________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
39
41
www.kobatirth.orgAcharya Shri Kailashsagarsuri Gyanmandir
( 83 )
simplest correction would be to admit that the copyist has written a for i, the two characters differing only in the elongation, on the right of the vertical stroke, of the extremity of the lower book; cari i would be = cari (for carino) ca. In sagata the form of the g will be noticed;
b. Satrasi can only correspond exactly to sabbada if we admit a double irregularity, a Magadhism and the substitution of for é, so as to get a form sarvašo, To my mind it is much more probable that the scribe is mistaken and has read sarrasi for sanradhi (sabbadhi in Pâli), and dh differing in this manuscript only in the direction of the lower hook.
....
[suhasavasa ñatihi va samakamo
dh]['ira hi prañai] bhayeya panito dhorekasila
[vatamata aria
@
[Foot-notes: Fr. C xxxvI. Fr. C xxxv.]
40 ['tadisa sapurușa sumedha bhay... [nachatra
[patha va cadrimuo ra]dhe arovacamasa parikica uvahanad
[Foot-notes: Fr. C xx. * Fr. C xxxv.]
[jabati kamana tada sa majati] ['s.h. sarva ca suhu] ichia sarvakama paricai O
[Fool-notes: Fr. C xx.
• Fr. C xxxv.]
Cf. Dhammap., 207, 208.
a. We see that in these three lines the verses overlap one another. Inspite of the punctuation at the end of 1. 38, the first two pâdas of 1. 39 of this manuscript belong, like verse 207 of the Dhammapada, to the preceding stanza, which is thus made up of six padas. The metrical difference between the commencement of the line and the following does not leave any doubt in this respect. The comparison with Dhammap.,
For Private And Personal
