________________
22
4.
Hemacandra's gloss on his sūtra (Prakrit Grammar VIII 2. 181 ) probably draws the example from the gatha under discussion and that Hemacandra's text of the Gathasaptasati had the reading 'Hamida paloesu imam".
Jijipuuemidisapuralali (?)... p.104
Note: This highly corrupt text contains a few indications which lead us to identify it with Gathasaptasati VI. 30. A close and comparative look at the corrupt text and this gathä provides indisputable proof for the identification:
Corrupt form :
5.
6.
V. M. Kulkarni
हंदि पलोएहि इमं विअसिअ वअणा पट्टस्स अप्पेइ । धरिणी सुअ-पठमुब्भिण्णदंत-जुअलंकिअं बोरं ॥ (गृहाण प्रलोकचस्वेदं विकसि वदना पत्युरर्पयति । गृहिणी सुतप्रथमोद्भिन्न-युगलङ्कितं बदरम् ॥ )
Jain Education International
जिजी पुउएमिदिखपुरळल एहि एप्प ससे तत्व तुहा पडिमा परिपादि वहलस ललदिसा अर्ज ( ? ) ॥
Correct original form :
जं जं पुलएमि दिसं पुरओ लिहिअ व्व दीससे तत्तो / तत्थ ।
तुह पडिमा परिवार्डि वहइ व्व सअलं दिसाअक्कं ॥
(यां यां प्रलोकयामि दिशं पुस्तो लिखित इव दृश्यसे ततः / तत्र । तब प्रतिमा परिपार्टी वहतीव सकलं दिशा-चक्रम् ॥ )
Pa...saga ana vasattarā atilo ( ? )... p. 115
Note: This gatha, too, is extremely corrupt; but the significant expression 'nahabhúsana' (addressed by the Khanditä näyika with a double entendre- one applicable to aditya- the sun (who is an ornament of the sky) and the other to her faithless husband (who bears the nailmarks on his body)- leads us to identify the present verse with G. S. VII. 53 :
पच्चूसागअ रेजिअदेह पिआलोअ (पा. भे. तइलोअ) लोअणानंद । अण्णत्थ खविअ - सव्वरि णहभूसण दिणवइ णमो दे ॥
(प्रत्यूषागत सज्जित देह प्रियालोक (पा. भे. त्रैलोक्य) लोचनानन्द । अन्यत्र क्षपितशर्वरीक नभो-भूषण दिनपते नमस्ते ॥ )
Nirgrantha
Jari vahaja variaddan ( 2 ) ... p. 117
Note : This verse is extremely corrupt. It could, however, be restored with the help of two other equally corrupt versions found in the Singaraprakāśa:
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
