________________
xxxiv
KANSAVAHO
Rāvanavaho and Gaūdavaho would expect that Karnsavaho must be heavily indebted to these eminent predecessors in the field of Prākrit literature. I have carefully studied these texts, but I have not been able to detect their influence on our author to any appreciable extent. A few ideas, forms and turns of expression in Kansavaho remind us of Rāvanavaho, and there is one verse in our text (i. 36) which closely agrees with that in Rāvanavaho (iv. 20). Between Gaüdavaho and Kansavaho there is hardly any similarity that could attract my attention. One idea is similar, but it is a common property of many authors as I have shown in the Notes. Though there is nothing particularly common, still the style of scme verses reminds us of Rajasekhara's verses in Karpūramañjari.
v) ON THE PRĀKRIT DIALECT OF KAMSAVAHO.
A) SPECIAL TRAITS OF THE AUTHOR'S DIALECT.
In studying the Prākrit dialect of this work we have to take into account many things : our author belongs to the last period of Prākrit literature ; with him the Prākrit language is a purely literary language in the sense that he studied Prākrit grammars and texts, and then wrote this poem ; he is writing in a place where the then spoken languages were not likely to influence his language, and lastly he is a thorough master of Sanskrit in which too he could compose poems with equal if not greater fluency and elegance. Under these circumstances, a detailed grammatical analysis would not serve any great purpose ; so what is essential for us to know is how far Rāma Pāṇivāda conforms to the standards of Prākrit grammarians and in what details he has his specialities.
We have seen above that Rāma Panivada has written a commentary on the Prākrta-prakāśa of Vararuci, and so we
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
