Jinagamo Ki Bhasha Nam Aur Swarup

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Jinagamo ki Bhasha Nam aur Swarup" by K. R. Chandra:

Book Title: Jinagamo ki Bhasha Nam aur Swarup (The Name and Nature of the Language of Jain Agamas) Author: Dr. K. R. Chandra Publisher: Z_Jinavani_003218.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/229802/1

Core Argument:

The central thesis of this article by Dr. K. R. Chandra, a renowned scholar of Prakrit language and grammar, is that the original language of the Jain Agamas, as propagated by Lord Mahavir, was Ardhamagadhi. However, over time, due to various factors such as lack of familiarity with Ardhamagadhi grammar, regional influences, and the study of available grammars of other Prakrit languages like Maharashtri, Ardhamagadhi Agamas underwent significant changes, with Maharashtri and other Prakrits influencing their transcription and editing. Dr. Chandra's aim is to demonstrate the ancient form of Ardhamagadhi by comparing different versions of the Agamas and to encourage its acceptance.

Key Points and Summary:

1. Definition of Jain Agamas: The article distinguishes between the Agamas accepted by the Shvetambara tradition (composed between the 5th century BCE and 5th century CE) and the ancient scriptures accepted by the Digambara tradition. The former are identified with Ardhamagadhi, while the latter are in Shauraseni Prakrit.

2. The Significance of "Ardhamagadhi": The name "Ardhamagadhi" (half-Magadhi) is crucial. It's argued that it's not called "half-Shauraseni" or "half-Maharashtri" because Magadhi is the primary component, with "Ardha" indicating a partial inclusion or influence of other languages or dialects spoken in regions surrounding Magadha.

3. Geographical Scope of Ardhamagadhi: The language is associated with the areas where Lord Mahavir traveled. This includes parts of present-day Bihar (south of the Ganges, like Magadha, Lichhavis, Videha, Anga), and extending to Koshala (Ayodhya, also known as Saketa), Bengal (Ladha region), and parts of Kalinga (Odisha) in the east and west. The influence of dialects from these neighboring regions on the original Magadhi is seen as the reason for it being termed "Ardhamagadhi."

4. Linguistic Characteristics of Ardhamagadhi:

   • Difference from Magadhi: While Magadhi had specific grammatical features like the 'e' ending for singular masculine nominative, Ardhamagadhi sometimes exhibits the 'o' ending.
   • Consonant Changes: In Magadhi, the sounds 'r' and 'l' were often interchangeable, while in Ardhamagadhi, 'r' was more consistently retained.
   • Sibilants: A significant characteristic of Magadhi is the replacement of all three sibilant sounds ('ś', 'ṣ', 's') with 'ś'. However, Ardhamagadhi, similar to the language of Ashoka's Eastern India inscriptions, predominantly uses 's' for both 'ś' and 'ṣ'. This is also observed in the language of Kharavela's Hathigumpha inscription and Mathura inscriptions. The article notes the modern prevalence of 'ś' pronunciation for 's' in Eastern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Bengal.

5. Deterioration of Ardhamagadhi:

   • No Uniformity: Not all Ardhamagadhi Agama texts are from the same period, and their language has varied. Even the oldest sections, like the first Shrutaskandha of the Achārāṅga, show traces of Maharashtri influence.
   • Oral Tradition and Center Shifts: The oral tradition and the shifting geographical centers of Jainism (from Rajgir, Pataliputra, Vaishali to Mathura and then Valabhi in Gujarat) led to the admixture of local dialects, making a purely ancient Ardhamagadhi version unavailable.
   • Final Recension: The final recension (third vācanā) of the Agamas took place in Valabhi in the early 6th century CE, when the Agamas were written down. However, even later manuscripts show linguistic inconsistencies.
   • Focus on Content over Language: Unlike the Vedic tradition, the emphasis in Jainism was on the content of the teachings rather than strict linguistic preservation. This contrasts with Pali, which was codified early in Sri Lanka and remained relatively unchanged.

