Mahavira Jain Vidyalay Suvarna Mahotsav Granth Part 1

Author(s): Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya Mumbai
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 669

200 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
the final vowel in the same manner by which the non-inflected forms in the nom. or the acc. get final vowels lengthened in Ap. So the final long vowel of the form (i. e. of joia), according to his estimate, does not in any way affect its assumption as a non-inflected word. But as he is intent on striking at the root of the conception of the traditional use of the non-inflected gen. in Ap. he considers the word as a form of the vocative case. According to his assumption the word was originally joiaü (*yogikaka), which by the loss of the final vowel u and the concomitant lengthening of the preceding vowel a by way of compensation developed into the present joiā. Such an assumption of Alsdorf-- namely of construing joia as a form of the vocative, one may likely suggest, is obviously based upon the following sanskritisation of the verse, which L. B. Gandhi presents: kālam labdhvă yogin! yathā yathā moho galati tatha tathā darśanam labhate jivo niyamenātmānam jānāti). It needs no mention that Alsdorf accepts his interpretation, which invariably follows from the above construction.
It should be stated here that Alsdorf has cited several instances, where the word joia has been subject to the similar use and been considered as a case of address. We must admit that Alsdorf's assumption is quite conforming to reason and there is nothing objectionable in it. But this does not in any way entitle us to consider Pischel's supposition of the word as gen. to be wrong and leading to confusion. Because the word joiä many be quite rightly assumed as a regular form of the gen. which proceeds from the word yogikasya and shows the following course of development in Ap.: yogikasya > joiassa > jaiasa > joiaha > joiâa > joia. It may be stated that the Práksta-paingala shows the copious use of such gen. ending in the vowel à and unquestionably supports the statement, which Pischel makes in unequivocal terms. We may quote a few instances from the PräkȚta-paingala, which would clarify the matter and substantiate our statement: jā addhamge pabbai I. 82 (yasya ardhange Parvati), jää jā addharaga I. 119 (jāyā yasya ardhānge), veälā jā sanga I. 119 (vetālāh yasya sange), jā ditthe mokkhā pāvijja I.119 (yasya drste mokşah prapyate) etc. The gen. forms here very strongly suggest that the word joia too ending in the vowel a may be easily accepted as a form in the gen. The interpretation of the verse too will not suffer from any injury by such a supposition, since it will be construed with the word mohu, which comes after it though intervened by a few words. Such a situation goes to support the proposition of Pischel, whom we cannot reject unless we meet with any argument going to the contrary.