1898.] 
T. Blocli — Buddhistic statue from Qravasti. 
279 
language in which the gdthds of the Lalitavistara or similar Buddhistic 
books are written, and which T consider with Prof. Biilder, Kern and 
others to be the result of persons who spoke Prakrit and were un¬ 
learned in Grammar, trying to write Sanskrit. In fact till very late at 
the end of the Buddhistic period, all the Buddhistic Inscriptions are 
notorious for their neglect of the rules of spelling and grammar, and 
also the Buddhistic Sanskrit Literature, with a few rare exceptions, can 
not certainly be called classic as to its style, whatever its merits else 
may have been. The fact that the mixed dialect is exclusively used in 
the inscriptions of Kaniska and even earlier certainly proves the 
correctness of the Buddhistic tradition which places the translation into 
Sanskrit of the Buddhistic Scriptures into the time of Kaniska. In the 
Qravasti Inscription, we meet with the following instances of mixed 
forms, being half Sanskrit and half Prakrit :— 
(a) the Loc. Sing, of feminine nouns in d or i is - aye ( i.e , -dye) or 
-iye ; thus; etaye purvaye (1. 1), Cdvastiye (1. 2), Kdsambakutiye (1. 3) ; 
( b ) of masculine nouns in i or u , the Genitive Sing, takes -sya ; 
thus : bhiksusya (11. 1 and 2), saddhyaviharisya (1. 2) ; 
(c) compound letters are sometimes given in their Sanskritic, some¬ 
times in their Prakritic form ; thus camkame (1. 2), parigahe (1. 3.) for 
Skt. camkrame and parigrahe, against saddhyaviharisya (1. 2 ; Sanskrit 
sadhryagviharin) and acaryydndm 1. 3 (Skt. dcdryanam). Another in¬ 
stance is Qavastiye (1. 2) for Skt. Cravastydm; this form, however, 
curiously euough re-occurs in the Bhagavata Purana (see Petersburg 
Dictionary s. v. Cdvasti ) ; 
(d) long vowels before compound letters are shortened as a rule, 
in accordance with Prakrit; thus : acaryydndm Sarvastivadinam (1. 3) 
for Skt. dcdryanam Sarvastivadinam. The long vowel of chdtrum 
dandaQ=ca (1. 2) for Skt. chattram dandag-ca which is perfectly clear on 
the original stone, is due to the vernacular pronunciation, and agrees 
with such forms as dmtevdsi for Skt. antevdsi in various other Mathura 
Inscriptions, and the genitive termination -dsa iustead of -assa in 
Bharlmt. 1 The sandhi of dandag-ca (ibid.) is, of course, an instance of 
the opposite tendency; 
(e) a form of peculiar interest is saddhyaviharin in line 2.. It cor¬ 
responds to sadhiviharin in Sanchi Inscriptions, I, 209 (Ep. Ind. II, 
p. 379), where it has been translated ‘ fellow-wanderer ’ by Prof. 
Biihler (l. c.). Its first part is in Pali saddhim, which in the dialect of 
this Inscription becomes saddhya. This clearly shows that Pali saddhim 
does not go back to Sanskrit sdrdham , as has been hitherto assumed by 
most scholars, but to Sanskrit sadhryak, as has been first recognized 
by Prof. Pischel. 
1 See Biihler, Epigr. Ind., Vol. II, p. 195. 
