishad 274
There is no information about Narayan Rishi in Buddhist tradition. Details available from other sources help coming to the conclusion that Narayan (Tarayan) mentioned in Sutrakritang and Rishibhashit is the Narayan Rishi of Hindu tradition.
37. SRIGIRI
The thirty seventh chapter of Rishibhashit is about the Brahman Parivrajak named Srigiri. Like Tetaliputra (10), Bahuk (14), Utkatvadi (20), Parshwa (31), chapters this is also fully in prose. Besides Rishibhashit, mention of Srigiri is not available anywhere in Vedic, Buddhist, or Jain literature. As such no information about the personality of Srigiri is available from any source.
In the first part of this chapter275, three principles about creation have been stated. It says : (1) First of all there only was water, an egg appeared in it, then the universe was born and it became full of life. This universe was not created by Varun (god of water); thus Srigiri negates the concept of the universe being created out of an egg. This is well known that this concept about creation was present in the Upanishadic thoughts. In Sutrakritang276 also this concept has been mentioned and negated. (2) The second concept about creation is of Maya (illusion); the universe is said to be born out of illusion. But Srigiri opposes this hypothesis and says that this world is not an illusion. Thus negating both these theories he presents his third theory of eternalism as : (3) It is not that this world did not exist some time in the past, does not exist at the present moment,

Page #76

Rishibhashit : A Study
67
and will not exist some time in the future. Thus the universe has been accepted as eternal here. The same concept was given by Parshwa also and confirmed by Mahavir in Bhagwati-sutra. In Vedic tradition the Mimansa philosophy is similar to this concept. Upanishads also mention this.
The preachings of Srigiri regarding conduct indicate that he supported the Vedic rituals; still the Agnihotra (Yajna) presented by him does not contain procedure about animal sacrifice. He says, "At dawn and at dusk; collecting milk, butter, honey, salts, conchshell and wood; I shall live, keeping the Yajna-fire alive offering all these. That is why I say this; hearing this, the mendicant should move with the sun; stop where night falls; when the sun rises, start moving again, properly and looking up to four yards in all directions, East and West and South and North." This information about movement with sun is also available in varied forms in Kappa (Dashashrut Skandha 5/6-8), Nisiha (Nisheeth-10/31/34) and Dasaveyaliya (Dashvaikalika-8/28) 277 of Jain tradition. Generally, this concept was popular with all the Sraman Brahman Pariyrajaks. As such inspite of comparative study, we only get authentic information about Srigiri's ideas, but nothing about his personality.
38. SARIPUTRA (Satiputta)
The thirty eighth chapter of Rishibhashit is about the preachings of Sariputra (Satiputta) Arhat Buddha. This Satiputta is certainly the Sariputra of Buddhist tradition. Mention of the word Buddha' with his name and similarity of his ideas with Buddhist tradition are important evidences of this. Besides Rishibhashit Sariputra has been mentioned in Avashyak-Churni 278. There, he has been shown as a follower of Buddha. Similarly, Sheelank-commentary of Acharanga279 also mentions him. Besides, there is also a mention of Saidatta (Swat:datta) Brahman who was a citizen of Champa. Mahavir had spent four months of a monsoon in his yard280 But it is difficult to establish his connection with Satiputta or Sariputra.
Detailed information about Sariputra is available in Buddhist tradition. Dictionary of Pali Proper Names has devoted ten pages to his details compiled from Pali literature 281. Due to lack of space so much details cannot be included here; I will only deal with some important facts. Buddhist tradition has expressed its reverence toward him by accepting him to be one of the two front-line disciple of Buddha.
He is said to be the son of Brahman Vanganta, his mother's name was Roopsari, He got his name Sariputra from his mother Şari. Buddha

Page #77

68
Rishibhashit : A Study
called him Dharma Sena pati (religious commander) and Mahaprajnawan (extremely wise). Before joining the Buddhist religious organisation he was a disciple of Sanjay. Sanjaya has also been mentioned in Rishibhashit as Arhat Rishi282. Barua has acceptad this Sanjaya as Sanjay Velatthiputta283, one of the six Teerthankar contemporaries of Buddha. I am also of the opinion that this Sanjaya was the initial teacher of Sariputra, who refused request of Sariputra to meet Buddha. In Pali literature, preachings and philosophical thoughts of Sariputra are available in details. A comparative study of these with Rishibhashit is naturally expected.
In Rishibhashit the main theme of Sariputra's preachings is to avoid extremes and follow the middle path 284. This preaching is the central theme of Buddhism. He says, the pleasure that results in blis is the only real pleasure, but the pleasure that results in anguish should not be indulged in. This statement conveys that not the paingiving pleasure, but the bliss giving pleasure is cherishable. Pleasure begets bliss. Pain does not beget bliss. He further states, that eating good food, sleeping in a comfortable bed, and living in a cozy abode, a monk may concentrate in meditation whereas with unlikeable food, bed, and abode he meditates with discomfort. Here the opposition of the practice of abusing the body is clearly evident. This does not mean that Sariputra was a supporter of lustful indulgences. In the following verse he has preached about discipline of the senses. He says, an alert and inteiligent mendicant should not be attracted towards the pleasures of the senses; indulgence in them should be abandoned. Because the sleeping senses of an alert mendicant cause minimal sorrows.
Further, giving transcendence from pleasure and pain as the purpose of meditation, it has been stated that as sweet or bitter medicine is taken for cure of a disease as per the directions of a doctor, similarly stringent or simple practices are done for the cure of the ailment of attachment as per the direction of the wise. As the purpose of treatment is riddance from disease not pleasure or pain; similarly the purpose of meditational practices is riddance from attachment not pleasure or pain, although pleasure and pain are inevitable in the process. Thus a practicing mendicant has been asked to remain aloof from pleasure and pain. The Samveg (fear of the evil) of common man and Nirved (detachment) of good person are signs of humility if they are desireless. Embracing the middle path in context of living in abode or jungle, Sariputra states that for a brave, who has won over the senses, there is no difference between jungle or a church. For a soul indulging in itself, jungle and

Page #78

Rishibhashit : A Study
69
village are same. Such soul can attain purity irrespective of being a monk or a citizen.
In this manner Sariputra emphasizes on purity of attitude and not the means; which is a peculiarity of the Buddhist religious philosophy. The above mentioned details also indicate that this Sariputra is the Sariputra of Buddhist tradition. The basis of this inference is that the initial verses of this chapter have been used with some verbal variations in the Sutrakritanga commentary by Sheelank and the commentary of Shatdarshan Samuchchaya to clarify the Buddhist view point. According to the traditional belief, he is supposed to be an Arhat Rishi or Pratyek Buddha of the period of Mahavir. Being a contemporary of Buddha, he is automatically proved to be a contemporary of Mahavir as well.
39. SANJAY
The thirty-ninth chapter of Rishibhashit is about the Arbat Rishi named Sanjay. Besides Rishibhasit, Sanjay finds a mention in Uttaradhyayan285 also. Although there are many persons named Sanjay, mentioned in Jain tradition, they are not connected, in any way, with Sanjay of Rishibhashit. However, there is no scope of any doubt that the Sanjay mentioned in 18th chapter of Uttaradhyayan is same as the Sanjay of Rishibhashit.
According to Uttaradhyayan he was the King of Kampilpur. Once he went for hunting in Keshar park and shot a deer. Finding the deer near the feet of meditating Acharya Gardabhill, he got afraid of the monk's curse and begged his pardon. Impressed by the Acharya's discourse about goodwill and Ahimsa, he abdicated the throne and became a monk disciple of Gardabhill. The incident of this deer hunt has been accepted by him in the fifth couplet of this chapter, where he says, "I am not concerned with the tasty meals and gorgeous abodes for which Sanjay goes into the jungles to kill deer" 286 No further proofs are needed to show that Sanjaya of Rishibhashit and Uttaradhyayan is one person.
The chapter of Uttardhyayan under reference is titled Sanyatiya", which is not correct; it should be titled 'Sanjayiya'. According to Uttardhyayan, he was a disciple of Gardabhill. In the thirtythird chapter of Rishibhashit it has been mentioned that due to the company of benevolent friends, Sanjay, the king of Mithila, attained godhood. (33/16). But this Sanjay is the King of Mithila whereas Sanjay of Uttaradhyayan is the King of Kampilpur; as such they cannot be taken as

