________________
INTRODUCTION
111
we must bear its scope in mind; in fact, its traits are practically covered by epic peculiarities with the addition of Prākritism in its different aspects. :
As noted above, there is ample circumstancial evidence to demonstrate. the possibility that the stories of this Kathākośa might have been originally included in a commentary on the Bhagavati Arādhanā; secondly, Asadhara explicitly remarks that the ten illustrative talcs corresponding
Harisena's stories, Nos. 35-44, were present in the Präkrit commentary etc.; and lastly, the explanation of krmirăga-kambala given by Harişeņa and Asadhara goes back possibly to a common Prākrit source. These considerations make it more than probable that this Kathākosa is based on some Prākrit commentary on the Bha. A. Though the conclusion is already anticipated, it is necessary here to put together various linguistic traits which confirm the possibility of the Prākrit source for these tales and the presence of which cannot be otherwise justified. . This Kathākośa is a Sanskrit text; most of the names in these stories are a matter of author's selection; so if the author uses some un-Sanskritic names, it is reasonable to admit that the author's selection was influenced by the sources used by him. i) A glance at the Index shows that there are many proper names which, at times with very slight changes, are justified only in a Prākrit text : Ayalā, Usabha-dāsa, -dāsī, Kasamyalaka, Kuruvilla, Gudakhedaka, Jánakasimgala, Duraņda, Bambhillagaņinī, Maddillapattana, Medajja, Vāņārasi etc.; secondly, some names show alternative forms, both of which are possible from one and the same Prākrit form that can be easily conjectured in most of the cases: Kurujangala and Kurujāngala Pk. Kurujamgala), Koņikā and Kauņikā [Pk. Koniyā], Kșantika and Kșāndikā, Kşāntikā and Khyāntika [Pk. Khamtiyā), Khatakhața and Khadakhada [Pk. Khadakhada ], Dravida and Dravila [Pk. Davila], Vinyātaţa and Venyātaţa [Pk. Veņņāyada ], Sopāraka and Sopāraya, etc.; some of them being found in the same story and having identical reference: Candaprajñaḥ and Caņdapradyotah [Pk. Camdapajjoo ?], Cāņakya and Cäņākya [Pk. Cāņakka), Muņdikā and Mundita [Pk. Mumdiyā ), Medajja and Medajña
Pk. Meajjal, Vidyuddrdha and Vidyuddamstra [Pk. Vijjudādha.], Satyaki and Satyaki [Pk. Saccail; lastly, there are some names which show unsatisfactory Sanskritisation or are hyper-Sanskritic: Cilata [Pk. Cilāya, Sk, Kirăța), Tāmalipti [Pk. Támalitti, Sk. Tāmralipti], Daśānya (Pk. Dasaņņa, Sk. Dasārņa], Dhänyakumāra [ Pk. Dhanna-, Sk. Dhanya-1, Nagnaki [Pk. Naggaï, Sk. Nägnyajit, Nāmavādi [Pk. Nammaväi, Sk. Narmavādin ), Pişpalada [Pk. Pippalāya, Sk. Pippalāda , Bhārate väsye [Pk. Bhărahe väse, Sk. Bhäratavarse or Bhārate varsel, Yamadagni [Pk. Jamadaggi, Sk, Jamadagni]Vijñātaţa [Pk. Vennāyada, Sk. Venätata), Vairakumāra [Pk. Vaïra., Sk.
1 See pp. 38, 58, 67, etc. 2 The Sanskrit digests of the Bșhatkathā do show Prakritisms in their language.
Budhasvmin Sanskritises Präkrit terms here and there (Keith: A History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 274). The proper name Madanamañoukā, I think, stands for Sk. Madanamañjüşā..
.
.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
