________________
BANERJEE: PRAKRIT GRAMMARIANS
8
3
Thus the Prākṛta-lakṣaṇa attributed to Pāņini1 can be summarily rejected in the absence of any evidence. We have meagre information about Durgaṇācārya's Şaḍbhāṣārupamālikā,2 Nāgoba's Saḍbhāṣā-subanta rūpādarśa, Bhamakavi's Sadbhaşacandrikā,* Vāmanācārya's Prakṛta-candrika and Kṛṣṇapaṇḍita alias Seşakṛṣṇa's Prākṛta-candrikā. Unless these works are carefully studied, we cannot say definitely anything about them. We know only the names of Samantabhadra," Appayajvan,8 Candrasekhara,8 Nrsimha,8 Puspavananatha, BhojaR and Bharadvaja' as authors of Prakrit grammars. But no work of them has yet come to light. Works like Deśīprakāśa, Desiprasiddha,' (?), Prākṛta-kalpalatikā,9 Prākṛtabhāṣāntara-vidhāna, Prākṛtasaroddhāra-vṛtti,1o Prākṛtasahityaratnākara,10 Bhāṣābheda,10 Bhāṣārṇava, Bhāṣāvivecana,11 Şaḍbhaşamañjari," Şaḍbhāṣāvārtika, 12 Şaḍbhäṣāvicära12 are mere names, and, therefore, we are unable to pass any remark on them. We get some characteristic features of Prakrit language in the Vişnudharmottarapurāṇa. 13 But these features are extremely scanty and it is very difficult for us to ascertain to what school the author is indebted. [Taken from The Eastern School of Prakrit Grammarians, Calcutta, 1977].
9
13
11
10
3. Pischel, Gram, Pkt. Spr. §39
4. Aufrecht, Cat. Cat. I. 679b.
5. Pischel, Ibid, §41.
19
1. Hoernle in his edition of Canda's Präkṛta-lakṣaṇam, Calcutta, 1880, introduction.
2. Mentioned by Laksmidhara in his Şaḍbhāṣäcandrikā p. 22 of Trivedi's edition.
12
8. Pischel, Ibid, §41.
9. Pischel, Ibid, §41 §8, §43, §34 respectively.
10. Pischel, Ibid, 834 §41 etc.
11. Pischel, Ibid, §40.
12. Aufrecht's Cat. Cat.
6. Peterson's Third Report, pp. 342-48.
7. Pischel, Ibid, §41; A. N. Upadhye, A Prakrit Grammar attributed
to Samantabhadra, IHQ, XVII, 1942, pp. 511-16.
13. Vide my article, The Characteristics of Prakrit in the Visnudharmottarapurana (Text Reconstructed) in the Bulletin of the Philological Society of Calcutta. Vol II, Calcutta, 1961, pp. 124-30.