Page #79

70
Rishibhashit : A Study
same. In my opinion Sanjay of 33rd chapter and the preacher of 39th chapter are different.
In Buddhist tradition seven persons having the name Sanjay are mentioned. 287 Besides the earlier teacher of Sariputra and the one well know by the name Sanjay Velatthiputta, no other Sanjay can in any way be connected with Sanjay of Rishibhashit. Buddhist scholars have little dispute in accepting Sanjay Velatthiputta and the earlier teacher of Sariputra as one. He is believed to be one of the six Teerthankar contemporaries of Buddha; so at least the period is same. His joining the Buddhist organisation with Sariputra, Moggalayan, and two hundred and fifty disciples also confirms that he was a prominent Acharya of his age. As such it is an undisputed fact that the earlier teacher of Sariputra and Sanjay Velatthiputta are the same person.
Now the question is that this Sanjay Velatthiptta and the Sanjay of Rishibhashit are also one or not. If we accept the traditional belief that Sanjay of Rishibhashit was a contemporary of Mahavir, then connecting him with Sanjay Velatthiputta, the earlier teacher of Sariputta, who was contemporary of Buddha, has no periodic hurdle. Because when Rishibhashit can compile the discourse of Mankhali Goshal, a contemporary of Mahavir, there can be no objection to compiling the thoughts of Sanjay Velatthiputta.
In the Buddhist tradition Sanjay has been termed as skeptic or indicisive, because he did not give final or conclusive answer to philosophical questions. In modern terms he must be visualising various possible alternatives to the solution of a philosophical problem, and consequently did not use a conclusive terminology. This view point of his is evident in the following words mentioned in Rishibhashit : 'To understand the evilKarma comprehensively is a matter of doubt.288 Because the decision about a Karma being good or evil is possible only on pondering properly from angles of matter, space, time, attitude, and effort'. The term 'Rahasse' used in Rishibhashit, is worth a special thought. Also, here "Sammam Janitta" would be more appropriate in place of "Samajjinitta" (refer to the prose part after the fourth couplet). In Rishibhashit the discourse of Sanjay is very brief. It states that evil deed should neither be done nor made to be done; if done by force of circumstances, it should not be repeated again but criticized instead.
In conclusion, it can be said that Sanjay Rishi mentioned in Rishibhashit and Uttaradhyayan are same. It is a strong possibility that he

Page #80

Rishibhashit : A Study
71
was also the earlier teacher of Sariputta and one of the six Teerthankar contemporaries of Buddha, Sanjay Velatthiputta. In Vedic tradition we find the mention of Sanjay, a minister of Dhritarashtra;289 but from periodic and other angles he is a different person than the Sanjay of Rishibhashit.
40. DVAIPAYAN (Devayan) The fortieth chapter of Rishibhashit contains the collection of preachings of Dvaipayan Rishi. Besides Rishibhashit, Dvaipayan (Deevayan) has also been mentioned in Sutrakritang 290, Samvayang, 291 Aupapatik, 292, Antakritadasha 293, Dashvaikalik-churni 294, and Sutrakritangchurni295. He has uniformly been said to be a Rishis from outside the Nirgranth tradition. Sutrakritang has mentioned him with Rishis like Nami, Bahuk, Asit Deval, Narayan Parashar etc, and that he attained omniscience inspite of consuming unboiled water, fruits etc. According to Samvayang he shall be a Teerthankar in next ascending time cycle, In Aupapatik he has been mentioned as the founder of a particular tradition of Brahman Parivrajaks. Antakritadash, Dashvaikalik-churni etc. state that Yadavs disturbed his meditational practices and he decided to destroy them; as a result he was born Agnikumar Dev (a god) and destroyed Dvarka. Efforts have not been made to concieve a composit picture of his personality based on the variety of stories available about him in these canons, but in my opinion all these stories are concerning only one Dvaipayan. The traditional belief that he was a contemporary of Mahavir is incorrect. According to the aforesaid reference he must have been a Pre-upanishadic Rishi of the Mahabharat period.
In the Buddhist tradition there is a mention of two persons having the name Kanha Deepayana.296 The story narrated in the Krishna Dvaipayana (Kanha Deepayana) Jatak about Kanha Deepayana does not have any relations with Dvaipayana (Deevayana) of Rishibhashit and Jain tradition. But in Jataks there is another story of Kanha Deepayana where he has been shown as instrumental to the destruction of Dvarika (Dvaravati) and the clan of Vasudev (Yadav clan). With slight variation, this story is available in all the three Jain, Buddhist, and Vedic traditions.
In the Vedic tradition Krishna Dvaipayana or Dvaipayana has been mentioned in details in Mahabharat.297 In the Vedic tradition his popular name is Vyas or Vedavyas. He is said to be the son of Maharshi Parashar and the author of Mahabharat. He fathered three sons Dhritrashtra, Pandu, and Vidur from Vichitravirya's wives on request of Bhishma.

Page #81

ܐܪ
Rishibhashit : A Study
Shukdev is also said to be his son. Vaishampayan was his chief disciple. Mahabharat contains detailed description of his life and preachings; however, it contains more of pre-history and less of history. On the basis of the details in the three traditions, Jain, Buddhist, and Vedic, it may be infered that he was some historic person of the pre-historic period. But the absence of his name in the ancient Upanishadic literature is worth a consideration. Of course, his father Parashar and Parashar's sons have been mentioned there.298
His preachings compiled in Rishibhashit direct towards changing desire into desirelessness. 299 In other words it is a message of sublimating ambition. He says that it is because of desires that man gets sorrows. Under the influence of desires he neglects every one including parents teacher, king, and gods, Desire is at the root of loss of wealth, bondage, seperation from king, life, and death. As such desires should be conquered; because desirelessness is the basis of bliss. The second and third verses of this chapter are also available in the thirty sixth chapter of Rishibhashit with little verbal variations. Similarly the statement, 'Jaha Thamam Jaha Balam Jadha Viriyam' can also be found in Dashvaikalik.
41. INDRANAG
The forty first chapter of Rishibhashit is about the Arhat Rishi named Indranag. Besides Rishibhashit Indranag's mention is also available in Avashyak-niryukti,300 Visheshavashyak-bhashya,301 Avashyak-churni, 302 Haribhadra Vritti of Avashyak, 303 and Sheelank commentary of Acharang,304 He was famous as a child ascetic. Ganadhar Gautam contacted him. He is said to be an inhabitant of Jeernapur (Jinnapur). I have not been able to find any thing about him from Buddhist and Vedic traditions. Jain sources also confirm that he was a contemporary of Mahavir; this also has traditonal acceptance.
As regards the preachings of Indranag in Rishibhashit are concerned, he first of all states that the penance or good deed done for livelihood is meaningless. A man indulging in mundane passion destroys himself. Monkhood should not he made a profession. Amonk should also not earn his living through teaching, magical spells, massage carrying prophecizing etc. Thus the theme of his discourse is to practice discipline, rising above the mundane desires. Generally speaking this preaching can be found at many places. The thirteenth verse of this chapter is available verbatim in Uttaradhyayan and Dhammapad. Similarly the sixteenth verse is also available in the twelfth chapter of Rishibhashit,

Page #82

Rishibhashit : A Study
73
titled Jannavakk (Yajnavalkya), and with little verbal variation in Dashvaikalik also.
42-45, SOMA, YAMA, VARUNA
AND VAISHRAMAN
The last four chapters of Rishibhashit are about Soma, Yama, Varuna, and Vaishraman respectively. Although they have been stated to be Arhat Rishis in these chapters and according to the appendix, all these four Pratyek Buddhas are believed to have lived during the period of Mahavir, no information about their historicity is available from any source. However, in Jain literature there is mention of a Brahman named Som who was inducted into the tradition of Parshwa. It is also believed that after death he was reborn as Shukra.305 Similarly Varun has been stated as a follower of Sraman tradition, who died in Rath-Musal war, and was reborn as a god. He believed that if one dies in a war he goes to heaven.306
Similarly we find the mention of Yama as father of Yamadagni,307 although it is not clear that the same person is the Yama Rishi of Rishibhashit. Buddhist tradition also mentions some persons named Soma, Varun, etc. but to connect them with these Rishis of Rishibhashit is difficult, Infact in all the three traditions, Jain, Buddhist, and Vedic, they have been accepted as Lokpal (Sector Guardians). Whereas in Jain tradition the four Lokpals are Soma, Yama, Varun, and Vaishraman;308 in the Vedic traditions the four Lokpals are Indra, Agni, Yama, and Varun.309 They are believed to be the preachers of religion. In Upanishads the dialogue between Yama and Nachiketa is very popular. Still
ur are mythological figures not historical persons. The belief that Lokpal, are preachers of religion must have been the cause of including them in Rishibhashit. However, the adjective Arhat Rishi, attached to their names is worth a consideration.
As regards the preachings of these four Rishis, the preachings of the first three, Soma, Yama, and Varun are simply in one verse each. Only the preachings of Vaishraman are in detail and in fifty three verses.
Soma preaches that a mendicant, irrespective of being senior, middle, or junior in grade, should endeavor to acheive more than just a little. 310
Yama preaches that he is best among men, who is not happy by gains and not vexed by losses.311.

