Prakrit Bhasha Udgam Vikas Aur Bhed Prabhed

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Prakrit Bhasha Udgam Vikas aur Bhed Prabhed" by Nagrajmuni, focusing on the evolution and classification of Prakrit languages:

Introduction to Prakrit and its Place in Indian Languages:

The text begins by situating Prakrit within the linguistic timeline of Indian Aryan languages. While scholarly consensus places the start of Prakrit around 500 BCE, the author argues this refers more to its literary form. Vedic Sanskrit, though ancient, is presented as a literary language of scholars and priests, not necessarily the vernacular of the common people. It's posited that diverse dialects were likely spoken concurrently with Vedic, some of which might have influenced or even formed the basis of Vedic itself. The Mahabhashya's commentary on regional variations of words by Patanjali is cited as evidence for this.

Early Prakrit Forms and the Role of Vernaculars:

The author speculates that the first group of Aryans in India, who were likely expelled from the heartland by a second wave, spoke vernaculars for which no literature survives today. This lack of ancient literary records for these groups makes understanding their linguistic characteristics difficult. Sir George Grierson is mentioned for his term "Primary Prakritas" for these vernaculars, estimated to be from 2000 BCE to 600 BCE. These early forms are believed to have shared many similarities in pronunciation and grammar with Vedic language.

Patanjali's Views on Language Purity and Vernacular Influence:

The text delves into the concerns of Patanjali, the grammarian of the Mahabhashya, regarding language purity. Patanjali emphasized the use of correct and pure words, warning against "corrupt words" or "apashabdas." He acknowledges that different regions had their own variations and even "corrupted" forms of Sanskrit words. The author interprets Patanjali's discussion on "apabhramsa" (which he used to denote vernacular words of the time, not the later stage of Apabhramsa) as evidence of the widespread use and influence of vernacular languages, potentially leading to their words entering Vedic and Classical Sanskrit. Patanjali's concern was to prevent this influx from corrupting the purity of Sanskrit, especially in ritualistic contexts.

The Prakrit Period and its Division:

Linguistically, Prakrit is placed in the "Middle Indo-Aryan" period, generally spanning from 500 BCE to 1000 CE. This period is further divided into three stages:

• First Prakrit Period (500 BCE to the beginning of the Common Era): This includes Pali and the Prakrit found in inscriptions.
• Second Prakrit Period (Common Era to 500 CE): This phase is characterized by "Prakrit" as a prevalent language, with distinct forms of various Prakrits emerging.
• Third Prakrit Period (500 CE to 1000 CE): This stage is associated with Apabhramsa, the later developed form of Prakrit.

Prakrit Names and Their Etymology:

Various names for Prakrit are listed, including Paiya, Paiya, Pauya, Paud, Pagad, Pagat, Pagay, Payaya, Payay, and Payu. The text highlights the use of "Pāgat" in the Jain Ang Literature, "Pāgay" in Hemachandra Suri's commentary, "Pāuā" in Rajasekhara's Karpuramanjari, and "Pāyaya" in Vākpatirāja's Gaudavaho. Bharata Muni, in his Natyashastra, also refers to Prakrit by its name.

The Origin of Prakrit: The Sanskrit vs. Vernacular Debate:

A significant portion of the text addresses the prevalent view among linguists and grammarians that Prakrit originated from Sanskrit. Grammarians like Hemachandra, Markandeya, and Narasingha define Prakrit as derived from "Prakriti" (nature), which they equate with Sanskrit. However, the author strongly challenges this notion.

The author argues that Sanskrit, meaning "refined" or "polished," is a later development and cannot logically be the source of Prakrit. The term "Prakriti" itself is more accurately interpreted as "common people" or "nature," implying that Prakrit was the natural language of the populace. The author questions how a highly refined language like Sanskrit could give birth to a simpler vernacular like Prakrit.

The text suggests that this view of Sanskrit as the source of Prakrit likely arose later, when Prakrit had fallen out of common usage, and Sanskrit was the primary medium for understanding older languages. Grammarians and commentators, influenced by this linguistic context, began to see Sanskrit as the "root" or "nature" of Prakrit.

Hemachandra's Approach:

It's noted that Hemachandra's Prakrit grammar was part of his larger Sanskrit grammar, "Siddha-Haima-Shabdānushasana." This suggests that his intention was to bridge the gap between Sanskrit and Prakrit, making Prakrit accessible through the familiar framework of Sanskrit grammar. The author posits that Hemachandra, despite recognizing Prakrit as an "unartificial" and natural language, felt it necessary to present it through a Sanskrit lens due to the declining familiarity with Prakrit.

Namin Sadhu's Alternative Perspective:

Namin Sadhu, a commentator on Rudrata's Kavyalankara, is presented as an exception. He suggests that Prakrit is derived from "pak+kritam," meaning "done before" or "ancient." Crucially, Namin Sadhu also notes that Rudrata, the original author, refers to Prakrit before Sanskrit in his discussion, implying Prakrit's precedence. Namin Sadhu's views align more with linguistic evidence suggesting Prakrit's independent origin.

Rajasekhara's and Vākpatirāja's Insights:

Non-Jain scholars like Rajasekhara and Vākpatirāja are quoted as stating that Prakrit is the "yonin" (source or origin) of Sanskrit. Vākpatirāja goes further, suggesting that Sanskrit derives its beauty and refinement from Prakrit. These assertions, made by scholars not bound by Jain tradition, are considered significant evidence against the Sanskrit-as-origin theory.

