________________
INTRODUCTION
81
31. Dr. GHOSA in his edition of KM says that the language of the work is Ś alone and not M and Ś both as has been held by Sten Konow and other scholars. His view in this respect is also a direct challenge to Mk, who in his grammar clearly recognising the use of of M by Rājasekhara, vehemently criticises him for his wrong use in several places. Out of the six places in which reference is made to Rājasekhara, two are devoted to strong criticism against him for his wrong use of the dialect. The remaining four are illustrations of the correct use of M by Rājasekhara. It is true that in many places of his verses 'non-elision of consonants is met with. Being fully aware of this phenomenon Mk strongly criticises him for his confusion. In spite of consulting Mk’s grammar Dr. Ghosh has not met Mk's challenge against Rājasekhara in his thesis. Moreover to substantiate his argument that KM is written in Ś he cites a verse from He's Kāvyānusāsana, 46 which defines Sattaka. There he interprets the word Prākrta in the sense of M. In fact, Prākrta here means the Prākrit in general and the verse means that a Suttaka is similar to Nātikā with this difference that it is without Viskambhaka and Pravesaka and that it is written in one language only and not in both Pkt and Skt as in case of the Nātikā. Here one language means Pkt in general.47
45. See the following Sūs. with the comm. in PS: 1, 50; III. 77; V, 118; VI, 4; VI, 48; VII, 61. 46. See KM Intro, p. XI. The verse runs thus :
f15*#* à Taifat aka41941 HTT!
अप्राकृतसंस्कृतया स सट्टको नाटिकाप्रतिमः ॥ 47. Ci. the above verse with the following :
कं प्राकृताशेषपाठ्यं स्यादप्रवेशकम् । Prà. E
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
