Jain Agamo Ki Mul Bhasha Ardhamagadhi Ka Shaurseni

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Jain Agamo ki Mul Bhasha Ardhamagadhi ka Shaurseni" by Sagarmal Jain, focusing on the core arguments presented:

Central Debate: The Original Language of Jain Agamas - Ardhamagadhi or Shauraseni?

The article addresses a significant debate within Jain scholarship, specifically concerning the original language of the Jain Agamas. A particular section of Jain scholars, primarily within the Digambara tradition, advocates for Shauraseni as the original language of all Jain (and even Buddhist) scriptures, claiming that Ardhamagadhi and other Prakrit languages are later developments. This perspective, often attributed to scholar Prof. Nathmal Tatia, asserts that the original texts were in Shauraseni and were later adapted into Ardhamagadhi.

Sagarmal Jain's Counter-Argument and Core Thesis:

Sagarmal Jain strongly refutes this claim, presenting a well-researched argument in favor of Ardhamagadhi as the original language of the Jain Agamas. His central thesis is that the claims attributing Shauraseni as the original language are based on misinterpretations, selective evidence, and a deliberate attempt to establish the antiquity of Digambara-accepted texts over Shvetambara ones.

Key Arguments Presented by Sagarmal Jain:

1. Lord Mahavir's Language: Sagarmal Jain emphasizes that Lord Mahavir was born and preached primarily in the Magadha region and its surrounding areas. It is therefore natural and historically consistent that he spoke and preached in Ardhamagadhi, a language influenced by the local dialects of that region. The inherent nature of a person's language is to be influenced by their mother tongue.

2. Evidence from Agamas and Traditions:

   • Both Shvetambara and Digambara traditions generally accept that Lord Mahavir's teachings were in Ardhamagadhi, and the Agamas were composed based on these teachings.
   • Numerous textual references within the existing Shvetambara Agamas (like Samavayanga, Aupapaticasutra, Bhagavati) explicitly state that Lord Mahavir delivered his sermons in Ardhamagadhi.
   • Even Digambara scholars and Acharyas, like Acharya Vidyasagar's disciple Muni Shri Praman Sagarji, have acknowledged Mahavir's teachings in Ardhamagadhi. Acharya Kundakunda's commentary on Bodh Pahud (which is in Shauraseni) also mentions Mahavir preaching in Ardhamagadhi.

3. Lack of Evidence for Shauraseni as Original:

   • Sagarmal Jain asserts that there is no single reference in any Shauraseni-accepted "Agam-equivalent" text that supports the claim of Shauraseni being the original language of the Agamas.
   • The mention of the Tirthankaras' speech being "universal" (sarvabhashanugamanie) does not imply it was in Shauraseni, but rather that it was easily understood by the common populace, incorporating regional dialectic terms.

4. Historical and Linguistic Analysis of Shauraseni:

   • Later Development: Sagarmal Jain argues that Shauraseni, as a distinct literary language, emerged later, possibly around the 3rd century CE. This is supported by the fact that early inscriptions from the Shauraseni heartland (Mathura) from the 2nd century CE do not exhibit the characteristic features of Shauraseni, particularly the prevalent 'n' sound instead of 'n'.
   • Influence, Not Origin: The influence of Shauraseni on Jain texts began after the 2nd century CE, particularly when Jain centers shifted to Mathura. Similarly, texts compiled in Valabhi (Gujarat) were influenced by Maharashtri Prakrit. However, this influence does not mean the original Agamas were in Shauraseni.
   • Misinterpreting "Prakriti": The argument that "Prakriti: Shauraseni" in Sanskrit grammar texts implies that Shauraseni is the origin of other Prakrits is misinterpreted. Sanskrit grammar texts use "Prakriti" to mean the "model" or "ideal" against which other Prakrit words are explained, not necessarily an origin. Similarly, "Prakriti: Sanskritam" for Shauraseni indicates that Sanskrit was the model for explaining Shauraseni.

5. The Impact of Oral Tradition and Recitation:

   • The Jain Agamas were transmitted orally for a long period. This oral tradition, coupled with the movement of monks across different regions, led to natural variations in pronunciation and linguistic expression.
   • When these texts were eventually written down, regional dialectical influences were incorporated. Shvetambara Agamas, primarily transcribed in Gujarat and Rajasthan, show Maharashtri influence, while texts associated with the Mathura center show Shauraseni influence. This is a process of influence, not a change in the original language of composition.

6. Critique of the "Shauraseni as Original" Claim:

   • Lack of Ancient Shauraseni Texts: Sagarmal Jain challenges proponents of the Shauraseni theory to present any Shauraseni text or inscription older than the 3rd century CE. He points out that early inscriptions from Ashoka and Kharavel, as well as early Mathura inscriptions, are in Ardhamagadhi or Magadhi-influenced Prakrit, not Shauraseni.
   • Evidence of Ardhamagadhi's Antiquity: Early Ardhamagadhi texts and inscriptions, predating many purported Shauraseni works, demonstrate the antiquity of Ardhamagadhi.
   • Superficial Similarities: The claim that certain features in Ardhamagadhi texts are actually Shauraseni (like the 'y' śruti being a characteristic of Maharashtri and thus by extension Shauraseni) is contested. These features are often identified as specific to Maharashtri Prakrit, which itself influenced later Jain texts, but does not negate the antiquity of Ardhamagadhi.
   • Misunderstanding of "Tatsama" and "Tadbhav": The concept of "Prakriti" (source) in Sanskrit grammar is applied to explain how Tadbhav (derived) words are formed from Sanskrit. This does not mean Sanskrit is the origin of all Prakrits; rather, Sanskrit served as the linguistic model for explaining their derivations.

7. The "De-Ardhamagadhization" vs. "Ardhamagadhization":

   • Sagarmal Jain argues that the historical process was one of Ardhamagadhi Agamas being influenced by Shauraseni and Maharashtri, not the other way around. The "de-Ardhamagadhization" theory, claiming original Shauraseni texts were converted to Ardhamagadhi, is presented as a misrepresentation of historical linguistic development.

8. The Role of Scholarly Bias:

   • The article suggests that the push to establish Shauraseni as the original language might be driven by a desire to prove the antiquity of texts primarily accepted in the Digambara tradition, leading to a deepening of the schism between the Shvetambara and Digambara sects.
   • Sagarmal Jain expresses skepticism that a scholar of Prof. Tatia's caliber would make such claims without strong evidence, suggesting potential misrepresentation or misinterpretation of his statements.

Conclusion:

Sagarmal Jain concludes that the original language of the Jain Agamas was Ardhamagadhi. He emphasizes that the claims for Shauraseni as the original language are not supported by substantial historical or linguistic evidence and are likely the result of misinterpretations and a desire to establish a particular narrative of antiquity. The observed linguistic variations in Jain texts are attributed to the natural evolution of languages and the influence of regional dialects over time, rather than a wholesale replacement of an original Shauraseni corpus with Ardhamagadhi. He calls for a neutral, evidence-based approach to resolving this debate, urging for clarity on the distinctions between different Prakrit languages and their historical development.