Dictionary of Prakrit for Jain Literature Vol 01 Fasc 01

Author(s): A M Ghatage
Publisher: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

Page 18

(9)
from the south and the majority of Prakrit stanzas quoted in the works on rhetorics. But the problem Sanskrit dramas and the Sattakas and the use of Saurawhich needs a clarification pertains to the stanzas in occur in them. A brief history of this problem may help seni, Magadhi and various Ts and fans which may us to understand the situation, though the problem cannot be completely solved due to lack of necessary evidence in this regard.
3. Prakrit Languages
The dictionary quotes extensively from the seven main Prakrit dialects to illustrate the meanings of words included and also makes a systematic attempt to trace the origins of the words in the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-Europian family of languages. For this purpose a brief survey of these languages may prove useful. The question about the peculiar features of each dialect and the relations among them make it necessary to name the dialects specifically when quotations from them are given. This is done by naming the dialect at
(1) Ardha-Magadhi
the beginning and giving the name of the book at the writers have used two closely related languages, ArdhaFrom among the MIA. dialects the Svetambara
end.
The bulk of the citations naturally comes from the Prakrits known as Ardha-Magadhi (AMg.), Jain Mābārāsṭrī (JM). Jain Sauraseni (JS), Mahārāṣṭrī (M.), Sauraseni (S). Magadhi (Mg.) and Apabhramsa (Apa. ), because the literature in these dialects is found in large measure. The main problem which a lexicographer meets in this case pertains to demarcating clearly one dialect from another and to decide to what extent minor dialectal differences in a given Prakrit can be ascertained and indicated Obviously a given quotation from a given book must be assigned to the language in which it is written, at the same time taking note of the fact that many books use different dialects in different parts of the same work. Thus many books written in JM. include long passages and stories in Apa., and many quotations from the canon occur in JM. works. In fact it is often difficult to decide whether a given work is to be considered as being written in AMg. or JM. In the present case only such books as form the part of the Svetambara canon are cited under the siglum AMg. and others are considered to be in JM. This is obviously arbitrary and leads to such results as considering the Ogha and Pinda Niryuktis as being written in AMg. while the AvNi. and AyarNi. in JM. This problem is acute in the case of the Prakirņakas and again an arbitrary decision is taken by including all such works attributed to gaars in AMg. and those of definite authors in JM. In case of doubt, the reader should refer to the classification of books on the basis of their language, given separately. All Prakrit works written by the Digambara writers are given the designation JS. while under Apa. are included works which are written by both the Digambara and Svetambara writers, and a few verses found in the works of non-Jain writers,
In the case of other dialects, under Mahārāṣṭrī are included the well known older epics, and more recent ones P.D. II
Magadhi and Jain Mähäräṣṭri, to compose their canonical and post-canonical literature. The relation between AMg. and JM. can be understood better by considering the history of these languages. Slowly AMg. has come under the influence of Mahārāṣṭrī so as to develop into what is now called Jain Mähäräṣṭrī; and in the course of a further development, this language is modified by the influence of Sanskrit on the one hand and the Apabhra. méa dialect on the other.
The oldest form of AMg. can be seen in the first books of Acaranga and Sutrakṛtänga and the older parts of other works like Uttaradhyayana etc. It is characterised, in its phonology, by the change of -r- to -- to a greater extent (anelisa Ayar. 1. 9. 1. 16; Suy. 1. 15. 2); the loss of initial y-(ahāsuyam Ayar. 1.9. 1. 1; avakahae Ayar. 1.9.1.2; avanti Ayar. 1.4.1.2; ahattahiyam Suy. 1. 13.1) and the change of -kh- to -gh(aghai Ayar. 1. 4. 2. 1; Süy. 1. 11. 23; äghāyam Suy. 1. 1. 2. 1). In its morphology we have a number of old forms: the Nom. sg. in -e also in stanzas (cf. uvahanasuyam Ayar. 1.9); forms of the past tenses (atarimau Suy. 1. 11. 6; riittha Suy. 9. 1. 1; ahesi Ayär. 1.9.3.6); forms of the future (agamissa Suy. 1. 15.25); a present part. formed by -mina (abhivayamine Ayār. 1. 9. 1. 8); forms of Gerund with -nta (hanta Suy. 1.8.5) and iyāna (ārustyāņa Ayār. 1. 9. 1.3). Nouns often govern cases (kālamākankhi Suy. 1. 11. 38) and a few peculiar words are met with (anju straight. Sùy. 1. 9. 1; Āyār. 1. 9. 1. 7; ac a- ‘body* Ayār. 1. 9, 1. 11; Suy. 1. 13. 17; adu or Suy. 1. 2. 2. 2; phusa daughter-in-law Suy. 1. 9. 5).
6
The later and more usual form of AMg. is distinguished from JM. by the additional features like the lengthening of final -am before eva (evameva samaṇāuso Naya 1.9.53); i representing iti (Goyama i samane Uvās. 86); forms of prati without the final i (paḍuppanna Suy. 2. 1. 15); Nom. sg. e in prose (ceie Viva. 1); Inst. sg. in -sā (kayasa Dasave. 6. 27); Dat.