Jain Agamo Me Hua Bhashik Swarup Parivartan

Here is a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Jain Agamo me Hua Bhashik Swarup Parivartan" by Prof. Sagarmal Jain:

This work by Prof. Sagarmal Jain, titled "Linguistic Transformation in Jain Agamas: A Discussion," delves into the evolution of the languages used in Jain scriptures, primarily focusing on the Prakrit languages.

The author begins by establishing that Prakrit is not a single language but a group of languages, and historical grammarians like Hemachandra have documented its various forms. These include Magadhi, Ardhamagadhi, Shauraseni, Jain-Shauraseni, Maharashtri, Jain-Maharashtri, Paishachi, and others. These Prakrit dialects served as the precursors to modern Indian languages like Assamese, Bengali, Oriya, Bhojpuri, Punjabi, Rajasthani, Gujarati, and Marathi. Prof. Jain posits that even Sanskrit developed from these Prakrit dialects, serving as a standardized, common contact language, with its earliest form being Chhandas (Vedic Sanskrit).

A key point made is that all Prakrit grammars were written in Sanskrit because their purpose was to explain Prakrit to Sanskrit scholars. The inherent diversity of Prakrit, stemming from its evolution from various dialects influenced by regional factors and ease of pronunciation, makes it difficult to create a single, comprehensive grammar. Prakrit is described as a flowing language, difficult to be contained by rigid grammatical rules, hence its classification as "bahul" (having diverse, alternative forms).

While most Prakrit forms existed primarily as spoken dialects, evidenced in plays and inscriptions, only Ardhamagadhi, Jain-Shauraseni, and Jain-Maharashtri became the primary languages for the vast body of Jain religious literature. The author notes that while literary Prakrits were developed by Jain scholars from these dialects, variations in word forms persisted due to the underlying dialectal differences.

The text then elaborates on the distinguishing features of major Prakrit dialects, such as Magadhi's tendency to replace 's' with 'sh' and 'r' with 'l' (e.g., "purush" becoming "pulish"), while Maharashtri uses "puris" and "raya." Ardhamagadhi favors the "t" sound and has less vowel elision, Shauraseni prefers "d," and Maharashtri features "y" and greater elision. Despite these general characteristics, alternative word forms are abundant within each Prakrit. The language used in Jain texts is noted to be somewhat different from that found in secular dramas, with Jain Magadhi often referred to as Ardhamagadhi due to the influence of other dialects. Inscriptional Prakrits, based on local vernaculars, exhibit even greater diversity, making grammatical analysis challenging.

The Yapyaniya and Digambara traditions primarily used Jain-Shauraseni, which incorporated features of both Shauraseni and Ardhamagadhi due to the influence of Ardhamagadhi Agamas. Similarly, Shaivetaambara scholars adopted Jain-Maharashtri, which shows influences from Maharashtri, Ardhamagadhi, and Shauraseni, as its source material was primarily Ardhamagadhi and partly Shauraseni literature.

Determining the precise Prakrit form of any Jain tradition's literature is difficult because no extant text is purely representative of a single Prakrit. Even widely accepted Ardhamagadhi Agamas show significant Maharashtri influence, with ancient texts like Acharanga and Rishabhasita exhibiting partial Shauraseni and notable Maharashtri influences alongside prominent Ardhamagadhi features. Digambara Shauraseni texts, in turn, show influences from both Ardhamagadhi and Maharashtri. The author highlights instances where quotations from one Prakrit tradition were transformed into the dominant Prakrit of the quoting text, further blurring the lines. This intermingling of linguistic forms creates complexities for scholars in establishing chronological order and understanding mutual influences, sometimes leading to misdating of texts.

The text discusses efforts to restore the original linguistic forms of Agamic literature. Dr. K. Rishabhachandra initiated a project to remove Maharashtri influences from ancient Ardhamagadhi Agamas like Acharanga and Sutrakritanga, noting inconsistencies within chapters themselves. Prof. Jain also mentions his own efforts to compile textual variations from different published editions of Acharanga. These efforts have faced opposition from scholars like Shri Joharimal Ji Parakh. In response, the Digambara tradition, under Acharya Vidyananda Ji, has also attempted to standardize Kundakunda's works entirely into Shauraseni.

