Current Issue  Volume 3  No 1&2  Mar & Oct 2006

Mail

The translation of these canonical literatures appears not in the form of independent texts but in the form of commentaries of varied types written mainly in Maharastri Prakrit, Sauraseni Prakrit and also in Sanskrit. Only after these commentaries do we see original works in Sanskrit by Jaina teachers and scholars, along with works in Prakrit. The reasons for this could be two-fold:

1.      As scholars like Khadabadi say, it was “to convince and propagate their religious tenets in Sanskrit-knowing circles and also to expand their influence over rival groups and others.” (Khadabadi 1997: 207).

2.      As scholars like Pollock have argued, Sanskrit was gaining currency during this period, the middle centuries of the first millennium, because of a certain kind of state structure obtaining acrossSouth Asia and its dependence on Sanskrit as a language. I too argue that it might have become inevitable for Jains to translate as commentaries their canonical texts as well as compose secular texts in Sanskrit that might have been of use to the state.

There was also a moment when Sanskrit was preferred to Prakrit by Jainas. “The revolt in favour of using Sanskrit” says K.M.Munshi, “as against Prakrit, headed by Siddhasena Divakara (C.533 A.D.) was an attempt to raise the literature and the thought of the Jainas to the high intellectual level attained by those of the Brahmins. This revolt naturally met with considerable opposition from the orthodox Sadhus.” (quoted in Khadabadi 1997: 207).

The commentaries are a form of translations of this period and an important one. These have not been looked at by Translation Studies scholars. Commentaries are basically explications, interpretations in the same language or in a different language. How the meaning/interpretation of a text differs from time to time; whether the presence of different sects/sub-groups in a cult/religion can explain the differences or whether the differences in various commentaries constitute the different sects; whether the need for commentaries in the language of the original, is due to the language of the original composition being no more current in the language today - these are some of the questions that Translation Studies as a discpline has to address. Neglecting such an important area of investigation could be due to our leaning towards a certain notion of literature that excludes what is generally called Shastra literature, which is also closely associated with religion.

Jaina tradition has four different kinds of commentaries - Choornis, Niryuktis, Bhashyas and Tikas. A study of these would in itself form another interesting research project. Niryukti is a genre peculiar to Jaina literature. Niryukti explains the meanings of the words in the original text and also gives details about references to other sects/religions, ethics, logic, arts, science etc. They contain stories that explicate a particular philosophical proposition. In order to explain the words that come in Niryukti and the detailed descriptions of the stories that are mentioned, Bhashyas came into existence. It is difficult to find out the difference between Bhashya and Niryukti as both are written in Prakrit in Gaaha prosody. Niryuktis contain references to the story and Bhashyas narrate them. Relatively speaking, Bhashyas are simpler to understand than Niryuktis. Similarly Choornis are simpler than both Bhashyas and Niryuktis. Choornis are basically bilingual texts written both in Sanskrit and Prakrit. Choornis review each and every word that occurs in Bhashyas and Niryuktis. Tikas are basically written either in Sanskrit or in languages such as Kannada, Tikas contain the original text in Prakrit as well as their explication in Kannada or Sanskrit (See Sannayya 1976: 100-101for more discussion).

A cursory look at the catalogues of manuscripts found in the Jaina math at Shravanabelagola, now kept in the National Institute of Prakrit Studies and Research, would reveal the extent of practice of tika tradition in Shravanabelagola. Volume two of the catalogue, which describes the details of Prakrit manuscripts, contains 146 entries. Volume one has 455 entries and lays out details of Kannada manuscripts. This volume includes details of original Kannada texts as well as Kannada tikas on Prakrit and Sanskrit texts. These tikas contain the original texts as well. There are 146 Prakrit language manuscripts that are found in Kannada scripts. Volume five contains Sanskrit texts, some of which also have Kannada tikas, volume three and four are updates to volume one giving details of Kannada manuscripts (Sannayya and Seshagiri 1997, 1998, 2003 and 2004). Even when we look at the ten volumes of catalogues published by Karnatak University, Dharwad, giving details of the manuscripts preserved in the Institute of Kannada Studies there, we find that more than 25% of the entries are either tikas or satiku (commentary with the original text) (Kalburgi 1992).

Kapil Kapoor talks about different ways of the renewal of texts that existed such as 1. commentary (tika) 2. recension (a creative revision) 3. redaction (a re-arrangement) 4. adaptation 5. translation 6. popular exposition (‘katha pravachana parampara’) and 7. re-creation (Kapoor 2006: 3).

