Jain Agam Sahitya

Author(s): K R Chandra
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 35

M. A. Dhaky
2. In the text, for the words, I have removed the Maharastra
Prāksta forms as well as the influences or affectations of that language and restored the original Ardhamāgadhi forms as far as was possible on the basis of the word-forms encountered in different agamic cūrni-texts (7th cent. A. D.) on one hand and with the help of the generalities of the demarcating differences to the earlier and later linguistic tendercies in the Praksta lore on the other. For example 'na' is at most places replaced by the natural 'na'; 'ya' śruti by its original consonants like 'a', 'ca', etc.; 'i', or 'r' by 'ti' or ti, etc. Only when a text, supposedly of great antiquity is restored to its original linguistic form does the Ardhamāgadhı-ness of its expression shines with brilliance. The pre-medicval and medieval modernizing processes effected with the aid of late Prāksta rules and assumptions have done great harm to the original canonical language and, as a result, to judging or estimating the correct chronological position particularly of the early works of the Nirgrantha canon and also as a consequence hampered deciding
on their real antiquity vis-a-vis the Buddhist Pāli canon. 3. In the text I have filled up the gaps (suggested by the word,
jāva) by supplying fuller phrases. For example the expressions puritthimăto vă disāto āgato, dakkhināto vā disāto āgato. . . etc. (Ācārānga I. 1. 1/1) may be compared with the wordings for the four directions from which the four puruṣas came namely puritthimăto disāto āgamma, dakkhinato disāto agamma etc. of our text (II. 1. 643, 680 & ff.) Similarly antariio disāto vă anudisāto và ágato (Ācārānga I. 1.. 1/1) may be compared with antarito disāto anudisāto
vā āgamma of our text I. 1. 643). 5. The qualificatory kşetrajña' and 'kusala' in Vs. 3 (I. 6. 354)
are also used in the Pundarika text. These terms virtually
disappear in the agamas of the middle phase. 6. The auihor of this niryukti part is thus not only later since
his vyākhyā or explanation is faulty; it is also clear that he did not belong to the direct agamika-tradition of this text.