Proceedings of the Seminar on Prakrit Studies 1973

SR No.: 014005
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: K R Chandra, Dalsukh Malvania, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1978
Total Pages: 226
Language: English
Classification: Seminar & Articles
File Size: 13 MB

Page 162

19. Some Obscure Passages in the Candalehā
S. M. Shaha, Pune
While bringing out the Second Edition of the Candaleha the editor Dr. A. N. U padhye observed :
"In this edition it will be seen that substantial additions are made in the Notes by way of explanations of a number of difficult contexts in this play.”] Further, he added :
"If I could make my Notes so exhaustive the major credit should go to the learned notes of Prof. M.V. Patawardhan..."
Now while I had the occasion to teach this Saffaka to my students, I came across some passages which still remained in need of proper or satisfactory explanation, despite the meticulous care of Dr. A.N. U padhye. I, therefore, borrowed Prof. M.V. Patawardhan's translation and Notes in the manuscript form (which he kindly lent we) and tried to solve the difficulties felt by me. Never the less, there still remained some obscurities which I try to solve here.
These obscurities may be divided under the following groups :
(i) those pertaining to the poetic conceits (Sanketas) adopted by Rudrad
āsa, the author of Candalehā, (ii) those arising out of the peculiarities of Prakrit language, viz. its
innate capacity of pun, its translatability in Sanskrit in more than one
way, etc, (iii) those pertaining to textual readings, (iv) those pertaining to syntax, and (v) those pertaining to etymologies.
I hope that the discussion of these difficulties, may lead to a satisfactory translation of this remarkable Sattaka, which still remained a desideratum.
First, I take up the case where Rudradāsa appears to have followed a poetic conceit which was shared in common by many Sanskrit poets. But Dr. Upadhye and Prof. Patawardhan have, I am afraid, not noticed it through inadvertence, and, therefore, their notes and translation have left it as a doubtful passage,
16