Prakrit A Review

Author(s): Shashi Kant
Publisher: Z_Jain_Vidya_evam_Prakrit_014026_HR.pdf
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250447/1

Page #1
The Prakrit: A Review Dr. SHASHI KANT Namisadhu seems to have struck the right note when he explains the word Prakrta as derived from prakrti in the sense of natural speech free from the rules of grammarians. He wrote it in 1068 A. D. when the literary forms of Prakrit had already been fossilized. The other explanation offered by him, deriving it from Praka krta, to mean 'created of old', is in consonance with his faith that the language of the Arsa canon, Ardha-Magadhi, is the language of the gods, and is not very relevant to philological discussion. In the sixties of the 19th century E. B. Cowell brought out Vararuci's Prakrta-Prakasa with the Manorama commentary of Bhamaha, and thenceforth Prakrit has engaged the attention of many linguists and indologists. The pioneers in the field are Hermann Jacobi, Richard Pischel, A. F. R. Hoernle, George Buhler, Sten Konow, A. C. Woolner, Muni Jina Vijaya, Banarasi Das Jain and A. N. Upadhye. The linguistic survey of George Grierson, the philological deliberations of Suniti Kumar Chatterji, the volumes of Maurice Winternitz on the history of Indian literature, the discovery of Prakrit and Sanskrit texts, and an indepth study of the Pali, Prakrit, Apabhramsa and Sanskrit works, as also of the epigraphic and numismatic material, during the last one hundred years or so, have expanded and elaborated the problem of the linguistic bases of the Indian panorama. During all this effort a bias was assiduously tilted towards finding some remote ancestry to link the Indian intelligentsia with the EuroAnglican rulers, to build up the nyth that India was a no-man's land and it was filled by the Dasa (Dravidians), Nisada (Austrics), Kirata (Mongoloids) and Arya (Nordics, the vast Indo-European community, branching off to the Indo-Iranian from which shot out the Indo-Aryans who composed the Vedas in the Sapta-Sindhu), and lastly, to consign the entire literary effort, nay the speech effort itself, to the Indo-Aryan genius as if whoever preceded them were a mute people. The fallacy of this stupendous task is obvious but the emotional strains ingrained therein dissuade from an objective appraisal. parisaMvAda-4

Page #2
230 jaina vidyA evaM prAkRta : antarazAstrIya adhyayana To put it briefly, the Indian linguistic history has been built up on the premise that there are three strata of language development in India, firstly, the Old Indo-Aryan representing successively the Vedic, the Brahmana and the classical (developed out of the Udicya or northern dialect of the Vedic Aryans and codified by Panini) Sanskrit; secondly, the Middle Indo-Aryan, representing the Prakrits developing out of the Madhyadesiya and Pracya dialects of the Vedic-Aryans, and the Apabhramsa, a further debasement of the Deva-bhasa; and lastly, the New Indo-Aryan representing different vibhasa which finally emerged as the present-day vernaculars. Three potent factors have been kept out of sight in projecting this development. One such factor is that Sanskrit was confined to a small minority which assiduously maintained its aloofness from the masses; the masses spoke different tongues which were the so many patois hardly related to Sanskrit. The second important factor is that there is specific evidence on record that a lingua franca was in vogue throughout the sub-continent as far north-west as the Kabul valley, as far north as the Nepalese Tarai, as far east as the Bengal coast, as far south as the North Pennar and as far west as Saurashtra, which was intelligible to and used by the people in general with slight phonetical variations, and was written and read in a common script throughout the land to the south and east of the Sutlej, much in the same way as Hindi written in Devanagari is intelligible to all Indians today except when they take a stance like the Sanskrit-nistha Brahmins of Asoka Maurya's days, e.g., the Urdu protagonists, or get worked up with regional chauvinism fanned for political ends. And the third substantial factor is that of the dialects only one becomes the koine or literary norm, just as Khariboli is the koine of Hindi language and Meridian dialect is the koine of English language, and grammar follows, and does not precede, the language. The people's language is represented by the Asokan edicts and the numerous records of the Satavahanas, Sungas and Kalingas, as also of the Greeks, Sakas and Kushanas, up to the 2nd century AD. What has come down to us as the Prakrit literature, be it Pali of the Buddhists, Maharas tri and Sauraseni as well as Ardha-Magadhi of the Jains, or Magadhi, Maharastri, Sauraseni and Paisaci Prakrit of the Sanskrit dramatists, at the time of its reduction the literary form had already been fossilized and if not never, it seldom represented the parisaMvAda-4

