Bhanvarlal Nahta Abhinandan Granth

SR No.: 012041
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Ganesh Lalwani
Publisher: Bhanvarlal Nahta Abhinandan Samaroh Samiti
Publication Year: 1986
Total Pages: 450
Language: Hindi, English
Classification: Smruti_Granth & Articles
File Size: 11 MB

Page 403

the foot-note. Moreover, there is no reason but not in vişțara. Even then some scholars why the Sanskrit long i in işat should be think that the sutras are not clear, Actually short in Prakrit. The use of this word is I feel that the reading should be ştah sto also found with long i (cf. isisi cumbiāim viņțarasya as one sutra. From the method etc. in Sakuntaia Act I, prologue). As Cowell of framing the sutras, it is seen that the prehas given the alternative reading in the foot ceeding sutra is dusprekşa-sadşkşayoh kşasya note, this should not be taken as printing kkho vā (XIII. 2) where words are particularly mistake. The question of dialect will not mentioned for the Sakari dialect, it is quite also help us in solving this reading.
possible also that the next sutra should Hultzsch's edition of Simharaja's Prakrita
contain a word as well, and the subsequent
sutras are also framed with regard to some rupavatara offers us another difficulty. Sim
words. There is no reason to think ştah haraja has based his grammar on Hema.
Stah as a general rule. candra and Trivikrama, as far as examples are concerned. But with regard to I,
B. Prakrit texts Hultzsch has edited his text with cerebral
Let us now consider some of the textual 1 in cases where others will have simple or
readings of Prakrit. dental I. In fact, cerebral 1 is a rare occurence in Prakrit. The reason that Hultzsch's Sten Konow's edition of Karpuramanjari edition contains cerebral , 1 is due to the fact
(KM) is a great problem. Here the prob. that he has edited his text from a lem is not only of reading but also of lanSouth Indian manuscript preserved in the guage. According to general belief the KM Royal Asiatic Society of London, where is written in a Sauraseni dialect. But Konow Sanskrit I is written as ,l, which Hultzsch has never mentioned it in so many words. thinks a variety of Prakrit. That is why in in his opinion Rajasekhara's KM is written Bhasa's dramas this cerebral I is preserved. in a sort of mixed Prakrit-between MahaOn the basis of this feature L. D. Barnett rastri and Sauraseni. In his edition what once thought that there was a southern
we find is that the verses are in Maharastri school of Prakrit grammarians as well. and the proses are in Sauraseni following (JRAS, 1921 ).
the dictum as laid down in the works of While giving the characteristic features
dramaturgy. After 35 years, M. Ghosh edited of Sakari, Purusottama in his Prakritanusa
that text again. In his edition all the passa
ges are in Sauraseni. Konow has consulted sana has given two sutras as
several Mss, and some of the best Mss do ştah sțah XIII. 3.
contain the readings in Sauraseni even in Vistarasya XIV. 4.
verses which he has either corrected for the Some have suggested "na viştarasy" i.e. sake of dramaturgy or neglected as improper
4x 1