________________
INTRODUCTION
15
In the critical text of the Kuvalayamālā, presented here, the inorganic t is not admitted; the actual readings of both the Mss. are fully noted in the first forme but sparingly in the subsequent formes. The presence of ta-sruti is more conspicuous in dogmatical passages: may be that it is inherited from some canonical texts and their commentaries like the Cūrņī. As isolated cases, the retention of t is admitted in stray words like citi, chitam, rutam etc. written alike in both the Mss. Difference of opinion is possible about these cases.
About the use of n or n, the earlier discussions need not be repeated here.1 It has been noted that earlier palm-leaf Mss. are inclined more towards ņ (everywhere, initially, medially and in a conjunct group). The basis of pronunciation about n or ņ is uncertain in Prākrit dialects; the Mss., obviously, wavered erratically, according to the prejudice, aptitude and whim of the copyist; the early Prākrit grammarians, like Vararuci, preferred ņ; but Hemacandra, possibly in view of the vagaries of Mss. in his part of the country, made the use of n initially optional with the result that the orthographical conventions of Jaina Mss. in Gujarat and round about inclined to use n initially, ņ medially and nn or nn in a conjunct group. This explains, to a very large extent, the difference seen in this respect between the pre-Hemacandra and post-Hemacandra Mss. from Pattan and round about. This is borne out, in general, by the variants about n or n (fully recorded in the first eight pages) in the Mss. Í and P.
As to the usage in Prākrit Inscriptions Dr. MEHENDALE's observations may be taken into account. A scrutiny of the Ghatayāla Inscription of the Pratihāra Kakkuka for the usage of n or n has a special relevancy for our purpose. It belongs to a place near Jodhpur in Rajasthan: its object is to record that a chief named Kakkuka founded a Jaina temple and made it over to a Jaina community which belonged to the gaccha of Dhanesvara; it is dated samvat 918, i.e., roughly middle of the 9th century A.D.; and some twenty lines of it are in Prākrit, the rest being in Sanskrit. Even though the Sanskrit influence is legitimate in this record, it is found that it uses throughout n only, initially, medially and in a conjunct group. This is a valuable pointer to the convention about the use of n in Prākrit writing in Rajasthan in the middle of the ninth century A.L., not in any way far distant from the place and age of Uddyotana, the author of the Kuvalayamālā.
As a healthy rule, n is used uniformly in this edition, the readings of n or nn (in subsequent formes) being noted only if both the Mss. write n. Of course in the Paiśācī passages and in certain words for which grammarians have special rules, n is allowed to remain according to the agreement of Mss.
The back-ground of ya-sruti is already discussed by me. It is found in some early Prākrit inscriptions as well. To begin with, its use appears to have been sporadic, but gradually it became a question of orthographic standardi
1 A. N. UPADHYE: Līlāvai, Intro. pp. 8 f., Bombay 1949. 2 M. A. MEHENDALE: Historical Grammar for Inscriptional Prākrits, p. 276. Poona 1948. 3 Journal of the R. A.S., 1895, pp. 513-521. 4 A. N. UPADHYE: Līlāvai, Intro. pp. 10 f. 6 Dr. D. C. SIRCAR has contributed a paper of the Burhikhār (Dist. Bilaspur, M. P.)
Brāhmi Inscription, Quarterly J. of the Mythic Society, Culture and Heritage number, pp.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
