Prakrit Vidya Me Pro Tatiyaji Ke Nam Se Prakashit Unke Vyakhyan

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, which critiques the views attributed to Professor Nathmal Tantiya and Professor Bholashankar Vyas on Prakrit languages, primarily concerning the primacy of Shauraseni Prakrit. The critique is presented by Dr. Sagarmal Jain.

Overall Purpose: The document is a critical review by Dr. Sagarmal Jain of lectures or statements attributed to Professor Nathmal Tantiya, as published in "Prakrit Vidya," and later, statements attributed to Professor Bholashankar Vyas. Dr. Jain aims to refute what he considers misconceptions and exaggerated claims about the superiority of Shauraseni Prakrit and the Digambara tradition's literature, while advocating for a balanced appreciation of all Prakrit languages and traditions within Jainism.

Critique of Professor Tantiya's Views (Points 1-14):

• Point 1: "Was Shauraseni the Pan-Indian language in ancient times?"

  • Dr. Jain argues that the existence of Shauraseni texts by some Digambara scholars or its use in plays alongside other Prakrits doesn't prove it was Pan-Indian.
  • He asserts that Magadhi was the Pan-Indian language during the Mauryan period, as evidenced by Ashoka's inscriptions. Shauraseni likely gained prominence later, perhaps when Mathura became a political center during the Kushana and Shaka periods.
  • He notes the lack of pure Shauraseni inscriptions and contrasts this with the extensive Shauraseni literature from Digambara scholars, while Ardhamagadhi and Maharashtri have broader literary output, including non-Jain works.

• Point 2: "Shauraseni Prakrit proved to be the most aesthetically pleasing and eloquent."

  • Dr. Jain acknowledges Prakrit's inherent charm over Sanskrit but claims Maharashtri Prakrit, with its emphasis on 'y' sounds, offers greater sweetness and beauty.
  • He questions the existence of aesthetically pleasing literary works in Shauraseni beyond play excerpts, contrasting this with Maharashtri works like "Gathasaptashati" and "Vasudevahindi."
  • He criticizes the phonetic qualities of Shauraseni ('d' and harsh consonant clusters) compared to the mellifluous sounds of Maharashtri. He states that Maharashtri's elegance surpasses even Sanskrit and other Prakrits.
  • He cautions against exaggerating Shauraseni's qualities while diminishing others.

• Point 3: "Many good things are not in Ardhamagadhi, while they are preserved in Shauraseni; clarification of many matters is done only through Shauraseni's 'Shatkhandagama' and 'Dhavala'."

  • While acknowledging the depth of Jain Karma theory in "Shatkhandagama" and "Dhavala," Dr. Jain emphasizes that Ardhamagadhi Agama literature is five times larger and contains significant valuable content.
  • He highlights "Acharanga Sutra" as containing the essence of Lord Mahavir's original teachings.
  • He argues that Digambara scholars developed their theories based on Ardhamagadhi Agamas, making the latter foundational. Ignoring Ardhamagadhi literature means neglecting the "foundation stones" of Jain philosophy and culture.
  • He points to philosophical works in Ardhamagadhi like "Visheshavashyakabhashya" and ethical works like "Brihatkalpa Bhashya" that are unmatched in Shauraseni.
  • He asserts that Shauraseni works like "Kashayapahuda" and "Shatkhandagama" are developed forms of earlier Ardhamagadhi Agamas like "Bhagavati Sutra." "Dhavala Commentary," a 10th-century work, is influenced by earlier Bhashyas and Churnis, which contain material absent in Shauraseni.

• Points 4 & 5: "Our entire family in Ladnun says we cannot understand Ardhamagadhi without knowing Shauraseni; knowledge of both languages is interdependent, so we (Digambara, Shvetambara) should work together."

  • Dr. Jain agrees with the necessity of understanding contemporary languages for a deep grasp of ancient literature.
  • He stresses that Digambara tradition, relying on Shauraseni Agamas, also needs to understand Ardhamagadhi Agamas to grasp the true essence of their own texts. He cites examples like understanding "Samyata" in "Shatkhandagama" or the meaning of "Pajjusanakappa" and "Sthapanacharya," which require knowledge of Shvetambara literature.
  • He extends this principle of mutual interdependence to other Indian traditions, citing the parallel between Jain and Buddhist scriptures.
  • He notes that while Shvetambara scholars study Shauraseni, most Digambara scholars are unfamiliar with Ardhamagadhi literature, making Tantiya's advice more pertinent to them.

• Point 6: "No philosopher has ever been equal to Acharya Kundakunda and Amritchandra."

