Jain Journal 1996 04

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

Page 23

BANERJEE : ŞAȚKHAŅDĀGAMA AND ŚAURASENI
121
ways and means by which a solution could be found. However, the problem has been going on. And again almost after a century I have discussed the problem anew. In one of my articles Prakrit Textual Criticism published in Jain Journal, January, No. 3 1988, pp.87-97, what is noted there is being summarised here for the benefit of the readers.
“The basic problem is whether the grammarians or the manuscripts are to be followed. It is not easy to answer this 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 idea, some of the Prakrit forms have been incorporated in some editions which sometimes baffle and betray some of the basic notions of the Prakrit language including dialects as enunciated by Prakrit grammarians. It is true that Prakrit grammarians are not very old, and most of the authors belonged to a time when the Prakrit 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 variations are such that it is difficult to follow any particular reading from the manuscripts. The copyists are not always learned, more so, they may not have any knowledge or a very limited knowledge of the language, and hence every possibility of making mistakes. The phonetics of the language is not always regular. Sometimes the copyists add something to the manuscripts to improve upon the text”.
"It is my personal feeling that some sorts of emendations are necessary to edit a Prakrit text --if the manuscripts of a particular text do not help us much." It goes without saying that the original readings of the text must be recorded as variants in the foot-notes. “It is, indeed, very difficult to form direct cut and dried principles for this purpose, unless we base our arguments on some principles by which grammarians are involved in the matter."
The main reason for which I have discussed the problem here is to say that if the readings of a Prakrit text do not always conform to the rules of grammar as laid down by the Prakrit grammarians, it is then very difficult for us to follow any definite rules for a particular Prakrit text. Moreover, most of the Prakrit texts, if I am permitted to say so, are corrupt from the point of view of grammatical rules. More
is a question of Prakrit dialect. So is the case with the language of the Satkhandāgama and other similar Prakrit texts like Kasāyapāhuda, Mahābandha, Tiloyapannattī, Kundakunda's works and so on. In the Kasāyapāhuda, the Sanskrit word prathamārdhasya