Rishibhashit A Study

SR No.: 001742
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Prakrit Bharti Academy
Publication Year: 1988
Total Pages: 106
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Agam, Canon, & Literature
File Size: 7 MB

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,