________________
प्राकृतसर्वस्वम् ।
mostly from Sanskrit dramas and thus his treatment: goes a long way in distinguishing one from the other and as such this chapter on Sauraseni merits special.
attention."
152
Mk further gives us the views of two authors whose names are not met with in any other work. The view of Aniruddhabhaṭṭa in the context of Dākṣiṇātyä and that of Bhagiratha-Vardhamana in the context of Caṇḍali and Nagara Apablıramsa are specially interesting. The discovery of the works of these two authors. may reveal many more interesting facts regarding Prakrit.
4. Mārkaṇḍeya's indebtedness to Vasantarāja and Hemacandra
76. There is no doubt that Mk has utilised ela-borately the commentary of Bhamaha on Vararuci's. Prākṛtaprakāsa. It is not known definitely whether he utilised Prākṛtamañjarī of Katyayana. There is definite proof of Rt's indebtedness to Katyayana, for the latter's name has been mentioned thrice in Prākṛta Kalpataru.10 Mk does not mention anywhere in his work the name of Katyāyana nor does he seem to have utilised the latter's work. But his indebtedness to Vasantarāja is as clear as daylight. True to his frank expression at the beginning of his work, Mk has utilised elaborately the commentary of Vasantarāja on Vara
9. See HULTZSCH's translation of a part of Śauraseni chapter of PS along with the Index of words- Neue Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Sauraseni, ZDMG 66( 1912) pp. 709-726.
10. See Rt. I. 5.24 comm, I. 8. 5. I. 8. 42; also Dr. GHOSH'S notes on the first two references on p. 99 and p. 110 respectively.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