Page #83

74
Rishibhashit : A Study
Varun says that only he can arrive at right conclusion who is uneffected by attachment and aversion.312
As regards Vaishraman's preachings, he initially states simple preachings about containment of lust and not indulging in evil deeds. With this he conveys the importance of Ahimsa and directs towards observing Ahimsa by presenting the ideal of equality of all life with the self.313 This chapter contains examples like serpents of Agandhan variety314, pot of oi 315, and comparison of good and evil Karma with gold and iron shackles.316 These examples have further evolved in Uttaradhyayan, Dashvaikalik, Avashyak-churni, Kalpa-Sutra commentary, and Samayasar of Kundkund.
It is clearly evident that there is no facet of Jain religion and philosophy that does not have its basic root available in Rishibhashit. In fact, the need of the day is that a detailed, and comparative study of the personalities of Rishibhashit and their preachings is seriously undertaken. A valuable achievement of such a study would be that the proximity of various religious traditions in India will be revealed as also the sources of thoughts and ideas that have been absorbed by the Jain tradition.
RISHIBHASHIT NIRYUKTI AND RISHI MANDAL
It also seems necessary to discuss here about Rishibhashit Niryukti and Rishi Mandal, In the Niryukti works of Acharya Bhadrabahu, Rishibhashit has been mentioned in. Avashyak-Niryukti and SutrakritangNiryukti. In Avashyak-Niryukti, promising to write a Niryukti on Rishibhashit, he writes the following verse.
आवस्सगस्स दसकालिअस्स तह उत्तरज्झमायारे । सूयगडे निज्जुति वुच्छामि तहा दसाणं च ।। कप्पस य निज्जुति, ववहारस्सेव परमणिउणस्स । सूरिअपण्णत्तीए, वुच्छं इसिसिपाणं च ।।
-919547 fayf#-84-85
After this, in the Sutrakritang Niryukti, explaining the importance and style of Rishibhashit he says :
तह वि य कोई अत्थो उप्पज्जइ तम्मि समयम्मि । पुब्वभणियो अणुमो य होइ इसिभासिएसु जहा ।।
- Taifai -181

Page #84

Rishibhashit : A Study
75
This means, if special meanings of statements are seen in some principles of other traditions, it is considered acceptable and of earlier origin like Rishibhashit. This is an indication that Rishibhashit is authentic and of earlier origin. If the term "work of earlier origin" has been used for the literature of the tradition of Parshwa, which is acceptable to Mahavir's tradition, than Rishibhashit will have to be taken as a work of Parshwa tradition. Schubring, in his preface, has accepted it to be connected with the tradition of Parshwa.
In the Avashyak-niryukti of Bhadrabahu we find infromation that Rishibhashit-Niryukti was written. But Rishibhashit-Niryukti is not available now. As a result scholars are not in agreement if Bhadrabahu had written this Niryukti or not. The general belief is that he had promised to write a Niryukti on Rishibhashit, but he could not write it. There may be two reasons for his not writing Rishibhashit-Niryukti. One is that he might have died before commencing the work. Secondmay be that, as Rishibhashit contained the thoughts of Rishis of other traditions, he might have intentionally dropped the idea of writing the Niryukti. But looking at the 'Isimandalatthu', mentioned in Acharangachurni, and the available Rishimandal-stava (Isimandal), I feel that Rishibhashit-Niryukti must have been written; it does not matter if it is not available today. In its present form Isimandal can not be accepted as the Niryukti of Rishibhashit; however, my belief is that some verses of Rishibhashit Niryukti, itheir original or changed form, have certainly been included in it. There is some basis of this belief, on which scholars should express their reaction after serious deliberations.
First of all we have to adjudge the similarity between the styles of Rishibhashit and a Niryukti. The peculiarity of the style of a Niryukti is that it contains the etymological explanation of some important words used, as well as a brief description of the subject matter dealt in the part or chapter of the original work, on which the Niryukti is being written. In Isimandal we find the following two verses briefly detailing the subject matter of Isbhasiyaim (Rishibhashit) :
नारयरिसिपामुक्खे, वीसं सिरिनेमिनाहतित्थम्मि । पन्नरस पासतित्थे, दस सिरिवीरस्स तित्थम्मि ।। पत्तेयबुद्ध साह, नमिमो जे भासिउं सिवं पत्ता । पणया वीसं इसिभासियाई प्रज्झयण पवराई ।।
-ET137-64,7%

Page #85

76
Rishibhashit : A Study
These verses can certainly be the initial verses of some Niryukti or an explanatory work on Isibhasiyaim (Rishibhashit). However, these two verses are also believed to be the begining verses of the appendix of Rishibhashit.
Similarly, the following two verses from Rishimandal about Narad also appear to be a brief detail of the Narad chapter of Rishibhashit :
सुच्चा जिणिदवयणं, सच्चं सोयं ति पणिो हरिणा। कि सच्चं ति पवत्तो चिन्ततो जायजाइसरो ॥ संबुद्वो जो पढम, अज्झयणं सच्चमेव पनवई । कुच्छुल्लानारयरिसिं, तं वंदे सुगइमणुपत्तं ।।
इसिमन्डल ४२, ४३
If we compare these two verses with the following verse of Sutrakritang-Niryukti, the similarity in style would be self evident. The verse under reference from Sutrakritang-Niryukti is as follows:
अद्दपुरे अहसुतो नामेणं अद्दयो त्ति अणगारो । तत्तो समुट्ठियमिणं अज्झयणं अद्दइज्जं ति ।।
-सूत्रकृतांग नियुक्ति-१८७ Similarly the following verses of Rishimandal and SutrakritangNiryukti convey the similarity of language and style, on comparing :
नालंदाए अद्धत्तेरस-कुलकोडिकय निवासाए । पुच्छिप गोअमसामि, सावयवपच्चक्खाणविहिं ।। जो चरमजिणसमीवे, पडिवन्नो पंचजामियं धम्म । पेढालपुत्तमुदयं, तं वंदे मुणियसयलनयं ।।
-इसिमण्डल १०२, १०३ Comparable with ; नालंदाए समीवे मणोहरे भासि इन्दभूइणा उ । अज्झयणं उदगस्स उ एयं नालन्दइज्जं तु ।। पासावचिज्जो पुच्छियाइयो अज्जगोयंम उदगो । सावगपुच्छा धम्म सोउं कहियम्मि उवसन्ता ।।
सूत्रकृतांगनियुक्ति २०४, २०५
Although, from the view point of antiquity and rhyming, the verses of Rishimandal appear to be of later period as compared to the verses of Sutrakritang-Niryukti, still both have the similarity of style.

Page #86

Rishibhashit : A Study
77
The said comparative similarity leads to the inference that some Niryukti on Rishibhashit must have been written. The verses of this Niryukti must have been included in original or varied form, first in Isimandal and later in Rishimandal Prakaran (Isimanda/), believed to have been written by Dharmaghosh. The mention of majority of the Rishis of Rishibhasit in Rishimandal confirms the belief that even if the available edition of Isimandal is not accepted as the Niryukti of Rishibhashit or the Isimandalatthu mentioned in Acharanga-Churni, one thing is clear that it contains many verses of those works.
Today there are many works, available, having the name Rishimandal. Some of these are in Sanskrit and others in Prakrit. We get information about these from the catalogues of libraries of manuscripts in Khambhat, and Jaisalmer and also in the book-Jinaratna-Kosh. But in this analysis we are concerned with the Prakrit work Isimandal (Rishimandal) popularly supposed to have been written by Dharmaghosh-suri. Generally speaking the Rishimandal, written in Prakrit language, is belived to be a work by Dharmaghosh-suri belonging to the Tapagachhiya sect. His period is the early fourteenth century; but this has not been accepted conclusively. There are many reasons for this :
1. Khartargachha, Tapagachha, Achalgachha and Upkeshgachha all have Acharyas named Dharmagosh-suri in the chronoligical list of their Acharyas. In the last verse of Rishimandal only Siridhammaghosam' is mentioned. As such it is difficult to ascertain to what sub-sect (gachha) this Dharmaghosha belonged and what was his period.
2. in the collection of Jaisalmer and Khambhat, ancient manuscripts of Isimandal Prakaran are available. Of these, the oldest palm leave copy of Vritti of Rishimandal Prakaran is available in Jaisalmer. The date of transcribing of this copy is 1380 Vikram, so the period of writing should be still earlier. According to the Tapagachha list of Acharyas, the period of Dharmaghosh of Tapagachha is Vikram 1302 to 1357. If it is a work of later part of his life, it does not seem plausible that the work of writing it and getting copied could be done during 23 years. On this basis, in the preface to Shri Rishimandal Prakaran (with-Vritti) printed at Nirnaya Sager press, Vijayobhang Suri has expressed the possibility of antiquity of the commentator as against the original author, if it is accepted as a work of Dharmghosh-suri of Tapagachha. According to him this seems to be a work done by Dharmaghosh-suri the disciple of Vidhipaksha Anchalgachha Nayak Jayasingh Suri. His period was Vikram 1208 to 1268.

