Ashok Ke Abhilekho Ki Bhasha Magadhi Ya Shaurseni - Book Summary

This document is an excerpt from a book titled "Ashok ke Abhilekho ki Bhasha Magadhi ya Shaurseni" (The Language of Ashoka's Inscriptions: Magadhi or Shauraseni) by Sagarmal Jain. The excerpt primarily discusses the linguistic classification of the language used in the inscriptions of Emperor Ashoka, challenging the notion that it is primarily Shauraseni Prakrit.

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided pages:

Page 1:

Introduction and Counter-argument: The author begins by referencing a statement by Professor Bholashankar Vyas, as reported by Dr. Sudeep Jain in Prakrit-Vidyā, suggesting that the ancient form of Shauraseni Prakrit is found in Ashoka's Girnar inscription. Sagarmal Jain vehemently disputes this claim, calling it misleading and lacking any solid linguistic basis.
Dr. Rajbali Pandey's Authority: The author then introduces Dr. Rajbali Pandey, an authorized scholar on Ashoka's inscriptions, and his work Ashok ke Abhilekho. Pandey is cited as having conducted a thorough review of the language and grammar.
Pandey's Classification of Ashoka's Language: Pandey divided the language of Ashoka's inscriptions into four categories based on region:
1. Northwestern (Paishachi-Gandhara)
2. Central Indian
3. Western Maharashtra
4. Southern (Andhra-Karnataka)
Central Indian Language as the Basis: Pandey states that post-Mahabharata Indian history is the history of the Magadha empire. A pan-Indian language had been developing for centuries in North India, similar to and parallel with the evolving Vedic language, which was derived from Vedic language and close to Lokik Sanskrit. Ashoka adopted this language for his administration and propagation of Dhamma.
Magadhi's Primacy and Absorption: The center of this language was Magadha, located in the eastern part of Madhyadesha (the land between the hills of Sthanesvara and Kajangala). Therefore, Magadhi had dominance, but as a public language, it absorbed sounds, and occasionally words and idioms from other regions.
Purpose of Variations in Inscriptions: Ashoka's inscriptions were primarily written in the central language of the Magadha empire. However, to make them understandable to people in distant regions, they were transliterated and translated differently in various provinces as needed. This explains the textual variations found in different versions of the inscriptions, indicating the existence of various dialects with their own characteristics.
Central Indian Language as the Universal Language: The analysis of word forms from different dialects in Ashoka's inscriptions reveals that the Central Indian language was the pan-Indian language of that time, and Ashoka's inscriptions were originally presented in it. This language can also be called Magadha or Magadhi.

Page 2:

Distinction from Grammatical Magadhi: However, the author emphasizes that this Magadhi is different from the Magadhi found in dramas and grammars. While grammatical Magadhi Prakrit uses the palatal 'ś' (श), Ashoka's inscriptions exclusively use the dental 's' (स). This is a crucial point of divergence.
Implications of the Distinction: Two points arise from this:
1. The language of Ashoka's inscriptions differs from the Magadhi Prakrit of dramas and grammars and contains word forms from other dialects.
2. Therefore, it can be called Ardhamagadhi, although it differs slightly from the Ardhamagadhi found in Shvetambara Agamas.
Rejection of Shauraseni: The author definitively states that it is not Shauraseni Prakrit as found in Digambara Agamas or dramas.
Key Characteristics of Digambara Shauraseni: Two main characteristics of Shauraseni in Digambara Agamas are identified:
- The substitution of the intervocalic 't' (त) with 'd' (द).
- The substitution of the dental 'n' (न) with the retroflex 'ṇ' (ण).
Ashoka's Inscriptions Lack Shauraseni Traits:
- The substitution of 't' with 'd' is not found in Ashoka's inscriptions. The Sanskrit word 'bhavati' appears as 'hoti' (होति) everywhere, which is a characteristic of Ardhamagadhi, not the Shauraseni form 'bhavadi' or 'hodi' (होदि).
- The word 'pitṛ' appears as 'piti' or 'pitu' (पिति, पितु), a trait of Ardhamagadhi. In Shauraseni, it would be 'pid' (पिद्).
- The word 'ātmā' forms 'ādā' (आदा) in Shauraseni Prakrit, but Ashoka's inscriptions consistently use 'attane', 'attanā' (अत्ने, अत्ना).
- Similarly, the Shauraseni form of 'hita' would be 'hinda', but Ashoka's inscriptions consistently use 'hita' (हित).
Absence of Retroflex 'ṇ' (ण): Where Shauraseni uses the retroflex 'ṇ' instead of the dental 'n', Ashoka's Central Indian inscriptions show a complete absence of the retroflex 'ṇ', with the dental 'n' used everywhere. Even in Western inscriptions, 'ṇ' is used only sporadically, not universally. Furthermore, the retroflex 'ṇ' is also found in Maharashtri Prakrit.
Scholarly Consensus: The author claims that, to their knowledge, no scholar has linguistically identified Ashoka's inscriptions as Shauraseni Prakrit. Even if a couple of Shauraseni word forms are present, which are also common in other Prakrits like Ardhamagadhi or Maharashtri, it does not make the entire language Shauraseni.
Revisiting Professor Vyas's Statement: The author suggests that Professor Bholashankar Vyas's statement about "ancient forms of Shauraseni Prakrit" in the Girnar inscription might mean that some ancient Shauraseni word forms are found there. However, it is important to note that these word forms are also present in ancient Ardhamagadhi and Maharashtri. Therefore, the presence of just a few such words does not classify Ashoka's inscriptions as Shauraseni Prakrit, as they lack its specific characteristic word forms.

