________________
INTRODUCTION
95
11
In this connection a peculiar usage of Ratnaprabha catches our attention: anveṣayāmi lagnaḥ (*26.37), vilok yate lagnaḥ (*80.39). The use of lagna with Infinitive has its counterpart in New Indo-Aryan; but its use with verbal forms of the Present tense needs explanation, and many such cases are noticed by me in the Ārādhanā Kathākosa of Prabhācandra (c. 11th century A. D.).
Then in the Kmk we are attracted by certain expressions which are not quite appropriate renderings of the Prākrit original, uccatthala (65.10), Sk. uccala (*21.35), correctly ucсasthala. – kūvavamdra (50.20), Sk. kūpapadra (*15.20), correctly küpavrnda. - Khettabhado (50.22), Sk. Kşatrabhatah (*15.21, perhaps following the reading of P, Khattahado), correctly Kșetrabhataḥ. - cittaviyā ādiyattiyā (65.14) does not seem to be correctly rendered, if the equivalent is as in Sk, vahannāļikādattapadaḥ (*22.4). - Dappaphaliha and Bāhuphaliha (104.8), Sk. Darpaphalika Bhujaphalika (*58.36), but correctly, Darpaparighaḥ and Bāhuparighah (See Hema. Prākṣta Grammar, I. 232, 254). — Bārayāuri (185.9), Sk. Pārāpuri (*67.35), correctly Dvārakāpurī. – Bhaddasețshī (70.28), Sk. Rudrasresthi II. $ 25): this has arisen from the orthographical confusion between bh and ru which are alike (p. 73, reading 7). - mahāsunnāranna (53.27) is rendered as mahāpunyāraṇya (*17.6), really sunna stands for sūnya. – Vaïragutto (247.2), Sk. Vairiguptaḥ (*80.35), more appropriate Vajraguptaḥ. - Sattibhado (50.28), Sk. Šāntibhațaḥ (*15.25), correctly saktibhataḥ (nti and tti are very similar in writing).
It is seen that J and P present almost two Recensions of the Text of the Kuvalayamālā. The Kmk of Ratna prabha deserves to be studied in comparison with these two recensions and see which of them is being followed by it. Below are listed a few crucial contexts from J and P and the corresponding one in kmk.
j) 32.30: J. imassa cammarukkhassa dīņārānam addhalakkham; P imassa
su (= mu) rukkhassa keārane (= rāņa) addhalakkham; Kmk *11.34:
kedārāņām lakṣārdham tvaritam dāpaya. ii) 47: J. komki; P komtī; Kmk *14.16: koti-s'astra. iii) 50.22: J Khettabhado; P Khattahado; Kmk *15. Kşatrabhataḥ. iv) 50: J omits but P has tassa a se puttassa Sattibhado ņāma; Kmk *15.25:
tasyāpi sāntibhataḥ sūnur asti. v) 54.11 f.: J omits cimtayamto maggālaggo so vi Virabhado which is found
in P; Kmk *17.23 f. has iti cintayan so'pi teşām mārge lagnaḥ. vi) 61.17 f.: J omits imiņā Māyāiccena to thoya-salilam pecchaï, kūvodaram
Thānū found in P; Kmk *20.6 f.: bhanitam Māyādit yena etc. which closely
corresponds to the above. vii) 67.2: J omits thāviyam laggam found in P; Kmk *23.2: sthāpyate lagnam. viii) 74.26 f.: J omits jāva tumam āgao tti to tao tuha pacchā found in P;
Kmk 26.29-30: some ideas corresponding to the above are there. ix) J Sabarasīhena, P Sabalasīleņa: Kmk 27.35: Sabarasīlena.
The above points clearly indicate that Ratnaprabha is composing his Campū with the recension of P before him.
Just as Ratnaprabha composed a Sanskrit digest, namely, Kmk, Amradeva (A. D. 1134), who wrote a Vrtti on the Akhyānamanikosa of Nemicandra
NEN
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
