Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
KALIKĀLA-SARVAJÑA ACARYA HEMACANDRA A RE-APPRAISAL
Vasantkumar M. Bhatt
I
Long after the passing away of Jina Mahavira, under the chairmanship of Devarddhi Gani Kṣamāśramaṇa, the Jaina spiritual leaders of the Northern Church met at Valabhi (Saurastra, Gujarat State) in A. D. 503/516 and collated the earlier two versions, the one fixed at the Mathura Synod and the other at Valabhi Synod 1, both around the middle of the fourth century A. D. The present version of the Jaina agamas was then committed to writing. Six centuries after that event, king Siddharāja Jayasimha of the Caulukya dynasty (A. D. 1096-1142) ruled in Gujarat at Anahillapattana (North Gujarat, District Banasakamtha). In his assembly, learned discourses were also held besides the usual political transactions. It is on record that Devasuri, the Svetämbara pontiff, defeated the Naiyayika Kumudacandra, a Digambara holyman, in a doctrinal debate at this assembly in A. D. 1125. The incident was delineated in the play, the MudritaKumudacandra by Yaśaścandra, which is believed to be closer in time to the event.
A very important chapter in the history of the literary activities in Gujarat was added. when Hemacandra graced the assembly of Siddharaja Jayasimha. In those days Hemacandra led the intellectual arena by producing a large number of works, all single-handed. A list of his learned productions will attest to the vast canvas, sweep, and importance of his writings. He had, for instance penned (1) the Siddhahemasabdanusāsana, (2) the Abhidhanacintamani, (3) the Dešināmamālā, (4) the Kävyänusäsana, (5) the Chandonusāsana, (6) the Pramāṇamimämsä (incompletely available), (7) the Sanskrit Dvyäśraya-mahakavya, (8) the Prakrit Dvyäsäraya-mahäkävya or the Kumarapalacarita, (9) the Triṣasti-salakäpurusa-carita, (10) the Mahavira-carita and the parisiṣṭa-parva, (11) the Yogaśästra, and (12) five hymns including the Vitaraga-stotra. Thus he wrote on grammar, kosa-class of dictionary, poetics, metrics, epistemology, logic, philosophy, as also on biographical, and the kathd and stotra (narrative and hymnal) literature. So, he was given the honorific title Kalikālasarvajña-the Omniscient of the Iron Age by later Svetambara Jaina writers.
However, in our own times, when his contribution was evaluated, P. V. Kane wrote : "The Kävyänusäsana is a compilation and exhibits hardly any originality. It borrows. wholesale from the Kavyamimämsä of Rajasekhara, the Kavyaprakāśa, the Dhvanyaloka, and from Abhinavagupta's works'." But, on the opposite side, R. C. Parikh, who wrote on the cultural history of Gujarat in the introductory volume to his critical edition of the Kāvyānusāsana, observes that Gujarat entered into competition with Mālavā not only in the political arena, but also in the spheres of learning and art2.
T. S. Nandi has suggested that Hemacandra, in his Kävyänuśäsana, tried to follow and promulgate the Kašmira School in poetics, so as to push back the Mälava-school of Bhoja".
