Sutrakrutang Me Varnit Kuch Rushiyo Ki Pehchan - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Sutrakrutang me Varnit Kuch Rushiyo ki Pehchan" (Identification of Some Sages Mentioned in Sutrakrutanga), by Arun Pratap Sinh:

This article, "Identification of Some Sages Mentioned in Sutrakrutanga," by Dr. Arun Pratap Sinh, delves into the historical and philosophical significance of several sages mentioned in the Sutrakrutanga, the second canonical text of Jainism. The author argues that the Sutrakrutanga, particularly its first section, is as ancient as the Acharyanga Sutra and Rishibhasita. The primary purpose of the Sutrakrutanga, as highlighted by the author, is to refute non-Jain philosophical viewpoints and establish the supremacy of Jain philosophy. In this context, the text mentions several sages who, according to Jain monastic rules, would be considered to have transgressed by consuming water with living beings (sachitta jal) and green seeds. Despite these perceived transgressions, the Sutrakrutanga uses highly laudatory terms like "Mahapurusha" (great person), "Tapodhana" (possessor of austerities), "Maharishi" (great sage), and "Siddha" (accomplished) for them, indicating their immense popularity and reverence.

The central question explored is whether these sages are merely mythological figures or if their historicity can be established. Dr. Sinh asserts that a review of all Indian literature confirms their presence not only in Jain texts but also prominently in Vedic and Buddhist literature. This cross-traditional mention strengthens their claim to historicity.

The article then proceeds to analyze each sage mentioned in the Sutrakrutanga, comparing their portrayal across Jain, Buddhist, and Vedic traditions:

