________________
p. 554
COMMENTARY
103
2.
The comparison of a person who submits to Karman with a scattered (dirṇa ex conj.) army would be clearer if the even padas would interchange places. While fearing suffering, man load themselves with it. The genitive Jassa instead of the ablative jamha is in order, if one reads the ablative bhtto for bhua, Confusion of cases also in gabbha-väsähi na sajjanti 25,1.2.6.17; on the other hand, savvadukkhāņa muccai 1,1.3;17,1 is permissible.
sa-kamma-sitte (3) stands in the sense of sikta-sva-karmaḥ. A metrically wrong Pada with biya occurs also 26,8. It seems that c in stanza 8, regarding which 15,20 f, be compared, is not in its place.
3.
Every contamination by gullt (leva) is to be avoided. The adjoining passage, according to which contaminated (levôvalitta) souls conquer the world is completely contrary to this sentence. After samsara sägaram, the concluding word anupariyattanti and the positive counterpart starting from the levovarata has been omitted, which starts again with vitikanta only.
It would be out of place to draw general conclusions from bhavidavva in H and D, since no further softened t is found in the text. pakkhidā = pakita 38, 23 only in H).
4.
The leading idea of the exposition st. 1 ff, is that some hide their true nature and are often wrongly judged. While therefore the motto, in verse and prose, seems to say "man clings to what he absorbs (ayaṇa) guiltily, he knows nothing beside (it)", one has to translate, on the basis of the stanzas (cp. especially st. 7), as follows: "man retains for himself what he (etc.) Another one, one does not know in the least." ...khalu ayam purise like Ayara 11, 2 etc.; Suy. codiljatt is again taken up in st.23 f. samsarammiti, a conjecture of the Indian editor, is probaly wrong, the prose demands ramsi.
St. 9 f. sapehäe like A. ar, sa(m) pehae. In st. 16 f. pasamsati and vigarahati according to exigencies of the metre, iti samkhae like Say, 1 2,2, 1.2,21 in the same metre, and in Ayara
5.
Regarding this chapter, as also regarding 19, nothing is to be remarked,
6.
The ambiguous tameva of the beginning is understood as tamasy eva by the Samgahani, and we shall have to follow it, though the concurrence of the e-nominatives in the text would make us expect tamamsi, matanga
