パーリ学仏教文化学 (4) - 004Singh Sanghasen「Prakrit Versus Sanskrit ： A Case Study of Pali (Magadhi) and Ardhamagadhi」

45

Prakrit

Versus

Sanskrit

A

Case

Study

of

Pali

(Magadhi)

and

Ardhamagadhi

Sanghasen

Singh

At

the

very outset,

I

would

like

to

preface

my

_paper

with a remark

about

the

medium of

my

paper.

I

am supposed

to

_present

this

_paper

on

the

controversy

of

languages-more

so on

Indian

languages

-

in

a

language

which

is

neither mine nor

_yours.

The

language

originally

belongs

to

the

British

who

imposed

it

on our

forefathers

about more

than

a couple of centuries ago.

We

are carrying

it

year

after

year

and century after century.

With

the

recent

installation

of new

govern-ments at

the

centre

(New

Delhi)

and

in

most of

the

states

in

our

country,

the

age-old controversy

of

alien

and/or

indigenous

has

crop-ped

up again

in

my own state of

Vttar

Pradesh

(literally

and

geogra-phically

the

northern state).

The

use of

English

as

the

official

language

is

banned.

Demonstrations

in

favour

and

agitation

against are

the

order

of

the

day.

(1)

The

controversy

between

Prakrit

or

Prakrits

on

the

one

hand

anrf

Sanskrit

or

Sanskrits

on

the

other

is

neither new nor

totally

uncon--nected with

the

controversy

today.

Centuries

ago,

probably

two

(2)

H

sand

_years

before

the

birth

of

Christ,

when a

_group

of

Aryans

(3)

grated

to

India

with

their

dialects

and

languages

(if

the

same

had

acquired

that

stage),

they

too

had

possibly

to

face

the

same

_problem.

(4)

(5)

46

_{lg--ve}k{z,blJsit(teE}

The

form

might

have

been

different

/from what one

finds

today.

Now

the

question

arises: what

is

Prakritism

and what

is

Sanskrit-ism?

Prakritism

is

the

natural

form

of a

dialect

or

language

which

emerges

through

a continuous and unhindered

_process

of spoken or

written

(in

a

limited

sense) words,

_phrases

and sentences of

the

peo-pie.

It

is

a common

knowledge

that

a

dialect

appears

in

a

particular

geographical

region after a

long

and continuous

_process

of spoken and

to

some extent written _words.

It

takes,

_{more or}

less,

_centuries

for

_the

formation

of a

dialect.

To

_put

it

in

other words,

dialect

ig

the

natural

form

oE

the

collective

_process

that

takes

_place

over

the

centuries

'

through

the

usage of spoken/written words which

turn

into

the

com-Inon

medium of expression and

intercourse.of

a

_given

_people.

It

does

'

not

tolerate

any

hindrance

or

interference

from

any _{outside or alien}

agency.

If

_per

chance or

per

force

any

hindrance

or

interference

takes

place,

the

whole

_process

of

dialect

formation

_gets

vitiated and

distorted

and

tpereby

takes

a

longer

time

to

crystallize and settle

to

the

;ninimum

conditions of

dialect

formation.

If

undisturbed, a

dialect

'

tinues

to

_grow

and enrich

itself

for

decades,

nay centuries.

It

has

the

'

capacity,

though

limited,

to

absorb

limited

amount of outside or alien

influence.

That

capacity

depends

upon

the

vitality and sagacity of a

particular

dialect.

The

same

dialect

assumes

the

forrn

of a

Ianguage

over

the

_years

or centuries,

if

_{certain conditions are available}

_or

_are

made available

to

it.

Among

many conditions,

though

of minor _nature,

the

most

important

ones are

-

(

1

)

large--scale

literary

activities

take

place

and

the

literature

in

the

form

of

_poems,

novels, stories,

_plays,

dramas,

etc.

is

_produced

in

a

_particular

dialect;

(2)

secondly,

that

particular

dialect

becomes

the

vehicle of state administration

for･.a

Prakrit

Versus

Sanskrit

47

ceases

to

exist

in

its

Pure

and simple

form.

This,

in

fact,

happens

to

be

the

Prakrit

state of a

language,

_pure

ancl simple, untouched, unal;

loyed

and unmixed

by

any outside or alien

influence.

If

_per

chance any

Such

influence

creeps

in,

i't

_gets

fully

absorbed _and

'assimilated

without

･any

inward

or outward appearance of

its

alienness.

It

is

now an admitted

fact

that

in

course

of

the

development

of

･hurnan

_{civilization, newer and newer stages set}

_in.

_One

such stage

in

'the

past

history

of

India

was

the

_pre-feudal

stage which obviously was

followed

by

the

feudal

stage.

The

dates

of

these

stages

do

differ

from

societies

to

_$ocieties,

but

one

factor

remains

very much ernbedded

to

･all

_these

_societles.

_It

_is

_the

_process

of

the

development

of

elitism

(the･concept

of abhijatahood or

gietahood,

abhijaMtatva or

Si$tatva

to

use

_purely,

Sanskrit'phrases)

which

_grows

through

_{urbanisatlon or}

through

nearness with

the

ruling

clique or

_group,

or with

both.

