Jain Agamo Ki Mul Bhasha Ardhamagadhi Ya Shaurseni

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Jain Agamo ki Mul Bhasha Ardhamagadhi ya Shaurseni" by Sagarmal Jain, based on the provided pages:

Central Argument:

The core of this essay by Professor Dr. Sagarmal Jain is to definitively establish that the original language of the Jain Agamas was Ardhamagadhi, and not Shauraseni. He argues against a contemporary view championed by some scholars in the journal "Prakrit Vidya" who claim that Shauraseni was the original language, later converted to Ardhamagadhi. This claim, according to Jain, aims to establish the precedence of Shauraseni-based texts over Ardhamagadhi-based texts, thereby creating a rift between the Shvetambara and Digambara traditions.

Key Points and Arguments:

1. The Controversy and its Motivation:

   • A segment of scholars asserts that Jain Agamas were originally in Shauraseni Prakrit and were later converted to Ardhamagadhi.
   • They further claim Shauraseni is the oldest Prakrit, from which other Prakrits like Magadhi, Paishachi, and Maharashtri evolved.
   • This viewpoint is allegedly driven by a desire to prove Shauraseni-based texts (often favored by the Digambara tradition) as older than Shvetambara-recognized Agamas.
   • This debate is deepening animosity between the Shvetambara and Digambara traditions, overshadowing objective linguistic analysis.

2. Critique of the Shauraseni-Original Theory:

   • Lack of Direct Evidence: Jain scholars promoting the Shauraseni-original theory do not cite any evidence from existing Agamas themselves. Instead, they rely on interpretations or attributions to scholars like Prof. Nathmal Tatia.
   • Misinterpretation of Prof. Tatia's Statements: Jain argues that Prof. Tatia's statements might have been misconstrued or presented out of context. He notes that while Tatia acknowledged Shauraseni as an influential language, his full stance is unclear, and there's a possibility of manipulation for partisan purposes. Jain expresses personal disbelief that a scholar of Tatia's caliber would make such claims without proof.
   • Historical Inaccuracies: Jain refutes the idea that Shauraseni was the source of other Prakrits by pointing out historical inaccuracies. For example, he highlights that Haribhadra Suri's "Yogashataka" (8th century) predates the "Dhavala" (10th century), countering a claim that Tatia supposedly made regarding their relation and influencing the origin of languages.

3. Ardhamagadhi as the Original Language:

   • Mahavira's Birthplace and Ministry: Lord Mahavira was born and conducted his ministry primarily in the Magadha region and its surroundings. Therefore, it's natural that his language would be influenced by the local dialects of that region, which was Magadhi, or more precisely, Ardhamagadhi.
   • Agamic Citations: The essay presents several direct quotes from Shvetambara Agamas (Samavayang, Oopapatik Sutra, Bhagavati Sutra, Acharaanga Churni) explicitly stating that Lord Mahavira delivered his sermons in Ardhamagadhi.
   • Digambara Scholars' Views: Jain cites influential Digambara commentators like Shrutasagara (commenting on Kundakunda's works) and Acharya Vidyasagar's disciple, Muni Pramanasagar, who also state that Lord Mahavira's teachings were in Ardhamagadhi.
   • No Evidence for Shauraseni Origin: Conversely, there is no specific reference within the Agamas recognized by the Digambara tradition that suggests their original language was Shauraseni.

4. The Influence of Shauraseni and Maharashtri:

   • Geographical Spread: As Jainism spread from Magadha to other regions, its language was naturally influenced by local dialects.
   • Influence of Mathura: When the center of Jain learning shifted from Pataliputra to Mathura (around the 1st century CE), Shauraseni influence began. Agamas compiled or edited in Mathura during the 2nd century CE show Shauraseni influence.
   • Influence of Valabhi: Similarly, the Valabhi (Gujarat) tradition, influenced by the Maharashtri Prakrit of that region, also saw the Agamas being adapted.
   • No Systematic Conversion: Jain clarifies that these influences were not systematic conversions of Shauraseni to Ardhamagadhi. Instead, Agamas that originated in Ardhamagadhi were transmitted orally and, over time, were affected by the regional dialects of the scribes or editors in Mathura (Shauraseni) and Valabhi (Maharashtri). This explains why texts that are considered Shauraseni-influenced are not purely Shauraseni but retain Ardhamagadhi elements.

