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 143

112
BRHAT-KATHĀKOŠA
Vajra. 1, etc. ii) It is seen above how the same name has been differently Sanskritised by Harişeņa and the Kannada Vaddārădhane. The Kannada author keeps a Prakrit verbal form bolaha (Imp. and p. pl. from vola, to go) and in the corresponding passage Harişeņa uses gacoha (131. 30): such relics do indicate a common Prākrit source. iii) Among the grammatical details, Samdhis like adyameva, alternative spellings like padaka, patuka and padda partiality towards vowel bases of nouns which ordinarily have consonantendings, the pronominal forms like me for maya and imam for idam, the causal with the augment -āpaya-, the meaning attached to uttr, the usage of Instrumental of purpose, etc. are abnormal in Classical Sanskrit; but all of them get easily and rightly explained, if we take into account the rules of Präkrit grammar and Präkrit usages. Though the topic requires more thorough study, I feel inclined to suggest that even the excessive use of ka-suffix may get partly explained in the light of Prākrit tendency seen in such cases as aham, which, with the ka-suffix, presents itself under various garbs in Prakrit: ahaam, ahayam, hage, hake, ahake, hakaṁ, haù. All these have led to a postulate like *ahakaḥ, besides the well-known ahakam. This ka-suffix does play a conspicuous part in Prākrits. iv) Turning to the vocabulary, back-formations may be found in works which are not necessarily based on a Prakrit original. The abnormal use of Prakritisms, with or without minor changes, seen from the list of words studied above, deserves our special attention. Not only that, but looking at words like arjikā, karapālikā, khaddā, gahillaka, gonattaka, charjikā, joša, talavarga, paddika, pādogamana, puşkala, bodhistha, mindhaka, rästrakūta etc., we actually get also the evidence to the effect that the author is easily trying to Sanskritise certain Präkrit words; and the results of his attempts in different contexts have been varied. For the present, it is futile to question the evidence supplied by all the three Mss., almost unanimously. v) Lastly, words like uşājala, bhiluka, rathya, vihāya, srāvitaḥ, saula etc. become meaningless in those contexts unless they are interpreted in the light of their Präkrit counterparts which might have been there before t
All the facts, noted above, cannot be explained merely by saying that the author was well-versed in Präkrits or the copyists are responsible for Präkritisms. We should not take these facts and items individually and try to explain them away, but look at the cumulative value of the entire mass of evidence in its proper perspective. Thus the Prākrit elements, so expli and frequent in the language of these stories, and the linguistic evidence available from the comparative study of Harişena's Kathakośa and the Kannada Vaddaradhane almost definitely prove the possibility of a Prākrit original for Harişeņa's work; and further, the valuable remark of Asādhara indicating that some similar stories were present in the Präkrit commentary etc. makes it highly probable that the stories of Harişeņa might have been based on a Prākrit commentary on the Bhagavati Arădhanā of Sivărya.
1 See p. 67. 2 Pischel: Grammatik der Präkrit-Sprachen, sections 142, 194, 417, 426 and 598.