Page 3:

Digambara Jain Literature and Shauraseni: Dr. Sudeep Jain, quoting Professor Bholashankar Vyas, states that "pure Shauraseni language is found after this in Kapāyapāhuḍasutta, Ṣaṭkhaṇḍāgamasūtra, Kundakunda literature, and Dhavalā, Jayadhavalā etc."
Debate on the Origin of "Pure Shauraseni": The author questions if this implies that the "pure Shauraseni" of Digambara Jain literature developed from the Magadhi, or Ardhamagadhi, of Ashoka's inscriptions.
Author's Stance on Shauraseni in Jain Texts: Sagarmal Jain asks if Ashoka's inscriptions contain any specific characteristic features of the "so-called pure Shauraseni" of Digambara Jain literature, or the Shauraseni of dramas, or the grammatically approved Shauraseni.
Ashoka's Language as Magadhi Influenced by Other Dialects: To the author's knowledge, the language of Ashoka's inscriptions is Magadhi Prakrit influenced by words from other regions. It is a mixed language containing word forms of Magadhi and other regional dialects, having the closest proximity to the Ardhamagadhi of Jain Agamas.
Conspiracy Theory: The author labels the spreading of confusion by calling this language Shauraseni as a "well-planned conspiracy."
Critique of "Pure Shauraseni" in Digambara Texts: The author argues that the language called "pure Shauraseni" in texts equivalent to Digambara Agamas is neither grammatically correct Shauraseni nor the Shauraseni of dramas. Instead, it is a mixture of Ardhamagadhi, Shauraseni, and Maharashtri, with the proportions of these mixtures varying in each text and its version.
Author's Previous Article: The author mentions having discussed this in their article "Jain Āgamoṃ kī Mūlabhāṣā Māgadhi yā Śaurasenī" (The Original Language of Jain Agamas: Magadhi or Shauraseni).
Literary Shauraseni's Later Emergence: Literary Shauraseni as a formal literary language had not yet come into existence at Ashoka's time. The language of dramas and the texts accepted as Agamas in the Digambara tradition emerged three to four hundred years later.
Absence of Shauraseni Features in Ashoka's Local Inscriptions: The author points out that Ashoka's inscriptions found in the region around Delhi, Mathura, and Agra (considered the birthplace of Shauraseni) completely lack Shauraseni characteristics like the substitution of 't' with 'd' and 'n' with 'ṇ'. For example, they contain clear Magadhi word forms like 'lājā' (राजा) for 'rāja'.
Girnar Inscription Also Lacks Shauraseni Traits: The Girnar inscription also lacks the grammatically correct features of Shauraseni. Attributing Ashoka's inscriptions to Shauraseni with regional influences, simply because they contain some Ardhamagadhi word forms that are also found in Shauraseni, is inappropriate.
Conclusion on Girnar and Delhi-Topra: It can be considered Ardhamagadhi, but never Shauraseni. To allow readers to judge for themselves, the original text of Ashoka's Delhi-Topra inscriptions is presented.

Pages 4-9:

These pages contain the original Prakrit text of several of Ashoka's inscriptions, specifically the Delhi-Topra Pillar Edicts (First to Seventh).
The headings of each edict are given in Hindi, along with a brief description of its content (e.g., "धर्म पालन से इहलोक तथा परलोक की प्राप्ति" - Attainment of this world and the next through adherence to Dhamma).
The Prakrit text is presented in Devanagari script, followed by bracketed numbering for verses and sometimes a brief English translation of the theme of the edict in parentheses.
The inclusion of these extensive Prakrit texts serves as primary evidence for the author's linguistic analysis, allowing readers to examine the actual language used by Ashoka and compare it with the characteristics of Magadhi, Ardhamagadhi, and Shauraseni as discussed earlier. The author intends for the reader to observe firsthand the linguistic features, or lack thereof, that support their argument.

In essence, the document argues that:

The language of Ashoka's inscriptions is primarily a form of Magadhi Prakrit, which evolved into a pan-Indian administrative language.
While it absorbed influences from other regional dialects, making it akin to Ardhamagadhi, it fundamentally differs from Shauraseni Prakrit as defined by its specific phonetic and grammatical changes (like t>d, n>ṇ).
The claim that Ashoka's inscriptions represent the ancient form of Shauraseni is incorrect and possibly a misinterpretation or a deliberate misrepresentation.
The author uses Dr. Rajbali Pandey's scholarly work and the textual evidence of the inscriptions themselves to support their thesis, aiming to correct what they perceive as a linguistic misclassification that might be perpetuated in the study of Jain literature and Prakrit linguistics.