Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 3

Author(s): R P Poddar
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 127

į 18
VAISHALI RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. Í For the sake of a helpful comparison the Tibetan translation has been cited in the Roman script in each case along with a faithful restoration to the Prakrit proper.
As per the rules of dramaturgy, the select prose passages are appropriate in Sauraseni while the verse portions are in Māhārāştri.
In the case of a strophe an attempted versification in Māhārāștri on the basis of the caraña-wise restoration has also been added, retaining the restored carana-wise wording as far as practicable.
However, in every case the name of the speaker and that of the addressee, time, place and context are mentioned for clarification.
After these prolegomena we might now be permitted to cite some select specimens of Prakrit passages as restored from the Tibetan rendering as follows :
(1) (Zlos: - gar - ma: - nas) ( = Naţi))] [...] ḥdi. (= edam) Ita' – ste (=jadhā) [....] /
[a] padmo: - rnams (= ņaliņāím) ni (=hi) ba: – mos (=tuhineņa) rigs – ñams - (= haya - ) ḥod: -(= - rūva - ) Idan:(= - juttain [>haya – rūva-juttăim) gan – zig:) ( = thoam) sar: - nas(= uggaā) dbugs - rnams (= sāsā) ḥbyin ( = muainti) /
[b.) de - bzin ( = taha) mkhas: - paḥi. (=ahirūva - ) lho:-(= - dāhiņa - ) phyogs - (= - disā - ) rlun: - rnams - kyis (= - văūhi) [<ahirüya - dāhiņa - disā – vāūhi] ni' (=hi) 1. The present writer has for the basis of his rational reconstruction
of the original text and critical remarks thereon a transcript from the Snar-than: edition of the Bstan-Hgyur as preserved in the Visva-Bhārati University Library. He has also consulted Dr. Michael Hahn's critical edition for the profitable collation of the variants.
But at times our interpretation of the Tibetan translation and restitution of the original text have been different from Dr.
Hahn's appraisal of the drama. 2. This portion is missing from the Tibetan translation. 3. Lit. Natyā (Vācyam).