Today many texts, which are not available but are mentioned in earlier texts, are recovered through their commentaries. One such text is the sacred Jaina text Shatkandagama (twelve Agamas), the commentaries of which are called Dhavala, Jaya Dhavala and Maha Dhavala. These commentaries were not known to the world till the end of the 19^th century. The copies of these commentaries were in the Kannada script but the language was Prakrit. It took another 60-70 years to copy them to Devanagari script and translate it into Hindi before publishing in book form in 39 volumes.⁶  The Hindi translation was edited by Hiralal Jain, a Jaina scholar. Thus the foremost scripture of Jaina religion was preserved through a commentary in Prakrit but was in the Kannada script. Now it is available in Hindi translation, and a mega-project of translating it into Kannada has been on since 1998.

Such stories are not a rare phenomenon. When texts were preserved through palm-leaf manuscripts and the later generations did not know how to read them, they just worshipped them. In such cases, commentaries have kept them alive and what Walter Benjamin calls the afterlife of a translated text is true both metaphorically and literally.

Coming back to the story of textual production in Karnataka, the centers of textual production in that period were mainly two: 1. Jaina mutts (mainly in Shravanabelagola) and 2. The royal courts. These centers didn’t merely patronize textual production in Kannada but they  produced texts in multiple languages.

In Shravanabelagola we find mainly puranic and shastra texts being produced in Prakrit, Kannada, Sanskrit, Apabhrahmsha languages. Though none of the Apabhrahmsha writers was born in Karnataka, they composed their texts in Karnataka. The two important writers of Apabhrahmsha were Svayambhu and Pushpadanta and they got their patronage in Karnataka. Svayambhu, in the words of Prem Suman Jain, was the first “known writer of eminence who selected Ram and Krishna for composing the Prabhandha-Kavya in Apabhrahramsa literature” (Jain 1977:155). His main works are Paumachariu and Ritthanemichariu. His influence on subsequent writers in Apabhrahmsha and the Hindi language is well noted by scholars. Svayambhu’s Paumachariu is dated by scholars as belonging to the middle of 8^th century A.D. (See introduction to Vimalasuri’s Paumachariu by Kulkarni).⁷

Then Pushpadanta is seen as a genius of Apabhrahmsha literature. His patron was Bharatha and his son Nanna who were in the court of Krishna III of 10^th century A.D. (for details on this issue, see introduction to Mahapurana Vol.1, Pushpadanta, 1979). Three works are credited to him: 1. Mahapurana, 2. Nayakumarachariu and 3.Jasaharachariu. It is said that he exerted great influence on later writers of Marathi, Gujarati, Hindi etc. 

In a similar manner most of what became canonical literatures of Jainas later, such as the works of Acharya Kundakunda, Vattakera (both 1^st century A.D.), Sivarya (2^nd century A.D.), Yativrsabha (6^th century A.D.), Acharya Nemichandra (10^th century A.D.), Maghanandi (13^th century A.D.) have composed texts in Karnataka in Jaina Sauraseni Prakrit (Khadabadi 1997b).

Similarly many Sanskrit texts have been written in Karnataka. Mahapurana is an important puranic text in Sanskrit. It served as a source text for various epics in Kannada, Sanskrit, Apabhrahmsha, Prakrit etc. Mahapurana is a text jointly composed by Bhagavajjinasenacharya and Bhavdgunabhadracharya (if you leave the honoric prefix Bhagavad and the suffix acharya, the names would be Jinasena and Gunabhadra). It is said that Jinasena could not complete the entire Purana on his own, by the time he came to the 4^th poem of the 42^nd chapter of the first volume, i.e. Poorvapurana, he died. Then his disciple Gunabhadra completed the Poorvapurana, i.e. the remaining poems of the 42^nd chapter and five more chapters (Poorvapurna contains 47 chapters). Gunabhadra also wrote Uttarapurana. Thus this text is referred to not only as Mahapurana but also as Poorvapurana and Uttarapurana.  Jinasena was a guru of Amoghavarsha, the Rashtrakoota king. Historians have fixed the date of Amoghavarsha’s rule from 815 A.D. to 877 A.D. So, Jinasena must have been around that time, i.e. between 8^th and 9^th century. Harivamshapurana by Jinasena (a different Jinasena acharya) refers to Jinasena of Mahapurana and his guru Veerasena and the date of that text is fixed as 783 A.D. Jinasena of Poorvapurana must have written his other two works Jinaguna Stotra and Vardhamanapurana, which figure in Harivamshapurana. (See introductions written by Shantiraja Shastri in Jinasena and Gunabhadra 1992).

 

PREV | TOP | NEXT

Copyright © CIIL and The Author 2006