Bruhat Katha kosha

SR No.: 016060
Original Sutra Author: Harishen Acharya
Publisher: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan
Publication Year: 1943
Total Pages: 566
Language: Prakrit, Sanskrit
Classification: Dictionary & Dictionary
File Size: 16 MB

Page 126

INTRODUCTION
95
has come down to us in written records, there is evidence to believe that there were popular dialects current according to localities and strata of the society; and some of their elements go back to a period earlier than classical Sanskrit. Mahāvīra and Buddha preferred popular dialects of Magadha for their preachings. The earliest inscriptions like those of Asoka and Khāravela and coins fully bear out the fact that these dialects were the forerunners of Prakrits whose conventional usage in the dramas possibly had at its basis somewhat corresponding conditions in the society at some early period of Indian history. Thus the Sanskrit texts meant for a wider circle were exposed to solecisms which might arise from both ungram. matical Sanskrit and Prakritism, the distinction between which, though subtle, is possible and needed for practical purposes. The element of Prakritism, in its various aspects, becomes predominant and conspicuous when the author is steeped in the study of Prakrit works, these constituting the canonical literature of his religion, when Prakrit was his mother-tongue, or when the works were composed with Prakrit originals.
All these tendencies get illustrated in the wide range of Sanskrit literature. The classical authors like Kalidasa are liable to minimal amount of solecism; and some complaints have been already made against them by later critics. When we come to the epics, especially the Mahabharata and and Rāmāyaṇa, there are many forms and expressions which are un-Paninian', often betraying contamination with the speech-habits so usual in Prakrits. As it may be expected in unrefined speech, delicate grammatical distinctions are not specially attended to, stray irregularities are normalised, rightly or wrongly analogical formations are set into vogue: in short, the grammatical restrictions get loosened and the tendency towards simplifying the language is apparent everywhere. Some of them can be defended by a liberal and hypercritical interpretation of the Sutras of some grammatical system or other. Commentators and intelligent copyists have felt offended at their presence; and a careful study of various readings indicates that constant attempts, independently carried on at different places and by different hands, have been made to normalise them.2 Puranas and Sanskrit texts on technical sciences present specimens of loose Sanskrit both in their vocabulary and grammatical forms. The Buddhist and Jaina authors were usually well-read in their religious works in Pāli and Prakrits. The measure of Prakritism in their works often depended upon individual mastery over Sanskrit grammar and expression. Even an elegant stylist like Asvaghosa is not immune from them, and works like the Lalitavistara and Mahāvastu in mixed Sanskrit (Gatha dialect) of Northern Buddhism contain plenty of them. The Jaina authors from the South are comparatively more free from this influence; but those from
1 J. Wackernagel: Altindische Grammatik vol. 1, pp. XLIV etc.
2 V. S. Sukthankar: The Mahabharata, vol. I, Prolegomena, pp. XCIII etc.
3
The Buddhacarita, ed. by E. H. Johnston, Punjab University Oriental Publications, Nos. 31-2, Intro. pp. 67-79 of the 2nd part.