________________
INTRODUCIÍON
141
have also seen the striking resemblance in the treatment of the dialects among these three Eastern grammarians. As their examples show, all of them refer to Sākalya as a Prākrit grammarian. That Sākalya occupied a prominent place among Prākrit grammarians in ancient times is clearly proved from the way these three authors refer to him. Rāmašarman again supplies us further evidence in regard to Sākalya's popularity by way of quoting a stanza from an unknown source :--
अता सणेहो वि इता सिणेही पक्खे वि णेहो चिह्न होति चिण्हं । अता सणाणं इता सिणाणं पहाणं पि साकल्लमतं वितिण्णं ॥
Rt. I. 3.8 “ With the separating vowel a, sneha will be saneha, with i, it will be sineha, and it may alternatively be neho, and cihna will be changed to cinha. With the separating vowel a, snāna will be saņāna and with i, it will be siņāņa, and it may alternatively be nhāna. This is the expressed opinion of sākalya.”
This citation of Rt not only shows Šakalya's importance as an authority on Prākrit but also the existence of a versified text of Prākrit grammar in Prākrit language in his time which has unfortunately been lost to us.
The reference to Sākalya by these three authorities, however, is confined only to Mahārāştri and Sauraseni dialects, since his work is not extant, it is difficult to know how many dialects he dealt with in his grammar. Equally difficult is to ascertain his date. We can however conjecture that he did not treat so many dialects as vibhāṣās, Apabhramsa and Paidācī, for had he done so, these three authorities must have quoted his
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
