Ang Sahitya Manan aur Mimansa

SR No.: 004256
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sagarmal Jain, Suresh Sisodiya
Publisher: Agam Ahimsa Samta Evam Prakrit Samsthan
Publication Year: 2002
Total Pages: 338
Language: Hindi
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 24 MB

Page 328

Prof. Sagaramal jain & Dr. Suresh Sisodiya: 299 that Lord Mahavira propounded his law through the Ardha-magadhi Language- tae nam bhagavam Mahavire... addhamagavae... bhåske bhāsai/ariha dhammam parikahei/tesim savvesim āriya-m-anāniyam agitae dhammamaikkhai/ så vi ya nam addhamāgahā bhāsā tesim savvesim ariyam-aņāriyam appano sabhasae pariņāmenam parinamai.a
Hemacandra in his Prakrit Grammar, while tormulating the characteristic features of Māgadhi, in the vrtti of the very first sútra ataḥetsau pumsi magadhyām (4.487) has mentioned that old scriptures are composed in the Ardhamågadhi language-poranam addhamagaha Bhasa niyayam havai Suttam. Hemacandra admits that the characteristic features of Ardhamågadhi is quite different from that of Māgadhi. Hence, he did not mention any rules of Ardhamāgadhi along with Māgadhi or any other Prakrits.
Herman Jacobi in his own style has classified the language of Jain Literature. According to him the language of the Jain Literature Corresponds mostly with the nature of Maharaştri. So one is Jain Mahārāştri and the other is Jain Prakrit. Jain Mahārāştri was the medium of language through which the Jain commentators and Annotators explained the canons. And Jain Prakrit is the language of the old scriptures, i.e. canons. Grammarians from Vararaci (4th/5th century A.D.) upto Märkandeya (17th Century A.D.) acknowledged the Jain Prakrit either as Arşa, the language of the rsis or rudha, the self created. Hemacandra in his sūtra ärsam, mentions that this has many
options and exceptions. It is needless to say that due to huge variations · and options, Grammarians could hardly be able to formulate any sutra
for the Ardhamagadhi language. Trivikrama ignored to describe the characteristic retures oí Ardnamāgadni as he did so for the Deśya ianguage. He admits that Arşa like Deśya is nothing but a self created language. So it is not the offspring of Sanskrit. It is free from any connection of polished language-svatantratvacca bhūyasa, if only follows its own rules. Prem Candra Tarkavāgića, while commenting on the Kävyädarśa (1.33) of Dandin says that Prakrit has mainly of two divisions-one which is derived from Arsa and the other is analoguous to the Arşa-arsottham årsa tulyanca dvividham prakstam viduḥ. Namisådhu, on the commentary of Rudrata on Kävyādarśa (2.12)