Tulsi Prajna 1995 07

SR No.: 524584
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Parmeshwar Solanki
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1995
Total Pages: 164
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Tulsi Prajna, & India
File Size: 7 MB

Page 148

?
Study in Hemachandra's Quotations
MAGADHI PASSAGES IN PRAKRIT GRAMMAR Dr. Jagat Ram Bhattacharya
Hemacandra in his Prakrit grammar, while describing the characteristic features of Magadhi has quoted some lines from some Prakrit texts including Sanskrit dramas. These passages are important, because they will, at least, tell us the readings of some Prakrit passages found in some Prakrit dramas which were current at the time of Hemacandra. These readings are some times different from today. These passages show that those were the readings current at that time. As Magadhi characteristics of the grammarians were changed from time to time, it will be easy for us to understand the evolution of the changes. This fact can be proved from the passages quoted by Hemacandra in his Prakrit grammar. These passages are greatly found under the sutra seṣam sauraśenīvat (IV. 302). These passages are corrected, if they need so. Under the sutra (IV. 301) while explaining the use of hage in place of aham and vayam, Hemacandra qnotes the line from the Sakuntala as hage Sakkāvadāla tista nivāśī dhīvali This line occurs in the VI act of the Sakuntala 1 It is interesting to note that the same line is quoted by Hemacandra in the vṛtti of the next sutra (IV. 302) while explaining idānimo dāṇim (IV. 277) as suṇadha dāņim hage Sakkāvayāla tista ṇivāśī dhivale. In the footnote of both the passages there are some different readings tista in both the places is given as tittha. But with regard to the reading sakkāvadāla. there are differences. Uuder (IV. 301) the reading is sakkāvadāla without any variant readings noted anywhere. But in the vṛtti of the sutra (IV. 302) the same word is read as Sakkavayala which means t is elided leaving it's vowel y-śruti The interesting point is that the same word is quoted by the same author almost in the same place under two different sūtras. It is, indeed, true to say that whether Hemacandra has made the same mistake or it is the editor who has edited it wrongly. When the same passage is quoted it is obviously better that the same line should be quoted. Pischel, of course, in his edition has recorded sakkavayāla in the footnotes whereas in the main body in both the places he has accepted the reading sakkāvadāla. As far as Magadhi is concerned the intervocalic da is generally retained like Saurasent and therefore,