________________
INTRODUCTION
115
Watter division, in spite of dealing with Paišācī dialect partly in connection with employing it in mixture with other language has the least concern with the jurisdiction of grammar and as a matter of fact comes wholly under the purview of poetics and yet it is difficult to understand why Rāmaśarman alone of all Prākrit grammarians deals with such a topic in his grammar. GRIERSON's contention that the two terms Paiśācika and Paiśācī are not exactly convertible and that the Paisācikam (in neuter gender ) of Rt is meant to include two types of the same name distinct from each other as noted above is not convincing, for Pu and Mk use the same term and yet do not include the second variety in their grammar.
52. Rt, however, notes some of the peculiarities of minor Paiśäcī dialects apart from the principal three which neither Pu nor Mk takes notice of. Of Gauda Paiśācī he says that either por I may be used for r in it. Of Māgadha Paiśācī he says that when the language originates among the people of Magadba it is regarded as the Paisācika called Magadha. Of Vrācada Paiśācī he notes that it has the admixture of such words. He then concludes such minor varieties by saying that another authority recognises a Paiśācī, owing to a differentiation in regard to palatal s and that too is a minor difference ( sūkşmabheda ), and thus, there does not appear to be any possibility of differentiation any more than of differentiating between the sweetness of molasses and that of sugar.11:
It is to be noted here that Rt does not distinguish Kekaya, Saurasena and Pāñcāla Paisāci dialects as the
112. See Bt III. 3. 11–13.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