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
36
Vasantkumar M. Bhatt
Nirgrantha
The historical data provided by Prabhācandra of Rājagaccha in the Prabhävaka-carita (A. D. 1277) reveals that, perhaps the task of carrying Gujarat in lead in the intellectual arena, was handed over to Hemacandra by Siddharāja. Manuscripts from Kaśmīra as also from other parts of the country were then made available to Hemacandra. What is more, after defeating the Paramâra potentate Yasovarmā of Mālava, the library of Dhārā (which included the manuscripts of Bhoja's works), was brought to Gujarat. Siddharāja Jayasimha looked at the collection of works from Mālava through green eyes of jealousy and asked Hemacandra to compose a new grammar that would bring prestige to Gujarat. The result was the Siddha-Hemasabdanuśāsana, a Sanskrit-Prakrit grammar. In Merutungācārya's Prabandha-cintamani (A. D. 1305), there is the third canto called "Siddharāja prabandha," in which this grammar is eulogized in fulsome terms:
भ्रातः संवृणु पाणिनिप्रलपितं कातन्त्रकन्था वृथा मा कार्षीः कटु शाकटायनवचः शूद्रेण चान्द्रेण किम् । कः कण्ठाभरणादिभिर्बठस्यत्यात्मानमन्यैरपि
श्रूयन्ते यदि तावदर्थमधुराः श्रीसिद्धहेमोक्तयः ।। Thus, by penning the Siddha-Hema-sabdānuśāsana, Hemacandra had endeavoured to smear the Astädhyāyi of Pāņini as also the Sarasvati-kanthābharana of Bhoja besides other grammars composed between the two in time. On the evidence of verses from the Prabhāvaka-carita, in the times of Hemacandra, the Kālāpaka vyäkarana was much in vogue and the Brahmins did not teach the Pāṇinian system of grammar to non-brahmins as it was a Vedānga. Thus, for the benefit of the people at large, Hemacandra composed his Siddha-Hema-sabdānušāsana. In it he removed the Vaidika portion of the Astādhyāyi and replaced it with the grammar of the Prakrits such as Mägadhi, Saurasenī, Paiśáci, Mahārāstri, Arsa (Ardhamāgadhi of the Jaina canon), Apabhraíba etc. Thus Hemacandra provided intellectual leadership not only to Gujarat but also to the whole of India of his times. The Vaidika mantras were used only in the context of Yajña-rituals, but the Prakrit dialects that were spoken in different parts of the country, and the literary compositions that were written in Prakrits, were duly recognised by Hemacandra. As a result, he thought it useful to add grammar of these Prakrits which was perhaps the need / demand of the time. Thus he gave the first clear and positive evidence of his intellectual leanings.
III
As noted in the foregoing section, Hemacandra wrote on different subjects. But this paper attempts to highlight and evaluate his genius in the field of grammar alone. His all-encompassing study of language becomes clear by looking into his following works : (i) the Siddha-Hema-sabdānusāsana :- It contains grammar of both Sanskrit and Prakrits. He had also written shorter and longer (79 and 6) commentaries on this grammar. In addition, he had written a third commentary called the sabda-mahārnava or the Brhannyāsa, today available only in fragments. (ii) the Unādi-sūtra : This, too,
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Vol. II-1996
Kalikāla-sarvajña....
was composed by Hemacandra with explanatory notes. (iii) the Dhätupatha, with svopajña vrtti, (iv) the Linganuśāsana, and (v) the Ganapātha were also written by him. Thus we may say that he has given a Pancangi or fivefaced vyäkarana. No less noteworthy are his lexicons, namely (i) the Abhidhana-cintamani, (2) the Anekarthakośa, (3) the Nighantu concerning herbs, (4) the Desinämamalā, and (5) the two Dvyasraya Kavyas. These were composed, not unlike the Bhatti-kavya, to illustrate the sutras from his own grammar. Thus he has provided an all-embracing study of Sanskrit and Prakrits by writing the sütras, the vrtti, the appendices, the lexicons and the laksanakavya. In this way he scored over the writers of the Cāndra of Candragaumi (5th cent.), the Jainendra of Pujyapāda Devanandi, (C. A. D. 650), the sabdaśāstra of Sākatāyana, (c. A. D. 850), and the Bhoja-vyäkarana (c. A. D. 1030-1050) ascribed to Parmāra Bhoja of Dhārā.
IV
I will now attempt to evaluate Hemacandra as a grammarian, his approach towards language, and as a structuralist with a particular style of marshalling his material. That he removed the Vedic grammar from his scheme is not because he was a Jaina but the truth was that the Vedic language was employed only in the ritual ceremonies and the teaching of its derivation had become obsolete in his times. On the other hand, a large variety of Prakrits were still used in literary circles who composed in people's language. Thus, by replacing the Vedic portion by the Prakrit portion, he has shown the awareness of the need of the hour, maturity of intellect, and consequently a right and realistic approach. It must be noted that, even though he removed the Vedic grammar from his scheme, he had paid due attention to the derivation of taddhita-words used in the Vedic context : e.g.
