________________
78
प्राकृतसर्वस्वम् ।
which the name of M occurs is not from the
hand of Vr.40 (ii) Pkt grammarians of Western India ( which
is very contiguous to Mahārāştra ), such as Ho, Subhacandra and Srutasāgara did not
name any Pkt as M. (iii) Eerly ( before 1000 a. C.) writers on poe
tics except Daņdin, did not know any M. (b) The difference between Ś and M, which is
very meagre, may be explained by assuming
a chronological distance between the two. It is true that the mention of M, is only once made in PPK and that too at the end of the twelfth chapter in which the commentary of Bhāmaha is not met with. For this reason Dr. GHOSH and many other scholars think it to be spurious or later addition. But this is not the sufficient reason to show that M as a dialect did not exist at the time of Vr, even if the latter does not recognise the former. If the entire grammar of Vr. including the twelve chapters be taken as genuine, we see that it treats of only four dialects completely avoiding the others, mention of which is found in NŚ. Bh, being such an eminent authority and at the
• 40. Dr. Ghosh's remark that the colophon of CoWELL's edition expressly ascribes Ch. XII of PPK to Bhāmaha, the commentator is fallacious ( KM XXVI) for the colophon runs thus :
इति वररुचिकृते प्राकृतप्रकाशे मनोरमायां वृत्तौ भामहविराचेतायां शौरसेनीलक्षण FIA &KET: FATA: | PPK, p. 96. The passage really means, 'Here ends the twelfth chapter of Vr's PPK with the Manorama coum, of Bhāmaha describing the characteristics of Ś. Thus it rather shows that Bhāmaba's.comm, on this chapter is irretrievably lost. ...
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
