QuantumGitHub

Date Of Kasyapahuda

Added to library: September 1, 2025

Loading image...
First page of Date Of Kasyapahuda

Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, "The Date of Kasāyapāhuda" by K. R. Chandra:

The article investigates the relative dating of two significant Jain texts: the Kasāyapāhuda (KP) by Gunadharācārya and the Pavayanasāra (PS) by Kundakundācārya. The author, K. R. Chandra, aims to determine which work is older based on a comparative linguistic analysis.

Background:

  • Jain canonical literature has different linguistic origins depending on the sect. Svetāmbara texts are primarily in Ardhamāgadhī, while Digambara (and related) sects, including the Botika/Ksapanaka and Yāpaniya, inherited āgamas in Sauraseni Prakrit.
  • The Kasāyapāhuda and Satkhandāgama are considered early pro-canonical Digambara works, alongside the writings of Kundakundācārya.
  • There's a common belief among contemporary Digambara scholars that Gunadharācārya (author of KP) predates Kundakundācārya (author of PS and other works).

Methodology:

Chandra analyzes specific linguistic features from both texts to establish their chronological relationship. This analysis focuses on:

  1. Phonological Changes: Examining the treatment of medial consonants like -t-, -d-, -th-, and -dh-.
  2. Morphology: Comparing declensional suffixes (neuter plural, locative singular), verbal terminations (3rd person singular present tense), the usage of verbal roots (specifically Vbhu), and the affixes of absolutive participles.
  3. Future Tense Affix: Investigating the affix used for the future tense.

Key Linguistic Findings:

  • Medial -t-: PS retains -t- much more frequently (95%) than KP (85%), and KP shows a higher rate of dropping it (15%) compared to PS (5%). This suggests PS is earlier.
  • Medial -d-: PS retains -d- more (98%) than KP (93%), with KP showing a slightly higher rate of dropping it (7%) compared to PS (2%). This also points to PS being older.
  • Medial -th-: KP shows a higher rate of voicing -th- to -dh- (54.5%) and changing it to -h- (45.5%) compared to PS (voiced to -d- at 20%, changed to -h- at 78.5%). This indicates a more evolved or later linguistic stage in KP.
  • Medial -dh-: KP retains -dh- more (58%) than PS (31%), while PS shows a higher rate of change to -h- (69%) compared to KP (42%). This again suggests KP is in a later stage of linguistic development.
  • Neuter Plural Suffix: PS uses the suffix -im exclusively (100%), while KP uses -ni (100%). However, the author notes KP also contains the -im suffix (4%). The retention of -im in KP suggests a mix, but the presence of -ni in KP and its absence in PS is a point of distinction. (Note: The article's presentation of this point is slightly confusing, but the implication is that PS is more consistent with an older pattern.)
  • Locative Singular Suffix: There's no significant difference between the -mhi and -mmi suffixes in both texts.
  • 3rd Person Singular Present Tense: PS exclusively uses -di or -de (100%), whereas KP uses this termination for 73% of instances and another termination (-i or -e) for 27%. This suggests KP is more influenced by Mahārāstri Prakrit in this regard, which is seen as a later development.
  • Verbal Root Vbhu: PS uses bhav-, hav-, and ho- at 9%, 61%, and 30% respectively. KP, however, heavily favors ho- (92.5%), using bhav- (5%) and hav- (2.5%) minimally. Since ho- is considered a later Prakrit development compared to bhav- and hav-, this strongly indicates KP is later.
  • Absolutive Participles: KP employs purely Prakrit affixes like -dūna and -tunam more frequently, whereas PS uses older Sanskrit and Sanskrit-like affixes in greater numbers. This points to KP being a later composition.
  • Future Tense Affix: PS uses -ssa-, while KP uses -hi-. This contrast is presented as evidence for KP being later than PS.

Conclusion:

The linguistic analysis overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the Kasāyapāhuda is a work composed later than the Pavayanasāra. This finding directly contradicts the prevailing opinion among many contemporary Digambara scholars who place Gunadharācārya earlier than Kundakundācārya.

The author acknowledges that this conclusion is contingent on the faithful linguistic editing of the texts and the accuracy of authorship attribution. However, based on the formal and linguistic evidence, Chandra posits that Gunadharācārya is likely a later author than Kundakundācārya, challenging traditional chronological assumptions. The editors' note further suggests that Kundakundācārya's works may also contain later interpolations, which could complicate precise dating, and that historical evidence doesn't definitively place him before the Kasāyapāhuda or Satkhandāgama.