Jain Agamo Me Hua Bhashik Swarup Parivartan Ek Vimarsh - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Jain Agamo Me Hua Bhashik Swarup Parivartan Ek Vimarsh" by Sagarmal Jain:

Book Title: Jain Agamo Me Hua Bhashik Swarup Parivartan Ek Vimarsh (Linguistic Transformation in Jain Agamas: A Discussion) Author: Sagarmal Jain

This extensive essay by Sagarmal Jain delves into the complex and evolving linguistic landscape of Jain Agamic literature, focusing on the transformations that occurred in the Prakrit languages used within these sacred texts. The author argues that understanding these linguistic shifts is crucial for accurately dating and interpreting Jain scriptures.

Key Points and Arguments:

Prakrit as a Language Family: The author begins by asserting that Prakrit is not a single language but rather a group of languages. He lists various Prakrit dialects like Magadhi, Ardha-Magadhi, Shauraseni, Jain Shauraseni, Maharashtri, Jain Maharashtri, Paishachi, Bachhad, Chulika, and Dhakki, from which later Apabhramsa forms and subsequently modern Indian languages (Assamese, Bengali, Oriya, Bhojpuri, Punjabi, Rajasthani, Gujarati, Marathi) evolved. Prakrit is thus considered the ancestor of all Indian languages, including Hindi.
Sanskrit's Relationship to Prakrit: Jain argues that even Sanskrit development was influenced by Prakrit dialects, serving to "sanctify" them into a common contact language. He suggests that the original form of Sanskrit was Chhandas (Vedic Sanskrit), which then gave rise to literary Sanskrit. The word "Sanskrit" itself implies a refined language, while "Prakrit" signifies its natural, original state.
Challenges in Prakrit Grammar: The author highlights that all existing Prakrit grammars were written in Sanskrit for Sanskrit scholars. He emphasizes the difficulty of creating a single, comprehensive grammar for Prakrit due to its inherent diversity, originating from various dialects that constantly change due to regional influences, time, and ease of pronunciation. Prakrit is described as a flowing language, impossible to rigidly confine within grammatical rules, hence being termed "Bahul" (having many alternate forms).
Prakrit in Literature and Agamas: Prakrit essentially remained as dialects, even in dramatic literature where different characters speak different Prakrit forms (e.g., in Mricchakatika). While most Prakrit dialects existed only as spoken forms found in plays and inscriptions, Ardha-Magadhi, Jain Shauraseni, and Jain Maharashtri are highlighted as the languages in which vast Jain religious literature was created.
Jain Shauraseni and Jain Maharashtri:
- Jain Shauraseni was used in the texts of the Yapaniya and Digambara traditions. It's called Jain Shauraseni because it contains characteristics of both Shauraseni and Ardha-Magadhi, with a clear influence of Ardha-Magadhi, as its source texts were Ardha-Magadhi Agamas.
- Jain Maharashtri was adopted by the Shvetambara acharyas. It includes Maharashtri features along with occasional influences from Ardha-Magadhi and Shauraseni, due to its foundation being mainly Ardha-Magadhi and Jain Shauraseni literature.
Intermingling and Influence: Jain stresses that no text in either Shvetambara or Digambara tradition is purely representative of a single Prakrit. Shvetambara Ardha-Magadhi Agamas, despite textual variations, show a significant Maharashtri influence. Even ancient Agamas like Acharanga and Rishi Bhashita, while predominantly Ardha-Magadhi, show partial Shauraseni and significant Maharashtri influence. Digambara Shauraseni texts, in turn, exhibit Ardha-Magadhi and Maharashtri influences. This mixing is so prevalent that the author notes some texts are about 60% Shauraseni and 40% Maharashtri.
Transformation of Quotations: A significant point is made about how quotations from other Prakrit traditions were often adapted into the language of the borrowing text. Shauraseni texts quoting Ardha-Magadhi Agamas would convert the quotes into Shauraseni, and Maharashtri texts or Shvetambara authors quoting Shauraseni texts would convert them into Maharashtri. This led to confusion in dating and understanding the interrelationships between texts.
Causes of Linguistic Change: The author elaborates on several reasons for these linguistic transformations:
1. Focus on Meaning over Form: Jain tradition prioritized the meaning (artha) conveyed by the Tirthankaras, considering the word forms to be elaborated by Ganadharas and later acharyas. Unlike Vedic tradition's emphasis on preserving pronunciation, Jain acharyas allowed for linguistic changes as long as the meaning remained intact.
2. Inclusion of Monks from Various Regions: The Jain Sangha comprised monks from different regions, each with their own dialects and pronunciation styles, leading to linguistic variations in the literature.
3. Nomadic Lifestyle of Monks: The peripatetic nature of Jain monks exposed them to various regional languages, resulting in the influence and mixing of dialects in their teachings.
4. Oral Tradition: Jain Agamas were transmitted orally for a long period before being written down. This oral transmission, spanning centuries and regions, naturally led to variations in pronunciation and linguistic form.
5. Carelessness of Copyists: Scribes, influenced by their regional dialects, would sometimes inadvertently introduce their own linguistic forms into the texts.
