Pravachanasara

SR No.: 003289
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram
Publication Year: 1964
Total Pages: 612
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 16 MB

Page 149

Pravacanasara
the conclusion, with a remarkable grasp and suggestiveness, that this dialect should be called Jaina Sauraseni. This christening was quite in agreement with the precedent that the dialect of the post-canonical literature of the Svetämbaras, which represented an admixture of Ardha-Magadhi and Mahārāṣṭri, was called Jaina Mahāraṣṭri by Dr. Jacobi. But some German scholars have questioned the accuracy of the designation, Jaina Sauraseni. In his lecture,1 delivered at Delhi, in 1928, Dr. Walther Schubring passingly refers to the fact that the Digambara works like Malacara etc. are interesting for the grammatical exposition as shown by one of his pupils, who was connected with an investigation in Malacara and other important Digambara treatises; and in conclusion he remarks: The future will teach us whether the signification Pischel proposed, viz., Jaina Saurasent, will appear adequate." It appears that Dr. Schubring is sceptic on that point. Dr. Schubring here refers, as he informs me in one of his letters, to an unpublished thesis 'Digambara texts", written in 1922 by his pupil Dr. Walter Denecke. Though the complete text of the thesis was not printed and published, the writer himself has given an abstract of it in the Jubilee volume2 for Professor Jacobi. In his observations on the Digambara texts Dr. Denecke discusses various points about some Digambara Pk. works, such as Malacăra of Vaṭṭakera, Kattigeyâṇuppekkha of Kumāra, and Chappähuda, Samayasāra and Pañcāstikāya of Kundakunda; it is only on the language of these works that W. Denecke concentrates his attention; and most of his illustrative forms have been drawn from Chappahuḍa. On the whole, the dialectal facts arrived at by Denecke are practically the same as those noted by me above in connection with Pravacanasara except in one respect. He remarks that the language of these works is influenced by Ardhamägadhl, Jaina Mahārāṣṭrī which approaches it and Sauraseni'; from some of the illustrations given by himself, he would not hesitate to accept the influence of Sk. The only one aspect, where our facts are not in agreement, is that he finds some Apabhramsa forms in Chappahuda [p. 122:] and Kattigeyâṇuppekkhā; and as he has not given any Apabh. forms from Pravacanasāra, my conclusions remain unaffected. The majority of Apabh. forms, which Denecke notes, are from Chappāhuda; and the reasons why in Chappahuḍa alone so many Apabh. forms are found are these: the Pähudas are easy and hence very often studied; in early days even the commentaries were not needed; the only commentary that appears to have been written and is available is that of Srutasägara, who lived about the beginning of the 16th century A.D.3, so the texts of Pähudas have suffered dialectal changes here and there in the course of oral transmission and study; and the Apabh. forms are there, because the Digambaras were cultivating Apabhramsa side by side with other languages, either traditionally inherited or adopted from different places, wherever they went.
116
DENECKE'S VIEW CRITICISED, AND JAINA ŠAURAȘENI AS THE SIGNIFICANT NAME. In the light of the dialectal facts considered by him, Denecke says that it was unlucky that Pischel called this dialect as Jaina Sauraseni; that Pischel's treatment
1 Published in Vira, a Hindi Monthly, vol. V, pp. 11-12.
2 Festgabe Hermann Jacobi zum, 75, Bonn 1926.
3 Annals of the B. O. R. I., XII, ii, p. 157.