Rushibhashit Sutra

Author(s): Vinaysagar, Sagarmal Jain, Kalanath Shastri, Dineshchandra Sharma
Publisher: Prakrit Bharti Academy

Page 147

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 Rishis of the period between 10th and 5th century B.C.
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.
146 इसिभासियाई सुत्ताई