________________
INTRODUCTION
49
association to Prākrit the above rules of Vararuci were most probably interpreted by the later grammarians as having meant the derivation of Prākrit from Sanskrit in general. The necessity of attaching such sacredness to Prākrit by deriving it from Sanskrit must have been felt very early as far back as the time of Vararuci himself.
Mk is not free from the above bias and taking much care to maintain the tradition of his predecessors he gives a similar definition of Prākrit tracing its origin to Sanskrit. He divides Prākrit mainly under two heads, i, e., Tadbhava and Tatsama, and in order to honour the view of soine of his predecessors he adds Deśya as a third category of Prākrit.
15. As we have seen in the previous chapter, Mk flourishod in the sixteenth century and hence he had enough material at his disposal to compose a grammar of Prākrit language. He owed allegiance to many of his predecessors and so naturally he had to adopt many a rule from their works in his own, helpless as he was in a time when Prākrit was almost a dead language. This was the reason behind his echoing the voice of his predecessors in deriving Prākrit from Sanskrit.16 The concept that Prākrit owes its
15 Cf. Namisådhu's quotation="ārisavayane siddhañ devānań addhamāgahī vānī, ” (Rudrata's Kāvyālankāra, II, 12. ).
16 Writing about Prākrit in a footnote of his review of PISCHEL'S Grammar in IA, LII. p. 5.53 GRIERSON remarks:
"Personally I have never felt myself able to accept the explanation of this word offered by most Indian grammarians. It is that which would naturally occur to a Pandit, but it is based on a fallacy. Prākrit is not derived from Sanskrit or based on it. It is, of course, • Prà. -C
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
