^{page 416 note 1} Professor Simon has drawn my attention to the fact that Régamey, in his edition of the Bhadramāyākāra-vyākaraṅa (Warsaw, 1938), punctuates the phrase after thos pa. I find, however, that the Narthang edition, which Régamey used as his chief authority, has in this sūtra no punctuation in either place. Either the carver of the block has omitted it (the line in question is rather crowded), or more probably the tail of the śad has broken off, so that what remains looks like a tsheg. It would seem then that the editor has supplied the punctuation of the Pali editions through an oversight. The Derge edition (Cambridge) has the normal Tibetan punctuation.

^{page 419 note 1}

^{page 419 note 2} Przyluski, Le Concile de Rājagrha, pp. 18, 84, 128; Lamotte, Le Traité de la Grande Verlu de Sagesse i., p. 80.

^{page 419 note 3} Of the other examples given to me by Professor Henning, the Sogdian Dīrghanakha-sūira omits the particle, though here also the probability is that the translator took the phrase “at one time” with what follows; while the Uigur translators clearly took it in the same way (yimā bir ōdün, “again one time”). Professor Bailey, who was kind enough to read the first draft of this article, has given me a number of Khotanese versions. These for the most part read (with minor variants, mostly orthographical): tta tta muhų, jsa pyūṣṭä śiña beṭä (or śe stye) gyastānä gyastä, etc. No punctuation is marked in the manuscripts, and no certain conclusion can be reached as to how the Khotanese translators understood the phrasing of the Sanskrit. Curiously enough, a punctuation mark does appear in one manuscript after “heard” (P. 2958): tta tta ma jsa vā pyūṣṭä himye khu etc. There is, however, no mention of” at one time”, and the phrase translated is not evam mayā śrutam, but tad yathānuśrūyate, cf. JRAS., 1942, p. 18.

^{page 420 note 1} Introduction to Sāratthappakāsini, and other commentaries on the Nikāyas; also, in the same words, Dhammapāla, Introd. to Paramatthadīpanī, comm. on Udāna.

^{page 420 note 2} Madhuratthavilāsinī (Comm. on Bnddhavaṃsa), ed. I. B. Homer, PTS, 1946, p. 5.

^{page 420 note 3} Abhisamayālankārāloka, ed. V. Wogihara, Tokyo, 1932–5, p. 6 f.

^{page 421 note 1} Vedische u. Sanskrit Syntax, p. 9.

^{page 421 note 2} A Practical Grammar of the Pali Language, 3rd ed., p. 307.

^{page 421 note 1} Pāṅini ii. 3. 5. (dvitīyā) kālādhvanor atyantasaṃyoge; Kacc. 300, Mogg. ii. 3, Sadd. xxii. 581, kāladdhānam accantasaṃyoge. Buddhaghosa regularly explains ekaṃ samayaṃ, as accantasaṃyoga, which it clearly is not. Is this perhaps the source of Duroiselle's lapse? Buddhaghosa also quotes the more rational view of the ancients (e.g. Sāratthappakāsinī i. p. 12) that the accusative, instrumental, and locative in such expressions are merely” different modes of talking” (abhilāpa-matta-bhedo), and the sense in each instance is locative.

^{page 422 note 2} trayodaśyā adhikaraṅatve ‘pīpsitalvavivakṣayā, prāpyety adhyāhārād vā dvitīyā.

^{page 423 note 1} For the examples in this paragraph I am indebted to 0. H. de A. Wijesekera, Syntax of the Cases in the Pali Nikāyas, Thesis for the degree of Ph.D. in the University of London, 1936. (Copies in the library of the University of London and the library of the School of Oriental and African Studies.)

^{page 423 note 2} Majjh. i. 326; also Dīgha ii. 50, 115 ff., 131, iii. 6, 9, 12, etc.

^{page 423 note 3} Vinaya, Cullavagga xi.

^{page 423 note 4} Majjh. i. 124.

^{page 424 note 1} Āyāranga i. 1, Suyaqaḍa ii, beginning of prose chapters, Thāṅanga i. 1, Samavāyanga i. 1, Vttarajjh. (ed. Charpentier) i. 74, 128, 197; etc.

^{page 425 note 1} Przyluski, Le Coneile de Rājagfha, p. 347.

^{page 425 note 2} Ibid., pp. 70, 84, 210.

^{page 425 note 3} Ibid., p. 41.

^{page 426 note 1} Trenekner, JPTS., 1908, p. 128.

^{page 426 note 2} Syntax of the Infinite Verb-Forms of Pali, p. 50 ff.; Acta Orientalia xx. 1947, p. 81 ff.

^{page 426 note 3} A. Or. xx, p. 83.

^{page 426 note 4} Syntax, p. 53.