Prof. Jain emphasizes the importance of understanding the reasons behind these linguistic transformations before attempting to standardize them. He believes that changes made solely to emulate a tradition or prove antiquity can hinder historical analysis and create further complications.

The author attributes these linguistic changes to several factors:

1. Emphasis on Meaning over Form: In contrast to Vedic tradition's focus on preserving the exact pronunciation of mantras, Jainism prioritizes the meaning conveyed by the Tirthankaras. The wording was a subsequent compilation, allowing for linguistic flexibility.
2. Inclusion of Monks from Diverse Regions: The presence of monks from various regions within the Jain monastic Sangha led to the influence of their regional dialects on the language of the Agamas.
3. Nomadic Lifestyle of Jain Monks: Constant travel exposed monks to different dialects and languages, resulting in linguistic blending and changes in the Agamic texts.
4. Oral Transmission: Unlike Buddhist scriptures, which were quickly written down, Jain Agamas were transmitted orally for a long period (up to 1000 years after Mahavira), leading to significant linguistic variations due to regional pronunciation differences. The eventual writing down of these texts on palm leaves also introduced challenges in preservation.
5. Carelessness of Copyists (Lipikars): Copyists, influenced by their local dialects, sometimes inadvertently introduced their regional word forms into the manuscripts.
6. Editorial Revisions in Different Times and Places: Editors, rather than strictly preserving ancient forms, adapted the language to the prevailing linguistic norms of their time and region. Agamas compiled in Mathura showed Shauraseni influence, while those written in Valabhi were influenced by Maharashtri.

The author notes that the lack of emphasis on linguistic uniformity during compilation and copying resulted in a mixture of Ardhamagadhi, Shauraseni, and Maharashtri, leading to the designations "Jain-Shauraseni" and "Jain-Maharashtri." This linguistic diversity often results in multiple forms of the same word appearing within a single text.

While these changes generally do not cause major semantic shifts, sometimes they lead to significant differences in meaning. Examples like "Ramaputte" becoming "Ramautte" and then "Ramagutte," leading to misinterpretations about historical figures like Ramagupta, are cited. Similarly, the evolution of "Khettanna" (meaning "self-knower") to "Kheyanṇa" (meaning "one who knows sorrow") is discussed.

Prof. Jain advocates for a scientific approach to textual editing, urging caution and intellectual honesty. He believes that while preserving ancient forms is important, eliminating all influences might destroy the linguistic basis for understanding chronological order and mutual influences between texts. He argues that fully converting Shauraseni Agama-equivalent literature into Ardhamagadhi or Kundakunda's works into pure Shauraseni would be inappropriate as it would erase their historical identity.

He agrees with the need for re-editing ancient Agamas like Acharanga, Rishabhasita, and Sutrakritanga but cautions against imposing rigid grammatical rules where they don't naturally fit. He refutes the argument that Agamas, being the words of omniscient beings, cannot be subject to grammatical analysis, pointing out inconsistencies and later additions within the texts themselves. He argues that the tradition itself acknowledges that words were given form by Ganadharas, and the scriptures have undergone deletions, additions, and changes.

Prof. Jain expresses disagreement with those who completely oppose linguistic reform. He believes that while ancient forms should be preserved, and textual variants should be recorded in footnotes, extreme caution is necessary. He emphasizes that if the majority of a passage exhibits features of a later Prakrit (like Maharashtri) or a later linguistic form (like "y" in place of "t"), it should likely be retained, as it might represent a later interpolation. However, if ancient forms are prevalent, they can be favored. He stresses the importance of retaining the original text's linguistic character to understand its historical development and potential interpolations.

He also points out the inconsistency in preserving "t" sounds while altering other linguistic features based on later manuscripts, questioning the grammatical basis for such changes. He highlights instances in the published Styanangasutra where both "suti" and "sui" appear in the same sutra, leading to potential meaning differences.

In conclusion, Prof. Jain asserts that while scholarly efforts to standardize and purify the language of Jain Agamas are commendable and necessary, they must be undertaken with great care, intellectual honesty, and a deep understanding of the historical and linguistic context. Criticizing these efforts based on blind adherence to scripture or tradition is unwarranted. He encourages scholars to support and constructively contribute to this vital work of preserving and understanding the rich linguistic heritage of Jain scriptures.