Page #3
The Prakrit : A Review 231 popular medium Although Vararuci, who wrote Vartikas on Panini and lived probably in the 5th century A.D., is the first to give a grammar for Prakrit, and Bhamaha (assigned to the 7th century A.D.) wrote commentary on it, the most important of the Prakrit grammars is the chapter VIII of the Siddha-Hemacandra of Hemacandra Suri (1088-1172 A.D.); and interestingly all these grammarians were Sanskritists who added only a chapter on Prakrit in their work on Sanskrit grammar. This can explain that the literary Prakrit as extant now was systematized, and the works were possibly cleansed of colloquialisms by the learned pandits to bring them in tune with the grammatical codes ard at par with the language of the fista (urbanised, in essence, an adept in the use of chaste Sanskrit) of the day. The language used by Asoka Maurya (272 B. C.-235 B. C.) in his inscriptions provides us with a window on the language of the masses in the first millennium before Christ. According to the phonetic variations, four groups are indicated : 1. The region to the west of the Sutlej, falling within the Viceroyaly of Taksabila, and represented by the Rock Edicts at Shahbazgarhi and Mansehra. Besides the Indian language written in the Kharosthi script, the Greek and Aramaic languages written in their respective scripts were also in use, mostly beyond the Khyber and Bolan passes. 2. The region to the east and south of the Sutlej, covering the entire Gangetic basin, with centre at Pataliputra, and represented by the Rock Edicts at Kalsi, Dhauli and Jaugad, Pillar Edicts in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and the Minor Rock and Pillar Edicts in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar,--all written in Prakrit but in the Brahmi script. 3. The region controlled by the Viceroyalty of Ujjayini, and represented by the Rock Edicts at Girnar and Sopara, written in Prakrit in the Brahmi script. 4. The region controlled by the Viceroyalty at Suvarnagiri and represented by the Edicts in Andra Pradesh and Karnatak Pradesh, written in Prakrit in the Brahmi script. The same form of language and script continues for about 500 years after Asoka when it was supplanted by panegyrics and eulogies in classical parisaMvAda

Page #4
232 jaina vidyA evaM prAkRta : antarazAstrIya adhyayana Sanskrit of the kauya style. The earliest of the inscriptions in Sanskit is the Sudarsana Lake Inscription of Rudradaman dated in 150 A. D. and the most important of the lucid panegyrics (prasasti) is that of Harisena composed for Samudragupta and inscribed on the Asokan pillar at Allahabad in c. 360 A. D. Incidentally, both the above records are preserved on the same site which contain Asoka's records. Earlier to Rudradaman's record in Sanskrit are only three pieces : one is a small inscription of one Dhana claiming to be sixth in descent from Pushyamitra who had performed two Horse-Sacrifices, and is from Ayodhya; the other two are known as the Ghoshundi and Hathiwara grants and their provenance is near Jaipur; they cannot be pushed beyond the beginning of the Christian era. It is curious to note that despite the projected zeal of the Sungas for the revival of Brahmanical ritualism and reinstatement of Sanskrit scholarship, all the Sunga records known so far are in Prakrit, and a Greek, Heliodorus by name, who consecrated a Garudad hvaja to propotiate Vishnu in the kingdom of Sung Bhagabhadra at Vidisa, possibly the capital, also inade his record in Prakrit in the Brahmi script. The best narrative record from the historical point of view is that of Kharavela who got it recorded in 172 B. C. On the Hathigumpha on the Udayagiri near Bhubaneswar in Orissa in Prakrit in the Brahmi script, continuing the tradition of the Mauryan administration. This tradition was also continued by the Satavahanas in the NarmadaGodavari valley, whence they carried it down to Kanci where they created the T hondimandalam and founded the Pallava kingdom with Prakrit as the court language. The dynasty of Kharavela and the dynasty of the Satavahanas or Andhra-bhityas were founded by the servants, possibly of the Mahamatra rank, of the Maurya Empire. Just as inscriptions in Sanskrit were rare before 150 A. D., so were inscriptions in Prakrit rare after the Gupta period, say 500 A. D. onwards. A notable example is provided by the record of Kakkuka, found near Ghatayala in Jodhpur district, dated in Samvat 918 (861 4. D.). It is in kavya style, composed in chaste Jain Maharastri, and contains 23 verses, recording the founding of a Jain temple, establishing of a market and erecting of two pillars, and inter alia, mentions the curious fact that he had descended from a Brahmin father and Kshatriya mother. The Jains and the Buddhists maintain that Mahavira and the parisaMvAda-4

