Shat Prabhut Ka Rachnakar Kaun Aur Uska Rachnakal

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text:

Book Title: Shat prabhut ka Rachnakar Kaun aur Uska Rachnakal (Who is the author of Shat prabhut and what is its composition period?) Author: Dr. K.R. Chandra Publisher: Z_Yatindrasuri_Diksha_Shatabdi_Smarak_Granth_012036.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/212086/1

This article, authored by Dr. K.R. Chandra, critically examines the authorship and period of composition of the Shatprabhrit (also referred to as Shatpahud or Shatprakrit in the text). The discussion is primarily prompted by the views expressed by Dr. A.N. Upadhye in the preface to his edition of the Pravacanasara.

Dr. Chandra's central argument is that based on a detailed linguistic analysis, the Shatprabhrit is a work from a different period than the Pravacanasara and is therefore not attributable to the same author, Acharya Kundakunda.

Key Linguistic Arguments:

Dr. Chandra highlights significant linguistic differences between the Pravacanasara and the Shatprabhrit, suggesting that the latter exhibits characteristics closer to Apabhramsha and the Maharashtri Prakrit, while the former is closer to Shauraseni Prakrit. He provides numerous examples of specific grammatical and lexical features:

• Suffixes: The Shatprabhrit uses suffixes like "-tun" and "-chun" for gerunds (hetrarthak krdanta), a feature characteristic of a later period and closer to Apabhramsha. The Pravacanasara employs different suffixes for similar grammatical functions.
• Noun Endings: The Shatprabhrit shows a greater prevalence of endings like "-di" and "-de" for the nominative singular masculine, which are akin to Apabhramsha usage. In contrast, the Pravacanasara uses endings like "-i" and "-e".
• Pronoun Usage: The usage of "ada" and "atman" in the Shatprabhrit and its varied forms like "appa" and "aya" are also indicative of a later linguistic stage.
• Neuter Gender Endings: The Shatprabhrit extensively uses "-ni" and "-im" for the nominative and accusative singular neuter, with a ratio of 1:7.5 compared to the Pravacanasara.
• Plural Suffixes: The Shatprabhrit displays a preference for "-e" and "-mmi" for plural cases, with a ratio of 5:1 compared to the Pravacanasara.
• Gerundive Suffixes: The Shatprabhrit utilizes "-dun" and "-ccha" for gerunds and past participles respectively, which are later developments compared to the Pravacanasara.
• Absence of Anuṣvāra: The usage of indeclinables without anuṣvāra (e.g., "kah" instead of "kaham") is also noted as an Apabhramsha characteristic in the Shatprabhrit.
• Word Forms: Numerous other word forms in the Shatprabhrit are presented as being similar to Apabhramsha usage, such as "ikku" (for "ek"), "itthe" (for "etasmāt"), and "tehraame" (for "treyodashe").
• Verb Conjugations: The present tense, third person plural, uses the suffix "-hi" in the Shatprabhrit (e.g., "lahahi", "chitthahi"), which is characteristic of a later period. The imperative second person singular masculine uses "-i" (e.g., "bhavi", "parihari"). The gerund uses "-evi" (e.g., "levi", "caevi"). The past participle uses forms like "huo" (for "bhūtaḥ") and "vuttaṃ" (for "vṛttam").

Critique of Dr. A.N. Upadhye's Stance:

Dr. Chandra addresses Dr. Upadhye's argument that Kundakunda should be accepted as the author of the Shatprabhrit based on tradition, and that the text doesn't contain anything to preclude this. Dr. Upadhye also suggests that the linguistic differences might be due to the critical edition not being perfect and that traditional texts might have been attributed to Kundakunda due to his fame.

Dr. Chandra counters these points by arguing:

• Similarity in Content does not imply Same Authorship: The presence of similar ideas, phrases, and sentences in both texts does not automatically prove they are by the same author or from the same period. The language itself is a crucial indicator.
• Critical Edition vs. Linguistic Authenticity: Dr. Chandra questions the implication of a critical edition. He asks if Apabhramsha-laden verses should be discarded or if their original form was unaffected by Apabhramsha. He argues that the extensive presence of Apabhramsha forms in the Shatprabhrit cannot be attributed to mere scribal errors or later influences.
• Impact on Meter: If the Apabhramsha forms in the Shatprabhrit were "corrected" to conform to earlier Prakrit, it would lead to metrical disruptions in many verses, highlighting the inherent nature of the text's language.
• Rethinking Kundakunda's Period: If, as Dr. Upadhye implies, the Shatprabhrit is a later work than the Pravacanasara and yet still attributed to Kundakunda, it would necessitate pushing Kundakunda's period later, potentially to the 5th-6th century CE or even later, contradicting the traditional view.

Conclusion:

Based on the detailed linguistic analysis, Dr. K.R. Chandra concludes that:

1. There is a significant difference in the linguistic character between the Pravacanasara and the Shatprabhrit.
2. The Shatprabhrit is not the composition of Acharya Kundakunda.
3. It is also not a compilation of ancient verses collected by Kundakunda.
4. The linguistic features of the Shatprabhrit place its period of composition in the Apabhramsha era, making it a later work than the Pravacanasara.

Therefore, Dr. Chandra refutes the notion that the Shatprabhrit can be attributed to Kundakunda, as this would require a re-evaluation of the established timelines and a dismissal of clear linguistic evidence.