________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.orgAcharya Shri Kailashsagarsuri Gyanmandir
the scribe and that the original reading was uthanealusit, that is to say, athara halusmi. Compare note « to l. 6, where I have cited sigaruulasa= sirinkūrnkaty. I do not see how it can be read otherwise thair as whuhul; ret it must be admitted that the thu bas : somewhat unusual form, which, the cornext permitting, might be
read thi. 1. Toi=yo wyni. This leading is assuredly pre
fernble to yra of the Pali--little inatters youth, since moral force, and not physical activity, is only concerned—which must be due to a confusion of the redactors. There is another confusion lurking, I believe, in lasiyū or ūlusigurir (cf. l'ausböll's notes), neither of which can be well constrned with wetul. In a dialect where the spellingand perhaps the pronunciatione could be substituted for yit, als is the case with the language of our mamscript, the componnd alusienpelu=ālusiyau petu would save the metre; the Pali redactors have sought to restore it by an arbitrary expedient. Smantind can only be explained as=urmalima, the negative « being dropped after ille final o which precedes. It is, if I am not mistaken, the only instance of sandhi our fragments afford.
10 na tavata dhamadharo yavata baho bhaşat:
yo tu apa bi şutvana" dhamu kaena phaşair o il sa ho" dhamadharo bhoti yo dhamu na pramajati o
Cf. Dhani map., 259. 0.0 for is in this manuscript particularly common
after he cf. for instance, buhojano, Cm, 31 (30 ?); C (C?), 1.2, etc. But we have already pointed
out some parallel cases, after other consonants. 1. Bi=(upi is met with serthere, is in C,!. The spell
ing for ør is by far the most common in this manuscript.
For Private And Personal
