________________
64
प्राकृतसर्वस्वम् ।
21. Now let us see, first of all, why Mk refuses to accord independent status to Amg among the bhāşās. He takes Amg to be the same as Mg with a little dif. ference here and there. There has been much controversy among scholars as to the existence of Amg as a separate dialect. Taking into account what the traditional authors have said about Amg, we see, first of all, that Bharata takes Amg as one among the seven kinds of bhāsās. The next authority in the line is supposed to be Vr. who takes no notice of it. Hc, the noted Jain scholar, includes Arşa under the Pkt dialects which is said to be no other than Amg.: He is followed by Tv, SR, Narasimha and Lakşmīdhara with this difference that Tv excludes Ārsa while the other three take no notice of it. Then we see that some noted grammarians of the Eastern School such as KI, Mk and Rt recognise it with slight degree of difference among themselves, whereas Pu has no mention of it in his grammar. Besides Bh., some other Skt rhetoricians too refer to it. Thus Viśvanātha tells us that it is used in the dramas as the language of servants, princes and traders, which is nothing but an exact copy of a line found in NŚ XVII. 50. If allowance be made to indentify Amg with Arsa ( which I doubt very much ) we see that in a quotation in Premacandra Tarkavāgisa on Kávyādarśa I. 33, two types of Pkt are distinguished, the one is that which originated from Arșa, and the other is that which is almost exactly the same as Ārsa :
आर्षोत्थमार्षतुल्यं च द्विविधं प्राकृतं विदुः । We have seen in the last section how Namisādhu
from
Jaina Suttas by Pischel,
9 See the lines quoted Grrmmatik, 16.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jairielibrary.org
