________________
128
COMMENTARY
uppati bhavai, evām eva adaddhe sarīre annā sarīruppatti bhavai. tamha tavasamjamebhi müle sariram [dahetta no puno sarır'u patti bhavai].
The biginning of this insertion (śloka ?) is so much the less intelligible as behind vi, 1 Akşara was not legible to the copyist. The carried through comparison, and what follows, shows, however, the attitude of the author, which we missed, p. 499, and, moreover, it is propably to be read accordingly in 20, 1. 30 f. 'daddhesu and biesu eyām ev' adoddhe sarire. In the conslusion, which I have supplemented according to the sense, there appears samjhamebhi, a highly archaic form, which, however, does not seem to go very well with the remaining impression of II. The position of the formula with the Rși (who also appears in the Samghani and is fictitious) makes me see in 20, I. 1-20 a kind of motto (p. 491), and, in 1.21 ff; its exposition.
(6) According to my expectation (p. 565), the stanza in 25, 1. 49 is given in full.
iriy'atthae ya samjam'atthae taha pāņa-vattiye chattham puna dhammacintae.
But then vedaņā veyāvacce tam c'eva ought not to have preceded in the first word, the metre demands vedana, and tam c'eva is only justified is a reference in 1.53. In this error, all the MSS. and the print agree, which means that the supplementation in II is interpolated, as in 4., and probably also in 1.
(1) For 31, 1. 18 too, I already noted an omission. In fact, we read in II:
pānêtiyaenam musāvāena( mn?) adinn'adanenam evam jāva miccha-sallenam kicca jiva asāyaṇam veyanam veyanti. pāņâtivāya-veramaņeņam java micchadamsaņa-salla-veramaneņam kicca jiva sātanam vetaņam vedenti jass'atthāe...
Accordingly, kicca has to be put down instead of kim tu in the printed text, all the more so since it is confirmed by kicca kiccā, 1.41. The vedana moreover can be aśātana "non-hurting" with the viramana only, Šatana with the offence only. Thus, II ought to have first sāyaṇam veyanam afterwards asāyanam v., but shares the second mistake with all the MSS. and the print. The paraphrase takes this into account.
An unknown admirer has prepared an epitome of the Isibhasiyain the so-called Rșibhāșitoddhāra (Pāțan 9, 29), likewise brought along by Alsdorf. It contains, on 3 leaves, almost exactly one third of the original text (147 out of 452 stanzas), at which occasion we notice, not without gratification, that, besides liking and incontestability, also intelligibility has been decisive for the selection, for the stanzas which were less lucid to us too, and the often so obscure motti are missing. The prose stands back on