(i) walezi ad H . 9. E-3-823 chol: 1 ash: (ii) faferflocagarfuSnaig $4901 E-3-828 ofer: 1 araweiten: 1
(iii) 374df High Schoo l E-3-869 3erfuch - 3400: Thus did he demonstrate a sensible orientation toward the problem : as a result, his works may be studied not only by the Jainas but also by the Brahmins. Had he neglected the taddhita formations having Vedic context, his grammar would have been of limited scope and sectarian in outlook. We notice that, in the post-Pāņinian era, there is a sea-change in the use of written Sanskrit, both in literary compositions and in the purānic context. It is a narrow-minded approach to call such a usage as 'a-Paninīya' and therefore 'a-sādhu' or faulty. The laksanatheory should be in conformity with the laksya, i.e. written literature. That language comes first and grammar follows is a universal axiom. Thus it is a rare intellectual effort on his part to promote and accept such usages as are, so to say, un-Pāṇinian, i.e. falling out of Panini's discipline. This, in point of fact, is a commendable happening.
However, his originality in laying down new grammatical and śāstric works has to be
Page #4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
38
Vasantkumar M. Bhatt
Nirgrantha
properly evaluated, because works in those directions by Pāṇini, Gautama, Kanāda etc. were for certain available. What is then, Hemacandra's original contribution ? He himself has answered this question. He inquires as to whether even prior to Pāṇini, Pingala, or Kanāda, sutras of the subjects they dealt with existed or not. This indeed is a pertinent point he had raised. Now, these lores of grammar, logic, philosophy etc. apparently are beginningless. Who has brought forth expansion or contraction in what field and how ? Only on the basis of a critical consideration of such a querry the originality of a particular author may be evaluated. Again, the nouns and verbs used in a given language have got to be identical and fixed. We may, for instance, resort to 'La'-kāras such as tę (Lat) etc., with reference to 4 - Bhu - and derive forms such as safa etc. by suffixes such as fry etc., substituted as adeśas. Or, we may straight away place the suffix ति to भू (root) and derive भवति । In either case, ‘भवति' remains 'भवति' ! There can be two different methods of deriving forms or word-formation but the output, namely safa, is to remain the same ! Thus, whether we study Candra, or Bhoja, or Haima-vyakarana, 7-:- 14 - 11:and watch - G: - Tefal are to remain as they are the same. Because of this Bhattoji says : 344furter 34P 39c4afea: (416h01TUAR poteffa-EV) i.e. for attaining upeya—the goal-upāyas i.e. methods can be different We cannot insist on just one methodology. Thus any number of new fa-Pāṇinian' grammar were welcome. The thrust of examining could be only the process with which a particular grammarian derives a particular form. Is it that he uses the same procedure in deriving both a nominal form and a verbal form ? At least one would expect similarity in style with any structuralist. Viewed from this angle, I may say that Hemacandra has not stuck to identical methodology in his Siddha-Hema-Sabdānuśāsana e.g., while dealing with nominal formation, he has taken the 21 case-terminations as basic morphemes and has presented the allo-morphemes in consonance with the structure of a given basic nouno. To put it in a technical jargon, we may say that he has explained the nominal formations by the device, namely "a particular adeśa takes shape in place on a particular sthānin". On the other hand, the 18 terminations (9 Parasmaipada + 9 Atmanepada) that are attached to a verb are taken as basic morphemes and has not explained the allo-morphemes that take shape later. What is surprising, Hemacandra has placed in all 180 terminations expressing ten tenses and moods as basic morphemes". As against this, Pānini had used an identical device of Sthanya-deśa-bhāva in the formation of nouns and verbs (=Subanta and tiñanta). So it can be said that, while Pāņini has been able to observe structural identity, Hemacandra had not, which, from a purely intellectual point of view, sounds less appealing. Of course, one may explain away this defficiency by suggesting that the factor of simplification was involved here. But then the question remains as to why was this simplification not attempted by Hemacandra with reference to nominal formations. This question then, remains unanswered.
VI
In Pāṇini's scheme, the statement of various Kārakas proceeds and prescription of
Page #5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Vol. II-1996
Kalikāla-sarvajña....