6. Editing and Compilation in Different Times and Regions: Editors and compilers adapted texts according to the prevailing linguistic norms of their own era and region, rather than strictly preserving the original forms. This is why Ardha-Magadhi Agamas compiled in Mathura became closer to Shauraseni, and those compiled in Valabhi were influenced by Maharashtri.
Consequences of Linguistic Mixing: This linguistic amalgamation has created a "khichdi" (mix) of Ardha-Magadhi, Shauraseni, and Maharashtri, leading scholars to coin terms like "Jain Shauraseni" and "Jain Maharashtri." The author points out inconsistencies like finding multiple forms of the same word (e.g., 'lok', 'log', 'lom', 'loy') within the same section of a single Agama.
Impact on Meaning: While often minor, these linguistic changes can sometimes lead to significant shifts in meaning. Examples are given of 'Ramputte' changing to 'Ramutte' and then 'Ramgutta', leading some scholars to incorrectly identify it with the Gupta ruler Ramgupta. Similarly, 'Khetanna' (meaning 'knower of the self') transformed into 'Kheyam' and interpreted as 'knower of sorrow'.
Efforts for Linguistic Restoration: The essay discusses contemporary efforts to restore the original linguistic forms of Agamas. Dr. K. Rishabchandra is mentioned for his work on removing Maharashtri influence from Ardha-Magadhi Agamas like Acharanga and Sutrakritanga. Sagarmal Jain himself has also undertaken compilation of textual variants from different editions of Acharanga. This movement has also influenced the Digambara tradition, with attempts to convert Kundakunda's works entirely into Shauraseni.
Justification and Caution: Jain questions the extent to which these linguistic restoration efforts are justified. He warns that imposing uniformity could erase the evidence of mutual influence and evolution between different Prakrit traditions, hindering the study of their chronology and interrelationships. He also cautions against altering texts based solely on tradition or to prove a particular lineage's antiquity, which could lead to misinterpretations and historical inaccuracies.
Dating and Chronology: The linguistic features of texts are crucial for determining their chronological order and influences. For instance, the usage of 'namo' versus 'namo' in the Namaskara Mantra helps in dating and understanding the transmission from Ardha-Magadhi to Shauraseni and Maharashtri.
The "Bahul" Nature of Prakrit: The author reiterates that the "Bahul" (manifold) nature of Prakrit, with its variations even within a single region or dialect, makes linguistic uniformity efforts challenging. The development of literary Prakrit itself was rooted in diverse dialects.
Revisiting Ancient Agamas: Jain agrees that ancient Agamas like Acharanga, Rishi Bhashita, and Sutrakritanga should be re-edited. However, he emphasizes the need for extreme caution and intellectual honesty.
Methodology for Textual Criticism:
- Respecting Original Manuscripts: Linguistic changes should not be made if a particular word form is not found in any original manuscript.
- Prioritizing Ancient Forms: If both ancient and later forms exist in a text or manuscript, the ancient form can be preferred, but with caution. If an entire passage shows significant influence from a later dialect, it should be preserved as is, as changing it might obscure its potential later interpolation.
- The Role of Tradition: The author acknowledges that linguistic changes might occur naturally due to regional influences, but deliberate alterations within the same sentence or verse are unlikely for a knowledgeable author.
- Scholarly Debate and Objectivity: He advocates for understanding the value of scholarly efforts like Dr. Chandra's, rather than criticizing them as mere "tampering" driven by sectarian bias. He argues that the goal of critical editing is to bring out the most authentic form, and that this process requires comparing multiple manuscripts and using grammatical knowledge judiciously.
- Preserving Variants: When making corrections, all available textual variants should be preserved in footnotes to aid future research.
- Avoiding Over-Reliance on Ideals: While manuscript evidence is important, blind adherence to "ideal" manuscripts without critical analysis or comparison with grammatical rules is also not ideal.
- The Danger of Dogmatism: The author strongly criticizes the rigid stance of some scholars who reject any attempt at linguistic purification, arguing that such a stance ignores the historical evidence of linguistic evolution and alterations within the Agamas themselves. He points out internal contradictions and variations within the Agamas as evidence that they are not always verbatim, unalterable pronouncements of the omniscient.

Conclusion:

Sagarmal Jain's essay is a profound exploration of the dynamic nature of the Prakrit languages within Jain Agamas. He meticulously details the historical development, regional influences, and intentional adaptations that led to linguistic variations. While acknowledging the need for critical textual analysis and potential restoration of ancient forms, he strongly advocates for caution, intellectual honesty, and a deep understanding of the historical and linguistic context to avoid misinterpretations and preserve the integrity of Jain textual scholarship. The author's ultimate aim is to foster a scholarly approach that respects both tradition and critical inquiry for a more accurate understanding of Jain Agamic literature.