Elit-ism,

as

is

commonly

known,

has

the

tendency

to

keep

the

elite apart

･from

_the

_common

_folk.

_This

_process

_of

_keeping

apart or

drifting

away

heavily

reflects upon

the

nature of

the

Iangttage

of

this

_period

which

has.

been

commonly

inherited

by

both

the

elite and

the

commoner.

There

too,

in

_the

_process,

the

elite of a

_particular

_place

or region,

more _often

the

_one

_which

assumes

_political

_power,

say

the

capital

re-gion,

plays

a

decisive

role.

The

norms of

the

language

set

by

that

particular

elite

_group

becomes

_predominant

over

the

_years

and

gra-dually

in

the

_process

that

language

assumes a

_glorified

from.

There-after

the

scholars

of

the

science of

language,

say

_grammarians

(as

'the

_worcl

_has

_been

used

for

centuries) come

forward

either on

their

own

(the

chances of

this

having

been

less)

or are commissioned

by

the

_{powers-that-be}

or

the

state

(if

it

has

assumed

that

state _{or stage)}

48

ii

--

V{l;tas

dv

sc

k\

royal or state command

be

circulated all over

the

territory

(kingdom,

if

is

has

obtained

that

stage) and

be

fully

understood

by

the

officials

and

the

_people

alike.

This

step

was

and

continues

to

be

necessary

to

overcome

the

_{effects of}

time

and space, which change

the

shape and

structure _of

the

language

_sometimes

beyond

_recognition.

The

geogra-phical

and

developmental

factors

_play

a vital

_part

in

the

fast

or

slow

change of a

Ianguage.

The

voluntary and

the

commissioned scholars

develop

their

expertise

in

_{refining, cultivating, acculturating} and

embellishing a

_particular

language.

They

develop

their

skill

to

such an

extent

that

it

assumes

the

form

_{of a}

Sastra

_or

learning

in

its

_own

rights.

In

the

_process,

the

_given

language

is

made a

tool

_{of all}

experi-ments, so

that

it

may

suit

to

the

taste

and

material

requirements

of

the

elite of

the

region.

This

refined or cultivated

language

_which,

in

:fact,

is

the

Sanskrit

of a

_particular

_period

or region widens

its

area _of

influence

in

terms

of

time

and space.

It

all

depends

upon

the

_political

power

and

influence

over

the

people

that

the

particular

Sanskrit

com-mands over a

_period

of

time.

Under

the

circumstances and

during

the

process,

two

contending and sometimes confronting

_groups

emerge on

the

scene-one

for

the

natural

_growth

of

the

language

and

the

other

for

refining and cultivating

that

language.

This,

in

fact,

is

the

fight

between

the

forces

of

Prakrit

on

the

one

hand

and

those

of

Sanskrit

on

the

other.

The

application of

the

above analysis on

the

process

of

development

of

Prakritism

and

Sanskritism

in

the

past

history

of

the

Indo-Aryan

Family

of

languages

in

the

Indian

subcontinent requires volumes

for

its

full

description

and exposure.

But

an attempt wlll

be

made

here

to

delineate

the

same

in

a

few

_pages.

Prakrit'Versus

Sanskrlt

49

dated

an approxiin5t6e)

_period

of

two

thousand

_years

before

the

birth

of･

Christ.

The-

coinposition of

the

･Rgvedic

hymns

and-other

Vedic

literature

rnight

have

taken

a

few

cerituries more.

In

spite-'of

thi$

safeSt

view;

the

Iinguistic

_position

oi

the

'Vedic

Aryans

is

not

fully

cle'ar･

todaY.'

But

rnbs-t of

the

researches

done

･in

the

field

till

now

indicate

that

the

Aryans

in

the

Saptasindhu

region and

during

the

(7)

period

later

were speaking as many

as

seven

clialects

of

t-heir

own.

The

Iiterary

activities and

the

_politieal･

_power

wielded

bY

one or a

'couple

of other

tribes

of

the

Aryans

mig'ht

have.

_qualified'an

equal

number

of

dialects

among

them

to

assume

the

form

_ofla

language

br']anguages,

btit

due

to

lack'of

adequate evidences

today

it

i$

difficult

to

say whether

this･linguistic

_process

had

definitely

takeri

place

and

if

so, what course

it

had

taken

during

the

long

and

chequered

histbry

'of

the

Vedic

Aryans.

Some

scholars

have

hazarded

to'

_peep

through

'the

history

and

literature,of

the-Pieriod,

but

have

not

succeeded

in

the

re-constru ¢

ting

a

detailed;

reliable and authentic

account.

For

our

limited

_purpose,

the

earliest

figure

that

appears

before

our eyes

is

that

of

Parpini,

the

_celebrated

_grammarian

_of

Sanskrit

langidage.

Some

_gramrnarians

'of

repute,

it

appears, appeared

before

him

and attempted

･to

_{refine and cultivate}

'the

_most

_populous

_and

stro'ngest a-mong

the

dialects/languages

of

the

_period

which contenclecl

for

supremacy over each other,

but'

their

identity

is

shrouded

in

the

darkness

of

the

_past

history.

