Lost Fragments Of Spitzer Manuscript

Author(s): Eli Franco
Publisher: Eli Franco

Page 3

Eli Franco
Lost Fragments of the Spitzer Manuscript
nam' duhkhadars..... [2] nāt parisiş(ta). ...Il pi kin vijani. ///... h (3) yatha khalv api duhkham tathat" parisistäni tat prā(ptam) Cyathā parisistäni tatha duḥkham parisistäni ca na du(hkha).... Ill tatra yad ukta I (3) duhkham ....... (duh) khadarśanāt parisistadarśanam it[i] ....... (da)ranatatpräptam dushkha) II...duḥkhadarśanama..Il... [th ........il/
khalv api (du)hkhamduhkhato) (hi)sama gacchat)(i) na ca bhavati duh khadarsanät parisista...ll..parisistäni. III (3) ath(ā)n(u)tpalt(te)h ev(a) /// (bha) "vati duhhadarśanāt parisistadarśanam" na hi nirodhamärggalaksan"X" satkāyadrstis tasmad anupurvvabhisamaya...)"
Blatt 37? [= 370
[1] darśanākt parisista...) ... (duhkhada]rśanam tasmān na duḥkhadars(an)..... (du)hkhadaršanāt pari(sista)...III (i)ti tan nah (!)(1)./11... Khalv apy ekas.m.y."
[1] S x x äryya(r(ā)vakah idam duhkham iti Ill. [duḥkha sajmudayah ayam duhkhanirodhah iya(!) "duhkha[ni]rodha(gamana (m?) prat(i) x x d x ti(e)" na ca duhkhadarśanam parisiste" ayathabhūtam:" na hi parisi [2] sāni duhkham tasmäd annyathannyathabhi(samayah?) III ... (anupu)rvvabhi
[2] katvan tasmän na ... II (par)iśistānān darśanam III.
kabhisamayah yadi
MIYASAKA's transcription of this line ends here.
paricistani) corrected to parisista).
20 The sign / in the middle of the line is used by SPITZER, I assume, to point out gaps in the reconstructed leaf where the remaining fragments did not fit together. I also suspect that double dandas, as used here before pi kin, bave exactly the same function, but I respected the number of dandas as it appears in SPITZER'S transcriptions. I have also reproduced faithfully the number of dots in the transcription, but did not go so far as to distinguish between dots and what appear more like short hyphens. It should be noted that in all probability Spitzer did not use dots to refer to a number of missing or illegible aksaras, but in a rough way to cover a certain space. It should also be noted that the separation into words is mine and that I do not reproduce SPITZER's hyphens between words.
21 Although SPITZER has bracketed the number, this does not mean that it is his addition. The numbering of sections is typical of the Spitzer Manuscript
"MIYASAKA: duhkhabh)(isamayam) s(a)m(a)g(acchati. "a corrected to a?
Not transcribed by MIYASAKA.
MIYASAKA'S transcription of this line (p. 676, 2703) begins here. Note that he inserts his transcriptions of 28a3, 27b1 and 28b1-2 between that of 27a1-2 and 27a3.
"A negation should probably be conjectured for this sentence, perhaps na before bhavati.
r corrected to
» MIYASAKA reads:-Alamband instead of-alaksand. The correction of ton by SPITZER tends to support MIYASAKA's reading
16 A small fragment (1x3 cm) which probably belongs to this folio or to the next is preserved in frame 518:
a Sic.
2 This part is missing in MIYASAKA's transcription of this line (p. 676, 27al) which runs as follows: dushkhadarsanan taman na dukhadarsan...)..duykhadarfandt...... pari....... ...an na...... Relying on the transcription of this line by MIYASAKA, I concluded that the sign il/ in SPITZER's transcription does not always represent the final break-off point of a fragment; by today's conventions such a case would be represented by a number of corresponding to the estimated number of missing aksaras.
The scribe ofen adds a visarga to the negation at the end of the phrase iti dan na, probably for emphasis
13 Above the line SPITZER suggests: samaye 36 The nasalisation of a vowel befor a nasal is typical for the manuscript "a corrected to a
MIYASAKA's transcription of this line (p. 676, 272) begins here
Wilduhikha7)[da]rsanád abhisamay.XI/ MIYASAKA's transcription (p. 676,2861-2) begins here. "MIYASAKA: Iyam. "MIYASAKA: -gamini. * MIYASAKA: pratifpad (1) SPITZER on p. 28: W (dafte. + MIYASAKA: parifista... His transcription of this line ends bere. " Note that on p 28 SPITZER transcribesparifisteya yashabhūtam. *d corrected to a