________________
Shri Mahavir Jain Aradhana Kendra
www.kobatirth.orgAcharya Shri Kailashsagarsuri Gyanmandir
13 apramatu pramateşu sutexu bahojagaru
ivalasa" va blaclrašu hitva yati sumedlasu
Cf. Dhammap., 29.
n. This is, if I am not mistaken, the only instance, in
our fragments, of the substitution of v for b. It is true that in verses A+, 4 fg., we fiud / completely suppressed between two vowels : supraulhu, etc. In the same way, the compound šv, reduced here into é, is in several cases preserved in the form of sp : višpa, B, 26 ; rispasa, B, 25.
16 pramada apramadena yada nudati panitu
prañaprasada aruyu“ asoka sqino jana pravatatho va bhumatha dhiru bala avechiti
Cf. Dlammap., 28.
11. The y is sometimes more square, sometimes more
angular at the top ; materially, it will be perfectly lawful to read aruan; but it is allowable also to read urnya, and this is the only transcription which appears to me to give an intelligible form. We want, in fact, an equivalent for īruhya. Yu=hya is peculiar. I must say that it is specially the " that astonishes me. As regards the consonant, there are several instances which reveal a particular afinity, in the language of this manuscript, between hand j, which is renvily written y (cf. sabrayana (Ao fragment) etc.] ; in B, 34. we find dlaj(A)amana for luhyamūna, and in the St. Petersburg fragments I have found y(i)sumano=himisumānah, and parrakita =prarrajila. We may also compare these instances with schit, Cro, $, schö C'", 9, etc. (sreyah), where y is represented by h. As for the vocalisation in u, if I cannot explain it, I am at least in a position to cite another instance of it, altogether similar : abhirnya =ubhibhiya (W, 30, 31). In both cases, the vowel in the precerling syllable is !!. It seems then that it may be this nearless, which, by somewhat of an cilicet of vowel barmony, may have colourei! our it.
For Private And Personal