In

the･.crarb

of

the

mythological

details,

(8)

Parpini

_probably

mentions

the

names of'sorne of

them.

Thus

PSnini

appears

to

be

one of

the

most _{successful earliest}

_language

cultivators

or

tamers,

who systematized

the

_grammatical

rules and sub-rules

and

became

effective enough

to

_put

the

language

_(which

for

the

50

i£ -V\Vlty

S((ic\

frame

of

its

own.

But

at

the

same

time,

it

should

be

clearly

borne

in

mind

that

all

those

language-cyltivators

who

tried

their

hands

for

centuries

but

failed

to

_stem

the

_on-rushing

flow

_{of various}

Prakrits

(Vedic

dialects!language$

here),

did

not

die

in

vain,

but

wittingly _or

unwittingly

created

a sum

total

of

language-cultivation

which

culminated

in

the

form

of

Astadhyayi

of

Pa4i,ni

and a

little

later

resulted

in

the

form

of

the

Mahabhasya

of

Patafijali.

At

this

stage

this

should also

be

taken

in

view

that

language-cu!tivation

is

not

done

as a matter ef

joy,

_play

or

_pastime,

but

as a necessity arising out

of

the

rea!ization at

least

among

the

managers of

the

state

to

have

a

language

which

has

the

stability and vitality

to

serve

the

_people

of

larger

areas and

for

longer

time.

Sanskrit

which was

being

developed

had

those

_qualities.

The

historians

are almost certain about

the

date

of

Patafijali

who

flourished

necessarily

in

the

middle of

the

second century

B.C.

and

almost completed

the

_process

of

language-taming

in

respect of

lan-guage

A

as noted above.

But

the

date

of

Papini

still remains

contro-versial.

But

at

the

same

time,

it

may

be

said with certain

degree

of

certainty

that

he

did

not

flourish

_prior

to

the

4th

century

B.C.

Thus

(11)

language

A

transforms

itself

into

Sanskrit.

To

_put

the

same

in

mathe--matical

formulation,

it

may

come

to

dialect-languages-dialect/lan-guageX=language

A

>Sanskrlt.

This

may

be

treated

as

the

first

and

the

foremost

lanclmark

in

the

recorded

history

of

Indian

languages.

The

same may

be

shown

in

the

following

Indo-European

Family

of

Languages

European

Family

Indo-Iranian

Family

Prakrit

Versus

Sanskrit

Indo:Aryan

(circa

2000B.C.-1990)

Iran-Ary.an

51

ftkgli)entldy

2Ml)g

k2l>

-Aryan

(circa

2000B.C"500

-･

_(circa

_500B.C"1000

_{(circalOOeA.D.1990>}

B.C.)

A.D:)

O-.ldMiddle

Indo-

Middle

Middlelndo-Aryan

Later

Middle

Indo-Aryan

_(MMD

Aryan

(circa50eB.C.-IB.C.)

_{(circalAD.sOOA.DJ}

(circa500A.D"1000

A.D

>

Explanatiens

:

(1)

Vedic

and

Upanieadic

dialects

and

languages

belong

to

AI

Branch

of

the

Indo-Aryan

Family

of

languages.

･

₍₁₂₎

･

_,

(2)

PalL

Sanskrit

(Parpinian),

Asokan

Prakrits,

Buddhist

Hybrid

,

Sanskrit(BHS),

Ardha-magadhi,

Magadhi,

Sauraseni,

Mahara$tri,

Paigaci,

and many so-called

ApabhrarpSas

belong

_to

_the

_MI.

(3)

Remnants

of

Apabhrarpgas,

Hindi,

Urdu,

Bengali,

Marathi,Guja-rati,Uria,Assami,Kashmira,Punjabi,Rajasthani,Haryani,Braja,Avadhi,

Bundelakhandi,

Bhojapuri,

Maithili,

Nepali,

Chattisagarhi,

Majahi,

etc.

belong

to

LI.

(4)

Pali,

Sanskrit,

Asokan

Prakrits,

Old

BHS,

Old

Ardha-magadhi,

etc.

belong

to

OMI.

,

<5)

Late

BHS,

Late

Ardha-magadhl,

Magadhi,

Sauraseni,

Maha-raetri,

PaiSaci,

etc.

belong

to

MMI.

(6)

Remnants

of

the

Prakrits

and

Old

Forms

of

Apabhramgas.

'

'

52

l£ L-

U*ts&Nekee.･

Thus

the

chart

indicates

the

_process

of

_growth

of sister

dialects

and

Ianguages

with

the

tendencies

of

collision

and collusion side

by

side

between

Prakritism

and

Sanskritisin,

which continued unabated

for

centuries

.until

the

process

culminated

in

the

form

of

the

rise of

Sans-krit

(Pavinian)

at,

the

stage of

OMI,

when collision

(in

a

limited

sense)

between

the

two

beeame

_pivotal.

Pali

(Magadhi

of

the

Thera-vadic scripture) and

Old

Ardha-Magadi

happened

to

be

the

important

components of

the

language

_{structure of}

_the

_period

on

the

one

hand

ancl

Sanskrit

(Paninian)

_on

_the

_other.