Nami Videhi: Mentioned in Jain, Vedic, and Buddhist texts, Nami is consistently referred to as Videha, Maithila, and Rajarshi (royal sage). In Buddhist Jataka tales and the Jain text Uttaradhyayana, he is depicted as a Pratyeka Buddha. His renunciation of his kingdom and family is a recurring theme. Nami is characterized as one who controlled anger, pride, deceit, and greed, emphasizing internal warfare and the conquest of senses and passions for true happiness. The Mahabharata also refers to him as "Nimi," the ruler of Videha, and as one who never consumed meat.
Ramputta: Some manuscripts refer to him as Ramgupta. While there is a historical figure of this name (son of Samudragupta), Dr. Sinh argues this identification is incorrect. The Sutrakrutanga's Ramputta is identified as an Arhat sage. Both Jain and Buddhist sources provide extensive information about him. Rishibhasita has a dedicated chapter on Ramputta, portraying him as a great thinker of his time. He is also mentioned in Sthananga and Anuttaraupapātik. The author posits that a lost section of Antakṛddaśā might have contained his life and teachings. Crucially, Ramputta is presented in Jain and Buddhist texts as a historical sage contemporary to Mahavir and Buddha, renowned for his distinct meditation techniques. Gautama Buddha himself was a disciple of Ramputta, learning meditation from him. Unfortunately, no mention of Ramputta has been found in Vedic literature so far.
Bahuka: Mentioned as an Arhat sage in Sutrakrutanga, Bahuka also appears in Jain, Buddhist, and Vedic traditions. Rishibhasita compiles his teachings, emphasizing the renunciation of desire (trishna) and the material world for liberation. He advocates for performing actions without attachment. The Buddhist tradition mentions Bahiy Daruchiriya, an Arhat who achieved instant realization of truth and was a disciple of Buddha. Vedic literature mentions a sage named Bahuvakta, to whom some Rigvedic mantras are attributed. However, the author notes the lack of similar information for Bahuka in Vedic texts, except for a warrior named Bahuka and the king Nala also being called Bahuka in the Mahabharata, neither of whom can be equated with the sage. The author suggests that Bahuka from Sutrakrutanga and Rishibhasita is likely Bahiy Daruchiriya of Buddhism, given the alignment of his teachings with Buddhist principles of overcoming desire.
Narayan: Mentioned as an Arhat sage in Sutrakrutanga and highly respected in Rishibhasita, Narayan's teachings focus on the eradication of anger, highlighting its destructive nature compared to physical fire. While Vedic literature refers to Narayan as a deity and mentions a Narayan sage who performed austerities in Badrikashrama, the author found no mention of Narayan in Buddhist literature. Narayan is presented as a representative of the Vedic tradition, known for his austerities.
Asita Devala: A renowned sage of his time, Asita Devala is extensively mentioned in Jain, Buddhist, and Vedic traditions. Sutrakrutanga lists him among those who attained spiritual accomplishment. Rishibhasita also honors him as an Arhat. His teachings emphasize the renunciation of all desires, attachments, and passions, particularly the conquest of anger and desire. Similar to Narayan, he teaches that while ordinary fire can be extinguished, the fire of attachment is extremely difficult to control. Buddhist texts like Majjhima Nikaya and Indriya Jataka mention him, with his teachings often focusing on overcoming the false pride of Brahmins and emphasizing that one's superiority comes from actions, not birth. Vedic literature portrays him as a great ascetic, engaging in philosophical discussions with learned sages like Jaigishavya and often appearing alongside Narada. He is described as a householder who practiced austerities and possessed equanimity, controlling his senses and being free from anger and pride. The author concludes that Asita Devala was a devout sage likely connected to the Vedic tradition, as indicated by his portrayal in Sutrakrutanga as a householder who attained liberation while consuming water with life. His teachings on equanimity and his association with Narada are consistent across traditions, bolstering his historical presence.
Dvaipayana: Mentioned in Jain texts like Samavāyānga, Aupapātik, and Antakṛddaśā, Dvaipayana is listed among future Tirthankaras, the founder of the Parivrajaka tradition, and the destroyer of Dwarka city. Rishibhasita presents his teachings on the cessation of desire, stating that desire is the root cause of suffering, rebirth, and all evils. Vedic tradition also highly regards Dvaipayana, identifying him as the son of Maharishi Parashara and Satyavati, and the composer of the Mahabharata (hence also known as Vyasa). His teachings on Moksha Dharma and overcoming desire, greed, fear, and sleep are extensive. Buddhist literature mentions a similar figure in the Kanha Deepayana Jataka, though the narrative differs. However, another Jataka mentions the destruction of Dwarka city and the Yadava dynasty by Rishi Dvaipayana, a story that also appears in the Mausala Parva of the Mahabharata. This shared narrative across Jain, Buddhist, and Vedic traditions confirms Dvaipayana's involvement in this event.
Parashara: Mentioned in Sutrakrutanga as a sage distinct from the Jain tradition, Parashara is not cited in other Jain texts. Buddhist literature refers to him as a Vedic sage who preached the control of senses, as detailed in the Indriya Bhavana Sutta. They also mention a scholar Brahmin named Parashariya, who was well-versed in the Vedas and attained liberation in the Buddhist order. Vedic literature extensively describes Parashara as the father of Krishna Dvaipayana (Vyasa) and the author of significant teachings on sense control, forgiveness, patience, and contentment, all crucial for liberation. His advice on karma, emphasizing that one reaps the fruits of their own actions, is particularly noteworthy. Both Jain and Buddhist traditions connect Parashara to the Vedic lineage, and his teachings in Buddhist and Vedic texts show significant parallels, indicating his historical existence around the Mahabharata period.

In conclusion, Dr. Sinh reiterates that the sages mentioned in Sutrakrutanga were primarily from non-Jain traditions. Their teachings and ideas were so influential that the Sutrakrutanga author felt compelled to cite them, even while critically examining their practices. Despite occasional sectarian bias in Sutrakrutanga, the earlier text Rishibhasita reveres these sages highly without any hint of sectarianism. The presence of these sages in the ancient literatures of Jainism, Buddhism, and Vedic traditions strongly supports their historicity. While direct empirical proof like royal seals is absent, the consistent portrayal of their teachings and narratives across different traditions validates their existence. Their greatness and noble thoughts led to their acceptance in all three traditions. While their exact timelines are difficult to ascertain, it is certain that they lived before or during the time of Mahavir and Buddha.