________________
SOME REMARKS ON LANGUAGE OF ORIGINAL BUDDHIST CANON
163
edicts at Dhauli and Jaugada show certain peculiarities which are never to be found in the versions of the major rock edicts at these two places. Further, as these peculiarities are found in the other non-eastern regions, it is legitimate to conclude that these peculiarities of the separate edicts are not to be considered as eastern but to be due to non-eastern influence. Among these comes the softening of the vioceless stops. The instance loka: loga cited from the separate edict, therefore, cannot be brought forward to establish that softening was an eastern feature. The case would have been certainly otherwise if such an instance were available also from the versions of the major rock edicts at Dhauli and Jaugada.
As regards adhigicya it may be pointed out that the find-spot of the Calcutta-Bairāt inscription is the head-quarters of a tahasil in the Jaipur State, and an instance of voicing from this inscription, unless corroborated by other evidence, can hardly be considered as showing that particular feature as an eastern characteristic.
About the change t>d, LUEDERS cites (894) Sk. hita>hida in the Kālsi, Shāh.; and Māns. versions but hita in the Dhauli version. Now it is difficult to know why LUEDERS regards this as an eastern peculiarity when the words noted above show that the change of t>d is witnessed in the northern and north-western versions, but not in the eastern ones. Another instance, Sk. tosa > dosa appearing also in a northern version (Kālsi VI), we may set aside as LUEDERS takes it to be a 'Schreibfehler. But we can certainly take into account the Mānsehrā form yadra, (Sk. yātrā), according to BUEHLER's reading, or ya(d) da, according to HULTZSCH's reading, which also supports the view that the voicing was a non-eastern tendency.
But since LUEDERS believes that the change of t>d is an eastern characteristic he has some difficulty in accounting for the presence of t for d in such forms of the separate edict as patipätayeham, pațipătayema, etc., from Sk. prativ pad. He observes (p. 81), "Wichtiger ist noch, dass der Redaktor. von Jau. Sep. in seinem Bestreben, die Hochsprache zu gebrauchen, in alle Formen von padipadayati ,zukommen lassen, bewirken“ (Pāli pațipädeti, Sk. pratipadayati) das d fälschlich durcht ersetzt hat...." Actually the case seems to have been that since, as suggested above, the separate edict was originally composed in a noneastern dialect it probably contained some other words changing t>d, and these the redactor rightly changed to t. But this misled him in doing the same about pațipătayehań etc., because he probably confused the forms of Vpad with those of Vpat.
Madhu Vidyā/257
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