In

_{case ofsi'the}

former,

_Pali

represented

one set of

Ianguages

and

literatures.

while

Ardha-Magadhl

represented

the

other.

The

earliest

Pali

literature

was well

_preserved

in

the

form

of

the

texts

of

the

Tipitaka

carriecl

through

oral

'

mission _{and recitations}

during

_the

first

_three

Councils

_and

finally

_com-r

t

t

mitted

to

writing

in

the

Fourth

Buddhist

Council

held

in

Sri

Lanka

'

'

'

under

the

_patronage

of

king

Vattagamarpl

Abhayain

29-28

B.C.

There

'

is

some

degree

of

vagueness

in

the

matter of

_preservation

and

trans-mission of

the

words of

Mahavira,

the

Founder

of

the

Jaina

religion

(the

last

TirthaAkara

according

to

Jaina

traditions).

His

words were

recited, comtiiled and

_probably

committed

to

writing

'for

the

first

time

in

the

Valabhl

Council

of

the

_Jainas

held

_probably

in

the

4th-5th

cen-,

tury

A.D.

Some

older

_parts

of

the

Afiga

literature

(the

Svetambara

Jaina

Agama)

like

Ayarathga

_(older

_portions

alone),

Uttarajjhayana

Sutta,

etc. may

be

_cited

here

for

_our

_purpose.

As

_regards

_the

Sanskrit

literature,

it

too

was not extensively represented

during

this

_period

(i.e.

the

_period

of

OMI).

Secondly,

all

the

texts

of

the

_period

do

not

fully

conform

to

the

norms set

by

Pa4ini

and

his

_{predecessors.}

Parts

_of

_the

,

major

Upanisadic

texts

like

Katha,

SvetaSvatara,

etc., some

Sm;ti

Prakrit'Vefgus

'sa'nskrit

53

Iike

Apastamba,

etc. may

be

cited

in

this

respect.

At

this

stage one

'point

should clearly

be

borne

in

mind

that

in

spite of

the

_pivotal

_role

'of

_Pali,

_Old

_{Atdha-Mtigadhi}

_and

_Sanskrit,

the

other

dialectS

and

lan-guageS

of

the

_period-also

_played

their

respective

r61es

in'

their

6wn

way.

The

process

of simplification of

dialects/languages

threugh

of efforts

(prayatna-laghava,

to

_put

it

in

Sanskrit)

is

the

hallmark

of

the

develop-,ment of every

dialect/langqage[

Every

dialect/langUage

w.

hich

opts

for

development

has

to

obey

the

_principles

of

dialect/language

develop-ment.

However.

If

a

dialect!language

or a

_group

of

dialectsllanguages

refuse

to

obey-

the

dictates

of

developinent;

the'same'get

stag-nated,

their

_growth

stilted

and

finally

they

die

of

their

own

death.

'Kabir,

a saint-poet of mediaeval

India

has

_put

the

same

fac't,

with a

very apt

illustration-`Sanskrit

janiya

kUpaljala,

bhasa

bahatti

_nira'

(know

Sanskrit

as

the.well-water,

while

the

vernacular

is

like

the

running water.･of _{a river).}

The

OMI

_peried

_witnesses

both

_these

'trends

side

by

side.

Pali,

･QId

Ardha-M,agadhi

-and.other

dialeCts/lan-guages

were

developing

as

_per

norms

of

language

development;

while

,Sanskrit

remained confined

to,

its

own

framework.

It'is

･a4so

to

be

noted

here

that

SanskriVhad

the

vitality and strehgth

to'survive

and

remain

in

usage side

by

side,'though

in

a very'limited circle and

there

･toe

_under

_very.hard

_stresses

_{and strains.}

_However,

_the.r'eason

_or

_the

'reasoRs

_for

_its'

survival

in-the

older

times

and

tM

this

day

'to

be

sought

(13)

not

in

the

_principles

of

'Science

of

languages,'

but

in

the

_pdlity

of

the

$u ¢ceeding

g'enerations

of-

the

lndian

people.

'

.

The

linguistic

changes as a consequence of

the

development

that

con-tinued

to

take

_place

during

the

OMI

_period

or even slightly earlier and

54

･

,£ .Y\uathZS((ltee.

.representiqg

the

･language

of'

the

Tipitaka)

are worthy of-citation

here

,for

a

bet,t/er

appraisal of ,the

linguistic

picture

and

the,

problem$.of

the

period.

Their

presentation

in

,relatio,n

tQ.

the,

somewhat

static,

nature

of

Sanskrit

may

lead

to

a

deeper

and clearer understanding and

_perusal

of

the

issues

involved.

The

main

features,

distinguishing

Pali

irom

,Sq,nskrit

_Qf,OMI,

_period,

_{are a$ under}

Phenological

･

'

'

,

/

1.

R

and

L

of

Vedic

vowel-system

disappear.',R

is

represented

by

a.

ieruandlbecoines

u. ,'' ,

,

.

2.

The.

diphthongs-

ai

.and

au change,reSpectably

to

e and

o.

･

3.

Long

vowels

_preceding

a

conjunct'.consonant

are useally

ened"

,

4.

'

Visarga

(:)

disappears

in

Pali

and

is'normally

replac'ed

by

vowel

o..

