Prakrit Bhasha Ka Prachin Swarup - Book Summary

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the provided Jain text, "Prakrit Bhasha Ka Prachin Swarup" by Sagarmal Jain:

This collection, titled "Prakrit Bhasha Ka Prachin Swarup" (The Ancient Form of Prakrit Language), is Volume 1 of the "Sagarmal Jainalekh Sangrah" (Collection of Articles by Sagarmal Jain) published by Prachya Vidyapith, Shajapur. The book comprises various articles authored by Dr. Sagarmal Jain, a renowned scholar of Jainism and Indian sciences, reflecting his extensive work and research over fifty years. The publication aims to compile his scattered writings, which have appeared in numerous journals, prefaces, and books, offering a deep dive into the historical evolution and nature of Prakrit languages, with a particular focus on their significance in Jain Agama literature.

The collection is divided into several articles, the first few of which are included in the provided text. These articles delve into critical aspects of Prakrit linguistics and their relation to Jain scriptures:

Key Themes and Arguments from the Articles:

Origin and Development of Ardhamagadhi Prakrit: Dr. Jain posits that Sanskrit is a refined language, developed from various spoken dialects (Prakrits). He argues against the misconception that Prakrits are corruptions of Sanskrit, asserting instead that Prakrits are the older, natural dialects, and Sanskrit is a later, cultured literary language. He traces the development from Magadhi Prakrit to Ardhamagadhi, noting the influence of regional dialects and its presence in ancient inscriptions like those of Ashoka. Ardhamagadhi is presented as the foundational language for the earliest Jain Agamas.
Evolution of the Linguistic Form of Prakrit Agamas: This article discusses the various Prakrit languages that emerged, including Magadhi, Ardhamagadhi, Sauraseni, Jain Sauraseni, Maharashtri, Jain Maharashtri, Paishachi, etc. Dr. Jain emphasizes that Prakrits originated from regional dialects, leading to natural linguistic variations. He highlights that while Sanskrit was grammatically fixed, Prakrits, being derived from spoken languages, exhibited more diversity. He specifically analyzes Ardhamagadhi, Jain Sauraseni, and Maharashtri Prakrit within the context of Jain literature, noting the influences and historical development. The inherent diversity in Prakrits is attributed to their dialectal origins and the evolution of grammar, with literary works often predating their formal grammars.
Ardhamagadhi Agama Literature: Truths and Facts: This article establishes Ardhamagadhi Agama literature as the oldest form of Prakrit literature, dating some texts like Acharaanga's first Shrutaskandha and Rishibhashita to the 5th-4th centuries BCE, even preceding Ashokan inscriptions. Dr. Jain argues that the content and style of Acharaanga suggest direct proximity to Lord Mahavir's teachings, free from later embellishments. He counters the idea that the final recension of Agamas in the 5th century CE (Vallabhi recension) indicates their late origin, asserting that recensions are for compilation and editing, not creation. He also addresses the perceived Maharashtri influence in some Ardhamagadhi texts, attributing it to scribes and commentators rather than a late origin for Ardhamagadhi itself. The article also touches upon the factual inconsistencies within Ardhamagadhi literature, arguing that these are not flaws but rather present an honest historical record of the development of Jain thought and practice.
The Original Language of Jain Agamas: Ardhamagadhi or Sauraseni?: This is a pivotal article where Dr. Jain critically examines the claim that Sauraseni Prakrit was the original language of Jain Agamas, later transformed into Ardhamagadhi. He strongly refutes this, presenting textual evidence from both Svetambara and Digambara traditions indicating that Lord Mahavir's teachings were in Ardhamagadhi. He argues that Sauraseni's distinct features, like the interchange of 't' to 'd' and 'n' to 'ṇ', are absent in the earliest inscriptions and even in early Jain Sauraseni texts. Instead, he demonstrates that Sauraseni and Maharashtri influences are found in later recensions of the Agamas, suggesting Ardhamagadhi is the earlier language. Dr. Jain also debates the interpretation of 'Prakritiḥ Saurasenī' (Sauraseni is the nature/source) in Prakrit grammars, asserting that 'Prakriti' here means 'model' or 'basis' for grammatical rules, not origin. He highlights that the term 'Sanskrit' itself implies a refined, artificial language, whereas 'Prakrit' denotes a natural, spoken dialect. He concludes that Prakrits, as dialects, are older than Sanskrit, and Ardhamagadhi is demonstrably older than Sauraseni based on linguistic and epigraphic evidence. He also criticizes claims about Sauraseni being the origin of Pali and other Prakrits, asserting that Magadhi/Ardhamagadhi and Pali are the earliest literary Prakrits.
