________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.orgAcharya Shri Kailashsagarsuri Gyanmandir
( 38 )
the two readings. Meanwhile, there cannot be AD doubt about the word, which is riérāsa, to be sure'; the second dental (i.e., ) is then upduly palatalised into & in this text; and tiis irregularity is explained beyond doubt, as in sasara (1l. 28, 29; 4,? +), by the nearness of another palatal s; there is thus but little appearance that this palatal s could have been supplanted in the precerling syllable, where it is justified by the etymology. I therefore incline to the reading sp, and introduce it in my transcription. This compound figures here only as representing a Sanskrit ér. It does not appear to me to be a sufficient reason to transcribe it as av and risk the disappearance of a dialectic peculiarity which likens itself to a well-known prculiarity of Zend. To be sure, aprate aravachaye=aprāpte āsavakşaye is what our manuscript read-a stereotyped verse-end which we have already met with (A', 6, 7) and which I reckon more genuine than the turn adopted by the Pali.
26
na bhikhu tavata bhoti yavata bhichati para“ vispa dharma samadai bn khu bhoti na tarati o
Cf. Dhammap., 266. a. There can be no hesitation in reading it as para; I
cannot explain the elongation of the stroke of the r below the small lower hook, which generally ends the letter in this manuscript. It is clear that tena of the PAli text should be substituted by lāvatā, as it does not give the necessary measure nor furnishes the usual correlative face to face with yāvatā.
27
yo tu haheti pavana" vatava brammayiyava' saghai carati loku' so tu bhikhu tud vucati o
Cf. Dhammap., 267.
a. I do not decide if the copyist has, in pavana, forgot
the stroke of the i = pāpāni, or if we have to do with a genitive, which the Buddhist style presents often after & transitive verb and in the function of the accusative (cf. Mahåvastu, passim).
For Private And Personal