'-

'''

'.

_,

',

'.

.'

･,･5.

_{Intervocalic'muteS'}

are often

drbpped.

6.

Surds'are

s6ftened and sonants

are,hardened.

i

7.

Aspirates

are replaced

by,'h.

Medial

d'a.and

dha'change

to

L

and

'

Lh

respectively.

,.

,'･'-･'

''

_,

,

8.

S

(dental)

remains and replaces

S

(palatal)

and

S

(cerebral)L

'

9.

N

(dental)

is

sometimes cerebralis'edi,'

but

hot

always.

10.

A

consonant at.the end. of a.wotd

disaPpears.

11.

The

initial

conjunct

consoriants are not

'[found.

Of

the

two,

one

is

either

dropped

or

the

two

are

Separated

by

insertion

of a vowel

(svarabhakti);

the

vowels usually･

inserted

are a',

i,

u.

I2.

Medial

conjunct

consonants

undergo assimilation,,

_progressive

or regresslve.

13.

Medial

Kge

generally

changes

to

KKh.

Prakrit

Versius

Sanskrit

55

'

remains; at

times,

however,

of

the

two

vowels, only

the

latter

remains

and

is

lengthened

and again sometimes

the

_process

is

reversed and

the

'earlier

one remains and

is

lengthened.

./

'

Morphological

/

,.

1.

In

both

declension

and conjugation,

the

dual

number

disappears.

DeclenSien

t

t

t

t

2.

In

the

_plural

of,Instrumental

_.and

Ablative,

hi

and

_,bhi

are

'

used at

the

end.

_,

'

'

,

3.

Forms

in

Dative

and

Genitive

Plural

are similar, while

in

case of

'

the

singu,lar

the

Genitive

form

is

often

_,used

for

Dative.

'

Conjugatiom

'

'

4.

Both.Parasmaipada

and

Atmanepada

occur,

but

the

latter

is

comparatiyely

fewer.

'

5.

The

Parasmaipadi

roots of

PS4inian

Dh5tupatha

sometimes

change

te

Atmanepadi

and

the

latter

mostly

into

the

former.

Miscellaneeus

6.

The

_prefixes

apa and ava are replaced

by

o..

,

7.

Medial

-aya

_and

-ava

_change

_to

_{e and o respectiveiy,}

8.

Besides

the

Gerund

affixes

lyap

and

ktvn,

three

more

(five

out

of

the

seven of

the

Vedic

dialects/Ianguages)

are

found.

Lyap

and

ktva

are very

liberally

used

in

Pali,

sometimes

both

in

one

single word.

'

Besides

infinitives

in

tutp

(tumunanta

of

the

Vedic),

in

Pali

four

9.

more are

found

--tave,

tuye,

taye,

and

tase.

As

regards

Ardha-Maghadhi,

the

general

characteristics of

Pali,

as cited above,

both

_phonological

and morphological, are,

by

and

large,

applicable

to

it

except a

few,

for

instance

Visarga

is

replaced

56

,?<--Y!?dZltw]S({t*

tles

may also

be

cited

which

distingush

Ardha-Maghadhi

from

Pali

(1)

yis

replaced

by

j.

.

.

ttt

ttt

t

tt

(2)

The

dental'

n

invariably

changes

to

cerebral

_p.

'

(3)

The

medial sonants

have

the

tendency

to

drop

out.

'

Lastly,

the

author of

the

_paper

in

_question

owes an explanation

to

'the

world of scholarship as

to

why

he

has

put

Sanskrit

(PZ41nian)

under

OMI

instgad

_of

following

the

norm set

by

almost all scholars

in

the

field

who

have

_placed

Sanskrit

under

Ancient

Indo-Aryan

'

ing.

It

is

because

of

the

fact

that

they

have

followed

such early

dates

tt

/

t

t

t

of

Panini

Whldh

do

riot

conform

to

the

facts

and evidences.

They

have,

.

t

t

'

by

and

Iarge,

ignored

the

linguistic

evidence of

Pali

on

the

one

hand

and

Sanskrit

on

the

other.

There

are evidences

to

suggest

that

Pali

_positively

represents

an

earlier

_phase

of

linguistic

d6velopment

and

Sanskrit

a

later.

This

fact

is

borne

by

the

archaic

nature

of

the

'

t.

'

Pali

language'

(at

least

its

early

phase,

representing early

texts

of

the

'

'/tt

_t

t

tt

t

'Tripitaka,

esp.

the

Suttanipafa,

Dhammapada,

Theragatha,

Therigatha

'

'

and

so

on) as compared

to

Sanskrit.

To

state a

few

instances,

(1)

PaH

'

t

t

retains

the

V6dic

form

of

Instrurnental

case

_plural

number

(devebhi,

'

t

ttt

tt

devehi),

_while

Sagskrit

_{received a}

later

developed

form

_as

devaih.

'

Pali

Sanskrit

'

_tt

/t

'

<2)

Ablative

case

devasma,

devamha

devat

'

(Singular

number)

'

'

(3)

Loeative

case

devasmirp,

devamhi

deve

'

'

(sing.

number)

'

(4>

Genitive

case

_.

matussa,

matuno

.

matulj

(sing.

number)

/.