  • Dr. Jain acknowledges Kundakunda and Amritchandra as leading figures in presenting the concept of self and non-self logically in Jain philosophy.
  • However, he argues that this doesn't diminish the contributions of Shvetambara philosophers like Siddhasena Divakara (Anekaanta), Haribhadra Suri (impartial philosopher), and Hemachandracharya (literary creator).
  • He lists other prominent Shvetambara philosophers and spiritual figures, asserting their significant value. He also highlights that figures like Siddhasena Divakara and Nagarjuna contributed to Kundakunda's stature, and prominent Digambara figures like Banarasidas, Bhayyaji Bhagavatidas, and Kanji Swami were originally from the Shvetambara tradition.

• Point 7: "The essence of all Shvetambara acharyas is found in the 'Dhavala' text; no other text is like it."

  • Dr. Jain dismisses this as an exaggeration. If "Dhavala" contains the essence of Shvetambara acharyas, it implies the latter are its source, making the "Dhavala" author indebted to them.
  • He states "Dhavala" primarily synthesizes earlier karma texts and offers only superficial treatment of many philosophical and ethical issues.
  • He contrasts the deep analysis of issues in Shvetambara works like "Sanmatitarka," "Nayachakra," "Visheshavashyakabhashya," and Bhashyas/Churnis of ethical texts with the treatment in "Dhavala."
  • He points out that "Dhavala" is a commentary, not an independent work, and its uniqueness lies in karma theory. He questions the comparison between "Dhavala" and "Samaysara," stating neither is inherently inferior.

• Point 8: "Shauraseni Prakrit is the mother of the Pali language – this is my clear thinking. Earlier, Buddhist texts were in Shauraseni, they were burned, and then written in Pali."

  • Dr. Jain strongly refutes this, stating Shauraseni features do not appear in pre-3rd-century Prakrit inscriptions and texts, while the Buddhist Tripitaka in Pali predates this.
  • He cites the statement of Acharya Buddhaghosa which indicates Buddha's teachings were originally in Magadhi.
  • He argues that a later language cannot be the mother of an earlier one, calling the claim that Shauraseni is the mother of Pali nonsensical.
  • He suggests that Dr. Sudip Jain (the publisher/editor) might have misrepresented Professor Tantiya by substituting "Shauraseni" for "Prakrit" (meaning Magadhi), as the latter claim (Buddha's teachings in Magadhi, later translated to Pali) is known. He points to inconsistencies in Dr. Sudip Jain's reporting of Tantiya's statements.

• Point 9: "Many secrets of the Karma theory, when we (Shvetambaras) do not understand them, we understand them with the help of 'Shatkhandagama'. 'Shatkhandagama' presents all angles of the Karma theory in a very scientific manner."

  • Dr. Jain agrees with the detailed presentation of Karma theory in "Shatkhandagama."
  • However, he clarifies that "Shatkhandagama" originated not from the Digambara sect but from the extinct Yapaniya sect, which accepted Ardhamagadhi Agamas and the concept of female liberation. He points to the word 'samyata' in its first section, which Digambaras attempted to remove.
  • He states that "Shatkhandagama" is based on Ardhamagadhi Agamas like "Prajnapan," and its first section shares content with "Jivasamas," suggesting they are from the same period.
  • He reiterates that understanding the history of Jain Karma theory requires studying Ardhamagadhi Agamas and Shvetambara karma literature.

• Point 10: "Haribhadra Suri's entire 'Yogashataka' is from 'Dhavala'. 'Dhavala' is a vast treasure of all Jain philosophy and knowledge. What is not in 'Dhavala'?"

  • Dr. Jain considers the claim that Haribhadra's "Yogashataka" is from "Dhavala" historically inaccurate. "Dhavala" was composed in the late 9th and early 10th centuries CE, while Haribhadra was an 8th-century scholar.
  • He asserts that the "Dhavala" author took from Haribhadra's "Yogashataka," not the other way around.
  • He calls the statement "What is not in 'Dhavala'?" an exaggeration, as many aspects of Jain knowledge are not discussed in "Dhavala," which is primarily a commentary on karma theory.
  • He contrasts the thematic diversity of Shvetambara texts like "Pravachanasoddhara" with "Dhavala."

• Point 11: "Acharya Virasena was a highly learned scholar. He deeply reviewed all Digambara-Shvetambara literature."

