Tulsi Prajna 1990 06

SR No.: 524562
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1990
Total Pages: 74
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Tulsi Prajna, & India
File Size: 4 MB

Page 70

66
TULSI-PRAJNA, June, 1990
have some interesting development in Magadhi. In a sense, we can trace the history of these problems in Magadhi even from the Vedic times, if not earlier. It is interesting to note that all the prakrit grammarians are not unanimous on these points.
The prakrit grammarians who have discussed these problems are Vararuci, Hemacandra, Trivikrama, Purusottama, Kramadiśvara, Rāma Tarkavägīša and Mārkaṇḍeya, I have normally discussed these problems chronologically and this chronology shows how one grammarian differs from the other. This difference of opinion between the two authors is based sometimes on the historical development of these two problems. I have tried my best to state the reason of these differences. In doing so, sometimes it is seen that the readings of the texts of some of the grammarians on this particular issue are corrupt or incorrect. This is sometimes verified by the statement of other grammarians. So in my discussion, I have tried my best to be very careful in assessing their statements.
Secondaly, I have also consulted the modern writers on Prakrit grammar, such as pischel, Woolner and others. Pischel's prakrit grammar, is undoubtedly the basis of modern outlook. I have freely incorporated his ideas where necessary in my article. Even Pischel seems to have made some mistakes in some cases when he thinks either the text or the manuscript is corrupt. However, Pischel's grammar is constantly consulted along with others in order to check the reading of the prakrit grammarians.
In the third place, prakrit literature on Magadhi passages are also consulted. In a sense, there is no single book which is written in Magadhi. The specimens of Magadhi are normally found in Sanskrit dramas, and even there all the sanskrit dramas do not have the passages in Magadhi. For Bhasa and Asvaghosa there are controversies about their Magadhi passages. It is only Mṛcchakatik and Śakuntalā (aot VI), we have specimens of Magadhi prakrit. The Mäāgadhi passages in the VIth act of Sakuntala are very corrupt, and therefore, it is sometimes difficult to rely upon. Though Scholars like Pischel have edited the text, he too is terribly guided by Hemacandra, who linguistically belongs to the Western school of prakrit grammarians. As a result there are some features of Magadhi prakrit like peskadi which are not accepted by the Eastern prakrit grammarians like Purusottama, Rāma Tarkavägīṣa and Märkandeya. As a result we are at a loss to decide the reading of the text. Though it is not the intention to correct the Magadhi passages of Sakuntala, I have raised these points in order to show that the Magadhi passages in Sakuntala, though carefully edited by Pischel, can not go on a par with the views of Eastern