khalvayam, Mahâbrahman, mayâ dharmo 'bhisambuddhah sûkshmo nipunah. What follows, api ka me, Brahman, ime gâthe abhîkshnam pratibhâsatah, is but a slight, not very, felicitous modification of what we read in the Mahâvagga l.c.: api 'ssu bhagavantam imâ anakkhariyâ gâthâyo patibhamsu pubbe assutapubbâ.
Evidently from the same source are the verses in Trishtubh uttered by the god Brahma, Mahâvagga I, 5, 7, and those found in Lalita-vistara, p. 517, 3 seq. The former text has:
pâturahosi Magadhesu pubbe
dhammo asuddho samalehi kintito,
apâpur' etam amatassa dvâram
sunantu dhammam vimalenânubuddham.
The other runs thus:
On comparing the two texts we may infer that the Pâli version is purer, that vâdo babhûva is a corruption of pâdû babhûva or something like it, answering to a Sanskrit prâdur babhûva, but we cannot deny that the stanzas have the same origin.
In Mahâvagga I, 5, 12, the Lord addresses the god Brahma with the following Trishtubh :
apârutâ tesam amatassa dvârâ
ye sotavanto, pamuñkantu saddham.
- Obviously an unhappy attempt to Sanskritise a Pâli or Prâkrit patibhamsu; it ought to have been pratyabhâsishtâm.
- The text is corrupt; we have either to read vimalânubuddham, a Tatpurusha compound expressing the same as what the text exhibits, or vimalena buddham.
- Hi is meaningless, and only a clumsy device to satisfy the exigency of Sanskrit phonetical rules, which are not applicable to Prâkrit.
- Read srinvantu.
- Read dharmam vimalena. Vipula probably owes its origin to a dittography.
- I do not understand this pamuñkantu, i. e. let them cast off, loose or emit. Perhaps we have to read payuñgantu, let them practise.