Page #87

Rishibhashit: A Study
3. The most important point against accepting Rishimandal (Isimandal) as a work by Dharmaghosh-suri is that there is a mention of 'Isimandalatthu in Acharanga-churni. This ascertains that some work of this name was certainly seen by the author of the churni of Acharanga. The author of Acharanga-churni is believed to be Jindasgani Mahattar. Scholars have deduced his period to be Vikaram 650 to 750. Nandichurni mentions its writing period as Shaka 598 which is Vikram 733. Which means that Acharanga-churni must also be of the same period. This proves that 'Isimandalatthu' must be a work of a period earlier to this or of the sixth century, at least Scholars have accepted the period of Bhadrabahu (second), the author of Niryuktis as same. Here the other possibility is that Bhadrabahu promised of writing Rishibhashit Niryukti, but later, he himself wrote Isimandalatthu instead. What was the actual content of Isimandalatthu', is difficult to say today.
78
4. Another problem in accepting Rishimandal to be a work by Dharmaghosh-suri is that all the copies of Rishimandal do not contain the last verses in which the name of Dharmaghosh-suri as its author is mentioned. The Rishimandal vritti with Gujarati translation, published by Jain Vidyashala, Ahmedabad, also does not contain this verse. In the copies believed to be written by Dharmaghosh-suri, as mentioned in the catalogues of Jaisalmer and Khambhat collections, there is difference in total number of verses. Some copies mention 208 and 210 verses and others 225 and 233 verses.
Not only this, there is also a clearly evident difference in number of verses available in the published editions of Rishimandal stava. example:
For
a)
Rishimandal Vritti-with Vritti by Shubh Vardhan-suri, published by Jain Vidyashala, Doshiwada Pole, Ahmedabad in 1925, has 205 verses. Here the author is not mentioned as Dharmaghosh-suri.
b) Jain Stotra Sandoh-published by Prachin Jain Sahityoddhar Granthavali, Sarabhai Manilal Navan, Ahmedabad, in 1832, has 209 verses. Here the author is mentioned as Dharmaghosh Sraman.
c) Rishimandal Prakaran--with Vritti by Padmanandi, published by Seth Pushpachandra Kshemchandra, Valad via Ahmedabad in 1939, has 217 verses, the author is mentioned to be Dharmaghosh Saman.
All this conveys that the Rishimandal, believed to be written by Dharmaghosh-Suri has differences in the available editions. Also, there

Page #88

Rishibhashit: A Study
is a difference in the sequence of verses as well. As such the possibility that the available edition of Rishimandal Prakaran contains verses from the Isimandalatthu or Rishibhashit-Niryukti, mentioned in Acharanga churni, can not be ruled out. Thus it is doubtful that the RishimandalPrakaran supposed to be written by Dharmaghosh-suri is totally his creation.
5. On analysing the last verses of Rishimandal Prakaran, I feel that the last three or four verses are later additions into the original. Earlier editions of Rishimandal Prakaran must have concluded with the salutation of Devardhigani Kshama Sramana. This is because in the lists of Sthavirs (a category of monks) in Nandisutra and Kalpasutra also, there are salutations to Acharyas upto Devardhigani Kshama Sraman. Had Rishimandal Prakaran been actually the work of Dharmaghosh-suri, it would have contained mention of some prominent Acharyas, of post Devardhigani perid, like Siddhasen, Jindas, Haribhadra, Siddharshi, Abhaya Dev, and Hemchandra.
79
In one of the four verses after the verse of salutation of Devardhigani Kshama Sraman there is salutation to a monk named Duhprasaha, a nun named Falgusri, and house-holders named Nagil and Satyasri; all supposed to come to existance during the end of the fifth section of the present time cycle (Avasarpini). In whole of Rishimandal this is the only verse where salutations have been offered to householders. Also, the mention of these monk, nun, and house-holders, of the fifth section of the time cycle, first came in Teerthodgalic and VyavaharBhashya, and these works are of a period certainly not earlier than the sixth century A. D.
The next verse has salutations to the past and present Rishis of the areas named Bharat, Airavat, and Videh. The verse after this has salutations for Brahmi, Sundari, Rajimati, Chandana and others. The salutations to nuns is found only in these verses. In the last verse the name of Dharmaghosh-suri has been mentioned as the author of the work. Here also the author has written his name as Sri-Dharmaghosh (Siri Dhammaghosh). The use of Sri before his own name by an author is worth a thought. I feel that these verses were added to the old Isimandalatthu, only after some corrections and additions. Even if this is considered to be an independent work, there should be no objection in accepting that it was written on the basis of Isimandalatthu mentioned in Acharanga - churni. Scholars are expected to make a serious investigation on this
matter.

Page #89

80
Rishibhashit : A Study
THE LANGUAGE OF RISHIBHASHIT
Prof. Schubring has done a detailed analysis, in his preface, about the form of language and style of verses of Rishibhashit. He has also discussed the text variations available in the existing manuscripts, as such neither an elaborate commentary on this matter is necessary nor do I consider myself an authority on that subject. Still I feel the need of reediting of the original text edited by Prof. Schubring, from the view point of language.
As far as the language of Rishibhashit is concerned, it is the ancient form of Ardhamagadhi, the similarity of which with Sanskrit is evident at places. According to the antiquity of language, it can be placed somewhere between first Shruta-skandha of Acharanga and Sutrakritang Uttaradhyayan. Whereas, an influence of Maharashtri Prakrit can be seen in Sutrakritang and Uttaradhyayan, Rishibhashit can be said to be generally free from the influence of Maharashtri Prakrit. Although, at some places, word forms appear to be influenced by Maharashtri Prakrit, proper study reveals that this influence must have come only through the mistakes of transcribers.
For example, out of the fortyfive chapters in Rishibhashit forty three contain the word Buiyam or Buitam. Out of these forty three, thirty six mention Buitam and only seven mention Buiyam. Certainly, the word form Buiyam conveys the influence of Maharashtri. But it is not logical that the original author would use the form Buitam in thirty six chapters and Buiyam in seven chapters. It is clear that the form Buiyam must have inadvertantly come due to the carelessness of the transcribers and influence of Maharashtri on them. Same is the case of Jadha and Jaha, Mossikar and Moosiyar, Tati and Tai, Dhaota and Dhooyam, Loye and Loge. At the end of fortieth chapter Jaha and Jadha have been used in same line (Jaha Balam Jadha Veerayam). Certainly, such use would not be to the liking of the author; this variation must have come due to passage of time.
Also, whereas in the third, twenty fifth, and fortyfifth chapters, use of only the Jadha form is seen, in the ninth, twelfth, twentysecond and twentyeighth chapters the word Jaha has been used. As such the question worth a consideration is that, was the original form in different chapters retained during compilation ? Or these variations are due to later influences. Generally speaking. Rishibhashit contains the use of first person like Pabhasati, Jayati, Meghati, Hinsari, Jevati, Vindați,

Page #90

Rishibhashit: A Study
Vijjati, Chindati, Seedati, Visujjhati, Vassati, Sinchati, Luppati etc., and the tendency of omitting the last consonant, like in Maharashtri Prakrit is not seen. In the whole Rishibhashit the omission of the last consonant is not seen except at eight or ten places.
Similarly the use of the sound 'Ya' instead of 'Ta' is negligible. Generally, complete Rishibhashit predominantly uses the sound 'Ta'. For Atma, leaving aside one or two instances, everywhere the word 'Aata' has been used. In the tenth chapter the word Tetaliputta has been used at places, and not Teyaliputta as in Jnatadharma-Katha. Similarly in the same chapter Moosikaridhoota word has been used for his wife. However, at one place Dhooyam word has also been used. It is clear that these exceptions from later Maharashtri forms must have crept into the editions of original text due to later influence. It is possible that when palm leave copies of this work were done, these changes must have come due to the influence of the language of that period through the scribers.
81
Although this influence of Maharashtri Prakrit on Rishibhashit is not more than two percent, the same influence on the Ardha Magadhi canons like Acharanga, Sutrakritang, Uttaradhyayan and Dashvaikalika, supposed to be ancient, is approximately fifteen to twenty five percent. However, one reason for this may be that whereas Uttaradhyayan and Dashvaikailika were in more popular use, Rishibhashit was not much in use. As a result, the effect of changed pronunciations must have been less on Rishibhashit, and because of others being more in use, this effect on them must already have set in even before the palm leave copies were made, after the last vocal rendering. Unfortunately, at the time of editing of the canons these facts were not considered and efforts to retain the oldest form of language was not made.
I feel that the old manuscripts of ancient Ardhamagadhi works like Acharanga, Sutrakritang, Rishibhashit, Uttaradhyayan, Kalpasutra, and others should be collected and if any manuscript contains old text form, it should be preserved. Not only this, where there are variations like Aata and Aaya, Jadha and Jaha. Loye and Loge in the same line, only the old forms should be accepted. It is a matter of contentment that some scholars like professors Madhusudan Dhaki and K. R. Chandra and others have drawn attention in this direction. I am hopeful that in the future editions of the canons, these facts will be attended to. As the lingual form of a book is very much helpful in determining its period, this is the responsibility of scholars that oldest form of the language of the work is retained,