Acharya Siddharsi's View:

Acharya Siddharsi, in his Sanskrit work "Upamiti-Bhava-Prapañcha-Katha," distinguishes between Sanskrit (seen as the language of the "hard-to-please" or pretentious learned) and Prakrit (described as understandable and pleasing to children and the ear). While acknowledging his ability to write in Sanskrit, he chose it to appeal to a wider audience, reflecting the context of his time where Sanskrit was preferred by the elite.

Prakrit's "Deshya" Words and their Significance:

The text categorizes Prakrit words into three types: Tat-sama (same as Sanskrit), Tad-bhava (derived from Sanskrit), and Deshya (indigenous). The existence of a large number of Deshya words, with no clear Sanskrit etymology, is highlighted as a key piece of evidence against Prakrit's derivation from Sanskrit. The author argues that if Prakrit were derived from Sanskrit, a connection for these Deshya words would have been found.

Hemachandra's attempts to "tame" or "reconstruct" these Deshya words through "adeshas" (substitutions) in his grammar are presented as an effort to fit them into a Sanskrit framework, rather than demonstrating a natural derivation.

The Vedic-Prakrit Connection:

A compelling argument is made for the closer relationship between Prakrit and Vedic Sanskrit than between Prakrit and Classical Sanskrit. This is supported by numerous linguistic parallels, such as:

• The replacement of Vedic 'ṛ' with 'a', 'ā', 'i', 'u' in Prakrit, mirroring some Vedic changes.
• The loss of final consonants in Prakrit, also observed in Vedic.
• The simplification of consonant clusters in Prakrit, with compensatory lengthening of preceding vowels, also seen in Vedic.
• The conversion of 'd' to 'ḍ' in Prakrit, with some Vedic parallels.
• The change of 'dh' to 'h' in Prakrit, mirroring some Vedic practices.
• The common use of the 'o' ending in the singular nominative of masculine nouns in both Prakrit and Vedic Sanskrit.
• Similar phonetic changes in case endings.
• The absence of the dual number in Prakrit, a feature that sometimes occurred in Vedic Sanskrit where the plural was used instead.

These shared characteristics, often absent in Classical Sanskrit, strongly suggest a common origin from a dialect that predates Classical Sanskrit and influenced Vedic language as well.

The Origin of Deshya Words and the Aryan-Anaryan Interaction:

The origin of Deshya words is explored in relation to the interaction between Aryans and the indigenous populations of India (Dravidian and Austro-Asiatic families). It's suggested that Deshya words might have originated from these pre-Aryan languages, incorporated into the vernaculars spoken by the early Aryan settlers and subsequently into Prakrit. The Mahabharata's description of soldiers with diverse languages and customs is cited as potential evidence of such interactions. The author also entertains the idea that some Deshya words might have emerged from a synthesis of Aryan and non-Aryan linguistic influences.

The Development and Classification of Prakrit Varieties:

The text acknowledges that Prakrit, as a living language, diversified into regional varieties. Ancient scholars identified several classifications:

• Bharata Muni (Natyashastra): Magadhi, Avantija, Prachya, Shauraseni, Ardhamagadhi, Vahnika, and Dakshinatyā (seven Prakrits).
• Vararuci (Prakrit Prakash): Maharashtri, Shauraseni, Magadhi, and Paishachi.
• Chanda: Magadhika and Paishachiki.
• Dandin (Kavyadarsha): Maharashtri, Shauraseni, Gaudi, and Laati.
• Hemachandra: In addition to Vararuci's four, he includes Arsha (identified with Ardhamagadhi), Chulika-Paishachi, and Apabhramsa.
• Markandeya (Prakrit Sarvasva): Classifies Prakrit into Language (Maharashtri, Shauraseni, Prachya, Avantika, Magadhi), Vibhasha (Shakari, Chandali, Shabari, Abhiri, Takki), Apabhramsa (Nagara, Braachada, Upanaagara), and Paishach (Kaikeya, Shaurasena, Panchala).

The text notes that regional variations led to the naming of Prakrit dialects after specific geographical areas, such as Maharashtri for Maharashtra, Shauraseni for Shaurasena, and Magadhi for Magadha.

The Influence of Buddhism and Jainism on Prakrit:

The rise of Buddhism and Jainism played a crucial role in the development and spread of Prakrit. Lord Mahavir and Lord Buddha chose vernacular languages (likely including Mahagadhi) for their teachings, reaching a wider audience and challenging the dominance of Vedic Sanskrit in religious discourse. This popularized Prakrit and contributed to its literary development. The text notes that the Magadhan region, a powerful kingdom, adopted Mahagadhi as its court language, further enhancing its prestige.

Sanskrit's Reaction and the Emergence of a Mixed Literature:

As Prakrit gained prominence, Sanskrit experienced a reaction. While Sanskrit continued to be used for scholarly and ritualistic purposes, it also began to incorporate themes from folk life, politics, and morality, often with the underlying thought process originating from Prakrit. The Mahabharata is cited as an example of this, where the narrative style and content reflect folk themes, while the language might be Sanskrit.

Conclusion on Prakrit's Origin:

The author concludes that the evidence strongly suggests Prakrit originated not from Sanskrit, but from spoken vernaculars that predated Classical Sanskrit and also influenced Vedic Sanskrit. The similarities between Prakrit and Vedic language are a testament to this common ancestor. The linguistic and cultural movements of the time, including the rise of Buddhism and Jainism, further propelled the development and widespread use of Prakrit.