Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ The Date of Kasayapahuda K. R. Chandra The available canonical oragama literature inherited by the Svetambara sect originally was composed in Ardhamagadhi; whereas that of the Botika/ Ksapanaka of northern Indian and its derivative the Yapaniya of Southern India had inherited the agamas which were composed in Sauraseni. The surrogate or iso-agamic works of the Digambara Church, too, had employed Sauraseni Prakrit. The earliest works of this pro-canonical literature are the Kasayapahuda, the Satkhandagama, and the works of Kundakundacarya. There is a general trend among the contemporary Digambara authors to place Gunadharacarya, the author of theKasayapahuda, earlier than Kundakundacarya, the author of the Samaya sara, the Pravacanasara, the Pancastikaya, and a number of other works. In this article, the language of the Kasayapahuda and of the Pavayanapahuda olim Pravacanasara is analysed with the view to finding out which work can be assigned an earlier date on the basis of the main linguistic characteristics. Linguistic Data I Phonological Changes Kasayapahuda (=KP) Pavayanasara (=PS) Number Percentage Number Percentage (i) medial -t (including -to,-ta, -ti,-te,-tu) =-t O 0.80 84.8 560 94.63 =-d- 413 =-y- or -a- 74 15.2 29 4.57
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ The Date of Kasayapahuda 157 92.6 98.0 2.0 7.4 (ii) medial -d=-d- 136 =-y- or -a- 11 (iii) medial -th=-th- 1 (e.g. atha, verse No.128) =-dh=-h 1.5 13 20 54.5 78.5 45.5 (iv) medial -dh 21 31.3 57.8 =-dh=-1- 46 68.7 42.2 II Morphology Kasayapahuda (=KP) Pavayanasara (=PS) Number Percentage Number Percentage A. Declensional Suffixes (i) Neuter gender : Nom. & Accu. Plural Number Percentage Number Percentage -ni 50 100 -im 68 (ii) Locative Singular -mhi 35 -mmi 19 B. Verbal Terminations 3rd person sg. termination of Present tense 32 -di,-de 95 73 216 100 27
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ 158 K. R. Chandra Jambu-jyoti C. Three Prakrit forms of verbal root Vbhu 4 =bhava =hava = ho 2.5 92.5 no 76 D. Participle : Affixes of Absolutive 1. Sanskrit Forms (tatsama) 0 T2 15(-) 2. Sanskrit forms with phonological changes 0 25 59(+) 3. Prakrit Forms 3 100 1 15 Various Affixes of Absolutive (see D Participle; as above) 36(-) 1. Sanskrit -ya 0 5.) adaya 3.7 abhibhuya 2.45 Kasayapahuda (=KP) Pavayanasara (=PS) Number Percentage Number Percentage 2. (Sanskrit forms with phonological changes) (i) -iya (-ya) o 16.5(+) panamiya 3.1, pappa 1.65, 2.77, etc.) (ii) -tta (-tva) 0 14(+) [catra 2.98, dittha 3.52, etc.)
Page #4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ The Date of Kasayapahuda 159 (iii) -cca (-tva) 0 7(+) [kicca 1.4, socca 3.7, etc.) (iv) -cca (-tya) 0 L 5(-) (paducca 1.50, 2.44] (v) -ija (-dya) 0 12.) [asejja 2.91, samasejja 1.5, etc.) (vi) -ccha (-chya) 0 2.5 (apiccha 3.2] (vii)-bbha (-bhya) 0 2.5 [uvalabbha 1.88] Total 0 1 0 59 3. Prakrit forms (i) duna 1 33.3 2.5(-) (ii) -tunam 66.7 0 (i) e.g. ovatteduna 94 e.g. suniduna 1.62 (ii) e.g. mottunam 27,28 8 19(+) (iii) -itta (iv) -iya 0 0 0 0 14(+) Examples from Pavayanasara (iii) janitta 2.102, nirumbhitta 2.104, pecchitta 3.35, etc. (iv) bhaviya 1.17, khaviya 2.103, etc.
