________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.orgAcharya Shri Kailashsagarsuri Gyanmandir
(71)
kay, thelayals) can, on the contiary, be justified by this tendency of nasalisation before the sibilant, of which PAli and the Prikrits offer more than ono trace. I should only like to recall an example here, riz., bhiinsana = bhísanit. Anyhow vur text has the future as against the present of the PAli. In the Pali verse I have introduced the certain corrction maroņuntari, long since urged by Childers.
4
ko nu h?"
..........["lite sati an.kar.? prachiti' pra). .......
(Foot-note: ' Fr. C IXXIII.)
Cf. Dhammap., 146.
a. The sheet, 1orn in this place, is not exactly readjusted
in the glass-case. This commencement is warranted by the fragment which contains a portion of what
follows. 7. If the reading is not conclusive, it is at least certain
that our text had a variant here. Pra, which begins the last pada, seems to indicate that the termination was alike in the two parts. In all probability, we should have here had an equivalent of andhakārena onaddhā. An(ah)akar fits well, and prachita = prakskipta equally ; only the termination ti is astonish. ing; it is also sure that we had something else than the termination kāre or kāram; resides the metre, the traces that exist below the line after the letter r demonstrate it. I have not arrived at any convincing restoration.
6
yam eva padhama rati gabhirasati manavo avi thi
1. The transcription in Sanskrit: yan era prathamām
rātriin gambhirasinptir māņarnh api alhi. , appears to suggest itself; it gives no component parts of a construction perinitting of a glimpse into the general #ense.
For Private And Personal
