Prakritsarvaswam

SR No.: 001369
Original Sutra Author: Markandey
Author: Krushnachandra Acharya
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1968
Total Pages: 424
Language: Prakrit, Sanskrut, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Grammar
File Size: 20 MB

Page 152

INTRODUCTION
145
disagreement of Mk in some points, his way of classification is mostly in aocord with that of his predecessor whom he quotes. He recognises all the dialects enumerated therein with this difference that he chooses some of them as the main rejecting others as the minor ones on account of having slight difference. Thus he rejects, as we have noticed earlier, Ardbamāgadhi and Bāhlīkī under the category of Bhāṣā, Drāvidi and Audri under Vibhāṣā, chooses Nāgara, Vrācada and Upanāgara as the three main divisions of Apabhraíía out of the twenty-seven kinds as also Kaikeya, Saursena and Pāñcāla as three main varieties of Paisāci out of its eleven types. Here this is to be noted that though his quotation does not show Tākki as a Vibhāṣā, he takes it to be so, for he includes Drāvidi under it and to substantiate his point he cites a verse which, in all probabilily, must have come from the same work from which his previous quotations have come. As we have seen previously, this verse is quoted by Mk with slight difference in his sixteenth Pada while dealing with Tākki Vibhāşā. There he cites the verse in the context of giving the views of Hariscandra who regards ļākki as an Apabhramsa but not a Vibhaşā. Here again Mk writes that in place of Takkī they regard Drāvidi as Vibhāṣā ( drāvidim apy atra manyante). Hariscandra, in all probability, appears to be a rhetorician who had advocated the use of Apabhramsa in plays and regarded Ţākki as an Apabhramsa. It is again interesting to note that in respect of regarding Țākkị as a Vibhāṣā, our three authors are unanimous. Both Pu and Mk give the view of Hariscandra but Rt does not. Should we then assume that both Mk and Rt had consulted the work of Pu who, in all probability, was
Prà. I