________________
Studies in Jainology, Prakrit
325
Indian languages, Gaudian and Dravidian, go to the Sanskrit origin. He presents some comparative material in cach, Ch.II Phonology, Ch.III Vocabulary, Ch.IV Morphology and Ch.V, Syntax. It is in Ch.VII, Conclusions that he draws a corollary form his general theory, noted above, that Kannada is originally a Paisaci language. In support of this statement he gives some "evidences' from literature and grammatical works:
(i) Ranna's statement navabhūtabhāṣā etc, in his Gadāyuddha (iv.41) carries the meaning of the New Paisaci Language i.e., Kannada, bhūtabhāsa being Paisacī.
(ii) Vātāpi, Ilvala etc., referred to as Piśācas in the Rāmāyana, lived in the present Badami region in Karnataka. The place-name Bädāmi has come after Vätāpi. Hence the ancient Karriatak is Pisacadesa and the language spoken there then was Paisaci from which originated the Kannada language.
(iii) Thus Paišācī flourished in the Bādāmi region of Karnatak; but Cūlikā Paisací flourished in Coladesa, the modern Tamil Nadu,
(iv) Coladesa was also called Drāvidadesa. The Drāvidi (Prakrit) noted by Bharata in his Nātyaśastra or the Dravida Apabhramśa enlisted by Mārkandeya in his Prākrta Sarvasva, was a desi language viz., Paisacī, spoken in the region.
(v) Moreover Pisacadesa can be identified as Karnatak on the strength of Pampa’s Vengimandala and the Vedic bekanāta.'
(vi) Lastly the Agastya-Vindhya Episode and the Southward march of Rāma described in the Rāmāyana also lend support to the Paišācí origin of the Kannada language.
Now comming to Prof.Timmappayya, I would present the following observations on his line of thought:
(i) Pampa's statement on the Vengimandala is beset with a vague purport and its interpretation by the learned author appears
as a forced one. We do not understand why Pampa should bring Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
