Book Title: Rushibhashit Sutra
Author(s): Vinaysagar, Sagarmal Jain, Kalanath Shastri, Dineshchandra Sharma
Publisher: Prakrit Bharti Academy
View full book text
________________
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 watero.
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 “lhasammata', from 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 Sutrakritang'o, Bhagvatill, and Upasakdashang12 and Buddhist works like Suttanipata, Deeghnikaya (Sammanjafalasutta)?3. 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
Rishibhashit : A Study
133