  • While acknowledging Virasena's scholarship, Dr. Jain disputes that he was the only such scholar or that he exhaustively reviewed all literature from both traditions.
  • He points to passages in "Dhavala" that indicate Virasena's lack of familiarity with Shvetambara traditions and texts.
  • He argues that the sheer volume of literature by Virasena's time would have made such comprehensive study impossible for a single individual. He notes Virasena's limited engagement with the beliefs of the Yapaniya tradition, whose text he commented on.

• Point 12: "Every subject of Jain philosophy is found in a systematic form in Shauraseni literature."

  • Dr. Jain agrees that Shauraseni literature is more systematized than Ardhamagadhi Agamas, attributing this to its later composition when Jain philosophy was more developed.
  • Systematization reflects the mature stage of a doctrine's development. Therefore, systematic Shauraseni literature indicates its posteriority and derivation from the Ardhamagadhi Agamas.
  • He argues that later works naturally refine and organize the content of earlier ones.
  • He cautions against inferring a lack of systematization in Ardhamagadhi and Maharashtri literature, citing works by Siddhasena Divakara, Mallavadi, Hemachandra, etc.

• Point 13: "Let 'Shvetambara' and 'Digambara' both become each other's assistants."

  • Dr. Jain fully endorses this suggestion, stating that mutual cooperation is essential for understanding and presenting the entirety of Jain philosophy.
  • He warns that mutual criticism or claims of superiority hinder this goal. While one has the right to highlight their tradition's strengths, it should not be at the expense of belittling the other.
  • He criticizes the distortion of Tantiya's praise for Shauraseni and Digambara traditions to the detriment of Ardhamagadhi literature and the Shvetambara community.

• Point 14: "In this lecture, Tantiyaji also openly praised Dhavala, Shatkhandagama, Virasena, Kundakunda, Mulachara, Atmavyakti, Amritchandra, etc."

  • Dr. Jain agrees with the significant contributions of "Shatkhandagama," "Dhavala," and Virasena to Jain Karma theory, and of Kundakunda and Amritchandra to Jain spiritual literature.
  • He views Tantiya's praise as a sign of his generosity.
  • However, he cautions against interpreting this praise as suggesting that only Digambara tradition or Shauraseni literature produced high-quality scholars and works. He reiterates the importance of Shvetambara scholars like Siddhasena Divakara, Mallavadi, and Hemachandra.
  • He concludes by urging "Prakrit Vidya" to give equal importance to all Prakrit branches (Ardhamagadhi, Shauraseni, Maharashtri, Apabhramsa) rather than solely glorifying Shauraseni. He believes that elevating Shauraseni and denigrating others is factually incorrect and detrimental to the study of Prakrit. He requests the editor to publish the unedited tape of Tantiya's lecture to resolve disputes.

Critique of Professor Vyas's Views (Points 1-10 from the second section):

This section critiques points attributed to Professor Bholashankar Vyas, which largely echo Tantiya's claims.

• Point 1: "Shauraseni Prakrit was the original Prakrit, and its contemporary Magadhi Prakrit was its regional version."

  • Dr. Jain argues against this, noting the absence of Shauraseni features in pre-2nd-century Prakrit inscriptions and texts.
  • He states that all Prakrits evolved from their respective regional dialects and are more like sisters than mother-daughter.
  • Linguistically and chronologically, Magadhi appears to be the oldest written Prakrit, suggesting the reverse relationship.

• Point 2: "Shauraseni Prakrit was spoken in Madhya Desha and literature was created through it throughout Greater India."

  • Dr. Jain agrees with the first part but disputes the second. He notes that apart from Shauraseni sections in plays, no secular texts are found in pure Shauraseni.
  • He highlights that available Shauraseni literature is primarily from Digambara and Yapaniya sects, while Maharashtri was used for secular literature and by Shvetambara scholars, indicating Maharashtri's wider circulation.

• Point 3: "Shauraseni Prakrit is the mother of all Prakrits and other languages."

  • Dr. Jain reiterates that all Prakrits arose from regional dialects. Claiming one Prakrit as the mother of all is a misconception. All literary Prakrits are refined forms of regional dialects. He uses the analogy of Rajasthani dialects to illustrate that regional variations are natural and not necessarily indicative of one being the mother of another.

• Point 4: "Initially there were two Prakrits: Shauraseni and Magadhi; later Maharashtri Prakrit is a completely transformed form of Shauraseni. I do not consider Maharashtri Prakrit to have an independent existence."

  • Dr. Jain refutes this, highlighting the distinct features of Shauraseni and Maharashtri (e.g., 't' to 'd' in Shauraseni vs. vowel elision with 'y' in Maharashtri).
  • He states that Maharashtri has the most extensive literature among Prakrits, making the claim of its non-independent existence biased.
  • He notes the lack of evidence for Shauraseni being older than Maharashtri, citing "Gathasaptashati" (attributed to Satavahana Hala, 1st century CE) as potentially older than any confirmed Shauraseni text.