Page #91

82
Rishibhashit : A Study
On a comparative study we find that many words and parts of verses and prose of Acharanga, Sutrakritang, Uttardhyayan, Dash vaikalik and Jnatadharmakatha are also available in Rishibhashit. But the comparative study of the language forms of these reveals that from the view point of language the text of Rishibhashit is older. For example, a comparative study of Tetaliputta chapter of Rishibhashit and Teyaliputta chapter of Jnata reveals that the language of Rishibhashit has predominence of the sound 'Ta' and is older. Similarly in Acharanga, Sutrakritang, Uttardhyayan, and Dashvaikalika, whereas 'Aaya' word has been used for Atma, in Rishibhashit, except one or two places, the 'Aata' form has been used. This confirms its antiquity.
CONCLUSION
Thus we observe that according to its language and subject matter, Rishibhashit is proved to be the oldest work of Prakrit literature. As we have proved earlier, this work is the oldest in the whole Pali and Prakrit literature, leaving aside, the first Shrut-Skandha of Acharanga, and belongs to the 5th century B. C. It is not only that this work is important because it is old, but also because the mentions of the ancient sages and their beliefs are historically valuable. It contains details about some such sages about whom no further information is available. Uniqueness of this work lies in its being free of sectarian prejudice.
Its writing in the Jain tradition is a sign of the tolerence and openess of Jainism on one hand and on the other that the stream of Indian spiritualism is one at its source, irrespective of getting divided later into Upanishadic, Buddhist, Jain, Ajivak, and other rivulets. Rishibhashit is the only work that compiles at one place the discourses of Upanishadic Rishis, Brahman Parivrajaks, Ajivaks, Sramans, Buddhist monks and Jain ascetics. This work is a clear proof of the assimilative and tolerant nature of Indian thought. Today when we are deeply bogged into communal seperatism and strife this great work could be an enlightening guide. I hope that widespread propagation of this work would release us from the communal blindness.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
At the outset, I am grateful to Shri D. R. Mehta, secretary of Prakrit Bharati Academy, and M. Vinay Sagar whose persistant persuation made this detailed preface a work of research. Although a lot more serious contemplation is still needed, I hope the young scholars would

Page #92

Rishibhashit: A Study
83
fulfil this need. The publication of this book was delayed because of me. For which I apologise before the publishers as well as the readers.
I also express my gratitude towards Prof. Schubring and other scholars who have done explorative analysis and contemplation of this important work and whose writings have helped my working. Similarly, I am grateful to the authors of Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, Vedic Kosh, Mahabharat Namanukramika and others which provided easy references to me. In the end I express my gratitude toward Prof. Madhu Sudan Dhaki and my research assistants and associates Dr. Arun Pratap Singh, Dr. Shiv Parasad Singh, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh and others who have helped me complete this preface.
Sagarmal Jain Professor and Head, Philosophy Depit. M. L. B. Arts and Commerce College,
Gwalior.
Translated into English by Surendra Bothara,
Jaipur.

Page #93

APPENDIX
Foot Notes : 1. (अ) से कि कालियं ? कालियं अणेगविहं पण्णत्त ।
तं जहा उत्तरज्झयणाइं 1, दसानो 2, कप्पो 3, ववहारो 4, निसीहं 5, महानिसीहं 6, इसिभासियाई 7, जंबुद्दीवपण्णत्ती 8, दीवसागरपण्णत्ती । -नन्दिसूत्र ८४ ।
--(महावीर विद्यालय, बम्बई 1968) (ब) नमो तेसिं खमासमणाणं जेहिं इमं वाइअं अंगबाहिरं कालिग्रं भगवंतं ।
तं जहा1. उत्तरज्झयणाई, 2. दसायो, 3. कप्पो, 4. ववहारो, 5. इसिभासिग्राइं, 6. निसीहं 7. महानिसीहं........ । (ज्ञातव्य है कि पक्खियसुत्त में अंग-बाह्य ग्रन्थों की सूची में 28 उत्कालिक और 36 कालिक कुल 64 ग्रन्थों के नाम हैं । इनमें 6 आवश्यक और 12 अंग मिलाने से कुल ८२ की संख्या होती है, लगभग यही सूची विधिमार्गप्रपा में भी उपलब्ध होती है।)
-पक्खियसुत्त (पृ० 79)
(देवचन्द लालभाई पुस्तकोद्धार फण्ड सीरिज क्रमांक ६६) 2. अंगबाह्यमनेकविधम् । तद्यथा-सामायिकं, चतुर्विंशति स्तवः, वन्दनं, प्रतिक्रमणं, काय
व्युत्सर्गः, प्रत्याख्यानं, दशवैकालिकं, उत्तराध्यायाः, दशाः, कल्पव्यवहारौ, निशीथं, ऋषिभाषितानीत्येवमादि ।
-तत्त्वार्थाधिगमसूत्रम् (स्वोपज्ञभाष्य) 1/20
(देवचन्द लालभाई पुस्तकोद्धार फण्ड, क्रम संख्या 56) 3. तथा ऋषिभाषितानि उत्तराध्ययनादीनि... ।
-आवश्यक नियुक्तिः, हारिभद्रीयवृत्ति पृ० 206 4. ऋषिभाषितानां च देवेन्द्रस्तवादीनां नियुक्तिं ....... ।
-आवश्यक नियुक्ति, हारिभद्रीय वृत्ति पृ० 41 इसिभासियाइं पणयालीसं अज्झयणाई कालियाई, तेसु दिण 45 निविएहि अणागाढजोगो । अण्णे भणंति उत्तरज्झयणेसु चेव एयाइं अंतब्भवंति ।
विधिमार्गप्रपा पृ० 58 देविदत्थयमाई पइण्णगा होंति इगिगनिविएण । इसिभासिय अज्झयणा आयंबिलकालतिगसज्झा ।। 61 ।। केसि चि मए अंतब्भवंति एयाइं उत्तरज्झयणे । पणयालीस दिणेहि केसि वि जोगो अणागाढो ।। 62 ॥ विधिमार्गप्रपा पृ० 62