5. Linguistic Changes and Variability:

   • Oral Tradition: The long oral transmission of the Agamas before their written compilation led to natural variations influenced by the regional speech of the reciters.
   • Scribes' Influence: Copyists' regional dialects and occasional carelessness also contributed to linguistic variations in the manuscripts.
   • Emphasis on Meaning over Form: The Jain tradition prioritized the meaning and essence of the teachings over the exact preservation of linguistic forms, unlike some Vedic traditions. This openness to linguistic evolution allowed for regional influences.
   • Development of "Jain-Shauraseni" and "Jain-Maharashtri": The variations led to the identification of distinct linguistic forms, often termed "Jain-Shauraseni" and "Jain-Maharashtri."

6. Critique of Shauraseni's Claimed Ancientness:

   • Lack of Ancient Shauraseni Records: Jain questions why, if Shauraseni is the oldest Prakrit, there are no inscriptions or literary works in pure Shauraseni dating before the 3rd-4th century CE.
   • Ashoka and Kharavela Inscriptions: In contrast, Prakrit inscriptions from Ashoka (3rd century BCE) and Kharavela (2nd century BCE), as well as Mathura inscriptions (2nd century BCE to 2nd century CE), do not show the characteristics of Shauraseni (like the prevalence of 'n' sound and the change of 't' to 'd'). These inscriptions show features closer to Magadhi or Ardhamagadhi.
   • "Prahati: Shauraseni" Interpretation: Jain critically analyzes the grammatical aphorisms like "Prahati: Shauraseni" (Nature is Shauraseni) from Prakrit grammars like Vararuchi and Hemachandra. He argues that "Prahati" here refers to a model or basis for grammatical rules, not that Shauraseni is the origin of other Prakrits. He points out that these grammarians also state "Prahati: Sanskritam" for Shauraseni, meaning Sanskrit is its model. He criticizes the selective interpretation of these rules.
   • Early Literary Works: Jain asserts that Ardhamagadhi Agamas and Pali Buddhist texts (considered a refined form of Magadhi) predate any known Shauraseni literature, with Ardhamagadhi and Pali texts existing from the 3rd-4th century BCE, while Shauraseni literature emerges much later (around 3rd-4th century CE).

7. The Case of Buddhist Literature:

   • Jain refutes the claim attributed to Prof. Tatia that Buddhist scriptures were originally in Shauraseni and later destroyed and rewritten in Pali. He asks for evidence for this assertion, stating that Buddhist scholars themselves acknowledge Magadhi as the original language of Buddha's teachings. He quotes Buddhadhosa to support this.

8. The Argument of "1500 Years Ago":

   • Jain directly counters the assertion that Ardhamagadhi language did not exist 1500 years ago. He reiterates that Western scholars date important Agamas like Acharaanga to before the 3rd-4th century BCE. He also notes that Maharashtri, which is sometimes confused with Ardhamagadhi, has texts like Gatha Saptashati from the 1st century CE, proving the existence of these Prakrits long before the alleged "1500 years ago" timeframe for Ardhamagadhi's non-existence.

9. Conclusion:

   • Jain concludes that the claim that Shauraseni is the original language of the Jain Agamas is unfounded and driven by sectarian bias.
   • The original language of the Agamas was Ardhamagadhi, as supported by textual evidence and historical context.
   • Shauraseni and Maharashtri influenced later versions or recensions of the Agamas due to geographical spread and transmission, not the other way around.
   • He urges scholars to approach the subject with neutrality and evidence-based reasoning, rather than creating division through misinterpretations.

In essence, Sagarmal Jain's work is a scholarly defense of Ardhamagadhi as the original language of the Jain Agamas, debunking the arguments for Shauraseni as the original language and highlighting the historical and linguistic evidence that supports his conclusion.