'

t

t

'

'

(5)

5kinds

of

Gerund

Af-

2kinds

(ktva,

t

t

/

/

..

. ,''

fixes

ip

Pali

(out

of

the

_.,lyap)

Prakrit･

Versus

Sanskrlt

57

Vedas)

(6)

Besides

infinitives

end-

tumunanta

alone

ing

'in

turp,

those

in

tave,

tuye,

taye

.and

tase

･･.-

･

'

On

analysis of

the

'facts

cited･ above, one comes

to

the

cQnclusion

that

the

dialect/language

frOm

which

Panini

derived

his

_grammatical

formulations

was

lingulstically

rnuch

advanced

than

Pali.

Thus

taking

the

first

Buddhist

Council

as

the

basis,

when

the

Pail

texts

were,

com-piled,

the

date

ef

･Parpini's

compilation of

the

Ast.5dhyayi･

might

have

taken

_place.

a century. or a couple of centuries

lateri

Thus

the

rnid-dle

of

the

4th

century

B.C.

may,

be

the

safest

date

of

the

A$tadhayi.

Moreover.

at

･the

same

time,.this

view

does･nQt

curtail･the,-period of

collision

and

collusion

between

Prakritism..represented

by

Prakrits

like

Pali,

old

ArdharMagadhi

and so on and

Sanskritisrp

represented

by

t.he

_predecessQrs

of

Papini,

Parpini･

himself

and,

his

successors,

the

fQremost

among

.whopa

was

Patafijali,

the

author of

the

_.Mahabha$ya.

,

'Thus

to

conclude,

both,

tendencies

c6ntended.fo'r supremacy.'

for

cen-tuties

.and

ultinvately ended

in

two

sets of courses'ordained

by

'the

principles

df

the

Science

of'

Languages.

That

is

to

say

Pali,

Ardha-Magadhi,

etc.

deve16ped

into

newer'and newet

forms

of

dialects'

and

lan-guages

till

they･reached

the

present

stage of verna'culars of northern

and western-India, while

Sanskrit

on'

the

other'hand _{remains ali"e}

like

(14)

a,barren

woman

(vandhya

stri) cursing

the

children of others,

like

_a

museum

_piece

for

most of

the

Indians

today

and at

the

same

time

like

a

beautiful-

toy-dog-

for

a

ha'ndf,ul

who use

'it

to

eritice as well _as

to

'fr'ighten

58

iS

L--

V･\M

ig

S(dt*

Addenda

(1)

The

spelling

in

Romah

of

the

word 'PtakriV and 'Sanskrit'

is

not

according

to

the

internationa!ly

accepted norm of

Romanisation.

It

should run as under

Prakrta

and

Sarpskrta.

But

the

spelling

used

in

the

title

and

the

text

of

the

_paper

is

_{common and universally}

accepted.

Both

words are

in

Sanskrit.･

The

Prakrit

authors

have

ealled

their

language

or

languages

Paia,'Paua,

Paida,

Pauda

and

-

so on.'

'

-(2>

The

the'ory

of

the

advent of

Aryans

in

India

(as

one

_political

entity) and

in

the

adjoining regions'about

two

thousand

_years

ago

･

_had

_been

_{under attack since}

_its

_inception.

_But

_with

_the

_emergence

'

of a new wave of

Hindu

Chauvinism

in

our country

today,

the

troversy

has

become

very

sharp.

There

are

_gtoups

and

individuals

who

are

trying

to

dig

out a new

history

of

India.

Their

main

tention

is

that

the

current

text-book

history

of

India

was concocted,

distorted

and constructed

by

the

British

historians

and

their

lackeys.

Accordingly,

the

element of alienness

of

the

Aryans

was

knowingly,

rather ctinningly,

inflicted

in

Indian

history

in

order

to

sow

the

seed of

divisiveness'

among various sections of

the

Indian

_people.

The

fact

is

that

the

British

India

was

divided

into

two

_parts

in

l947

on

the

_quesion

of

two-nation

theory.

In

fact,

the

theory

of

uni-nationalism and multinationalism

is

very much complicated

in

our

country

teday.

India

i.e.

Bharata

is

undoubtedly _{a country of} many

nations and nationalities.

But

_the

distortion

_{caused at}

_the

_religious

level

-

_the

_Muslims,

_the

_Sikhs

_and

_in

_future

may

be

others wrongly

identified

themselves

with

the

nation

of

their

own conception

-

is

Prakrit

Versus

Sanskrit

59

Th'ere

are many

theories

about

the

date

of

the

arrival of

the

'

Aryans

into

the

land

o'f

the

Sapta-sindhus,

butI

have

opted

for

the

･Safest

_and

_the

_most

_convincing.

_For

_{details,.please}

_see

_The

_History

of.indian

Literature

by

M..

Winternitz,

VoL

One,

(reprint

of

English

translation),

Munshi

Ram

Manohar

Lal,

New

Delhi

1978.

<3)

The

Indiap

authogs are/prone,to make.mistakes,regarding

_political

and

geographical

identity

of

India.