6. Influence of Maharashtri Prakrit and Grammatical Neglect:

   • Difficulty in Determining Original Form: The influence of Maharashtri Prakrit has made the original form of Ardhamagadhi very difficult to ascertain. Scholars like Muni Punyavijayji have noted that the original language has become a "mixture."
   • Absence of Dedicated Grammars: No Prakrit grammarian gave Ardhamagadhi a special place in their works. They primarily focused on Maharashtri, Shauraseni, Paishachi, etc.
   • Hemachandracharya's Approach: Even Hemachandracharya, a Jain scholar who was knowledgeable about the Agamas, did not specifically address the phonetic changes of medial consonants in Ardhamagadhi. He termed it "Arsha" (ancient) language, applying general rules, which provided significant freedom but lacked specific guidance for Ardhamagadhi.
   • Application of Maharashtri Rules: The rules for medial consonant changes in Maharashtri Prakrit were often applied to Ardhamagadhi texts. Manuscript readings that resembled Pali were considered defective and replaced with Maharashtri vocabulary.

7. Scholarly Editions and Discrepancies:

   • Professor Jacobi's Method: Professor Hermann Jacobi, in his edition of the Achārāṅga, preserved textual readings that resembled Pali, not altering them to conform to Maharashtri Prakrit. He recognized the archaic nature of Ardhamagadhi, which was closer to Pali.
   • Professor Schubring's Method: Professor Schubring, despite having access to Jacobi's edition and more manuscripts, altered the Ardhamagadhi readings in his edition to align with Maharashtri Prakrit. The author questions why Schubring did not follow Jacobi's more conservative approach, especially since he also edited the Isibhasiyaim where some original Ardhamagadhi usages were retained.
   • Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya Edition: The edition from Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya, Bombay, aligns with Jacobi's scholarly practice.
   • Critique of Schubring and Pishal: The article criticizes Schubring and Pishal for not treating Ardhamagadhi with scholarly sympathy, artificially applying Maharashtri phonetic change rules to it. It calls for future scholars to diligently work on restoring the original form of the language.

8. Evidence of Ancient Ardhamagadhi:

   • Examples from Sūtakṛtāṅga and Daśavaikālika: The article provides numerous examples from these texts that retain original Ardhamagadhi forms with medial consonants unchanged, contrasting with Maharashtri influences.
   • Comparison with Isibhasiyaim: The Isibhasiyaim, also considered an ancient text, contains numerous word forms similar to Pali, highlighting the close relationship between Ardhamagadhi and Pali.
   • Consonant Changes (Medieval Prakrit Grammars): The article discusses changes like 'j', 'ñ', 'ñj' becoming 'ṇṇ', and the later prevalence of 'ṇ' (murddhanya) over dental 'n', noting that these were later developments not consistently present in early inscriptions or Ardhamagadhi itself.

9. Conclusion and Call to Action:

   • Original Ardhamagadhi vs. Later Changes: The original Ardhamagadhi, the language of Lord Mahavir's sermons, was similar to Pali. However, in later periods, its form was altered or allowed to change.
   • Improper Editing: Many editors lacked historical and comparative knowledge of Prakrit language development. They adopted corrupted manuscript readings without understanding the original linguistic form of Ardhamagadhi, which was distinct from Maharashtri Prakrit.
   • The Role of Scholars and Ascetics: The article highlights that the corruption wasn't solely due to scribes but also due to Jain acharyas, upadhyayas, and munis who failed to preserve the original language of the teachings. This led to the "khichdi" (mixed) language seen today.
   • Muni Punyavijayji's Contribution: Muni Punyavijayji is credited for identifying the alterations and corruptions in the original Ardhamagadhi, guiding the path for correction.
   • Challenge for the Jain Community: The article concludes with a poignant observation that despite these findings, it remains a challenge to determine the true original language of the Jain Agamas. It calls upon the Jain community to undertake the rigorous study and restoration of the original language, suggesting that Hemachandracharya's grammar alone is insufficient and that deep knowledge of ancient scripts and scriptural errors is also required.

In essence, the article is a scholarly argument for recognizing and restoring the original Ardhamagadhi form of the Jain Agamas, lamenting the linguistic drift and advocating for a more faithful approach to textual preservation.