Prakrit A Review

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided text from "The Prakrit: A Review" by Dr. Shashi Kant:

The article "The Prakrit: A Review" by Dr. Shashi Kant delves into the nature and historical development of Prakrit languages in India, challenging prevailing linguistic theories and highlighting the role of Prakrit in the broader Indian linguistic panorama.

Understanding Prakrit: The author begins by referencing Namisādhu's definition of Prakrit as "natural speech free from the rules of grammarians." While acknowledging another interpretation of Prakrit as "created of old," which aligns with the belief in the divine origin of the language of the Arsha canon (Ardha-Magadhi), Kant emphasizes the practical, natural aspect. The study of Prakrit gained momentum in the 19th century with scholars like E.B. Cowell, Hermann Jacobi, Richard Pischel, and others, leading to a significant expansion of understanding regarding the linguistic bases of India.

Challenging Prevailing Theories: Kant critically examines the established narrative of Indian linguistic history, which posits a three-tiered development: Old Indo-Aryan (Vedic, Brahmana, Classical Sanskrit), Middle Indo-Aryan (Prakrits and Apabhramsa), and New Indo-Aryan (modern vernaculars). He argues that this framework has been biased, aiming to link Indian intellectuals with European rulers and portraying pre-Aryan populations as "mute." This narrative, he contends, overlooks crucial factors:

• Sanskrit's Elite Status: Sanskrit was a language of a small minority, intentionally distanced from the masses, who spoke various vernaculars or "patois" largely unrelated to Sanskrit.
• A Prevalent Lingua Franca: A widely intelligible lingua franca existed across the subcontinent, used by the general populace with minor phonetic variations and written in a common script. This suggests a more unified linguistic landscape than the traditional model allows.
• Koine and Grammar: Language development follows the emergence of a dialect becoming a "koine" (literary norm), with grammar subsequently codifying it, rather than grammar preceding language creation. The language of the common people is evident in inscriptions like those of Ashoka and later dynasties.

Prakrit in Inscriptions and Literature: The author highlights that the literary forms of Prakrit, when documented, were often already "fossilized" and rarely represented the everyday spoken language. Early grammarians like Vararuci and Hemacandra, who were primarily Sanskritists, systematized Prakrit, potentially refining it to align with grammatical codes and the language of the learned elite.

The inscriptions of Ashoka (272-235 B.C.) provide a crucial window into the language of the masses in the first millennium BCE. These inscriptions reveal regional variations across four groups: west of the Sutlej, the Gangetic basin, the region of Ujjayini, and the region of Suvarnagiri, all primarily using Prakrit in the Brahmi script. This linguistic tradition continued for about 500 years after Ashoka, before being gradually replaced by Classical Sanskrit, with the earliest Sanskrit inscription being Rudradaman's Sudarśana Lake inscription (150 A.D.). Interestingly, Sunga dynasty records, despite their Brahmanical leanings, are found in Prakrit, and even the Greek Heliodorus used Prakrit in his inscription. Khāravela's Hathigumphā inscription (172 B.C.) and the Sātavāhana inscriptions further attest to the continued use of Prakrit as a significant administrative and court language.

Prakrit and Religious Traditions: Kant discusses the assertion by Jains and Buddhists that Mahāvira and the Buddha preached in the people's language. The Jain Āgamas are found in Ardha-Magadhi (Śvetāmbara) and Jaina Sauraseni (Digambara), while the Theravāda Buddhist canon is in Pāli. The geographical overlap of these traditions suggests a common linguistic origin for the teachings.

He suggests that the Ashoka inscription in Calcutta-Bairat, quoting scriptural passages, points to a source language akin to Magadhi spoken in that region. The discovery of Ashvaghosha's plays in Khotan indicates a Prakrit different from Pāli, suggesting the Buddha might not have spoken Pāli. Woolner's observation that Pāli, meaning "boundary" or "line," was applied to the canon and its language, implies its specific application rather than a universally spoken language. The origins and influences on Pāli remain debated, with potential connections to Ujjain, Kalinga, near the Vindhyas, or an older form of Sauraseni.

The author posits that just as Brahmins ostracized those outside their Vedic rituals, the "Pracya Vratyas" (Easterners) boycotted Sanskrit and rejected Brahmanical social distinctions. This led the Buddha to encourage his followers to learn his teachings in their own languages, paving the way for their redaction in different dialects.

The Jain Canon and its Linguistic Evolution: The reduction of the Jain Canon into writing involved a complex history, including a schism between the Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras following a famine and migration to South India. The Śvetāmbara canon was finalized by Devarddhigaņi at Vallabhi (456 A.D.) in Ardha-Magadhi, which shows influence from Sauraseni. The Digambaras, migrating south, redacted their literature in what is termed Jaina Sauraseni, with Kundakunda being a prominent early figure. Later, the Śvetāmbaras, shifting their center to Ujjayini and Vallabhi, adopted Mahārāṣtri Prakrit for their literature, which became known as Jaina Mahārāṣtri.

Kant concludes by emphasizing that, similar to how Pāli survived in the form it reached Ceylon, Ardha-Magadhi, Jaina Sauraseni, and Jaina Mahārāṣtri survived because of their adoption by the Jain sects and the sanctity attributed to their scriptures as "Arsa." The article advocates for an objective review of Prakrit studies, viewing Prakrit as "natural, raw" and Sanskrit as "modified, refined," and prioritizing the Indian context in understanding linguistic developments.