In

their

_{writings sometimes}

they

mean

the

whole

_Qf

the

Indiap,

subcQptinent

including

Pakistan,

glade$h

and

Nepal..But

here,

the,

_author

_Qf'the

_{present-paper}

has

taken

India,･

i.e.,

Bharata

as a

_political

entity _{carved out}

from

the

British

India

in

1947.

<4)

Many

derivation$

and

definitions

of

Pralerit

have

been

o'fferecl

by

,the

authors,.

past

and･prese,nt.

But

,the

one

,that

I

have

accepted and

made

the

basis

of

_pay

obs,ervations

ip

the

present

pqper

is

based

upon

two

_sources

-,

_one

from

Narpisadhu,

_the

famous

_commentato;

of

Rudrata's

Kavyalafikara

and

the

other

from

the

modern

se4rches

in

the

field

of

linguistics.

Three

etimologies of

the

term

Pra-krta

merit mention

_,here.

These

(1).

From

the

original

word

Prakrti

or tbasis'

through

the

fication

of which one

_gets

the.

derivative

PTa-k,

ta.or.'one

which

has

come

from

or _{arisen out of}

the

basis.'

Here

the

Prakrti

is

considered

to

be

the

Devava-n.

i

(the

language

of

the

_gods),

i.e.

Sanskrit.

Accordingly,

Prakrit

languages

are

taken

to

･be

the

lineal

descendants

of

Sanskrit

as modified

in

_their

regional and

temporal

evolution.

This

derivation,

in

fact,

is

based

upon

the

belieE,

as noted above,

that

the

_gods

had

created a

language-and

60

.iS

--

Vt}ftts

ty

Stlt#･

of

_gods'

is

supposed

to

be

_perfect

in

all respects,

･the

other

guage

which originated

in

course of

time,

Must

have

_got

thelr

originatien

due

to

lapses

on

the

_part

of

the'

humans,

in

other

words,

through

_the

_process

_of

Apabhrathgification

(to

_{coin a}

word

to

denote

_the

sense).

<2)

The

second

derivation

is

from

_pra

_-V'ii!t:t

(to

do)

+

kta,

where

_praupasarga

(prefix)

_stands

for

`prokarsepa'

or

sively.

Thereafter

from

the

word

prakrta,

a noun or

adjectlval

phrase

is

derived

and

that

comes

to

'Pra'"krta''of "orte which

has

.

been

done

or

worked

out'excessively

or

in

a most exqdisite

mannerl

'

'''

(3)

The-third-

derivation

roots out

ftom

the

conibination of

the

word･s

_pra'k

_+Vift

(to

do)

₊

kta.

Tliat

nidarts''ohe

whlch'has

beeri

done

or worked out

_previously.'

'

'(5)

One

and

the

only etymology _of

the

term

Samskrta

_universally

'

accepted

by

the

scholars

is

from

the

words

sarp

+VtS'

(to

do)

+

kta.

That

means `one which

is

refined, cultivated

by

the

learned.'

In

case of

the

ffindu

orthodoxy,

it

m'eans `one refined, cultivated

by

the

gods.'

In

other words,

it

is

a

language

which

has

crossed

the

stage of

being

a natural unrefined

dialect

of

the

common

_people

and

their

descendants.

Thus

by

implication

it

means a

language

or

guages

(in

case of

the

_plurality

of

Sanskrit)'

controlled

by

the

ative rules of

_grammarians

and

thereby

tamed

in

all respects

for

all

.

tlmes

to

com'e.

(6)

It

is

'an

approxiniate

_period

in

the

real sense of

the

word.

The

dates

in

the

pre-history

of'India cannot

be''taken

'for

_granted

A

marginal

_period

of''Eive

hundred

'/years

in

remQte antiquity

'May

not

Prakrit･

VerSusi

Sanskrit

61

(7)

Cf.

J;

Kashyap,

Pali

Maha-vyakaragea,(introdptction),

Reprint,

Motilal

Banarasi

Dass.

Bunglow

Road,

Delhi

1980.

,

(8)

`aiu.4

rlk･････,-Z

themost

_pivotal

sUtra of

Pa4ini,

is

regarded as

Safi-r

kara

Stttra

and

is

believed

to

have

_emanated

from

Lord

Safikara's･

instrument.

Cf.

Siddhanta,

Kaumudi

of

Bhattoji

Diksita;

It

is

_quite

.

.possible

that.Papigi

borrowed

this

sutra

from

his

_predecessor

whose

,

name _was

Sankartra.

(9>

･Cf.

_M.

_Winternitz,

_Hlstory

_of

_indian

_Literature,

_Vol.

_One.'

act

There

is

a

tendency

among some

historians

of

India

to

_push

back

the

dates

of ancient authors

to

as early a

period

or

periods

as could

fancifully

be

/done.,

This

'may

be

interpreted

as an over-reaction

to

what sorne wqstern scholars

like

Keith

did.

But

the

strongest wave

of

_{glorifieation}

of

India's

_past

which

_pervades

at

least

the

northern

part

of

the

country

is

in

a way

the

most

important

factor

for

this

state of affairs.

So

much so,

that

even attempts are afoot

to

_pub!icly

denounce

and

discard

the

theoy

of

Aryan

invasion

of

India

and

their

advent

from

outside

India.

