________________ 136 Introduction 128), pravartana (p. 50), mahayana (p. 358), yoaiso manasikura (p. 296), rachana (p. 192), vivarjana (p. 46), sravakayana (p. 358), hina (p. 384), etc. Similar irregularities are found in the case of inflexions:(1) Nominative case-trini (p. 23), dravyani (p. 405), namani (p. 120), balani? (p. 357), mauneyani (p. 150), visishtani (p. 45), sarvani (p. 54), etc. . (2) Instrumental case-atyayena. (p. 132), asaikshena (p. 23), upachayena (p. 374), kramena (p. 23), parivartina (p. 412), pratyayena (p. 412), margena(r) (p. 57), samgrahena (p. 8), etc. *(3) Genitive case-indriyanam (pp. 6, 34, etc.), karya nam (p. 38), Kauravanam (p. 91), pramukhanam (p. 86), murtanam (p. 15), yoginam (p. 20), shannam (p. 213), etc. It can be seen from these examples that there is a tendency to cerebralise the na when it is in the proximity of ra. This tendency can be fully observed in combinations like anayor nasti (p. 344), adibhir namabhih (p. 38), chatvaro nikayah (p. 288), chittayor anyatarat (p. 46), trayor aniyamah (p. 40), punar ete (p. 40), visuddhir anasravaih (p. 49), etc., and compounds like chanura-narayana (p. 389), dushta-nigraha (p. 154), dharmanirvachana (p. 44), vaira-siryatana (p. 154), svara-nirghosha (p. 189), etc. It is not possible to decide whether these irregularities are to be attributed to the Dipakara or to the scribe of our MS. Judging by the chatse and cultured language of our text and the knowledge of the Sanskrit grammar it exhibits in its discussions on the formation of several terms, 8 it seems unlikely that the Dipakara would commit such inconsistent violations of the rules of grammar. These irregularities appear to be the result of a faulty MS. tradition, possibly due to the scribes or scribes following the dialectal peculiarities of their native land. 1 Also balani (p. 358). 2 Also margena (pp. 58, 59). 3 Vide Adv. pp. 3, 111, 273-4.
