Parmatmaprakasha and Yogsara

SR No.: 001876
Original Sutra Author: Yogindudev
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: Paramshrut Prabhavak Mandal
Publication Year: 2000
Total Pages: 550
Language: Sanskrit, Hindi, English
Classification: Book_Devnagari & Literature
File Size: 13 MB

Page 126

Introduction
101
Comparative Remarks-These four Mss, show two distinct groups : B stands by itself, while A, P and Jh form a family. A and P go back to a common predecessor containing Gujarati Tabba. Their textual agreements are quite close and the Gujarati translation is common to both. The dialectal form of this translation in Pis older than that in A. As against B, which is the oldest of the four, Mss. A and P show the tendency of having a for u of the Nom.; they ignore anusyara; and all is often written as au.
Present Text and Readings-An intelligent record of text tradition has been my aim in building the text of Yogasara. In editing an Apabhramsa text, especially when there are vowel variations between different Mss., it is often difficult to distinguish genuine variants from scribal errors. In representing the vowels I have mainly followed P and B often preference being shown to the latter. Even earlier Mss. have confused i and h; so in spite of their agreement I have made some changes in the text, of course with a question mark. I have given more readings merely to shed sufficient light on the textual variations. The readings of the printed text have not been noted for the following reasons: the basic Ms. of the printed text is collated; I suspect that the printed text has not got the authenticity of an independent Ms. as the text appears to be shaped eclectically without naming the sources of the readings; and lastly its readings are practically covered by A and P.
Sanskrit Shade-On principle I am against the procedure of giving Chaya (1.e. Sanskrit Shade) to an Apabhramsa text : first, it is a mistaken procedure which has neither linguistic nor historical justification; secondly, the Chāyā so shaped is bound to be a specimen of bad Sanskrit, as Apabhramśa has developed modes of expression and styles of syntax which are not allowed in classical Sanskrit; and lastly it has a vicious effect that many readers satisfy their thirst for contents by reading Chāyā alone. This habit of giving Chāyā to Prākrit works has done positive harm to the study of Indian linguistics. Prākrit studies were ignored; dramas like Mcchakatikam and Sakuntalam are looked upon as Sanskrit works even though their major portion is written in Prākrit by the authors themselves; and lastly as a consequence the modern Indian languages are being nourished with Sanskrit words, etc. ignoring the Prakrits. It is not the mother but the grandmother that is supplying the milk of words to the present-day languages. However I had to give the Chāyā with due deference to the persistent insistence of the Publisher. In the Chāyā I have given Sanskrit words for those in Apabhraṁsa at times with alternatives in brackets. The Chāyā is not to be judged as an independent piece of Sanskrit, but it is merely the shade of the original Apabhransa. For the convenience of readers Sandhi rules are not observed. In many places my Chāyā differs from the one given with the printed text