________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.orgAcharya Shri Kailashsagarsuri Gyanmandir
( 75 )
Cf. Dhammap., 149.
11. I have brought together these two stavzas, a half
verse from each of wbichi inakes up a whole stanza in l'Ali, 'This line; I am indeed of opinion, can be confidently restored : yanimani arallani alapuni ra sarade; none of the traces that remain contradict
this hypothesis. 6. I have no means to re-establish the first syllables of
this line; the result is that the interpretation of what remains visible, wi finni, remains uncertain. The last pâda of the two lines has fani distani as opposed to läni disvāna of the Pali. The 'readiog does not seem to be contestable, although the t affects a form which is purely conventional. It would seem rather derived from the dental 1. The construction is therefore less normal, but not unacceptable in this
form. c. Prahharhguni (written in the same character as prabha
guna of the next line) implies a base prabhangu, identical in meaning with prabhanga, which has given, in Pali and in ou: dialect, prabhariguna. The verse that follows confirms this form. Pichitani=vikshiptani.
17 ['imina putikaena aturena pabhaguna
nicaśuhavijinena jaradhamona s....
dha parama sodhi yokachemn anutara" O
.....................
[Foot-note: ' Fr. C x1v.]
4. This verse may be compared with stavza 321 of the
Theragātha, which, though not identical, is analogous in sense and quite similar in structure, and to which more precisely corresponds our line 20 : ajaram jiramāneda tappamānena nibbutim nimmissam paramam santin yozzakkhemam anuttaram. Certainly we have not in our manuscript the first person forni mimmissath ; but as the third letter wha is certain, as an n (perhaps we?) appears also certain immediately before, and as an i accompanied the preceding consonaut, wimadha or nimedha would appear probable; it is assured by line 20; it will be rendered
For Private And Personal
