________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.orgAcharya Shri Kailashsagarsuri Gyanmandir
( 119
)
many Prakrit words of this text through some intermediate Pāli forms.
Ga 30-Jl. Senart takes ya to stand for gaidha (gūthū), thereby interpreting it to imply that the group or chapter contains 30 stanzas. But unfortunately he has not made use of this numberiny to systematise the verses according to chapters as has been attempted in the present edition. This has been the cause of a very serious drawback in his otherwise valuable work, and we shall see more of it when we deal with the next group of verses.
[2. Apramadavaga]
The group of verses under this head, all deal with "apra.. mada', and this is the justification of the title we have chosen for it. The group consists of 25 stanzas, as may be judged from the number mentioned in the colophon "ga 25” (I. A!,8). In the Pāli recension the Appamāıla' group has 12 verses, and forms the second chapter of the book. The Idānavarga verses grouped :inder 'Apramāda' (wrongly rendered "" Purity” by Rockhill) number $5 and form the 4th chapter. These three recensions of the Dhammapada have many Appamāda' verses in common. The title in the Chinese Fa-Kheu-pi-24 (see sec. X., Beal's translation) is the same as in Pāli, but the chapter has hardly any verse in common with the latter. The Pāli 'Appamāda verses can not be traced in any other canonical text, but there are some in the Prakrit text and the Udānavarga which can be traced. It will be noticed how M. Senart has laboured under a disadvantage in trying to number serially whole verses on a leaf, regardless of their central theme and of the number indicated in the colophon marking the close of a chapter..
.) utithe' na pramajea dhamu sucarita cari dhamacari suhu suati asmi loki parası yi O
(49, 6)
Cf. Dhammap., 1687 (Lokavagga, v. 2) :Uttițjhe nappamajjeyya dhammau sncaritam care Dhanımacāri snkhari seti asnim loke paramhi ca.
I The roading in M. Seurrt's edition is atitha, but he says that the omission of the final e may be due to the negligence of the scribe and not to any dialoctic peculiarity.
For Private And Personal