Page #94

Rishibhashit : A Study
(ज्ञातव्य है कि प्रकीर्णकों की संख्या के सम्बन्ध में विधिमार्गप्रपा में भी मतैक्य नहीं है । 'सज्झायपट्ठवण विही' पृ० 54 पर 11 अंग, 12 उपांग, 6 छेद, 4 मूल एवं 2 चूलिका सूत्र के घटाने पर लगभग 21 प्रकीर्णकों के नाम मिलते हैं। जबकि पृ० 57-58 पर
ऋषिभाषित सहित 15 प्रकीर्णकों का उल्लेख है।) 6. (अ) कालियसुयं च इसिभासियाई तइयो य सूरपण्णत्ती।
सव्वो य दिट्टिवायो चउत्थो होई अणुनोगो ॥ 124 ॥ (मू० भा०) तथा ऋषिभाषितानि उत्तराध्ययनादीनि 'तृतीयश्च' कालानुयोगः,
-आवश्यक हारिभद्रीय वृत्ति : पृ० 206 (ब) आवस्सगस्स दसकालिअस्स तह उत्तरज्झमायारे ।
सूयगडे निज्जुत्ति वुच्छामि तहा दसाणं च ॥ कप्पस्स य निज्जुत्ति ववहारस्सेव परमणिउणस्म । सूरिअपण्णत्तीए वुच्छं इसिभासियाणं च ॥
-अावश्यकनियुक्ति 84-85 7. पहावागरणदसाणं दस अज्झयणा पन्नता, तंजहा-उवमा, संखा, इसिभासियाई, आय
रियभासिताई, महावीरभासिताई, खोमपसिणाई, कोमलपसिणाई अदागपसिणाइं, अंगुट्ठपसिणाई, बाहुपसिणाई।
-ठाणंगसुत्ते, दसमं अज्झयणं दसट्ठाणं
(महावीर जैन विद्यालय संस्करण पृ० 311) 8. चोतालीसं अज्झयणा इसिभासिया दियलोगचुताभासिया पण्णत्ता ।
-समवायंगसुत्त-44 प्राहंसु महापुरिसा पुव्विं तत्ततवोधणा । उदएण सिद्धिमावन्ना तत्थ मंदो विसीयति ।। 1 ।। प्रभुंजिया नमी विदेही, रामपुत्ते य भुंजिया। बाहुए उदगं भोच्चा तहा नारायणे रिसी ॥ 2 ॥
आसिते दविले चेव दीवायण महारिसी । पारासरे दगं भोच्चा बीयाणि हरियाणि य ।। 3 ।। एते पुव्वं महापुरिसा आहिता इह सम्मता। . भोच्चा बीमोदगं सिद्धा इति मेयमणुस्सुअं ।। 4 ।।
-सूत्रकृतांग 1/3/4/1-4 10. Sutrakritang-2/6/1-3,7,9. 11. Bhagwati, shatak-15 12. Upasakdashang chapter 6 and 7 13. (a) Suttanipat-32 Sabhiya-sutta
(b) Deeghnikaya, Samanjafal-sutta

Page #95

86
Rishibhashit : A Study
14. ये ते समणब्राह्मणा संगिनो गणिनो गणाचरिया आता यसस्सिनो तित्थकरा साधु सम्मता
बहुजनस्स, सेप्यथीदं-पूरणो कस्सपो, मक्खलि गोसालो, अजितो केसकम्बली, पकुधो कच्चायनो, संजयो बेलट्ठिपुत्ता, निग्गण्ठो नातपुत्तो ।
-सुत्तनिपात, 32-सभियसत्त 15. (अ) पालिसाहित्य का इतिहास (भरतसिंह उपाध्याय) पृ० 102-104 (ब) It is............the oldest of the poetic books of the Buddhist Scriptures.
-The Suttanipata (sister Vayira) Introduction for P. 2 16. उभो नारद पबता ।
-सुत्तनिपात 32, सभियसुत्त 34, 17. असितो इसि अद्दस दिवाविहारे ।
-सुत्तनिपात 37, नालक सुत्त 1 18. जिण्णेऽहमस्मि अबलो वीतवण्णे (इच्चायस्मा पिगियो) ।।
-सुत्तनिपात 71 पिंगियमाणवपुच्छा 19. Suttanipat-32, Sabhiya-Sutta
Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. Ther Gatha 36; Dictionaary of Pali Proper Names. 23. (अ) 'पाता छेत्तं, तवो बीयं, संजमो जुअणंगलं ।
झाणं फालो निसित्तो य, संवरो य बीयं दढं ॥ 8 ॥ अकूडत्तं च कुडेसु, विणए णियमणे ठिते । तितिक्खा य हलीसा तु, दया गुत्ती य पग्गहा ।। 9 ।। सम्मत्तं गोत्थणवो, समिती उ समिला तहा। धितिजोत्तसुसंबद्धा सव्वण्णुवयणे रया ॥ 10 ।। पंचेव इंदियाणि तु खन्ता दन्ता य णिज्जिता । माहणेसु तु ते गोणा गंभीर कसते किसिं ।। 11 ।। तवो बीयं अवंझ से, अहिंसा णिहणं परं । ववसातो घणं तस्स, जुत्ता गोणा य संगहो ।। 12 ।। धिती खलं वसुयिक, सद्धा मेढी य णिच्चला । भावणा उ वती तस्स, इरिया दारं सुसंवुडं ।। 13 ।। कसाया मलणं तस्स, कित्तिवातो व तक्खमा । णिज्जरा तु लवामीसा इति दुक्खाण णिक्खति ।। 14 ।। एतं किसिं कसित्ताणं सव्वसत्तदयावहं । माणे खत्तिए वेस्से मुद्दे वापि विमुज्झती ।। 15 ।।
-इसिभासियाई 26/8-15

Page #96

Rishibhashit: A Study
81
(ब) कतो छत्तं, कतो बीयं, कतो ते जुगणंगले ?
गोणा वि ते ण पस्सामि, अज्जो, का णाम ते किसी ? ॥ 1 ।। आता छेत्तं, तवो बीयं, संजमो जुगणंगलं । अहिंसा समिती जोज्जा, एसा धम्मन्तरा किसी ।। 2 ।। एसा किसी सोभतरा अलुद्धस्स वियाहिता । एसा बहुसई होई परलोकसुहावहा ॥ 3 ॥ एयं किसि कसित्ताणं सव्वसत्तदयावहं । माहणे खत्तिए वेस्से मुद्दे वावि य सिज्झती ॥ 4 ॥
-इसिभासियाइं 32/1-4 24. सद्धा बीजं तपो वुट्ठि पञ्चा मे युगनंगलं ।।
हिरि ईसा मनो योत्तं सति मे फालपाचनं ।। 2 ।। कायगुत्तो वचोगुत्तो आहारे उदरे यतो । सच्चं करोमि निदानं सोरच्चं मेपमाचनं ।। 3 ।। रिरियं मे धुरघोरम्हं योगक्खेमाधिवाहनं । गच्छति अनिवत्तन्तं यत्थ गन्त्वा न सोचति ।। 4 ।। एवमेसा कसी कट्ठा सा होति अमतप्फला । एतं कसिं कसित्वान सव्वदुक्खा पमुच्चतीति ।। 5 ।।
-सुत्तनिपात, 4-कसिभारद्वाजसुत्त 25. अहं च भोयरायस्स तं च सि अन्धगवण्हिणो। __ मा कुले गन्धणा होमो संजमं निहुप्रो चर ।।
-उत्तराध्ययन 22/44 26. पक्खंदे जलियं जोइं, धूमकेउं दुरासयं । नेच्छंति वंतयं भोत्तुं, कुले जाया अगंधणे ।।
-दसवैकालिक 2/6 27. अगन्धणे कुले जातो जधा णागो महाविसो। मुंचित्ता सविसं भूतो पियन्तो जाती लाघवं ।।
-इसिभासियाइं 45/20 29. See-Introduction of Isibhasiyaim by Walther Schubring, Ahmeda
bad---1974. 30. Bhagwati, shatak-15. 31. Upasakdashang, chapter-3 and 7. 32. Jnatadharma Katha, Dropadi chapter. 33. पत्तेयबुद्धमिसिणो बीसं तित्थे अरिट्ठणेमिस्स । पासस्स य पण्ण दस वीरस्स विलीणमोहस्स ।।
----इसिभासियाइं, पृ० 205

Page #97

88
Rishibhashit : A Study
40.
34. नारयरिसिपामुक्खे, वीसं सिरिनेमिनाहतित्थम्मि ।
पन्नरस पासतित्थे, दस सिरिवीरस्स तित्थम्मि ।। 44 ॥ पत्तेयबुद्धसाहू, नमिमो जे भासिउं सिवं पत्ता। पणयालीसं इसिभासियाइं अज्झयणपवराई ।। 45 ॥
-ऋषिमण्डल प्रकरणम् 'आत्मवल्लभ ग्रन्थमाला ग्रन्थांक
31, बालापुर, गाथा 44, 45 35. पण्हावागरणदसासु णं ससमय-पर-समय पण्णवय पत्तेयबुद्ध-विविहत्थभासाभासियाणं
-समवायांग सूत्र 546 36. Bhagwati. 37. Brihadaranyak Upanishad, Chapter, 2 Brahman-4.
Rishimandal-43. 39. Introduction page 3-7. ISIBHASIYAIM. L. D. Institute of Indology
Ahmedabad-9, 1974.
Rishibhashit chapter-1 41. Samvayang Sutra, Prakeernasamvaya 252/3, Jain Vishwa Bharti
(Ladnu). 42. Jnatadharma Katha, chapter 16/139-142. 43. Aupapatik Sutra-38. 44. Rishimandal Vritti, First Part, verse.-35 45. Avashyak-churni, Part-2, Page 194 (Rishibhdev Keshrimal, Ratlam,
1928). 46. Buddhavansha, Attha Katha 10/9. 47. Thergatha Atthakatha, Part-1, Page-268. 48. Ibid, Page 269. 49. Jatak Katha, Third part (Sarvajatak group), page-306. 50. Ibid-Part four, page 567. 51. Ibid-Part five, page-476. 52. Rigved. 53. Atharvaved. 54. Samved. 55. Chhandogyopanishad-7/1/1. 56. Naradparivrajakopanished, 2,6,14,33,37. 57. Naradopanishad-9. 58. Devarshi Naradastatha-Gita 10/13, 10/26.

