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 98

INTRODUCTION
67
done, on which the stories are narrated only confirm the view that it might have been based on a commentary. If the Kannada author followed the Sanskrit Kathākośa of Harisena or of some one else, he would not ordinarily give the gāthās and show crucial differences in the proper names. Not only Harisena's text, as shown below, but also the Kannada stories betray some traces of the Prākrit source.
Though the problem is not fully studied yet, it has to be accepted that it is the Prakrit tendencies that gave a lead to the growth of Kannada vocabulary; and a set-back was given to the excessive use of pure Sanskrit words for which Tadbhava words, which were derived according to Prākrit tendencies subjected, of course, to the genius of Kannada phonology, came to be substituted. Even after admitting this and making some concession for this sort of Prākrit influence, we come across certain traits indicating that these Kannada stories are based on a Prākrit source. In the story of Bhadrabahu, the boundaries of Madhyadeśa are stated in a Prākrit verse (p. 80) which is possibly a relic from the Präkrit original. There are many expressions which look like Prākrit remnants : āyambila (p. 61, see the footnote 2), chatthatthama-dasam-duvālasa (p. 40), jāvajjivaṁ (pp. 76, 82, 108), paccakkhāna (76), padikamana (p. 24, 86 etc.), bolaha bolaha (p. 79, Imp. 2nd p. pl. from vola to go, to get a way?), vakkhānisi (pp. 3, 5). There are other words like Lacchi (p. 91), savana (p. 6), risi (p. 9) etc. which are not altogether impossible in any Kannada work not based on a Präkrit original. Harisena too might have worked with a Prākrit original before him ; it is interesting to note certain names which are differently Sanskritised by the Kathakośa and by this Vaddārādhane; and in some cases at least we can definitely lay our finger, keeping in mind the possible orthographical confusions and phonetic changes, on the probable Prakrit name in the original: Dayāvāda and Dayāyata (K. 126. 26; V. pp. 5, 6); Sailapura and Svetapura (K. 126. 124; V. p. 17); Samvala and Sambara (K. 126. 57; V. p. 10); Sodālikā and Modāļi (K. 126. 130; V. p. 17); Ravibindu and Ratibindu
127. 242; V. p. 36); Jayamati and Jayāyati (K. 127. 263; V. p. 38 ); Vapravāda and Vaprapāla (K. 131. 69; V. p. 87); Amśumān and Sumanta, v. l., Sumana (K. 134. 2; V. p. 100), Jinapălita and Jinavādika (K. 135. 7; V. p. 104), Vinyātaţa and Veņātaţa (K. 138. 40; V. p. *226) etc. Casually peeping through the Ms. L, I came across names like Vajradāļa (p. 117) and
imitra (p. 137). The doublets, noted above, are impossible, if these two texts had a common Sanskrit origin or they followed each other. This evidence is extremely interesting : it definitely indicates a Prakrit source for these stories, and possibly a common one.
The title Vaddārädhane for these Kannada stories has come to stay; it has been made sufficiently popular by their editor as well as by subsequent writers; and without any hesitation the writers of the Moodabidri and Kolhapur Mss. use this title for their copies. To be more accurate, there
1
In the corresponding passage (131. 30) Harişeņa uses gaccha.