Jain Agamo Ki Mul Bhasha Arddhamagadhi Ya Shaurseni

This comprehensive Jain text, authored by Sagarmal Jain, delves into a significant scholarly debate regarding the original language of the Jain Agamas. The central question posed is whether the foundational language was Ardhamagadhi or Shauraseni.

The author begins by addressing the claim made by a section of scholars in the journal "Prakrit Vidya" asserting that the original language of the Jain Agamas was Shauraseni Prakrit, which was later modified into Ardhamagadhi. This group also argues that Shauraseni is the most ancient Prakrit, from which other Prakrits like Magadhi, Paishachi, and Maharashtri evolved. They further contend that there's a deliberate effort within the Digambara tradition to reinterpret the Ardhamagadhi and Maharashtri word forms found in the works of Acharya Kundakunda (considered Agamas in their tradition) and transform them into Shauraseni. The underlying motive, according to the author, is to establish the superiority and antiquity of the Shauraseni-based scriptures (claimed by their side) over the Shvetambara Agamas, thus creating a rift between the two traditions and overshadowing objective linguistic studies.

Key Arguments and Evidence Presented:

• The Claim of Shauraseni as the Original Language: The author cites the views attributed to Professor Nathmal Tatia, who allegedly stated in a lecture that all ancient Shraman literature, including Buddhist Tripitakas and Jain Agamas (both Shvetambara and Digambara), were originally composed in Shauraseni Prakrit. Tatia is quoted as claiming that Buddhists later converted their Shauraseni literature into Magadhi and destroyed the original Shauraseni texts. He also suggested that Shvetambara Jain literature similarly transformed from Shauraseni to Ardhamagadhi, and that ancient manuscripts of texts like the Acharangasutra show a prevalence of Shauraseni words, which were later changed to Ardhamagadhi in newer editions.

• Contradictory Accounts and the Question of Tatia's Intent: The author raises doubts about the accuracy of the claims attributed to Professor Tatia. He points to a statement from "Tulsipragya" that Tatia himself refuted the idea that Mahavir's teachings were in Shauraseni, asserting that the Acharanga, Uttaradhyayana, Sutasanga, and Dashavaikalika texts exhibit the excellent form of Ardhamagadhi. Conversely, the editor of "Prakrit Vidya" maintains they have a tape of Tatia's lecture and accurately presented his views, and that Tatia reiterated his position even after the "Tulsipragya" article. The author notes Tatia's silence on the matter after being approached, suggesting a possible influence from the platforms he spoke on. He also speculates that there might be a distortion of Tatia's words, citing an example where Tatia's purported claim about Haribhadra's "Yogashataka" being based on "Dhavala" is historically incorrect, as Haribhadra lived earlier than the author of "Dhavala." The author emphasizes that arguments must be based on evidence, not just the stature of a scholar.

• Ardhamagadhi as the Original Language - Author's Stance:

  • Mahavir's Birthplace and Ministry: The author strongly advocates for Ardhamagadhi, highlighting that Lord Mahavir's birthplace and primary area of activity was Magadha and its surrounding regions. It is natural that his language would be influenced by these regional dialects, leading to Ardhamagadhi.
  • Agamic Evidence: The text presents several explicit references from the Shvetambara Agamas (Samavayang, Aupapātik Sūtra, Bhagavati Sūtra) and a commentary on a Digambara text (Kundakunda's Bodha Pahuda) stating that Lord Mahavir delivered his discourses in Ardhamagadhi. Even a contemporary Digambara saint, Munishri Pramanasagarji, is cited as stating that Mahavir's teachings were in the universally accepted Ardhamagadhi.
  • Historical and Practical Facts: If Mahavir spoke in Ardhamagadhi, it is logical that the Ganadharas composed the Agamas in the same language.
  • Lack of Evidence for Shauraseni Origin: The author asserts that no Shauraseni-equivalent Agamas mention that the original language was Shauraseni Prakrit. Any mention of the Tirthankaras' speech being universally comprehensible signifies its accessibility, not its origin in Shauraseni.
  • Geographical Influence: The ancient Jain Agamas like the Acharanga, Sutasanga, Rishibhasita, Uttaradhyayana, and Dashavaikalika were composed in and around Magadha. There are no indications of Mahavir's travels beyond this region. The first and second recensions of the Agamas were held in Pataliputra and Khandagiri (Odisha) respectively, far from Mathura, the presumed center of Shauraseni influence. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Agamas were either transformed into or influenced by Shauraseni by the 2nd or 1st century BCE.

• Influence of Shauraseni and Maharashtri on Agamas:

  • The author acknowledges that when the center of Jain learning shifted to Mathura (around the 2nd-1st century BCE), Shauraseni influence began. He suggests that this influence likely occurred after the 2nd century CE, possibly during the time of Phalgu Mitra (2nd century) or Skandila (4th century) during the 'Mathuri Vacana'. This is why the Agamas accepted by the Yapaniya tradition, influenced by Mathura, show Shauraseni influence. He clarifies that if Tatia meant that Shauraseni-influenced versions of Agamas existed and were accepted by the Yapaniyas, his statement is true.
  • Similarly, when a council was held in Valabhi (Gujarat) under Nagarjuna around the same time, Maharashtri influence was introduced, as Maharashtri was the local Prakrit. The Shvetambara Agamas accepted today are influenced by Maharashtri Prakrit.
  • Crucially, the author argues that these Shauraseni- and Maharashtri-influenced versions, which emerged around the 4th-5th century CE, were based on the original Ardhamagadhi Agamas. The influence was natural due to oral transmission and the regional dialects of the reciters, not a deliberate transformation of the original language.
  • He notes that the "Shauraseni Agamas" are not purely Shauraseni, nor are the Valabhi recension texts purely Maharashtri; they retain Ardhamagadhi elements. Many so-called Shauraseni Agamas are over 50% influenced by Ardhamagadhi and Maharashtri.