Page #98

Rishibhashit: A Study
៖
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
Shantiparva-275/3 (Gita press).
Bhagwat 1/3/8, 1/5/38,39.
Isibhasiyaim, chapter-2,
Thergatha Attha Katha, Part-1 Page 206, 348.
Isibhasiyaim, Ahmedabad, 1974.)
64. Rishibhashit, chapter-3.
65.
Sutrakritang-1/1/3/4-3,
66. भविद्मव्वं खलु भो सव्व कामविरएण एश्रमज्झयणं । भासित्तु देवला - रायरिसी सिवयं पत्तो ॥
Introduction-page-4 (L. D. Institute of Indology,
67.
Majjhimnikaya Part-2, Page-154 (Pali Text Society).
68.
Indriyajatak, Page 463.
69. Aadiparva 1/107, 53/8 (Gita Press)
70. Sabhaparva 53/10, 78/15 (Gita Press).
71. Shalyaparva 50 (Gita Press)
72. Shantiparva 229/5, 275/4-39 (Gita Press).
73.
Anushasanparva 18/17-18 (Gita Press).
74.
Gita (Gorkhpur edition) 10/13.
75.
Mathar vritti-71. See Sankhya darshan Aur Vijnan Bhikshu by Dr. Urmila Chaturvedi, Page-25.
76.
Avashyak Niryukti, Verse 1288 (Vijayadan Suri Jain Series, Surat). 77. Avashyak Bhashya, Page 782 (Vijayadan Suri Jain Series, Surat).
78.
79.
Avashyak-churni, Part 2, Page 79 and 193.
Rishimandal, Verse 123. See Vritti page 190. (Jain Vidyashala, Dosivada pole, Ahmedabad, 192 ).
Majjhiya Nikaya, Part 2, Page 169,200 (Pali Text Society)
80.
81. Suttanipat, First part, 196 (P.T.S).
82. Thergatha Atthakatha, Part-1, Page 503 (P.T.S.).
83.
Rigved, 1/45/3, 2/139, 3/11/7.
84.
Chhandogyopanishad, 1/2/10.
85.
86.
87.
88.
1936).
89

ऋषिमण्डल गाथा 124
Aadiparva 122/51.
Rishibhashit, chapter-5
Avashyak Niryukti, Page 398 (Agamodaya Samiti, Bombay, 1916-17). Visheshvashyak Bhashya Page 787 (Rishabhdev Kesharimal, Ratlam.

Page #99

Rishibhashit : A Study
91.
89. Avashyak Churni, Part-1, Page 529–30 (Rishabhadev Kesharimal.
Ratlam, 1936). 90. Acharanga, Sheelank Vritti, Page 154 (Agamodaya Samiti, Bombay
1916).
Thergatha Atthakatha, Part-2, Page 82. 92. Rishibhashit, chapter 6. 93. Aupapatik, Verse 38 (Agamodaya Samiti. Bombay, 1916). 94. Bhagwati Sutra, Verse 418 (Agam Sudhasindhu, 1977). 95. Avashyak Churni Part-1, Page 455-460. 96. Rishimandal Vritti 64. 97. gana wet aydafestg grey got 97747tfront afETIT.... 1 9199074 afor HIT 1, q. 460
पिउतावसउवगरणं पमज्जयंतस्स केवल नाणं ।
उप्पन्न जस्स कए वक्कलचीरिस्स तस्स नमो । 98. Thergatha Atthakatha, Part-1 P. 420 (P.T.S.). 99. Rishibhashit, chapter-7. 100. Visheshavashyak Bhashya. Verse-3169. 101. Avashyak-Churni Part-1, Page 583. 102. Aupapatik Vritti, Page-114. 103. Visheshanavati of Haribhadra, Verse 38,41-44. 104. Rishimandal, second part-Page-193. 105. Thergatha Atthakatha, Part-1, Page 100 (P.T.S.). 106. Apadan Attha Katha, Part-2, Page 456. 107. Rishibhashit, chapter-8. 108. Ibid chapter-9. 109. Sutrakritang 1/2/27. 110. Bhagwati Sutra 550. 111. Uttaradhyayan Churni, Page-168. 112. Antakritdasha, Sutra-12. 113. Anguttarnikaya, Part-1, Page-23 (P.T.S.). 114. Adi Parva 42/33. 115. Shatpath Brahman 7/5/1/5. 116. Taittiriya Brahman 2/18, 10/1,8 117. Rishibhashit chapter-10.

Page #100

Rishibhashit : A Study
118. Jnatadharma Katha 1/14. 119. Vipaksutra, Sutra 32. 120. Visheshavashyak Bhashya Verse-3332. 121. Sutrakritang-Churni, Page-28. 122. Sthanang Sutra 755. 123. Rishibhashit chapter-11. 124. Bhagwati Sutra 540. 125. Upasakdasha 6/20,21,23,28, 7/8,11, 42-45 (Ladnu). 126. Avashyak-Niryukti, Verse 474. 127. Visheshavashyak-Bhashya, Verse-1928. 128. Avashyak-Churni, Page-282. 129. Deeghnikaya Part-1, P. 53 (P.T.S.). 130. Thergatha-23. 131. Shantiparva-177. 132. Rishibhashit, Chapter-12 133. Shatpath Brahman 9/7, See Vedic Kosh (V.H.U. 1932) Page 428 134. Shankhayan Aranyak 13/1; See Vedic Kosh (V.H.U. 1932) Page 428. 135. Brihadarnyak Upanishad 2/4/1; 3/5/1; See Vedic Kosh (V.H.U. 1932)
Page-428. 136. Mahabharat Sabhaparva 4/12,33/35, Shantiparva 310-318. 137. एतं वै तमात्मानं विदित्वा ब्राह्मणः पुत्रैषणायाश्च वित्तषणायाश्च लौकषणायाश्य
व्युत्थायाथ भिक्षाचर्याचरन्ति या ह्य व पुत्रैषणा सा वित्तैषणा या वित्तैषणा सा लौकषणोभे ह्य ते एषणे एवं भवतः ।
-बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् 3/5/1 तुलनीयजाव ताव लोएसणा ताव ताव वित्तेसणा, ताव ताव वित्तेसणा ताव लोएसणा । से लोएसणं च वित्तेसणं परिन्नाए गोपहेण गच्छेजा णो महापहेण.... ।
-ऋषिभाषित 12 138. Mahabharat, Shantiparva, chapter 310-318, 139. Rishibhashit Chapter-13. 140. Samvayang 11/4. 141. Sthanang Sutra, 157, 236. 142. Avashyak-Niryukti, Verse 866,870,871. 143. Visheshavashyak-Bhashya, Verse, 3332,3338,3339.

Page #101

92
Rishibhashit : A Study
144. Sthanang, Sutra 157,236. 146. Sthanang-Abhayadeva commentary, Page 182,474. 147. Thergatha-84. 148. Suttanipata. Verse-814. 149. Rishibhashit, chapter-14. 150. Sutrakritang 1/3/4/2. 151. Sutrakritang-Churni, Page-121. 152. Sutrakritang Sheelank Commentary, P--15. 153. Pali Proper Names. Part-2, Page 281–83. 154. Vedic Kosh, Page-334. (K.H.V.V. 1933). 155. Mahabharat Ki Namanukramanika Page-216. 156. Rishibhashit, chapter-15. 157. Ibid-chapter-16. 158. Sthanang Sutra-755. 159. Vipaka Sutra 29. 160. Dhammapad Atthakatha, Part-1, Page-324 foot note. 161. Mahabharat. Dronparva, 144/7. 162. Brihadaranyakopanished-4/6/2. 163. Rishibhashit, chapter-17. 164. Jnatadharma-katha. Verse-117. 165. Dictionary of Pali Proper Names (Malal Shekhar) Part-2,
Page-882, 883. 166. Mahabharat, Streeparva, Chapter 2 to 7. 167. Rishibhashit, chapter-18. 168. Sthanang Sutra 643. 169. Samvayang Sutra-159. 170. Antakritdasha 8. 171. Bhishma Parva 27/36. 172. Shatpath Brahman 3,1,1,4. 173. Rishibhashit, Chapter 19. 174. Ibid Capter-20. 175. Sutrakritang-1/1/1/12. 176. Rajprashniya 167-180.
177. Deeghnikaya Part-2, Payasirajanna sutta (Pali Publication Board-1958)

