Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 21.djvu/21

Rh that the same person cannot have uttered any speech or stanza in two languages at the same time, and, further, that he is not likely to have spoken Sanskrit, when expressing himself in prose, and to have had recourse to a mere dialect, when speaking in poetry. One need not suppose that the common and every-day language of the god Brahma and the Buddha was Pâli or Prâkrit, in order to call it an absurdity that those persons would have spoken prose in Sanskrit and poetry in the Gâthâ dialect, such as we find in some passages already quoted and in many others. Nor is it absurd, even if we do not believe that Pâli is the original language of scripture, to contend that the Sanskrit text of the canonical works is at any rate a translation from some dialect. If the Sanskrit text of the Northern Sûtras, in general, were the original one, it would be impossible to account for occasional mistranslations and for the fact that the most palpable dialect forms have been left untouched, whenever the passage by being Sanskritised would have been spoilt. A striking instance is afforded in Lalita-vistara, p. 145. There we read that the pronouncing of the letter  of the Indian alphabet is to be brought in connection with the word , i.e. a question that should be avoided, set aside, Pâli. Here the context absolutely opposed itself to the Pâli or Prâkrit  being rendered by the Sanskrit , because the initial syllable of this form could not be made to agree with the letter. On the same page of the Lalista-vistara we also meet with a word , the initial syllable of which must needs harmonise with the diphthong  , so that   did not admit of being Sanskritised into. From the occurrence of this  I infer that the original text was composed in some kind of Prâkrit, and not in regular Pâli, because the latter has lost both the primary and secondary diphthong , though it may be asked whether forms such as   (Sansk.  ),