39
vibhakti-affixes follows. Then is described how the whole thing is represented at the surface level phonologically. Again, any nominal formation has to be explained with reference to some verb only. Thus, Pānini has given a grammar of sentence-level; i.e. the vākya-saṁskāra-paksa has been followed by Pāņini. In Hemacandra's grammar, such single and detached forms as 19., 18:, are to be derived without verbal context and therefore without consideration of the sentence level. This is absolutely illogical. In Hemacandra's grammar the sütras such as fie: teft. . 1. 8-8-8, T aerufi 8-8 and 2-5 Hifti 8-8-4 come first and then f5415c: I P-2- 716: gertati P--38 etc. follow. It thus becomes clear that Hemacandra has not promoted the natural vākya-saṁskāra-paksa or sentence-level and has promulgated the pada-samskāra-paksa which is not a natural phenomenon. Third, one who studies Pāṇinian system of grammar has to study the vārttikas and the Bhasyesti-vacanas separately, and has to harmonize them all. But Hemacandra has taken those vārttikas and has placed the same as sütras in his work. So, for a student of the Siddha-Hema-sabdānusāsana, only the study of sūtras (sūtrapātha) is sufficient. However Hemacandra has not freed his sūtrapātha from the requirements of a prakriyā-grantha. If a grammarian attempts a new grammar with a view on simplification, then he has to lay down grammar which follows topics methodically without the necessity of the rearrangement of prakriya-grantha. But Hemacandra has failed to provide this, e.g. in the 7th chapter, 4th pada of the Siddhahemaśabdānušāsana, he has provided meta-rules e.g.
(i) R fafè ref . 1. 19-8-808 (ii) url I 1-8-80€ (iii) HR TREI 1-8-8044 (iv) 4 1 10-8-886
(v) -8-889 etc. Thus he has placed the paribhasa-sūtra, i.e. meta-rules concerning how to explain a noun-phrase ending in fifth case or seventh case, at the end, or also rules-as to which sutra is to be taken as more powerful in case of a conflict between two sutras-are also placed at the end of his grammar ! Actually, these explanations should have been in the beginning of a work and not at the end ! Thus as a structuralist his arrangement of the sūtras, too, is imperfect.
VII Hemacandra's originality and his being exceptional, however, are borne out by his adding the Prakrit grammar and writing the Dvyaśrayakävya to illustrate it. But it will be interesting to know Hemacandra's views on whether Prakrit was derived from Sanskrit or was Prakrit the original language at the root of Sanskrit ? He on sūtra 372 प्राकृतम् । ८-१-१ writes प्रकृतिः संस्कृतम् । तत्र भवं तत आगतं प्राकृतम् ? संस्कृतानन्तरं प्राकृतमधिक्रियते ।
Page #6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Vasantkumar M. Bhatt
Nirgrantha
Thus for him Sanskrit is the original wofa, language. Prakrit is that which is derived from (the root language) Sanskrit. Some scholars are of the opinion that the Prakrit spoken at popular level as parallel to Vedic Sanskrit was the origin of Sanskrit. But, for a grammarian who attempts a descriptive grammar, it becomes easier to delineate Prakrit by taking Sanskrit as the root language and explaining Prakrit forms by rules of phonological changes in letters. So, Hemacandra's approach seems practical and to the context. One more aspect of Hemacandra's Prakrit-grammar is that it was he who had started for the first time taking notice of differences in forms following differences in meaning. e.g. (i) 4841 fH. . 1. (-2-86 (çfa:) yfergi ada
yafe '3040' at l afa fetim? 'GY : (ii) 0 Bradfa. . 2--70 (afr:) og 307affet hy they rafat I got !1 367
sfa form - at (iii) agat: o fe. 1. 6-3-838 (afer:) aqzf: F o gt yafe i fore I tapi il (iv) arcuts affhệ . 6-3-837 (afa:) aigzfafenea faqe e PT ogt at afat 11
aki dar || Here the Sanskrit word (7) kşama has two types of modifications in Prakrit e.g. chama (SH) and khama (CH) : but there is difference in connotation. Same is the case with kşana (01), which becomes chana (394) and khana (C) in Prakrit with two different meanings. Vararuci, in his Prākstaprakāśa, does not take note of such cases. Here it is noted that, in Prakrit, the sixth (possessive) case is used for fourth (dative) case. But Hemacandra is the first to pass a note that only the fourth case ending takes the shape of the sixth case ending which denotes a recipient, and the fourth case ending which denotes tadarthya continues as the fourth case ending in Prakrit. Thus, also, as a Prakrit grammarian, Hemacandra is very watchful and clear in his treatment which is the result of his vast aquaintance of Prakrit literature. His equipment as a grammarian, thus is highly laudable.