This

ls

being

interpreted

by

some as tthe

legacy

of

the

British

historians

who were

biased

against everything

Indian.'

But

this

tendency

does

not end

here.

It

does

not

spare

even

non-Hindu

Indian

traditions

and

institutions.

For

instance,

the

orthodox

Hindu

scholarship

is

not

_prepared

till

this

day

to

be].ieve

_that

ASvagho$a

appeared

_prior

to

Kalidasa,

lest

the

latter

is

_painted

_{as a}

borrower

from

the

former's

poems.

The

same

tendency

works

in

respect of

the

date

of

PZrpini

as well.

On

being

told

that

the

Buddha

'was

a

_predecessor

of

Panini,

which certainly

he

was,

the

orthodox

Hindu

scholars,

by

and

large,

either

_get

offended or

dipressed.

(le

The

western authors

_generally

designate

the

language

as classical

62

.s-.U..I

tAvaJc(t*

any suitable _expression,

_they

_call

_the

_dialects/

languages

_of

_the

Vedas

as

Vedic

Sanskrit

(the

_{original word}

being

Chandasa).

But,'

in

fact,

the

term

is

totally

a misnomer.

The

Vedic

dialects/languages

were

in

the

form

of

Prakrits.

(rz)

In

the

title

of

the

_paper,

Pali

language

_has

_been

_put

_{along with}

Magadhi

which

was

the

old name of

Pali

lariguage.

The

language

which

we

call

Pali

today

was

known

as

MEgadhi

Bhasa

-till

the

dle

of

the

14th

century

A.D.,

when

the

Calavarhsa,

an appendix

to

the

Mahavarhsa

was added.

Buddhaghosa,

_the

_{celebrated commentator}

is

recerded

to

have

claimed

that

Magadhi

_language

was

the

root

of all

languages

-

`Sa

Magadhi

mala-bhasa.'

The

Calavarlisa

_gives

the

revealing

lnformation

that

the

M5gadhi

language

of

earlier

generations

of

the

Theravadis

_got

redesignated

during

thls

_period

as

･

_Pali.

_Since

_then

_the

_word

pali

is

current all over

the

world as

the

only name _of

the

language

representing

the

_words

_of

the

Buddha

(as

enshrined

in

Pali

Tipitaka)

_and

_the

_Buddhists

of

the

vada sect expressed

through

that

language.

The

confusion arises when

the

old name of

Pali,

i.e.

Magadhi

_is

mixed with

Mtigadhi

which

is

one of

the

Prakrits

of

the

MMI.

Both

are

two

all-tegether

different

languages

with

differnt

tendencies

of

their

own.

asi

It

is

a common

fact

that

the

Brahmins

of

India,

_particularly

_that

of

the

Aryavarta,

the

adopted

homeland

of

the

Aryans

_espoused

_the

cause of

Sanskrit

all

through

the

recorded

history

of

India.

Though

ousted

from

_power

at certain stages of

time,

they

managed

_to

retain

the

hold

of

Sanskrit

through

various ways and

devices.

Though

very

few

historical

recorcls are available

today,

_yet

it

is

_{a common}

fact

Prakrit

Versus

Sanskrit

63

fered

a severe set-back.

Anothe'r

_period

when such a set-back

(may

be

of

less

intensity)

took

_place

was

during

the

reign of

the

vahanas of

the

Deccan

and

further

south regions.

Hala,

one

of

the

Satavahana

ru!ers, who

is

credited with

the

authorship of

the

sattasai

(GathasaptaSati)

is

reported

to

have

been

the

strongest

tagonist

of

Prakrit-languages.

One

of

the

introductory

verse$

of

the

text

amply reflects

the

type

of rivalry or confrontation

that

developed

between

Prakrits

on

the,

one

hand

and

Sanskrit

on

the

other.

The

verse runs as under

Pharusa

Sakkaya-bondha

Paia-bandho

vi

hoi

suumaro,

Purisa-mahilarparb

jettiyamihautaraip

tettiyamim5rparh.

(The

Sanskrit

poetie

compositions are

indeed

very

harsh,

whereas

those

of

Prakrits

are very soft.

The

measurement

of

softness

between

harshness

and

the

two

is

as much as

between

the

men and women.)

It

ls

quite

possible

that

there

might

have

been

many

more

of

the

type,

but

their

records are not available.

On

the

other

hand,

many

kings

and rulers

have

been

described

as'

the

_protagonists

of

Sanskrit.

The

reason

for

this

_glaring

disparity

is

that

the

kings,

by

and

large.

tilt

towards

the

one who

is

more assertive and e'ffective

in

the

society.

That

assertive ancl effective section may or rnay not represent

the

majority.

The

rulers

look

for

the

support of

those

whose

tion

is

more

beneficial

in

running

the

administration.

The

name

of

King

Bhoja

merits mention

here.

It

is

said,

he

had

made

tion

in

Sanskrit

compuisory

for

his

subjects.

The

story of

his

weaver-subject

is

very

common

with

the

following

verse

--

`Kavyath

karomi

na

hi

carutararp

karomi...

He

Sahasaftka

kavayami,

vayami,

- -t

･