________________ CATUHSATAKA [183 V wrongly translates the first half of the karika writing : "Le vide n'est pas considere comme vide afin qu'on obtienne le nirvana.". It is evident from it that he followed the Tib. version of CS with the reading ston nid which is corrected by him himself as ston min as we have already discussed. Unfortunately he paid here no heed to the original Skt. It seems, V made his translation first basing it on the Tib. version of CS and afterwards corrected the original reading of that version according to that of MA and the Skt., but forgot to correct his French translation accordingly. Incidentally one thing may be pointed out as regards the Tib. translation of a Skt. word in the present karika. It will be noticed that the word sunyavat in the original is translated differently in the two Tib. versions. In MA we have ston Idan, while in our texts of CS and CSV we read ston ltar. Now, in meaning as in form the words ldan and ltar differ much from each other; ldan is a possessive particle or suffix, as for example, nor Idan 'possessing wealth,' i.e. 'wealthy,' and it actually corresponds to the Skt. suffix -vat in the same sense (i. e., possessive); while itar is a particle denoting likeness and translated into English by 'as,' 'like' corresponding to the Skt. suffix -vat in the sense of iva 'as.' These two senses of Skt. -vat are confounded here as elsewhere. The translator of MA should have used here ston ltar and not ston Idan as he has done. 183 CSV: 77 gratiara agarda qa'quegaifa i नैतदेवम्। नैव हि लौकिकं प्रवृत्त्यात्मकं परमार्थात् पूर्वमनुपदिश्य' शक्यं खभावशून्यतालक्षण तत्त्वमादर्शयितुमिति। तस्मात् तत्त्वावतारसोपान 1 Before paro HPS ad, syabhava.. Tib. ad : eka (cig). 3 HPS paramartham for Orthat. Tib. dan po hjig rten pahi don dam pas hjug pahi bdag Bid can-purvam (lit. prathamam) laukikena paramarthena pravsttyatmakam. * Tib. ne bar ma bstan pa ; HPS sadupadilya. * HPS om. it; Tib. deni phyir. ups Taksapatatlan pa ; HPS Badiona paramarthe paki don dam pas
