We have to consider, in the second place, that if the hieratic language in which holy thoughts relating to the Vedas were being expressed, were regarded as altogether different from Chāndasa, the literature relating to the Vedas, would have much suffered in the estimation of the people. The language in question, we must therefore hold, was worked out on the Chāndasa lines, when Chāndasa became altogether an obsolete speech; this is why, in spite of very close imitation, this language differs from Chāndasa in many essential particulars. I proceed presently to take note of some of the important characteristics of this hieratic language. What I specially emphasize upon here is that in the days of Gautama Budha there was at least in the Magadha eruntry a living vulgar speech, called মগধ বোহার by Buddha Ghosha and there was by the side of the dialect (or many other dialects) one literary language which still then claimed the name ছান্দস.
It is now agreed, on all hands, on reference to the rules for লৌকিক in পাণিনি's Grammar, that generally speaking the language of the Brāhmanas can be designated as laukika. We do not exactly know when the term laukika, came into use, but we may infer on reference to the import of the term, that when secular literature composed in the hieratic language, forced itself to the recognition of the orthodox class, the term laukika, as distinguished from Chāndasa became the name of the fashionable literary language. We do not also know
in various speeches; for, in the first place we get the instrumental singular of নিরুত্তি and in the second place we do not get 'সকায় সকায়' to indicate as usual 'everybody's own'; as the commentator gives only মগধ বোহারো for the নিরুত্তিয় dialect in question, the word সকায় should bo carefully judged for its proper significance.
