________________
INTRODUCTION
65. It is curious to note that in two places Mk quotes some lines from his own work other than PS. While illustrating the actual use of dative instead of genitive in Pkt (kvacin na tadarthye, V. 131) in the sense of tādarthya he quotes two lines from his work what he calls to be Vilasavatisaṭṭaka (see p. 65). Unfortunately this work has not yet come to light. however clear that Mk not only composed a grammar of Pkt languages, but also had some Pkt works to his credit. An interesting Pkt stanza quoted under VIII. 4 to illustrate the use of tti we find a clear testimony to his poetic genius:
It is
पदमं जीविअसरिच्छा तत्तो सुहवी तदो पुणो घरिणी । चंडि ति भणसि एहिं ण मुणमि काहे हुवेज चामुंडा ॥
First I was (called) life-like, then pleasure-giving and then again Mistress of the house. Now you are addressing me as Candi ( angry woman); I do not know when I shall be called Camuṇḍā!'
131
As I have mentioned elesewhere, though the source of the above verse is not definitely known, for which Mk himself is responsible, we can surmise that it might have come from the same Vilasavati-saṭṭaka of the author.
4. Forgotten Authors and Bṛhatkathā
66. In another place Mk quotes the authority of one Kapila who does not approve of genha in kta, ktavatu and tavya affixes (IX. 130 ). NITTI thinks Kapila to be a scribal error for Kohala.10 In that case Kohala should be taken as a Pkt grammarian instead of a rhetorician as we have seen him in the previous pages.
į
10. See Les Gram. p. 98
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
