Acharang Ke Pratham Shrutskandha Me Swikrut Kuch Patho Ki Samiksha - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Acharang Ke Pratham Shrutskandha me Swikrut Kuch Patho ki Samiksha" by K.R. Chandra:

This article by K.R. Chandra is a critical review of selected readings in the first Shrutskandha (section) of the Acharanga Sutra, specifically focusing on the edition compiled by Pt. Jambuvijayji.

The author begins by stating that the first Shrutskandha of the Acharanga Sutra is widely acknowledged as the most ancient text in Prakrit literature. While not everyone may agree that its language is the original utterance of Lord Mahavir, it is generally accepted that its language bears a strong resemblance to his original teachings. Therefore, this text should ideally present the oldest form of the Prakrit language.

However, Chandra points out that in many places within the current editions, the antiquity of the language appears to be lost. The reason for this is attributed to the continuous changes in the Prakrit language over time, which influenced the text's preachers, scholars, commentators, and scribes. These influences led to alterations in the original language, replacing ancient forms with more recent ones. To make the text more accessible, obsolete linguistic forms were periodically removed and replaced with current ones. The variations found in different manuscript copies serve as evidence of this shift between antiquity and modernity.

Despite these changes, the author believes that those who study the development of Prakrit linguistically and scientifically can still distinguish between ancient and modern forms. Inscriptions from various centuries serve as irrefutable proof of the language's form at those times. Generally, the development of Prakrit is understood through sound changes: first, the simplification of conjunct consonants; then, the change of intervocalic voiceless consonants to voiced and voiced to voiceless; and finally, the elision of intervocalic consonants. Changes also occurred in case endings and suffixes, which are well-known to any student of Prakrit's historical development.

The review of Pt. Jambuvijayji's edition is undertaken with this linguistic development in mind. The author's conclusion is that there is still a need for a new edition of the Acharanga Sutra that can incorporate numerous textual emendations based on available manuscripts, thereby preserving the language's antiquity.

The article then proceeds to analyze specific instances in Pt. Jambuvijayji's edition:

Analysis of Pt. Jambuvijayji's Accepted Readings:

The author categorizes the issues with the accepted readings into several points:

Acceptance of Ancient Forms (even if not in the oldest manuscript):
- Examples like avijāṇae (instead of aviyāṇae), paripandaṇ (instead of pariyandaṇ), guṇāsaate (instead of guṇāyāe), paḍisaṁvedayati (instead of paḍisaṁvedeti or paḍisaṁveai), paveditaṁ (instead of pavetiyaṁ), adhesaito (instead of adhesaito), khettaṇṇe (instead of khetaṇe, kheaṇṇe, keyaṇṇe), picchāe (instead of piṁchāe), and pucchāe (instead of puṁchāe) are cited.
Acceptance of Ancient Forms from a Single Later Manuscript:
- The example of apariṇivvāṇaṁ (instead of apariṇevvāṇaṁ) is given, noting that this reading is found only in the La. manuscript, which is described as later.
Acceptance of Later Forms:
- a) While Ancient Forms are Available:
  - The author notes that the reading kappai ṇe kappai is found in a palm-leaf manuscript and later paper manuscripts.
  - However, the reading kappati ṇe kappai, which is found in older manuscripts and the Chūrṇi (commentary), has been omitted.
  - Similarly, sahassamuiyāe is accepted, while the Chūrṇi's reading sahassamuṭiyāe and the Saṁ. Śāṁ. edition's reading sahassamuḍiyāe are ignored.
- b) Even when the Chūrṇi and later paper manuscripts have the ancient form:
  - The reading manda aviyāṇao (found in Hē. 1, 2, 3 and the Chūrṇi) is accepted.
  - However, the author argues that mandaṁsāvijāṇato, found in older manuscripts like Śāṁ., Khē., Khaṁ., and Jain, should be preferred. Chandra suggests that if this form is available, there's no reason not to adopt mandaṁsā vijāṇato. He also notes that the Shroeding (Schubring) edition accepts mandaṁsā aviyāṇao from both the Chūrṇi and an older manuscript.
Acceptance of Later Forms (even from the Chūrṇi and later paper manuscripts):
- The author points out that when intervocalic original consonants are elided in the Chūrṇi, the elided form is accepted.
  - Example: uvavāie (Chūrṇi: uvavāvie) and sahassamuīyāe (Chūrṇi: sahassāmuttiyāe).