• Linguistic Changes and Their Causes:

  • Jain Tradition's Focus on Meaning: Unlike the Vedic tradition, which prioritized the preservation of sound and form, the Jain tradition focused on the meaning and intent of the Tirthankaras' words. This led to a greater flexibility in linguistic form.
  • Oral Transmission and Regional Dialects: Jain monks, being itinerant, were influenced by regional dialects. The oral transmission of scriptures over long periods led to variations in pronunciation and linguistic forms, eventually leading to regional influences like Shauraseni and Maharashtri.
  • Scribes' Influence: Carelessness or regional linguistic influence on scribes copying manuscripts also contributed to linguistic changes.
  • Editing and Compilations: The editing and compilation of Agamas in different regions and periods by scholars who were influenced by their contemporary language and grammar further contributed to linguistic variations.

• The Argument About Uniformity in Shauraseni vs. Ardhamagadhi:

  • The author refutes the claim of linguistic uniformity in "Shauraseni Agamas" and the claim that Ardhamagadhi has diverse forms. He provides examples from Digambara works like "Samaysar" showing the presence of "Appa" (an Ardhamagadhi form) and "Suyanana" (a Maharashtri form) alongside "Sud" (Shauraseni). He also points out numerous Maharashtri verb forms in "Samaysar" and other Kundakunda texts.
  • He argues that if Shauraseni were the original and most ancient Prakrit, it should show consistency. Instead, the so-called Shauraseni texts are not only influenced by Ardhamagadhi but also by Maharashtri, suggesting they are later compositions.

• The 'Na' vs. 'NNa' Debate:

  • The author counters the argument that the consistent use of 'NNa' in Shauraseni (and its absence of 'Na') proves its ancient and separate existence. He points to Ashoka's inscriptions (3rd century BCE) and Kharavel's inscription (2nd century BCE), as well as numerous Mathura inscriptions (2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE), which predominantly use 'Na' and lack the distinctive Shauraseni features of 'NNa' and the transformation of intervocalic 't' to 'd'.
  • He concludes that the Shauraseni prevalent in Digambara texts and dramas likely emerged no earlier than the 3rd century CE, while Ardhamagadhi, as evidenced by Ashoka's inscriptions, was in use from the 3rd century BCE. This supports Ardhamagadhi's greater antiquity.

• Antiquity of Shauraseni:

  • The author questions the claim of Shauraseni's ancientness based on its association with Krishna and Arishtanemi. He points out that other Tirthankaras were born in regions associated with Ardhamagadhi, implying its greater foundational role.
  • He reiterates that no Jain inscription or text predating the 4th-5th century CE is found in Shauraseni. In contrast, Magadhi and Ardhamagadhi inscriptions are available from the 3rd century BCE.
  • Even Maharashtri texts like Hala's "Gathasaptashati" (1st-3rd century CE) are older than any known Shauraseni literary work. Kalidasa's plays, considered to contain the oldest form of Shauraseni, are dated after the 4th century CE.

• The "Shouraseni as Prakriti" Argument:

  • The author addresses the grammatical interpretation of "Prakritiḥ Shaurasenī" (Shauraseni is the Prakriti) in Vararuci's Prakritaprakasha and Hemachandra's Prakrita Vyakarana. He argues that "Prakriti" here refers to the model or base for grammatical rules, not the progenitor language. He points out that these same grammars state "Prakritiḥ Sanskritam" (Sanskrit is the Prakriti) for Shauraseni itself, implying that Sanskrit was the model for Shauraseni grammar.
  • He explains that Prakrits are natural vernaculars, and Sanskrit is a refined, standardized language derived from them. Thus, in this sense, Prakrits are original and ancient, and Sanskrit developed from them. The grammars use Sanskrit as a model because the grammarians were often Sanskrit scholars explaining Prakrit to Sanskrit speakers.
  • Similarly, when Shauraseni is called the "Prakriti" of Magadhi or Paishachi, it means that the grammar of these later Prakrits was based on the model of Shauraseni. This does not imply that Magadhi or Paishachi originated from Shauraseni.

• Ardhamagadhi Agamas vs. Shauraseni Agamas:

  • The author concludes that the Ardhamagadhi Agamas are indeed the original texts, and that Shauraseni and Maharashtri influences came later during the Mathura and Valabhi recensions, respectively. He cites Digambara scholars like Prof. A.N. Upadhye and Prof. Khadbadi who acknowledge the influence of Ardhamagadhi on their texts.
  • He firmly dismisses the claim that Ardhamagadhi itself did not exist 1500 years ago, citing Western scholars who date the Agamas to the 3rd-4th century BCE or earlier, when Shauraseni, as we know it, had not yet developed its distinctive features.
  • He reiterates that Shauraseni Prakrit as a literary language emerged only after the 2nd century CE, while Magadhi and Ardhamagadhi inscriptions are available from the 3rd century BCE.

In summary, Sagarmal Jain's work critically examines the claims of Shauraseni Prakrit's primacy in Jain literature, presenting a strong case for Ardhamagadhi as the original language of the Jain Agamas. He argues that the linguistic features, historical context, and textual evidence overwhelmingly support the antiquity of Ardhamagadhi and the later influences of Shauraseni and Maharashtri on the Agamas, rather than the reverse. The author aims to clarify these linguistic and historical facts to foster a more objective understanding and reduce the scholarly disputes that have emerged.