________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.orgAcharya Shri Kailashsagarsuri Gyanmandir
( 46 ) Cf. Sultau., 1.
1. This last letter cannot be a t, and has rather the
appearance of an r, although the foot of the vertical live has vot the hook which generally accompanies it. If such then is the true reading, it only remains to admit that the r is for the cerebral !, visara for
visata=visrta. 6. The reading sarlha appears with certainty to
result from joining the two fragments. The striking similarity which these characters bave with (o)sadhehi of the PAli and, at the same time, the difference which renders the interpretation thereof so doubtful, are misleading. If at least we had nathai, we could believe in a hardening of dh into th, and in a spelling i=hi. It is useless to risk conjectures for which we possess only too narrow a basis.
44 yo mana udavahi" a['seșa bisa]..[?mahoho 30 bhikhu jahati] orapara urako jinaviva tvaya
Lpurana
(Foot-notes:
"Fr. B x. * Fr. v.]
Cf. Suttan., 4.
4. Morris (Jouru. P. T. 8., 1887, p. 136) was of opinion
that it should be read udabbahi in Påli, and derived the word from sd-vrh“ to extirpate." Our text can only favour this conjecture. It seems that the mistake in PAli rests upon a false interpretation of a more corrupt Pårkrit which must have ordinarily weakened dk into h.
6. Mahnho=mahogho, just as we have whatino in l. 37. I
would have some dificulty to discern the first two characters without the comparison with the Sutta. nipāta.
For Private And Personal
