Prakritadhyaya

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

Page 25

16
CRITICAL APPARATUS
(AB0C18) as well as in the printed editions including Lassen's we find in the colophon the imputation of "rasavatyām vritau", to the Prākrtapāda also," and this inclusion of the word rasavati creates & confusion between these two commentaries. Incidentally it may also be mentioned here that the exegetical notes (=tākā) found in the margin of sand S, were written so sporadically and unsystematically that they could not be the fragments of the commentary of Candideva, because in that case they would have been identioal. It may also be pointed out here that sometimes some explanations are found in A and these are also totally absent in these two manuscripts (i.e., in S and Sı). As all these tīkās found in the margins of A, S and S, do not explain the same sūtras, they must have been written by different persons or copyists who had utilised them for their purposes. It is therefore, quite possible that these tīkās should vary from manusoript to manuscript. However, considering that these tīkās, though sporadio and fragmentary in nature, may be helpful for the understanding of some of the sūtras of Kramadiśyara's Prākrit grammar, these have been printed here in a different type under the caption tākā in the main body of the text.
II. Evalution of the manuscripts
(i) Congruity in MSS. $ 22. It will be evident from the above description of the manuscripts used for the edition of Kramadīśvara's Prākrit grammar that all these manuscripts do not show anything like recensions, nor do they fall into any group ; on the contrary, they show a close kinship and identical recension, and belong to one and the same group or family. From a careful perusal of all these manuscripts, it is not unlikely for one to surmise that one has, perhaps, copied from the other, although we are not in a position to find out the original copyist. Those manuscripts do not even vary from the printed editions, the subsequent editors of which have followed the earlier one. These manuscripts have so many common obaracteristics that the style of writing of the copyist is almost the same, excepting the forms
1) It is interesting to note that the commentary on the 8th pada is always found separately. If it is found with the Sanskrit grammar, it has still no connection whatsoever with the original manuscript ; it entirely differs in leaves and in the style of writing and it is generally copied by a different man and, perhaps, in a different place and time (vide my manuscript 0,).