Conclusion Hemacandra, as a grammarian, shows considerable originality. Precisely because of this, along with the Pancāngi Vyakarana, he has also given lexicons and the Laksana-kavyas. He gave śāstric recognition to such un-Pānīnian usages that followed Panini's era, and thus has sanctioned the growth and development in the field of language. He has left out Vedic grammar in consideration of the practical reasons. These are his scintillating achievements. On the other hand, he is not up to the standard as a structuralist and does not seem to abide by the outlook of the vākya-saṁskāra-paksa. He has given a grammar which is based on the pada-samskara-paksa. He has not maintained identical approach in the case of both verbal and nominal forms which can be both simplification as well as a structural failure. Even with this limitation, his achievements are great enough to proclaim him as fichichesthe Omniscient of the Iron Age.
Page #7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Vol. II-1996
Kalikāla-sarvajña....
ANNOTATIONS :
The paper originally was read at the National Seminar on "Intellectual leaders in Sanskrit, Prakrit and Pali" (27-29 March, 1996), organized by the Department of Sanskrit, University of Poona, Pune. Since unpublished, with some revisions, it has been given for the Jagadishcandra Jain commemorative number of the Nirgrantha.
1. History of Sanskrit Poetics, Delhi 1961, pp. 288-289.
2. Actually, even earlier, from the time of the Bhimadeva 1, keen rivalry between Gujarat and
Mālava, had started and rulers Bhima and Bhoja were not only political but also keenly intellectual. The poets and dialecticians from different parts of India used to visit this capital of Gurajaradeśa where their literary and dialectical talents were put to test. See :
Kavyānušāsana, Vol. II, "Introduction" Rasiklal C. Parikh, Bombay 1938, p. ccxlii - ccxliii. 3. “अनलकृती पुनः क्वापि" were Maminata's words, which were replaced by Hemacandra, by सालङ्कारी
E a more positive approach. This brings him closer to earlier poeticists. But, even with this unconfirmity, Hernacandra was a great exponent of the Dhvani-School and followed Mammata at every step. He saw to it that the Ananda-Abhinava based Kāśmīra tradition in poetics took roots in Gujarat through his Kāvyānuśāsana, the Alankaracudämaņi, and the Viveka commentaries, and thus almost routed the Mālava tradition of Bhoja from Gujarat. Vide
Bharatiya Sahitya Sastra ni Vicāraparampardo (Gujarati), Ahmedabad 1984, p. 51. 4. किमेतदिति पप्रच्छ स्वाम्यपीति व्यजिज्ञपत् ।
