Jain Journal 1990 10

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 18

OCTOBER, 1990
the texts of Sauraseni. In Kundakunda's works and in Rajasekhara's Karpūramañjari, these two points are not strictly followed. In their books, after two or three verses, or sometimes in the same verse, the dh is retained in one reading, or dh becomes h in the other. Therefore kadhedi has another reading kahehi. This is the moot point in our editorial discipline. It is true that Hemacandra has accepted h in place of dh as an optional form in Sauraseni (Hc. IV 267 & 68), the earliest literature gives us the idea that it was dh which was historically earlier (e.g. Vedic idha and CI. iha), and later on this dh becomes h in Maharastri (cf. Hc. I. 187). It appears from the sūtras of Hemacandra that h is a Maharastri influence on Sauraseni at a later stage. So the optional rule for the prescription of h in place of dh in Sauraseni is not to be considered as a true feature of Sauraseni, otherwise the rule that th becomes dh in Sauraseni becomes redundant. Sometimes the editors are blinded with the readings in the manuscripts as more important than the grammatical features. If the readings in the manuscripts are given promine whatever is written in manuscripts is to be considered as right, then the characteristic features of a particular dialect as given by the Prakrit grammarians (and also linguistically correct), then what is the utility of the grammarians or of the linguists as far as the text is concerned. It has always been a question who is to be depended upon-grammarians or the manuscripts ? This controversy has been going on since Theodor Block wrote his Vararuci und Hemacandra (Guttersloh) in 1893. Pischel also in his Grammatik der Prakrit Sprachen (1900) has raised this question and has carefully evaded the answer. In 1924, Walter Engene Clark raised this problem once more in his article Māgadhi and Aradhmågadhi (JAOS, 81-121). He has discussed the point at great length, but without any definite result. In my article 'Prakrit Textual Criticism' (Jain Journal, January 1988/95-96) I have concluded as follows :
"It is not easy to answer the question, particularly when most of the scholars think that any kind of linguistic phenomenon is possible in Prakrit. Perhaps under the tacit influence of this so-called ideas, some of the Prakrit forms have been incorporated in some editions which sometimes baffle and betray some of the basic notions of Prakrit language including dialects as enunciated by Prakrit grammarians. It is true that Prakrit grammarians are not very old, and most of the authors belong at a time when the language was almost stereotyped like Sanskrit. As a result the Prakrit features as embalmed and treasured up by the grammarians vary from author to author, except a few general forms which are common to all. The texts of Prakrit manuscripts are not always uniformly common; the variations are such that it is difficult to follow any particular reading from the Mss. The copyists are not always learned, more