• Point 5: "Ardhamagadhi Prakrit, which is found only in Shvetambara Jain Agama texts, is based on Shauraseni Prakrit."

  • Dr. Jain argues the opposite: Shauraseni literature contains thousands of words and verses from Ardhamagadhi and Maharashtri, suggesting Shauraseni is based on them.
  • He cites religious traditions indicating Lord Mahavir preached in Ardhamagadhi, and his birthplace (Magadha) suggests Magadhi was his mother tongue, not Shauraseni.
  • He points out that Western and Indian scholars date Ardhamagadhi Agamas (like "Acharanga") to before the Common Era, while Shauraseni Agamas are not found before the 3rd-4th centuries CE, indicating Ardhamagadhi's primacy.

• Point 6: "The oldest forms of Shauraseni Prakrit are found in Emperor Ashoka's Girnar inscription."

  • Dr. Jain asserts that scholars universally recognize Ashoka's inscriptions as Magadhi or Arsha Prakrit, with regional dialect influences.
  • He argues that key Shauraseni features ('t' to 'd', 'n' to 'ṇ') are largely absent in Ashoka's inscriptions.
  • He contends that the features at Girnar are actually Maharashtri, not Shauraseni, and that even Delhi-Topra inscriptions (in Shauraseni territory) show Magadhi forms like 'laja'.

• Point 7: "In this sequence, Professor Vyas further states – after this, pure Shauraseni language is found used in 'Kashayapahuda Sutra', 'Shatkhandagama Sutra', Kundakunda literature, and 'Dhavala', 'Jayadhavala', etc."

  • Dr. Jain questions the basis for calling the language of these texts "pure Shauraseni," citing scholars like Prof. A.N. Upadhye and Prof. Khadbadi who found Ardhamagadhi influence in "Pravachanasara" and "Shatkhandagama" respectively.
  • He claims these texts are a mix (khichdi) of Ardhamagadhi, Shauraseni, and Maharashtri, with varying proportions.

• Point 8: "The Pali language of Buddhist texts was also originally Shauraseni Prakrit, which was artificially Sanskritized and given the form of Pali with pre-eastern influences."

  • Dr. Jain again refutes this, stating Buddha's work was mainly in Magadha, and his teachings were first compiled in Magadhi. While Pali became closer to Sanskrit over time, it cannot be called Shauraseni.

• Point 9: "I consider Shauraseni to be the original Prakrit language."

  • Dr. Jain challenges the interpretation of 'prakritiḥ shaurasenī' as meaning Shauraseni is the original Prakrit, suggesting it has different meanings in linguistic contexts.
  • He points out Vyas's admission that Magadhi is almost as ancient, which contradicts the claim of Shauraseni's sole originality. Ashoka's inscriptions (3rd century BCE) clearly show Magadhi's antiquity, while no Shauraseni text predates the 1st-2nd century CE. Thus, Magadhi appears significantly older.
  • He dismisses the idea that Magadhi and Shauraseni differ only in pronunciation, stating that distinct features define different Prakrits. If all were Shauraseni, their specific labels and grammatical rules would be meaningless. He posits that Ardhamagadhi, characterized by mixed regional dialectal forms, might be a more appropriate descriptor for this linguistic mixture.

• Point 10: "I consider Shauraseni to be the original Prakrit language, Magadhi is also approximately as ancient, but in reality, it has no difference except for eastern pronunciation. Fundamentally, it is also Shauraseni."

  • Dr. Jain reiterates that Magadhi is demonstrably older based on inscriptions and literary evidence. He questions why Vyas doesn't clearly acknowledge Magadhi's seniority if he admits their similar antiquity.
  • He reiterates that differences in pronunciation and affixes define Prakrits, and reducing them all to Shauraseni is unscientific. He concludes by urging the editor to promote unity in Prakrit studies rather than fostering division based on claims of Shauraseni's supremacy, as this would harm the field of Prakrit studies.

Conclusion of the Document:

Dr. Sagarmal Jain concludes by appealing to the editor of "Prakrit Vidya" to publish the raw, unedited lecture of Professor Tantiya or make the tape available to resolve the ongoing disputes. He stresses the importance of unity and balanced study of all Prakrit languages and traditions within Jainism, rather than creating divisions based on unsubstantiated claims of superiority. He calls for a collaborative approach to the advancement of Prakrit studies.