भोजव्याकरणं ह्येतच्छन्दशास्त्रं प्रवर्तते ॥७५|| भूपालोऽथावदत् किं नास्मरकोशे शास्त्रपद्धतिः । विद्वान्कोऽपि कथं नास्ति देशे विश्वेऽपि गूर्जरे ॥७९॥ सर्वे संभूय विद्वांसो हेमचन्द्रं व्यलोकयन् । महाभक्त्या च राज्ञासावभ्यर्थ्य प्रार्थितः प्रभुः ।।८।। शब्दव्युत्पत्तिकृच्छास्त्रं निर्मायास्मान्मनोरथम् ।। पूरयस्व महर्षे त्वं विना त्वमत्र कः प्रभुः ॥८॥
-द्रष्टव्यम् : चन्द्रप्रभसूरिप्रणीतं प्रभावकचरितम्, सं. हिरानन्द शर्मा (प्रथमो भागः), मुंबई १९०९, पृ. ३००, 5. मेरुतुङ्गाचार्यकृतः प्रबन्धचिन्तामणिः, सं. रामचन्द्रो दीनानाथ शास्त्री, मुंबई १८८८, पृ. १४८. 6. संक्षिप्तश्च प्रवृत्तोऽयं समयेऽस्मिन् कलापकः ।
लक्षणं तत्र निष्पत्तिः शब्दानां नास्ति ताशी ॥८२॥ पाणिनेर्लक्षणं वेदस्यांगमित्यत्र च द्विजाः । अवलेपादसूयन्ति कोऽर्थस्तैरुन्मनायितैः ॥८३।। यशो मम तव ख्याति: पुण्यं च मुनिनायक । विश्वलोकोपकाराय कुरु व्याकरणं नवम् ॥८४|| इत्याकाभ्यधात् सूरिहेमचन्द्रः सुधीनिधिः । कार्येषु नः किलोक्तिर्वः स्मारणायैव केवलम् ॥८५
Page #8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ 42 Vasantkumar M. Bhatt Nirgrantha श्रीहेमसूरयोऽप्यत्रालोक्य व्याकरणव्रजम् / शास्त्रं चक्रुर्नवं श्रीमत्सिद्धहेमाख्यमद्भुतम् 186 –द्रष्टव्यम् : प्रभावकचरितम् (पृ. 300-302) 7. See : ऋते द्वितीया च 1 सि. हे. श. 2-2-114 (लघुवृत्तिः) ऋतेशब्देन युक्ताद् द्वितीया पञ्चमी च स्यात् / ऋते धर्म धर्मात् कुतः सुखम् ।।-सिद्धहेमशब्दानुशासनम्, सं. मुनि हिमांशुविजयः, आणन्दजी कल्याणजी पेढी प्रकाशितम्, अहमदाबाद 1950 A. D. (पृ. 86). 8. ननु यदि भवदीयानीमानि जैनसिद्धान्तसूत्राणि तर्हि भवतः पूर्वं कानि कि मीयानि वा तान्यासमिति ? अत्यल्पमिदमन्वयुक्थाः / पाणिनि- पिङ्गल-कणादा-क्षपादादिभ्योऽपि पूर्व कानि किमीयानि वा व्याकरणादिसूत्राणीत्येतदपि पर्यनुयुझ्व ! अनादय एवेता विद्याः संक्षेपविस्तरविवक्षया नवनवीभवन्ति तत्तत्कर्तृकाश्चोच्यन्ते ।-द्रष्टव्या : प्रमाणमीमांसा, सं. पण्डित सुरवलालजी, प्रकाशन : सिंघी जैन ग्रन्थमाला, अहमदाबाद 1939 A. D. (पृ. 1). 9. See : उपेयप्रतिपत्त्यर्था उपाया अव्यवस्थिताः-इति न्यायेन व्याकरणभेदेन स्थानिभेदेऽपि न क्षतिः, देशभेदेन लिपिभेदवदिति दिक् ।।-परमलघुमञ्जूषा, चौखम्बा संस्कृत सीरीझ, वाराणसी 1974 A. D. (पृ. 5). 10. स्यौजसमौशस्टाभ्यांभिस्ङे भ्यांभ्यस्ङसिभ्यांभ्यस्ङसोसाम्योस्सुपां त्रयी त्रयो प्रथमादिः ।-सि. हे. श. 1-1-18 -डे ङस्योर्याऽऽतौ / 1-4-6 (डे > य, रामाय) -सर्वादः स्मैमातौ / 1-4-7 (डे >स्मै, सर्वस्मै) -आपो ङितां यैयास्यास् / 1-4-17 (डे > यै, मालायै) etc. अन्ते, से आथे ध्वे, ए वहे महे || सि. हे. श. 3-3-6 हस्तनी दिव् ताम् अन्, सिव् तम् त, अम्व् व म, त आताम् अन्त, थास् आधाम् ध्वम्, इ वहि महि }] सि. हे. श. 3-3-9 परोक्षा गव् अतुस् उस्, थव् अथुस् अ, ण व म, ए आते इरे, से आथे ध्वे, ए वहे महे // सि. हे. श. 3-3-12.