Prakrit Textual Criticism

Author(s): Satyaranjan Banerjee
Publisher: Z_Bhanvarlal_Nahta_Abhinandan_Granth_012041.pdf

Page 3

lished, and so he had no comment on them. A few books by Kundakunda and Umasvami were available, and on the basis of those books he had established the Jain Sauraseni. But recently the earliest canonical literature of the Digambara Jains were published first in 1939 and then completed the whole lot in subsequent years by 1960, after which most of the earlier editions were being reprinted. The first of the series is Satkhandagama which is written in Sauraseni dialect, but again influenced by the older Ardha-magadhi and the Maharastri as well, giving it a name which is called by Pischel as Jain Sauraseni. The assumption of these two dialects-Jain Maharastri and Sauraseni is based on a notion that probably these two dialects are different from the normal features of the language as emblamed and treasured up by Prakrit grammarians. But how far they differ from Maharastri and Sauraseni is a moot question and how far these differences are systematic to forma separate dialectis another problem. These are the questions which normally puzzle the readers of Prakrit. With regard to the Inscriptional Prakrits and Pali, the question is not severe, but with the Prakrit and Apabhramsa and partly with the early literary specimens of some modern IndoAryan languages, the problem of readings is acute.
Although inscriptions are written documents and we have more reliability in inscriptions than in the manuscripts, the earlier writers do not offer the features of Prakrit that can go on at par with
પૂર ]
the inscriptions. Take, for example, the drama of Asvaghosa. We are all grateful to Luders (Bruchstruck buddhistischen Dramen, 1911) who has presented the fragments of some Buddhist dramas discovered in Turkestan and dated by him in the first or second cent. A. D. In his opinion, there are three types of Prakrit dialect employed by Asvaghosa in his plays. To use his terminology, they are old Sauraseni, old Magadhi and old Ardha magadhi. The Dusta's speech in three important points is similar to the Magadhi of the Prakrit grammarians, it substitutes for r, reduces all three sibilants to s'; and has e in the nominative singular of masculine nouns in a. But it ignores the rules of the grammarians in certain respects; hard letters are not softend (eg., bhoti), nor soft consonants elided (e.g., Kumuda-gandha ), when inter-vocalic. There is no tendency to cerebralize n and in Kalana the dental replaces the cerebral. Fuller forms of consonants remain in hangho (hamho) and bambhana ( bamhana). Certain consonantal changes are irregular ryjj and not yy; e.g.. ajja, śc >cch, kkkh, not sk or cch, st>tth not st, kissakiša, ahakam than ahake, hake, haje, (Keith, Sanskrit Drama, p. 86).
But it is a point worth noting here that not a single grammarian has ever described any old features of Sauraseni, Magadhi or Ardha-magadhi. How should we justify these forms then? Should we reconsider the judgment of the manuscripts ?
ii) Orthographic