Page #5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ 160 E. Affix of Future -hi K. R. Chandra hohimti 68 -ssa Jambu-jyoti Analysis The above tabular analysis of the data culled from the above-noted two works of Acarya Gunadhara and Kundakunda reveals that the Kasayapahuda and the Pavayanapahuda (the Kasayaprabhrta and the Pravacanaprabhrta) respectively have their comparative position of the peculiarity of language as follows: bhavissadi 2.20, jivassadi 2.95 (i) The PS retains medial -t approximately at the rate of 1%, changes (voices) it to-d- at 95% and drops at that of 5% whereas the KP at 0%, 85% and 15% respectively. (ii) As regards medial -d- the former retains it at the rate of 98% and drops it at that of 2% whereas the later retains at 93% and drops it at 7%. (iii) The medial -th- is voiced in the former work at the rate of 54.5% and changed to -h- at 45.5% whereas in the later work it is voiced at the rate of 20% and changed to h- at the rate of 78.5%. (iv) The medial -dh- is retained at 58% and changed to -h- at 42% in the former work but in the later work the rate is 31% and 69% respectively. Thus, in the evolutionary stage of MIA. the dialect of the KP reflects a stage later than that of the PS. Morphological study of these two works reveals that (i) the PS has not a single suffix of Nom. and Accu. plural of Neuter inimh whereas in the KP it is available at 4%: (ii) As far as the suffixes of loc. sg. are concerned, there is no considerable difference worth distinction between -mhi and -mmi. (iii) The termination of present tense Iil person singular is di or -de available at the rate of 100% in the PS whereas in the KP it is at the rate of 73% and the other termination -i or -e at the rate of 27%. This shows
Page #6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ The Date of Kasayapahuda 161 that the language of KP is highly influenced by the Maharastri Prakrit in this respect. (iv) The verbal root Vbhu is employed as bhav-, hav- and ho- at the rate of 9,61 and 30 percent in the PS while in the KP their rate is 5, 2.5, and 92.5 percent respectively. The Prakrit form ho- is rather a later development whereas bhav- and hav- belong to the earlier strata of the MIA. dialects. The number of absolutive participles in the KP is not so numerous as to compare their variety for deciding the time of its composition but it is evident that the PS employs older affixes (Sanskrit and Sanskritlike) in greater number whereas the KP uses purely Prakrit affixes like -duna and -tunam. This trait proves that the date of KP is later than that of the PS. (vi) The affix of the future tense is -ssa- in the PS whereas -hi- in the KP and this goes against its being an earlier work than the PS. Thus, the study of the linguistic data proves that the Kasayapahuda is a work composed later than the Pavayanapahuda. In this context it is not convincing to accept the opinion of those scholars who assign it a date earlier than that to the Pravacanasara of Kundakunda. Annotations : PS =Pavayanasara or Pavayanapahuda, KP = Kasayapahuda 1. Date of Kundakundacarya A. According to A. N. Upadhye, "the age of Kundakunda should be limited in the light of the circumstantial evidences noted above to the first two centuries of the Christian era." He further notes "I am inclined to believe, after this long survey of the available material, that Kundakunda's age lies at the beginning of the Christian era." See his Pravacanasara, "Introduction", Agasa 1964, p. 21. B. N. C. Shastri is of the same opinion as given by A. N. Upadhye : See his prAkRta bhASA aura sAhitya kA AlocanAtmaka itihAsa, vArANasI 1966, pR0 225. C. J. C. Jain is of the opinion that Acarya Kundakunda seems to have flourished in the third or fourth century A. D.Vide uretan Fifer Castre, ARTP8EUR8. Co 7849. D. H. L. Jain thinks it worthwhile to place Kundakunda in the beginning of the fifth century A. D. or a little earlier than that : See his rice fisgata f or at yogadAna, bhopAla 1962, pR083.
Page #7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ 162 K. R. Chandra Jambu-jyoti 2. Date of Gunadharacarya A. J. C. Jain is of the opinion that Gunadharacarya belongs to the 2nd 3rd Century A. D. Vide Sant Hilary oplo, po 288. B. H. L. Jain is not sure about the date of Gunadharacarya. He is unable to say definitely whether Dharasenacarya connected with the Sarkhandagama was earlier or posterior to Gunadharacarya. He assigns 2nd cent. A. D. to theSarkhandagama. Accordingly, the date of Gunadharacarya would fall either in the 1st or the 3rd cent. A. D. See his 4613 eta 8., TOP. Shastri feels that the Kasayapahuda is a work of earlier date than the Sarkhandagama as well as the works of Kundakunda and, therefore, according to him, Gunadharacarya should be assigned the 1st cent. A. D.Vide ucma 997791 BTT HIERO dilo, 90783. Thus we find that the opinions of the above-cited scholars differ on the date of Gunadharacarya. None is positive regarding his date which ranges between the 1st to the 3rd century A. D. and the date of Kundakunda also differs according to different scholars. His date fluctuates between the 1st and the 8th century A. D. One fact is clear that all these scholars place Gunadharacarya anterior to Kundakundacarya but the features of the language of PS and KP clearly demonstrate that the Pavayanasara is a composition datable earlier than the Kasayapahuda. In conclusion, it is to be surmised that, if the editions of the texts studied herewith have been edited, linguistically, faithfully by their learned editors and there is no doubt about the authorship of these two works, then it may seem positive that Gunadharacarya is an author dated later than Kundakundacarya. (As for the date of Kundakundacarya, the linguistic analysis can be more trustworthily applied in date-determination after isolating on the one hand the earlier aryas / gathas etc. (most of these arguably incorporated by the author himself) and on the other hand by removing the later interpolations. The available historical evidence as well as the textual studies combined with style and content do not warrant anteriority of Kundakundacarya to either the Kasayapahuda or the Satkhandagama. Formally, and linguistically, too, there are several detectable/obvious modernisms, highly advanced ideas (totally unknown to the Jaina authors till the medieval times), as also the presence several uncharacteristic Prakrit words artificially created from Sanskrit. --Editors) 000