Isibhasiyai Ke Kuch Adhyayano Ka Bhashastriya Vishleshan - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Isibhasiyai ke kuch Adhyayano ka Bhashastriya Vishleshan" by Dinanath Sharma:

This article by Dinanath Sharma presents a linguistic analysis of selected studies from the Isibhasiyai text, edited by Dr. Schubring. The author asserts that Isibhasiyai is considered an ancient Jain scripture, grouped with canonical texts like Acharanga, Sutrakritanga, Uttaradhyayana, and Dashavaikalika.

Key Findings and Arguments:

Linguistic Antiquity: Sharma argues that the Prakrit vocabulary in Isibhasiyai exhibits a more ancient phonological scheme compared to other ancient Jain texts. While the other texts show later developments in their script and word forms, Isibhasiyai retains older features.
Grammatical Forms: Certain inflections and suffixes found in Isibhasiyai appear to belong to a slightly later period than those in other ancient Agamas, which represent an earlier stage.
Introductory Phrases: A significant linguistic difference is observed in the introductory phrases. Isibhasiyai frequently uses "Arahata ishiṇa buitaṁ" (with variations), whereas the first sutra of Acharanga begins with "Suyuṁ me āusaṁ teṇaṁ bhagavayā evamakkhāyaṁ." Sharma posits that the phrase in Isibhasiyai is linguistically more archaic, suggesting that the compilation of Isibhasiyai might precede the first section of Acharanga.
Phonological Changes (Internal Consonants): The core of the analysis focuses on the treatment of internal consonants. Sharma provides data showing variations in consonant preservation (yathāvat), voicing (ghoṣa), and elision (lopa) across different studies within Isibhasiyai.
- Comparison with Acharanga: When comparing with Acharanga (first Shrutaskandha), also edited by Dr. Schubring, a stark contrast emerges. Acharanga shows a much higher rate of consonant elision (55-60%) and a lower rate of preservation (25-30%). In contrast, Isibhasiyai generally exhibits a higher preservation rate and lower elision of internal consonants.
The Case of 't': Sharma specifically highlights the treatment of the internal consonant 't'. While Acharanga almost entirely elides it (often referring to it as 't' śruti, possibly due to a mistaken assumption), Isibhasiyai preserves it in a significantly higher percentage of cases (e.g., 85% in one study). This difference is presented as evidence for Isibhasiyai's greater antiquity.
The Case of 'th': The text notes instances where the internal consonant 'th' in Isibhasiyai transforms into 'dh' (e.g., tadheva for tathaiva, jadha for yatha).
Archaic and Modern Forms: Isibhasiyai contains a mix of ancient and modern forms, as seen in the variations of the word for "soul" or "self": attā, ātā, āyā, and appā. These are presented as evidence of the chronological development of Prakrit, with attā being earlier (found in Ashoka's edicts) and evolving into ātā and āyā, while attā also developed into appā.
The use of 'ṇ': The conjunctive particle 'na' predominantly appears as 'ṇa' in Isibhasiyai. While this might seem archaic based on some linguistic theories, Sharma suggests that epigraphic evidence indicates the use of 'ṇa' for both 'n' and 'ñ' (from 'jña') is actually a later development, contrasting with Acharanga's tendency to use dental 'n' and 'nn'.
Inflections: Regarding case endings, Sharma notes that in Isibhasiyai, the nominative singular of a-ending masculine nouns frequently uses the 'e' or 'o' endings. For the locative singular, 'e' and 'mmi' are found, but not the older forms 'ansi', 'mhi', or 'ssi'. The 'mmi' ending is considered quite modern. This is contrasted with the presence of older forms in Acharanga.
Counter-Arguments and Explanations: Sharma acknowledges the potential for a different interpretation. He notes that Dr. Schubring's edition of Acharanga is from 1914, while his edition of Isibhasiyai is from 1942 (or 1974). If Isibhasiyai is older, the observed phonological differences are logical. However, if Isibhasiyai is later, how can this be explained?
- Sharma proposes a hypothesis: Dr. Schubring, with years of experience, might have decided to preserve internal consonants as they appeared in manuscripts of ancient texts, especially if they were found to be preserved. This could explain why Acharanga's edition shows extensive elision, while Isibhasiyai preserves more.
- He also suggests that the limited number of manuscripts for Isibhasiyai (one or two) might have contributed to retaining the older linguistic features. In contrast, the numerous manuscripts of other Agamas, copied over different periods by various scribes, might have led to greater linguistic variations and distortions in their original form, making them appear closer to the more developed Maharashtri Prakrit.

Conclusion:

Despite the linguistic variations observed within Isibhasiyai, the author concludes that, from the perspective of internal consonant changes, the language of Isibhasiyai appears to be older than that of Acharanga. The explanation for this lies in the potential impact of manuscript availability and the editorial decisions made by scholars like Dr. Schubring in representing the ancient linguistic landscape.