Studies in Jainology Prakrit Literature and Languages

Author(s): B K Khadabadi
Publisher: Prakrit Bharti Academy

Page 20

Studies in Jainology. Prakrit
-
1
+
therefore, scholars like Namisadhu (on Sarasvatikanthābharana) have compared it with cloud-water : “meghanirmuktajalamiva”ló But we have to bear in mind that the various adjectives such as sarva, ascşa, nisseșa ctc., noted above, rather refer to the languages or dialects of the regions of Mahavirás religious and spiritual activities alone. To sum up this part of discussion, Mahavira preached or taught in the Ardhamagadhi language. It was the natural and unfettcred language of the common masses. It possessed a considerable number of features of the dialects of the area of his religious and instructional activities and, therefore, was understood by those people and, hence, it was the leading popular language of his time and ficld of activities.
At this juncture a problem arises: Was the leading popular language, in which Mahāvīra taught, called Ardhamagadhi in his lime? And is the Ardhamāgadhĩ, the language of the canon, the same as the Ardhamāgadhĩ, the medium of Mahāvīra's teaching? As regards the first half of the problem, we have noted above that several canonical and other later works unhesitatingly say that Mahavira taught in the Ardhamāgadhi language. Both the Digambara and the Svetambara workes say so without any difference of opiniom. Moreover according to the Avašyka Niryukti :
"Attham bhāsai Araha, suttam gamthamt i ganaharā niunam” The Revered One taught the law and the Ganadharas. composed it skillfully. According to tradition, Sudharmā, the fifth Ganadara, composed the Angas and the knowledge, except the 12th Anga, was preserved and passed on from tongue to tongue until it was finally put to writing at the Vallabhi Council under Devardhigani in 454 A.D. Besides, the Jaina Āgamas, unlike the Vedas, arc arthapradhāna and not sabdapradhāna c.i., the fact that Mahavira taught in Ardhamāgadhi has been authentically preserved in the canonical texts. Lastly there is no other evidence showing the otherwise of Mahavira's medium of teaching. Under these circumstances, we too have to accept unhesitatingly the literary evidence as authentic.