Page #102

Rishibhashit: A Study
178. Samavayang, Samvaya-44.
179. Rishibhashit, Chapter-21.
180. Panchtantra Page-97-105 (Chokhamba Vidya Bhavan. Varanasi-1985). 181. Rishibhashit Chapter 22. 182. Uttaradhyayan 18/19,22. 183.
Brihadaranya kopanishad 4/1/5.
184. Mahabharat, Anushashanparva 4/1.
185. Rishibhashit Chpater 23.
186. Sutrakritang 1/3/4/2,3.
187. Sthanang 755.
188. Anuttaraupapatik 3/6.
189. सूत्रकृताङ्ग शीलाङ्क वृत्ति खण्ड 2. पृ. 73 ( म. जै. ज्ञानोदय सोसा. राजकोट ) ।
प्रभुंजिया नमी विदेही, रामगुत्ते य भुंजिश्रा । बाहुए उदगं भोच्चा, तहा नारायणे रिसी । असित्ते afad चेव दीवायण महारिसि । पारासरे दगं भोच्चा, बीयाणि हरियाणि य ।।
190. (a) Jatak Part-1, Page 66-81 (Edited by Fausball).
(b) For other references from Pali Tripitak see Dictionary of Pali Proper Names by J. P. Malal Shekhar, 1937, Vol-I, Page-382-83.
191. Rishibhashit, chapter-24.
192. Dictionary of Pali Proper Part Names II Page, 1323-1324, 193. Brihadarnyakopanishad 61/41/33.
194. Rishibhashit chapter 25.
195. Samvayang-159.
196. Bhagvati Sutra, 529-530.
197. Aupapatik Sutra 38-40.
198. Sthanang Sutra-692.
199. Deeghnikaya, Part 1, Page-87 (P.T.S.).
200. Etereya Brahman 8,21.
201. (a) Avashyak-churni, Part-1, Page 13.
(b) Prakrit Proper Name, VoI-I Page 56. 202. Rishibhashit, chapter-26.
203. Uttaradhyayan-Sutra, 25/19-29.
204. Dhammapada, Brahman Section, 405-410. 205, Suttanipat, Urag section, Kasibhardwaj Sutta. 206. (a) Jatak Vol-4, 375-90 (Ed. Fausball),
(b) Dictionary of Pali proper Name Vol. II. Page 599.
207. Uttaradhyayan Sutra, chapter-12.
208. Mahabharat, Udyog parva 129/19-21. 209, Rishibhashit, chapter-27.
93

Page #103

94
210. Avashyak-Churni Part-2, Page 199. 211. Nisheeth Bhashya, Verse-5890.
212. Brihadkalp-Bhashya, Verse-4066.
213. Avashyak Vritti of Haribhadra, Page-711-712.
214. Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, Vol. II Page-854.
215. Rishibhashit, chapter-28
216. Sutrakritang 2/6.
217. Sutrakritang Niryukti, Verse 187-200.
218. Sutrakritang Churni, Page 413-17.
219. (a) Avashyak Sutra P. 27.
(b) Prakrit Proper Names, VoI. I,Page, 44.
220. Rishibhashit, chapter-29.
221. Acharanga 2/176.
222. Sutrakritang 1/6 (Viratthui).
223. Bhagwati Sutra, Shatak 9215.
224. Kalpa Sutra 4-145.
225. Uttaradhyayan 32/21-100.
226. Dashvaikalik 1/1,
227. Deeghnikaya, Samanjafala Sutta and Majjhimnikaya, Upali Sutta. 228. Sutrakritang 1/6/28.
229. (a) Thergath Atthakatha, Part-1, Page-153.
(b) Dictionary of Pali Proper Names Vol. II, Page-820.
230. Rishibhashit, chapter 30.
231. (a) Bhagwati Sutra 128, 132.
(b) Visheshavashyak Bhashya, 2435
232. Mahabharat Namanukramanika, Page-303.
233. Rishibhashit, chapter-31.
234. (a) Ibid.
Rishibhashit: A Study
(b) Uttaradhyayan 23/12.
(c) Avashyak Niryukti-236.
(d) Sutrakritang 2/7/81.
235. Arhat Parshwa Aur Unki Parampara, Prof. Sagarmal Jain, Page-1-7. 236 Acharanga 2/15/25.
237. Sutrakritang 2/7/8.
238. Samvayang 8/89/4;16/4;23/3.
239. Bhagwati 1/9/423.
240. Aupapatik 2/5/95.
241. Rajprashniya 213 (Madhukar Muni).
242 Nirayavalika 3/1.
243. Kalpa Sutra, 149/159.
244, Avashyak-Churni, Part-1 Page 285-241, 248,

Page #104

Rishibhashit : A Study
95
245. Uttaradhyayan 23/12-13; Sutrakritang 2/7/38. 246. Bhagwati 1/9/432-433. 247. Arhat Parshwa Aur Unki Parampara, Page-36-38. 248. Rishibhashit, Chapter-31. 249. Ibid. 250. Ibid, chapter 32. 251. Ibid. 252. Fora details about Pingin Buddhist tradition see Dictionary of Pali
Proper Names, Vol. II. Page, 198-200. 253. Dalsukh Malvania Abhinandan Granth (Parshwanath Vidhyashram,
Varanasi). 254. (a) Suttanipat Atthakatha, Vol. 2, Page-603.
(6) Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, Vol. II, Page-199. 255. Mahabharat Namanukramanika, Page-197. 256. Rishibhashit, chapter-33. 257. Isibhasiyaim, Introduction, Page-4. 258. (a) Vedic Kosh, Page-56.
(b) Mahabharat Namanukramanika, Page 31 and 42. 259. Vedic Kosh, Page-23. 260. Ibid, Page-373. 261. Rishibhashit, chapter-33. 262. Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, Vol. I, Page 182-184. 263. Rishibhashit, chapter-34. 264. Vedic Kosh Page-56. 265. Ibid. 266. (a) Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, Vol. I, P. 383.
(6) Jatak-487. 267. Rishibhashit, chapter-35. 268. Sutra kritang 1/3/4/2. 269. Sutrakritang,Churni Page-120. 270. Rishibhashit, chapter-36. 271. Mahabharat Namanukramanika Page-175. 272. Mahabharat, Vanparva 72/339. 273. Mahabharat, Shantiparva 33--13-15. 274. Vedic Kosh, Page-244. 275. Rishibhashit. chapter-37. 276. Sutrakritang 1/1. 277. Isibhasiyaim (Schubring), Page-118. 278. Avashyak Churni, I, Paae-82. 279. Acharanga Commentary by Sheelanka, Page-135. 280. (a) Avashyak Churni, I, Page-316-320.
(b) Visheshavashyak Bhashya, Verse 1979,

Page #105

96
Rishibhashit : A Study
281, Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, II, Page 1108-1118. 282, Rishibhashit, chapter-39. 283. Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, II, Page-1000. 284. Rishibhashit, chapter-38. 285. Uttaradhyayan-18. 286. 777 AC a nfaa gashfa TETT HATI
-ऋषिभाषित ३९/५ 287. Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, II Page 998-1000. 288. FÈT T 9799+....
- fontfaa 39 289. Mahabharat Namanukramanika, Page 364–365. 290, Sutrakritang 1/3/4/3. 291. Samvayang Sutra, 159 (Prakeernaka Samvaya). 292. Aupapatik Sutra 38. 293. Antakritdasha, Section-2. 294. Dashvaikalik Churni Page-41. 295. Sutrakritang Churni Page-120. 296. Dictionary of Pali Proper Namas, I, Page 501-502. 297. Mahabharat Namanukramanika, Page 87-162. 298. Brihadaranyakopanishad 6/5/1. 299. Rishibhashit Chapter-40. 300. Avashyak Niryukti,847. 301. Visheshavashyak Bhashya, 3290. 302. Avashyak Churni I, Page 12,134,139 and 466. 303. Avashyak Haribhadriya Vritti, Page 347. 301. Acharanga Commentary by Sheelanka, Page-179. 305. Prakrit Proper Names, Vol. II, Page-864. 306. Ibid, Page 677-678. 307. Avashyak Churni, I, Page-519. 303. (a) Prakrit Proper Names, Vol. II, Page 65-7.
(b) Bhagwati Sutra, 417-418. 309. Mahabharat Namanukramanika, P.--291. 310. Rishibhashit, chapter-41. 311. Ibid, Chapter-42. 312. Ibid, Chapter-43. 313, Ibid, Chapter-45. 314. Ibid, Chapter 45/40; compare Uttaradhyayan 22:41. 315. Ibid, Chapter 45/22. 316. Ibid, Chapter 45/50.

Page #106
212. BUNDEN FOR THE ENDLES , THE We