The author concludes this section by stating that there seems to be no consistent rule followed regarding the adoption of ancient forms, or forms found in the Chūrṇi and older manuscripts, or the ancient forms within the Chūrṇi. Later forms from later manuscripts have also been adopted. Chandra questions why, if an ancient form is available in any manuscript, it shouldn't be adopted, considering Lord Mahavir's era and the contemporary form of Prakrit. He dismisses the possibility that later manuscripts deliberately adopted ancient forms, as this would likely have been done more consistently. He also notes that sometimes both ancient and modern forms appear together in older manuscripts.

Comparison with Schubring's Edition:

Before further reviewing Pt. Jambuvijayji's edition, Chandra finds it useful to review some readings accepted by Schubring:

Ancient forms accepted, even if found in later manuscripts: Accepted: nivvāṇaṁ, pariyāveṇa. Rejected: ( vvāṇaṁ ), ( pariyāveṇaṁ ).
Ancient forms rejected, even if found in later manuscripts: Rejected: ( paḍisaṁvedayai ), ( samuṭṭhāya ), ( khettaṇṇe ). Accepted: paḍiveei, samuṭṭhāya, kheyaṇṇe. The author highlights that Pt. Jambuvijayji accepted paḍisaṁvedayati and khettaṇṇe, implying that the Saṁdī. manuscript's acceptance of samuṭṭhāya makes it acceptable to him (Jambuvijayji).
Ancient forms rejected, even if found in an older manuscript: Rejected: ( jīvā aṇēge ). Accepted: jīvā aṇēgā. This is used to demonstrate that ancient forms can also be found in later manuscripts.
Ancient forms in later manuscripts and Chūrṇi ignored: Rejected: ( akhettaṇṇe ). Accepted: akheyaṇṇe.
Later forms accepted despite ancient forms in older manuscripts and Chūrṇi: Accepted: ghāmīṇe, samaṇujānamīṇe. Rejected: ( ghāyamāṇa ), ( samaṇujānamāṇa ).
Chūrṇi and older manuscript readings omitted: Rejected: ( assāyaṁ ). Accepted: asāyaṁ.
Chūrṇi and later manuscript readings omitted: Rejected: ( aviyāṇa ), ( piñchāe ). Accepted: avijāṇae, picchāe.
Ancient forms found only in the Chūrṇi omitted: Rejected: ( akaraṇīyaṁ ), ( āṇitīyaṁ ), ( sotapaṇṇāṇēhi ). Accepted: akaraṇijjṁ, āṇicciyaṁ, sotapaṇṇāṇēhi. Rejected: ( parihāyamāṇahi ). Accepted: parihāyamāṇēhiṁ.
Incorrect forms found in Chūrṇi manuscripts: Examples include paccai (for pavaccai), maṁtā (for maṁtā), hisiśśu (for hisiṁsu).
Later forms found in Chūrṇi manuscripts: Examples include ārambhamīṇā (for ārambamāṇā), pariṇṇāye (for pariṇṇāya), avijāye (for avijāe), piñchāe (for picchāe), lōyaṁ (for lōgaṁ). This point underscores that the Chūrṇi does not always contain ancient and correct forms.
Ambiguity in manuscript dating: The author notes that the "ancient" or "modern" nature of a reading can depend on the available manuscripts and the editor's interpretation. For example, picchāe is considered an ancient reading by Pt. Jambuvijayji (from the oldest palm-leaf manuscript and Chūrṇi), while Schubring considers it a reading from a later manuscript and the Chūrṇi.
Variations in Chūrṇi manuscripts: Different manuscripts of the Chūrṇi have different readings, such as paṇṇāha (Schubring) and paṇṇāṇēhi (Jambuvijayji).
Discrepancies among editors: Different editors have accepted different readings. For instance, Schubring accepts vihittu and paḍisaṁverui, while Jambuvijayji accepts vijahittā and paḍisaṁvedayati. Schubring accepts samuṭṭhāya, kheṇe, aṇegā, āṇiccayaṁ, while Jambuvijayji accepts samuṭṭhāya, khettaṇṇe, aṇēge, āṇitīyaṁ.
Inconsistent application of sound change rules by the same editor: The author points out that an editor might accept ancient forms based on sound change rules in one instance and later forms in another.

