Jain Bauddh Aur Aupnishaddik Rushiyo Ke Updesho Ka Prachintam Sankalan Rushibhashit

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text on "Rushibhashit":

Book Title: Rushibhashit: The Ancientest Compilation of Teachings of Jain, Buddhist, and Upanishadic Rishis Author: Sagarmal Jain Publisher: Z_Shwetambar_Sthanakvasi_Jain_Sabha_Hirak_Jayanti_Granth_012052.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/210821/1

This document is a scholarly exploration of Rushibhashit (Isibhasiai), an ancient Jain Agamic text, analyzing its place within Jain literature, its composition, dating, and philosophical content, with a particular focus on its inclusiveness of teachings from other traditions.

Key Points and Summary:

• Place within Jain Agam Literature: Rushibhashit is identified as one of the oldest texts in the Ardhamagadhi Jain Agam literature. While currently classified as a "Prakirnak" (miscellaneous) text, it was historically considered a significant work. Its mention in texts like Nandisutra and Sthanangas, and the reference to its 44 chapters in Samavayasutra, highlight its importance. While the Digambara tradition doesn't explicitly mention it, the Shvetambara tradition, which accepts 32 Agamas, also doesn't find it among their accepted canon. However, its mention in various commentaries and classifications indicates its past prominence.

• Composition and Dating:

  • Ancient Language and Style: The text is considered extremely ancient in terms of its language, meter, and subject matter. The author argues it is slightly later than the first Skandha of Acarangasutra but earlier than Sutrakrtangasutra, Uttaradhyayana, and Dasavaikalika.
  • Linguistic Evidence: The language is described as archaic Ardhamagadhi, with linguistic features like the prevalence of 't' sounds (e.g., "jaṇati," "parittaṁ," "gaćśati") suggesting it predates Uttaradhyayana where 't' tends to be dropped.
  • Chronological Framework: The author places its composition between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE, postulating that it was likely written before the Jain Sangha became fully organized and sectarian biases emerged.
  • Comparison with Other Traditions: Rushibhashit is considered older than the Pali Tripitaka, including the Sutta Nipata, due to its greater religious liberalism in presenting other Rishis. While Sutta Nipata criticizes or places other figures below Buddha, Rushibhashit respectfully mentions them as "Arhat Rishis."
  • Absence of Sectarian Bias: The text's lack of strong sectarian bias is seen as evidence of its early origin, preceding the development of communal animosity within the Jain tradition. It is seen as predating almost all Jain Agamas except the first Skandha of Acarangasutra.

• Separation from Prashnavyakaranadasha: The text was initially included as part of Prashnavyakaranadasha. The author suggests this separation was a deliberate act to accommodate the growing need to maintain the authority of the Jain Sangha by distancing itself from the teachings of other traditions' prominent figures (like Mankhaliputra Gosala, Narada, Yagyavalkya, Sariputra) when their direct acceptance as part of the Tirthankara's teachings became difficult. Despite this, Jain Acharyas are credited with preserving Rushibhashit as a Prakirnak text, attributing it to Pratyekbuddhas to maintain its authenticity.

• Why Rishis are Called Pratyekbuddhas: The text mentions various Rishis with titles like "Brahmin," "Parivrajaka," "Arhat Rishi," and "Buddha Arhat Rishi." While the Rushimandal and a concluding Sangrahani Gatha refer to them as Pratyekbuddhas, the author believes this designation was added later. The rationale behind this labeling, according to the author, was to grant validity to their teachings, which often came from non-Jain traditions, by considering them as independently enlightened beings outside the formal Jain lineage. Pratyekbuddhas are defined as those who attain enlightenment independently and practice in solitude without establishing a formal lineage or sangha.

• Rushibhashit and Jain Dharma Principles:

  • Integration of Jain Concepts: The text extensively incorporates Jain philosophical concepts, terminology, and practices, such as the five great vows (Panchamahavrata), four passions (Kashayas), karma bondage and liberation (Samsara and Nirjara), soul (Atma), liberation (Moksha), the concept of the six types of food intake, meditation, restraint, and the eightfold karma.
  • Source of Jain Philosophy: The author considers the possibility that many concepts currently seen as exclusively Jain might have originated in other traditions (like the Parshva tradition) and were adopted into Jainism.
  • Authenticity of Teachings: While acknowledging that Jain Acharyas compiled the text and might have influenced its presentation, the author argues that the core teachings of the Rishis are presented authentically. The text reflects the original spiritual and ethical ideas of these Rishis, even if the underlying philosophy is not always explicitly detailed.

• Authenticity of the Rishis' Teachings:

  • Cross-referencing: The teachings of many Rishis mentioned in Rushibhashit can be found in other traditions like the Upanishads (Yagyavalkya), Buddhist Tripitaka (Vajjiiputra, Mahakashyapa, Sariputra), and Hindu traditions like the Mahabharata (Narada, Asitadevala, etc.).
  • Mankhaliputra Gosala: The teachings of Mankhaliputra Gosala are presented authentically in Rushibhashit, reflecting his core spiritual message of observing the world's unfolding events with detachment, even though later traditions interpreted his philosophy as fatalistic.
  • Mahakashyapa and Sariputra: The chapters on Mahakashyapa and Sariputra accurately reflect fundamental Buddhist principles like the suffering of the world, karma as the root of suffering, the cyclical nature of existence (Pratītyasamutpāda), and the concept of "santānavāda" (continuous flow of consciousness).
  • Yagyavalkya: The teachings of Yagyavalkya on renouncing worldly desires (lokaiṣaṇā and vittaiṣaṇā) are also accurately represented.
  • Charvaka Philosophy: The chapter on Utkal authentically presents materialistic or Charvaka philosophy.
  • Vardhamana (Mahavira): The teachings attributed to Vardhamana accurately mirror aspects found in Acarangasutra and Uttaradhyayana.

• Historicity of the Rishis: Most Rishis mentioned in Rushibhashit are not strictly from the Jain tradition. Names like Narada, Asitadevala, Yagyavalkya, etc., are well-known Vedic figures. Buddhist figures like Mahakashyapa and Sariputra are also prominent. Mankhaliputra, Rambputra, Ambad, and Sanjaya are associated with independent Shramana traditions. While figures like Soma, Yama, Varuna, and Vaisravana might be considered mythical, even they are presented as exponents of teachings, with Yama appearing as a spiritual guide. The author concludes that most Rishis are real historical or pre-historic individuals, not merely fictional characters.

• Conclusion: Rushibhashit is considered an invaluable treasure not only for Jainism but for the entire Indian tradition, reflecting a profound religious liberalism. Historically, it is significant for providing information about known and some unknown Rishis and their teachings. The preservation of this text by Jain Acharyas is seen as a significant service to Indian history and Sanskrit literature, serving as irrefutable proof of the historical existence of many Indian Rishis from the 10th century BCE to the 6th century BCE. The text demonstrates the intellectual richness and tolerance of ancient Indian consciousness.