________________
118
प्राकृतसर्वस्वम् !
sena Paisācī it has nothing to do with Śauraseni, rather it has much to do with Magadhĩ. We can take it as a Paiśāci dialect spoken in Śūrasena country (cf. atha Sauraseni Paisaciki, intro. XX. 1)
To take Pañcala as a separate variety of Paiśācī is something unusual with Mk, for it differs only on the point of the inversion of r and 7. Similar is the characteristic of Bahlīki and Mk refuses to give it separrte recognition for its negligible difference from Avanti; and he argues that even Sanskrit allows oneness of r and 1,. so Bābliki is to be included in Avanti. In other words the former is the same as the latter. For the same reason he ought to have included Pañcāla Paiśācī in the main variety. Pu seems to treat Pañcala etc. as minor verieties of Paisacī which can be best known, as he adds, from the local use (cf. Pu. xx. 13)
IX Paisacī according to Vararuci, Hemacandra. and their followers.
55. Vararuci, treats Paiśāci in a general way and knows no classification as discussed above. He also differs in some respects from the foregoing grammarians. As for example, he limits the change of the third and the fourth letters of a class to the first and second only to such as are found in non-conjunct and intervocalic form. He changes jñ and ny to ñj11 and hrdaya to hitaaka. Besides, most of the rules found in the grammars of the above three are absent in his grammar. Similar is the approach of KĪ; he knows no classification of Paiśācī. Yet he records some exceptional cases which indicate that he is dealing with more
114
114. Possibility of scribal error in this case is not ruled out.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
