Prakritadhyaya

Author(s): Kramdishwar, Satyaranjan Banerjee, Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 24

INTRODUCTION
15
(iv) Candidevaśarmā’s Prākṣta-dīpikā not identical with
the vrtti of Jumaranandi $ 21. But it should be noted here at the same time that although there are similarities in textual readings between them, yet two important points can easily be discerned in this connection : first, the introductory verses of Lassen are not found in all these manuscripts excepting S; secondly, the colophon of all of them does not bear the name of Candidevaśarmā. From these one may conjecture that the present ortti of the Prākrlapāda (ascribed to Jumaradandī) and the commentary of CandidevaŚarmā are not identical, but they are confused with each other. Two possible explanations for this confusion may be suggested. First, it may be said that Candideva wrote his commentary on the ortti of Jumaranandi, with an introduction at the beginning. He was, perhaps, at the beginning a bit elaborate, as the introduction of Lassen and S shows, and then epitomised his discussions and wrote the vitti in a condensed form. Initially, he had also given some explanations of some sūtras, but later on perhaps, he discarded that idea, and left it to Jumaranandi: That is why it is found that the commentary of Candideva is incomplete and fragmentary. What it seems to me is this that Candidova, perhaps, did not write his commentary on all the sūtras of Kramadīśvarā's Prakrit grammar (at least we do not find it in this form so far) ; or he had begun to write the commentary, but could not complete it. This incomplete and fragmentary aspect of Caņdīdeva's commentary, as it can be judged from Lassen and S, makes this confusion between the Vrtti of Jumaranandi and the commentary of Candideva. Practically speaking these two commentaries are not identical. Secondly, it can also be surmised that when there was no commentary on the Priikrlapādá (as we do not know of any other commentary earlier than this–Gogīcandra's commentary not being available now), Candideva wrote this commentary independently, which had been styled, in course of time, after the Rasavatī of Jumaranandi. And as his commentary was written only on the Prakttapāda (after which we have portions on metres and rhetorics), we do not find any colophon of Candideva immediately after the Prākrit portion. But the colophon in which the word “Rasavatī'' cocurs, is found at the end of metres and rhetorio portion. That is why in all the manuscripts