Review of Professor Totiya's Views on Prakrit Studies: This article critically analyzes the linguistic theories attributed to Professor N.T. Totiya, particularly concerning the primacy of Sauraseni Prakrit. Dr. Jain systematically refutes Totiya's claims, often highlighting contradictions and lack of evidence. He questions the assertion that Sauraseni was the pan-Indian language or that Ardhamagadhi is a mere dialectical variant of Sauraseni. He defends the rich literature and linguistic purity of Ardhamagadhi and Maharashtri, contrasting it with what he considers the limited scope and perceived artificiality of Sauraseni in Jain literature. He also addresses claims about the chronological order of literary works and the influence of different traditions, arguing that the Svetambara Agamas are linguistically earlier than most Digambara Sauraseni works.
Review of Professor Bholashankar Vyas's Assertions on Sauraseni Prakrit: This article debunks the claims made by Professor Bholashankar Vyas, who also advocated for the primacy of Sauraseni Prakrit. Dr. Jain challenges Vyas's assertions about Sauraseni being the mother of all Prakrits, the lack of independent existence for Maharashtri, and the idea that Ardhamagadhi is based on Sauraseni. He reiterates that Prakrits originated from regional dialects and emphasizes the significant literary corpus in Maharashtri Prakrit, which contradicts the notion of its non-independent existence. He again stresses the epigraphic evidence for Magadhi/Ardhamagadhi being older than Sauraseni, citing the absence of Sauraseni's characteristic features in early inscriptions from Magadha and even Mathura.
The Language of Ashoka's Inscriptions: Magadhi or Sauraseni?: This article specifically addresses Professor Bholashankar Vyas's claim that Ashoka's Girnar inscription contains the oldest forms of Sauraseni Prakrit. Dr. Jain rigorously refutes this by analyzing Ashoka's inscriptions and comparing them with the known characteristics of Magadhi, Ardhamagadhi, and Sauraseni. He cites the findings of Dr. Rajbali Pandey and his own linguistic analysis to demonstrate that Ashoka's inscriptions are primarily in Magadhi, with some regional dialectal influences, making them closer to Ardhamagadhi. He highlights the absence of Sauraseni's key features like the 't' to 'd' conversion and the 'n' to 'ṇ' prevalence in Ashoka's inscriptions. He also debunks the argument about the Brahmi script having a single character for 'n' and 'ṇ', presenting evidence from Paleography expert G.H. Ojha's works to show distinct forms for these letters even in ancient Brahmi inscriptions.
Brahmi Script: A Single Form for 'n' and 'ṇ'?: This article directly confronts a claim attributed to Dr. Sudip Jain, who, in defense of Sauraseni's antiquity, suggested that the Brahmi script had a single character for both 'n' and 'ṇ'. Dr. Jain meticulously analyzes the evidence from G.H. Ojha's "Prachin Bharatiya Lipimala" and other epigraphic sources. He demonstrates that Brahmi script consistently used distinct characters for 'n' and 'ṇ' throughout different periods and regions. He argues that this claim is baseless and likely a misinterpretation or deliberate distortion of Ojha's work to support a preconceived notion about Sauraseni's antiquity. He concludes that the presence of distinct characters for 'n' and 'ṇ' in Brahmi further supports the argument that the Prakrits with a preference for 'ṇ' (like Sauraseni and Maharashtri) are later developments than those with a preference for 'n' (like Magadhi and Ardhamagadhi).
Odhamagadhi Prakrit: A New Conjecture: This article critiques the attempt by Dr. Sudip Jain to introduce "Odhamagadhi Prakrit" as an ancient language, citing Bharat Muni's Natyashastra. Dr. Jain argues that Odhamagadhi, as mentioned in Natyashastra, refers to a theatrical style or convention prevalent in Eastern India, not a distinct language. He points out the absence of any mention of Odhamagadhi as a language in any Prakrit grammar or significant scholarly work throughout history. He suggests that this is a fabricated concept aimed at undermining the established understanding of Ardhamagadhi and its antiquity, particularly its role in Jain Agama literature. He attributes this to a prejudiced attempt to discredit Ardhamagadhi and elevate Sauraseni.

Overall Significance:

"Prakrit Bhasha Ka Prachin Swarup" stands as a significant contribution to the study of Prakrit linguistics and Jain textual criticism. Dr. Sagarmal Jain's rigorous analysis, backed by linguistic principles, epigraphic evidence, and textual comparisons, systematically dismantles prevailing myths about the antiquity and origin of Prakrit languages, especially in relation to Jain Agamas. The collection showcases a deep scholarly engagement with historical texts and linguistic evolution, advocating for a more nuanced and evidence-based understanding of ancient Indian languages and their role in shaping religious and philosophical traditions. The work highlights the foundational importance of Ardhamagadhi in Jainism and challenges attempts to artificially elevate Sauraseni or create new linguistic classifications for political or sectarian reasons.