Nirgrantha-2

SR No.: 522702
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: M A Dhaky, Jitendra B Shah
Publisher: Shardaben Chimanbhai Educational Research Centre
Publication Year: 1996
Total Pages: 326
Language: English, Hindi, Gujarati
Classification: Magazine, India_Nirgrantha, & India
File Size: 14 MB

Page 57

Vasantkumar M. Bhatt
Nirgrantha
Thus for him Sanskrit is the original wefa, language. Prakrit is that which is derived from (the root language) Sanskrit. Some scholars are of the opinion that the Prakrit spoken at popular level as parallel to Vedic Sanskrit was the origin of Sanskrit. But, for a grammarian who attempts a descriptive grammar, it becomes easier to delineate Prakrit by taking Sanskrit as the root language and explaining Prakrit forms by rules of phonological changes in letters. So, Hemacandra's approach seems practical and to the context. One more aspect of Hemacandra's Prakrit-grammar is that it was he who had started for the first time taking notice of differences in forms following differences in meaning. e.g. (1) Nat . . --86 (afa:) typerant ad 187
Hafa '34' yferat | Hafafa fen? 'C ' : (ii) grid ft. 1. (-2-R0 (af :) p r afeff the 3 wafa son il gra
sfa fe64 - U (iii) agaf: vt fa . C-3-938 (afa:) agaf: Per og hafa lyforet i 7 dage 1 (iv) agosaf IfH. 1. 6-3-838 (afa:) arseifafede gerechaute PT og at hafa II
dari dari Here the Sanskrit word (1) kşamā has two types of modifications in Prakrit e.g. chamă (3941) and khama (CH) : but there is difference in connotation. Same is the case with kşana (01), which becomes chana (8901) and khana (Go) in Prakrit with two different meanings. Vararuci, in his Prākrtaprakāśa, does not take note of such cases. Here it is noted that, in Prakrit, the sixth (possessive) case is used for fourth (dative) case. But Hemacandra is the first to pass a note that only the fourth case ending takes the shape of the sixth case ending which denotes a recipient, and the fourth case ending which denotes tādarthya continues as the fourth case ending in Prakrit. Thus, also, as a Prakrit grammarian, Hemacandra is very watchful and clear in his treatment which is the result of his vast aquaintance of Prakrit literature. His equipment as a grammarian, thus is highly laudable.
Co
Conclusion
Hemacandra, as a grammarian, shows considerable originality. Precisely because of this, along with the Pancāngi Vyākarana, he has also given lexicons and the Laksana-kāvyas. He gave śāstric recognition to such un-Pāṇīnian usages that followed Pāṇini's era, and thus has sanctioned the growth and development in the field of language. He has left out Vedic grammar in consideration of the practical reasons. These are his scintillating achievements. On the other hand, he is not up to the standard as a structuralist and does not seem to abide by the outlook of the vākya-saṁskära-paksa. He has given a grammar which is based on the pada-saṁskāra-paksa. He has not maintained identical approach in the case of both verbal and nominal forms which can be both simplification as well as a structural failure. Even with this limitation, his achievements are great enough to proclaim him as fehlt4034the Omniscient of the Iron Age.