Prakritadhyaya

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

Page 30

INTRODUOTION
21
also the reading of Lassen has helped us much to omend the reading of the text which will be yapa[ra] cavargayutkā manāguccāryāḥ, in which case 'po has been dropped by the scribe through oversight. If this emended or conjectural reading is correct, then the meaning of this sūtra will be quite clear and it will go at par with the readings of the later eastern Prākrit grammarians like, Puruşottama (cuh spaşta-tālavyaḥ. XII. 13), Rāmaśarmā (cavargakāņām upari prayojyo yukteşu cântaḥsthayakāra. II. 2.18) and Mārkandeya (cajayor upari yah syāt. XII. 21). It is quite possible that at the time of Kramadīśvara the palatal sounds were pronounced with v prefixed to it. This was still prevalent at the time of Rāmaśarmā end Märkandeya
$ 27. In fine, it may be added that in judging the readings of the text of Kramadīśvara's Prākrit grammar a mechanial adherence to the forms of the sūtras is as deceptive as blind allegiance to the text of any partioular manuscript, howsoever excellent or useful it might be. "It needs mention in this connection that the true method of finding out a sense depends entirely upon the proper consultation and collation of the manusoripts, sometimes by joining one or two words, if necessary, or sometimes by separating or by emendations, where the sense urgently so requires. Because, it is a matter of great surprise but nevertheless perfectly true that in ancient times the manuscripts did undergo change of colour with odds beyond arithmetio, due to the corruption and confusion of the Mas., or due to the ignorance of the scribes, or due to some additions that are made with the intention of improving upon the author. As a sequel to this, the interchanges of ca ( T ) and va (a), sa (#) and ma (H), ka (*) and pha (), tha (%) and ya ( 9 ) eto., were so much so that we are quite at a loss to decide now-4-days which was correct and should
1) The problem- the Manuscripts vs the Grammarians--has been discussed by Th. Bloch, Vararuci und Hemacandra, p. 48, by R. Pischel, Grammatik der Prākrit Sprachen ($ 44); by Walter Eugene Olark, Māgadhi and Ardhamagadhi, JAOS, 44, 1924, pp. 118-121 ( 19). In addition to their arguments, I may ada here that neither the grammariang nor the manuscripts alone should be given proper importance, but the manuscripts should be judged in the light of the spirit of the author.