Hemchandracharye Aapel Tran Udaharan Vishe

This document is a scholarly analysis of three specific examples cited by the renowned Jain scholar Hemchandracharya in his seminal work, "Siddha-Hema-Shabdānushasana" (a grammar of the Prakrit languages). The analysis is presented by Shilchandrasuri, and the publisher is ZZ_Anusandhan. The provided text is from pages 1-4 of this work.

Here's a comprehensive summary of the key points:

Introduction:

• The text begins by referencing Hemchandracharya's description of Magadhi language characteristics. He stated that the ancient Jain Agam-sutras are primarily in Ardha-Magadhi. However, this classification is largely based on a specific grammatical feature: the transformation of the final 'm' sound in nouns ending in 'a' in the first declension singular into 'm' (i.e., akārānta nāma to am-ending). Hemchandracharya emphasizes the word "prayaḥ" (mostly/primarily), indicating that other grammatical features found in the Agamas might not strictly adhere to pure Magadhi but could include elements of Shauraseni or other Prakrit dialects.

Example 1: "Haṁmuhã Mahāvīre" (Page 1-2)

• Hemchandracharya, in section 265 of his grammar, cites "Haṁmuhã Mahāvīre" as an example of a Shauraseni rule where the final 'm' of a noun in the singular, before a case ending is applied, becomes 'ṁ' (anusvara).
• Vaseṇavijaya points out that this example is also found in the Kalpasutra.
• The text notes that the same phrase appears elsewhere in the Agam-granthas (Jain scriptures).
• Key Question: If the Agamas are primarily in Ardha-Magadhi, why are Shauraseni examples used?
• Hemchandracharya's Clarification (Section 302): He explains that, barring specific regional changes, Magadhi often follows Shauraseni patterns. This is also supported by other sections of his grammar.
• Significance: The author of this analysis argues that the example "Haṁmuhã Mahāvīre" found in section 265, and the same example in section 302 (presented with slight variations), likely originate from Agam-granthas. This leads to the question of what the language of the manuscripts available to Hemchandracharya was like.
• Deduction: Hemchandracharya's own commentary (on section 287) acknowledges that Agam-granthas in Ardha-Magadhi might contain other characteristics of Magadhi, Shauraseni, and Prakrit. This suggests his grammatical framework is consistent. However, the presence of these Shauraseni-like features in Agam-granthas implies that some manuscripts Hemchandracharya consulted might have undergone later linguistic modifications or contained mixed dialects.
• Hypothesis: It's possible that more popular texts like the Kalpasutra were influenced by later changes typical of "Maha-Rashtri" Prakrit. Conversely, texts like the Acharaṅgasutra might have retained more of their original linguistic features in contemporary manuscripts. The example "Haṁmuhã Mahāvīre," as found in the Acharaṅgasutra, is presented as an instance where the original dialectal features were preserved.

Example 2: "Moggāmo" (Page 2-3)

• Hemchandracharya, in section 8.1.102, provides "Moggāmo" as an example of how Sanskrit's 's' can sometimes become 'm' or remain 'm' in Prakrit.
• Vaseṇavijaya compares this to a well-known Sanskrit verse: "Moggāmo taṁ ti saṁvaṁ..." (referring to the sage Mogallana).
• This same verse is found in Prabhacharyacharin's "Prabhavacharita" (1278 CE) and attributed to Padaliptacharya.
• Crucial Point: The author of the analysis believes this verse was originally in Sanskrit. However, Hemchandracharya's example presents it with a Prakritized first foot ("Moggāmo"). This suggests Hemchandracharya found this verse in a Prakrit text, as the validity of an example depends on its actual occurrence in a scripture.
• Further Evidence (Supplementary Note): Dr. Harivallabh Bhayani's hypothesis that Hemchandracharya's example of "bāhamaāyāye" (referring to "Baahamaaya" in his grammar section 8.1.102) implies the existence of the original Sanskrit verse in Prakrit is confirmed. This verse was indeed found in the Āvaśyaka-Chūrṇi.
• Context from Āvaśyaka-Chūrṇi: The Āvaśyaka-Niyukti (verse 86) describes saṅkṣepa-sāmayika. In the Chūrṇi (commentary), a story is told where four sages present their vast collections of verses to King Jitashatru. At the king's suggestion, each sage summarizes their work into a single verse (four lines). The famous verse, "Moggāmo taṁ ti saṁvaṁ...", is formed by these four lines. The Āvaśyaka-Chūrṇi presents its Prakrit version as: "Moggāmo, ṛṣī vāri... | Viharamati-viśvāso, pañcālo tthinu madhavaṁ ||" (page 498, according to the author).
• Conclusion: This strongly suggests that Hemchandracharya had access to the Āvaśyaka-Chūrṇi and extracted the example "Moggāmo" from it for his grammar. This also enhances the author's respect for the work of Nagrishi (likely referring to the author of the Chūrṇi).

Example 3: Sinhapada Chhanda (Verse Meter) (Page 3-4)

• Hemchandracharya, in his "Shabdānushasana" (grammar), when describing various meters (chhanda), created his own examples. These examples cleverly incorporate the name of the meter itself.
• The example for the "Sinhapada" meter (found in the Apabhramsa section) describes a dvipadi meter with specific matra (syllabic duration) counts per line. The example verse is: "Jāvaya-rasa-rañjiya-vara-kamiṇi-patha-paḍibimbihi banchhiṁ thī ji kira āsi saṁ | Sampai haya-gaya-hiṁrāṇa-siha-patha-pakiṁ tuha riu-dharai ti pechiyahi ||" (7.51.1).
• Meaning of the Verse: It describes how palaces, once adorned with the footprints of beautiful women, are now defiled by the bloody footprints of lions that have killed elephants.
• Source of Inspiration: This verse appears to be inspired by a description of the fall of Ayodhya in the 16th canto of Kalidasa's "Raghuvamsa." The corresponding verse from "Raghuvamsa" is: "Pānmārge ca navā rāmā, nikṣiptavatyaṣṭhuraṅgaiḥ | Sohatavaṅkuśirastrā-digdha, vyāḥ padaiḥ te'pi nidhī me ||" (16.15).
• Comparison: The "Raghuvamsa" verse depicts how, in the former pathways of pleasure, where women used to leave colorful footprints, now the tracks of tigers, after killing elephants, are found.
• Hemchandracharya's Adaptation: The author notes the striking similarity. Hemchandracharya's recollection of the "Raghuvamsa" verse likely led him to create the "Sinhapada" example, incorporating the name "Sinhapada" (lion's foot) into the description of the imagery.
• Significance: This demonstrates Hemchandracharya's deep study of "Raghuvamsa," his appreciation for poetic rasa (aesthetic flavor), and his sharp memory.

Overall Conclusion:

The analysis highlights Hemchandracharya's meticulous approach to grammar, drawing from a wide range of sources, including ancient Jain scriptures and classical Sanskrit literature. It also sheds light on the linguistic complexities and variations present in the manuscripts available during his time, suggesting that the boundaries between different Prakrit dialects were not always rigid, and that textual transmission could lead to interesting linguistic evolutions. The author expresses admiration for Hemchandracharya's scholarly rigor and the depth of his research.