Page #5
The Prakrit: A Review 233 Buddha had preached in the people's language. Among the Jains, the Svetambara Agamas are in Ardha-Magadhi and the Digambara early works in Jaina Sauraseni. The Theravada Buddhist canon is in Pali. The area of both of them was the same, namely, eastern Uttar Pradesh and north and central Bihar. Therefore the language of the two teachers ought to be the same because they wandered among the same people. But then why this divergence is there, has been a baffling question. A key to this riddle is provided by the language of the Asokan edicts, especially his Calcutta-Bairat inscription where he quotes certain passages from the Scripture. It postulates that there must have been some collection from which he drew upon and it was possibly in the Magadhi as spoken in that region (Region no. 2 above). The discovery of Asvaghosa's plays in Khotan further indicated that they were in a Prakrit not akin to Pali, and hence it would not be pertinent to suppose that the Buddha spoke Pali. Woolner notes, "Pali originally meaning a 'boundary, limit, or line' was applied to the Canon of the Hinayana Buddhists. Thence it is used of the language of that Canon, found also in some canonical books all being preserved in what were originally the missionary churches of Ceylon, Burma and Siam". He also notes that Pali is not Magadhi. It has been supposed that it might be the language of Ujjain whence Mahinda took the sacred Canon to Ceylon, or it might be the language of the Kalinga country because of certain resemblances with the language of Kharavela's record, or it might be from some place near the Vind hyas because of some points of resemblance with Paisaci, or it might be an old form of Sauraseni. Woolner concludes, "Whatever may be the exact truth of the matter, it is clear that Pali contains several different strands in its composition and that it varies also according to its age. The oldest type is seen in the Gathas, then come the prose portions of the Canon followed by non-canonical literature and finally still later layers. The development of Pali has been influenced by Sanskrit". Similarly as the Brahmins detested the Vratyas who did not owe allegiance to the Vedic fire-cult and the Brahmanic social and religious organisation and called the Pracyas or Easterners as being asuriya or demoniac, i. e., barbarian and hostile in nature, so the Pracya Vratya thinkers boycotted Sanskrit and discarded the Brahmanic concept of parisavAda-4 17

Page #6
234 jainavidyA evaM prAkRta : antarazAstrIya adhyayana social discrimination. The Buddha accordingly bade his followers to learn his teachings in their own language, and thus the ground was prepared where the original teachings could be redacted in different dialects. The Theravada Canon was reduced to writing in the Ist Century B. C. Winternitz aptly notes that the monks of Ceylon were bent on preserving and passing on the texts written in the language once established for them in India. In all probability these monks were just as conscientious regarding the contents as regarding the language, and preserved and handed down to us the texts of the Tipitaka which was written down in the Pali language, with rare fidelity during the last two thousand years." The reduction of the Jain Canon followed a more devious route. There is a consistent tradition that there was a twelve-year famine in Magadha about 150 years after the nirvana of Mahavira when a portion of the Samgha migrated to South India under the leadership of Bhadrabahu I, the last of the Sruta-kevalins. After the famine a Council was convened by the members of the Samgha who had stayed behind in the North, for the restoration of the sacred canon, as so many monks, who were the repositories of the sacred lore, had been dead. The representatives from the South did not join it, nor they accepted the Canon so compiled by the ascetics of the north who had become slack in ascetic practices to some extent due to the exigencies of fainine. Thus followed the Schism as the Diga mbaras and the Svetambaras, The Svetambaras finally redacted the Canon as preserved with them under Devardhigaai at Vallabhi in M. E. 983 (456 A. D.). In course of time, as it passed through word of mouth it was affected by the regional dialects to some extent, but, in essence, retained an archaic character in language. This was termed as Ardha-Magadhi. It appears to be the Magadhi which was largely influenced by Sauraseni. The Samgha that travelled to South India, redacted their pro-canonical literature in the Prakrit that they had brought with them. A. N. Upadhye calls it aina sauraseni. He has traced common verses in the South Indian Digambara procanonical literature and the Svetambara Ardha-Magadhi Agama literature, and has concluded that it proves their common heritage. The redaction of the Diganbara literature started with Kundakunda who succeeded to parisaMvAda-4

Page #7
The Prakrit : A Review the ponitificate in 8 B. C. He wrote in Prakrit (Jaina sauraseni) 84 Pahudas and he is also credited with the composition of Thirukura! in Tamil. The Svetambaras took to writing some 450 years after Kundakunda. Their centre had shifted from Magadha to Ujjayini, and later on to Vallabhi, which factor contributed to their taking to Mahirastri Prakrit for their pro-canonical literature. As distinct from the literary Prakrit used in Sanskrit dramas, the Maniristri Prakrit was the lingua franca of the region and was used as vehicle for their compositions by the Svetambara Jains particularly, it came to be identified as the Jaina Maharastri. The material point to be noted here is that as the Pali survived in a form in which it reached Ceylon, so the Ardha-Magadhi, Jaina Sauraseni and Jaina Maharastri survived in a form in which they were once adopted by the two sects of the Jains, and this survival was possible for two reasons-one was the seclusion and removal from the centre of their origin, and the other was the sanctity imposed on the Scripture as Arsa hence not subject to interference prima facie. It is inferred from the Hathigumpha Inscription of Kharavela of Kalinga that a Council of monks for the recitation of the Canon was convened 355 years after Mahavira's nirvana, i. e., in 172 B. C. There is no mention of this Council either in the Svetambara or in the Digambara literature. There is a possibility that an attempt was then made to reconcile the Schism, or it might have been simply a congregation of the Digambara munis, but nothing definite can be said. The foregoing discussion postulates a review of our approach to the study of Prakrit languages and to tracing the linguistic developments in India in an objective manner, taking Prakrit as prakrta (natural, raw) and Sanskrit as samkrta (modified, refined) mode of expression, and basing it on the Indian scene first of all. Jyoti Nikunj, Charbagh, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. parisaMvAda-4