Pravachanasara

SR No.: 003289
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram
Publication Year: 1964
Total Pages: 612
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 16 MB

Page 148

Introduction
115
Coming to the treatment of conjunct consonants, typical words like ādā (ājā in AMg.) gilāna, niddho, thāvara, suhuma, etc., are quite usual in AMg, canon. In Pravacanasāra we get puvya, which, according to Hemacandra, is optionally purava in Sauraseni.
In morphology the Nom. sg. termination of a-stems is o, which agrees with Sauraseni and partially with AMg. The Loc. sg. has e, -ammi or -ammi and -amhi or -amhi. e and -ammi are normal in AMg. It is a point sub judice, whether -ammi is possible in Sauraseni; it is not forbidden by Hemacandra; it is only later grammarians like Mārkandeya that have not allowed it in Sauraseni. With no discredit to the worth of Prakrit grammarians, I might say that it is an innocent anachronism that Mārkandeya should be a judge on the Prakrit of a writer like Rājasekhara, though eminent Prakritists like Konow have adopted this view. If usage (evidenced by good MSS.) and phonetic possibility are taken into consideration, -ammi is not impossible in Sauraseni. Our text has amhi in addition; it is also spelt as -amhi: it is found in the Girnar edict of Asoka as already noted above. The Loc. sg. of jagat as jagadi only betrays strong Sk. influence. The instrumental sg. termination for fem. nouns ending in á is e, which is quite norinal, but at times the Sk. form is retained as in anukampayā. The Loc. sg. forms are worthy of note, as some fem. nouns with ū stems are treated as masculine nouns in a-stems: vikadhammi from vikathā, cětthammi from ceştā etc.; the Gen. sg. of stri is itthissa: these forms of feminine nouns are, so far as I know, the peculiarities of our text alone. Coming to the pronominal forms the Abl. pl. of tad is tehimdo which is Sauraseni with vengeance.
The present 3rd p. sg. termination is decidedly Sauraseni. The future 3rd p. sg. form bhavissadi is not Sauraseni according to Hemacandra's standard. The forms of the gerund and infinitive of purpose agree either with AMg. or Saurasenī; if not, they are the corruptions of Sk. forms, directly or through false analogy, according to recognised rules of phonetic corruption.
Besides this vacillation between AMg. and Sauraseni, there is another strong influence working on the Pk. dialect of Pravacanasūra: and that is of Sanskrit. We come across forms like jāņannavi, tanna, tavvivarido etc., which indicate that the author has in his mind the Sk. idiom quite predominantly. This explains also the tendency to retain intervocalic c at times and even p in [p. 121:] phrases like ghoramapāram. Even the ready-made Sk. forms are subjected to phonetic corruption and imported, for instance jagadi, divā (dijā in AMg.), ņādā (1, 42) sannaya, which are very scarce elsewhere. The past p. participles and the gerund forms show that they are corruped from Sk. Some roots necessarily retain their Atmanepada colour. The verbal forms like jaņayamti, pappodi and bibhedi substantiate the same conclusion.
Thus this dialect of Pravacanasāra, in short, inherits many features of AMg. dialect of the Svetāmbara.canon; it is nourished in the back-ground of Sauraseni, and thereon a strong influence of Sanskirt is working.
VIEWS ON THE NAME OF THIS DIALECT.-Then what significant name can be given to this dialect of Pravacanasāra? Pischel, 1 with the analysis of a few gāthās from Pravacanasāra and Kattigeyanuppekkhü as quoted by Bhandarkar, 2 came to
1 Pischel: Gr. Pr. Spr., p. 20. 2 Report on Search for Sanskrit MSS., 1883-84.