Vishevashyashaka Bhashya Ke Pathantaro Utkirn Prachin Abhilekh

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Vishevashyashaka Bhashya ke Pathantaro Utkirn Prachin Abhilekh" by Dr. K. R. Chandra:

The book, published by the USA Federation of JAINA, delves into the complex issue of editing ancient Jain Agam texts, specifically examining variants in the Visheshavashyak Bhashya (V.A.B.), ancient inscriptions, and the language of Isibhasiyaim. Dr. Chandra's central argument is that the language of the Jain Agam texts has undergone significant changes over time due to the influence of contemporary spoken languages and scribal practices, necessitating a re-evaluation of editing principles.

Key Issues and Arguments:

• Linguistic Evolution of Agam Texts:

  • While the final recension of Agam texts occurred in the 5th-6th century CE, their initial recension is believed to be from the 4th century BCE.
  • A significant linguistic gap exists between the language of the early Pali Tripitaka, the early Agam texts, and even Emperor Ashoka's inscriptions, compared to the language found in later Agam manuscripts.
  • Ideally, the earliest Jain Agam texts should reflect the language of the 4th century BCE, before Ashoka, but this is not the case.

• Reasons for Linguistic Change:

  • Influence of Contemporary Language: Pujyamuni Shri Punyavijayji, in his preface to the Kalpa Sutra, stated that ancient acharyas, upadhyayas, and scribes made linguistic changes (consciously or unconsciously) to make the texts more accessible and simple for their disciples.
  • Scribal Variations: The abundance of phonetic variations (varnavikara) observed in different manuscripts of the Agam texts is a direct result of this tendency. This leads to multiple forms of the same word across various recensions.
  • Editorial Interventions: Scholars like Shri Shugi have gone as far as eliminating intervocalic consonants entirely to standardize the language, even when not supported by manuscripts or commentaries. Other editors also differ in their approach to deletions and variations.

• Need for Revised Editing Principles:

  • Dr. Chandra questions the current editing policies, asking whether to prioritize readings from multiple manuscripts, the oldest manuscript, the Churni commentary, the commentator's text, or the linguistically older form.
  • He draws a parallel with Professor L. Alsdorf, who allowed for metrical adjustments in word length and syllables. Dr. Chandra argues that to preserve the antiquity of the language, ancient forms should be accepted, especially when other evidence confirms the text's antiquity.

• Analysis of the Visheshavashyak Bhashya (V.A.B.):

  • The study focuses on the V.A.B. edited by Pt. Dalsukhbhai Malvania. The oldest manuscript used is a palm-leaf manuscript from Jaisalmer dating to around 950 CE. Other significant manuscripts include a palm-leaf manuscript ('ta') and two printed editions ('he' and 'ko') with commentaries.
  • A particularly valuable manuscript is the 'sam' manuscript with its Swopadnya Vritti (self-commentary) from 1434 CE. This commentary provides the original Prakrit words at the beginning of each gatha, offering insight into the original composition.
  • The original author of the V.A.B., Acharya Jinvabhadr, is believed to have lived in the 6th century CE (passed away in 593 CE). The Jaisalmer manuscript is thought to be based on an exemplar from 609 CE. This means the oldest extant manuscript is about 350 years after the author's time.
  • Phonetic Analysis: Dr. Chandra conducts a phonetic analysis of the initial words of the first 100 gathas in various manuscripts.
    • The Swopadnya Vritti shows fewer phonetic changes compared to the 'je' manuscript.
    • A broader analysis of all words in the first 100 gathas reveals that the 'je' manuscript (considered oldest and most authentic) has a lower percentage of omissions (11.3%) and a higher percentage of preserved forms (70%) compared to other editions like 'he' and 'ko', which show significantly more omissions (48%) and fewer preserved forms (43%).
    • The tendency for phonetic changes (like omission of intervocalic consonants and ghoshikaran - voicing) increases from the 'je' manuscript to 'he' and 'ko' editions.

• Evidence from Inscriptions:

  • Ancient inscriptions also support the pattern of linguistic change.
  • An inscription from Badli (Rajasthan), 84 years after Mahavir's passing, shows no omission of intervocalic consonants and retains older case endings.
  • Ashoka's inscriptions show the beginning of phonetic changes, with a 5-6% incidence of ghoshikaran, aghoshikaran (devoicing), and omissions.
  • The trend of omitting intervocalic consonants and changing 'n' to 'ṇ' appears to have originated in northwestern and western India. Inscriptions from the 1st century CE in these regions show significant omissions and changes.

• Analysis of Isibhasiyaim:

  • Isibhasiyaim, another ancient text, also exhibits linguistic changes. Shurbrig's edition shows omissions ranging from 11-31% in selected chapters.
  • The limited circulation of Isibhasiyaim might have prevented extensive linguistic alterations. If it had circulated widely, its language might have also deteriorated like other Agam texts.
  • The claim of 58% omission of intervocalic consonants in Shurbrig's edition of the Acharya Sutra is questioned by Dr. Chandra, citing the evidence from the palm-leaf manuscript ('sam' samvat 1348) which retains the intervocalic 't'.

• Conclusion and Call for Re-evaluation:

  • Dr. Chandra concludes that the language of ancient texts should ideally remain ancient. Changes introduced in later manuscripts should be considered deviations and discarded.
  • When editing ancient texts, priority should be given to the readings found in the original manuscripts, Churni commentaries, or other commentaries that reflect an older linguistic form and preserve the meaning.
  • The increase in manuscript copies over centuries directly correlates with an increase in linguistic changes within the texts.
  • The prevailing editorial approach that gives undue importance to the omission of intervocalic consonants and the concept of linguistic uniformity (in terms of phonetic change) is artificial and unacceptable.
  • He emphasizes the difference between the language of scholars and preachers, with the latter often incorporating spoken language.
  • Dr. Chandra calls upon experienced Prakrit scholars to discuss the current editorial policies for ancient texts and whether they need to be revised or improved.

In essence, the book is a critical examination of the linguistic integrity of ancient Jain Agam texts, highlighting the impact of time and scribal practices on their language and advocating for a more rigorous and historically sensitive approach to their editing. The comparative analysis of the Visheshavashyak Bhashya serves as a strong case study to illustrate these points.