________________
INTRODUCTION
73
27. The description of Dākşiņātyā as given by Mk and corroborated by Rt clearly shows that it is not a character dialect and that it is purely meant for literary composition having close association with Skt. Among the other Pkt grammarians of the Eastern School, Pu does not recognise it whereas Ki speaks of it as a bhāṣā meant for certain characters in a play. Thus the latter's view is in accord with the authority of Nś. Both Mk and Rt mention it in the chapter meant for the treatment of Mg. For this GRIERSON thinks it to be a variety of Mg Pkt.82 But what seems from the description given above by Mk and Rt is that Dākşiņātyā is a mixed form of dialect having more of southern and Skt words in it. Such being the case, it is hazardous to take it as a variety of Mg. Pkt. More. over, both Mk and Rt do not expressly mean to take it as such. It appears to me that Dākşiņātyā was a form of dialect, like M. Just as M was meant for literary composition and not as a dialect to be used by characters, so also was the case of Dākşiņātyā, the only difference is that while the former was not a mixed form of dialect, the latter was mixed mostly with southern and Skt words. Both Mk and Rt ignore the authority
32. GRIERSON'S observation on Dākşiņātyā is as follows :
“ This is not classed as a Vibhāṣā, but as a variety of Mg Pkt. As a fact it bears to that Pkt very much the same relation that ļākki bears to Ś. The only points of difference are that it does not occasionally drop into Ap, and that it is not a Vibbāşā because it is used in the poetry not in the drama. It is not a character dialect and instead of using Ap. forms it ekes out its vocabulary with the help of southern words, while at the same time like Tākki it is largely influenced by Skt. We thus have two Aryan langs. spoken in Southern India. Both were there foreign languages, one of polite literature and the other of travellers." Op. cit.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