Revisiting Pt. Jambuvijayji's Edition with Specific Critiques:

The article then delves into specific points of contention with Pt. Jambuvijayji's accepted readings:

Acceptance of Changed Forms when Original Intervocalic Consonants are Preserved:
- a) Acceptance of voiced consonants instead of original unvoiced consonants: Examples include egesiṁ (instead of ekesiṁ), lōgāvādi (instead of lōkāvādi, noting lōyāvādi in an older Śāṁ. manuscript), lōgaṁsi (instead of lōkaṁsi), lōgaṁ (instead of lōkaṁ), and ege (instead of eke).
  - The author argues that it's not always necessary to accept the voiced form over the unvoiced. Both the preserved unvoiced consonant, its voiced form, or elision (with a 'ya' glide) can be valid in the text. Examples of all three are provided.
- b) Rejection of original voiced consonants and acceptance of elision: Examples are āyāṇīyaṁ (instead of ātāṇīyaṁ) and pāyamāṇā (instead of pavatāṇā).
- c) Rejection of original unvoiced consonants but acceptance of elision: Examples are uvavāie (instead of uvavādiae) and sahassamuiyāe (instead of sahassamuḍiyāe). The author questions if the Shvetambara Ardh-Magadhi should be considered later than the Digambara scriptures, which use Shauraseni and have 't' changing to 'd', with elision happening much later.
- d) Acceptance of elision instead of original consonants: Examples are savvāō disāō savvāō aṇudisāō (instead of savvātō vā disātō savvāt aṇudisaṁtō), aviyāṇao (instead of avijāṇato), kappaia ṇe kappa pātuṁ (instead of kappati ṇe kappai ṇe pātuṁ), sahassaguīyāe (instead of sahassagutiyāe), and ahaṁ (instead of adhaṁ).
Acceptance of Later Forms Instead of Ancient Forms (Word Level):
- a) The "t" Shruti Issue: The author clarifies that the change of intervocalic 't' and 'th' to 'd' and 'gh' respectively is a characteristic of Shauraseni and Magadhi, considered older than the elision found in Maharashtri Prakrit. The change of 'd' to 't' in Paishachi Prakrit is also older than elision. The author defines "t" shruti as the instance where 't' appears instead of other intervocalic soft consonants, providing examples like dhammaṁtaṁ (for dharmakaṁ), upavāḍite (for upapāṭike), and bāhita (for bāhyaka). Forms like satā (for sadā) and pavatamaṇa (for pravadamāna) are not considered "t" shruti but rather a change of voiced to unvoiced consonants.
  - Chandra further points out that Pt. Jambuvijayji has omitted the forms tadhā and javā, which are found in palm-leaf manuscripts and the Chūrṇi in place of tathā and yathā, and rarely provides them as variants. This, according to the author, means ancient forms have been discarded in favor of later ones.
- b) Inconsistent acceptance of case endings: In verse 1, both ō and tō (fifth case singular) are accepted. In verse 2, the accepted reading disāto for disāto in puratthimāto disāto is not found in any palm-leaf manuscript. Similarly, the reading imāto disāto from the Jain paper manuscript is omitted instead of imāō disāō.
- c) Acceptance of later forms of case endings: aṭṭhimijāe (for aṭṭhimijjāe) is cited as an example. The author questions why mijjāe is rejected when picchāe and pucchaāe are accepted in the same verse (52) in place of piṁchāe and puṁchāe.
- d) Acceptance of later forms of word formations: paṇṇāṇēṇaṁ (for paṇṇāṇēṇa) and samuṭṭhāya (for samuṭṭhāya) are given as examples. The author notes that even the Saṁdī. manuscript, considered the purest, contains samuṭṭhāya.
- e) Acceptance of later forms of case endings (e.g., 'ya'): aṇupūrvīe (for aṇupūrvīyaṁ) is mentioned, with the observation that while Prakrit grammarians don't mention the 'ya' ending, it is found in ancient Prakrit literature and is prevalent in Pali.
Acceptance of Forms Due to Scribe Error:
- The author suggests that sometimes the adoption of later case endings instead of ancient ones appears to be due to scribe errors, where distinguishing 'ssi' from 'mmi' might have led to confusion. For example, sampamārae (Jambuvijayji) vs. saṁpasārae (Schubring and palm-leaf manuscript), and hisiśśu (Jambuvijayji) vs. hisiṁsu (Chūrṇi). The text aṇṇayarammi (formula 96) is noted to have the variant aṇṇayarasi in the oldest palm-leaf manuscript and Chūrṇi, which Schubring also provides.

In conclusion, the author K.R. Chandra's review highlights significant discrepancies and inconsistencies in the accepted readings of Pt. Jambuvijayji's edition of the Acharanga Sutra's first Shrutskandha. The core argument is that the preservation of the ancient linguistic forms of Prakrit should be prioritized, and that the current edition, while valuable, could benefit from further critical examination and potential revisions based on a more rigorous adherence to linguistic evolution and manuscript evidence. The author expresses hope that his critique will stimulate discussion among scholars to safeguard the original linguistic form of these ancient texts.