bold = Main text
Vol., Sect., Part, Chap., Par. grey = Comment text
1 I, Pref | for divine revelation in Sanskrit.~But besides those utterances
2 I, Pref | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, second edition,
3 I, Pref | vol. iii, p.331 seq. Muir, Sanskrit Texts, vol. v, p. 199 seq.
4 I, Pref | a translation of ancient Sanskrit or Zend or Chinese into
5 I, Pref | Boehtlingk, Roth, and others, Sanskrit lexicology is only just
6 I, Pref | the corresponding word in Sanskrit, the Aham or Ahankâra, was
7 I, Pref | with the Brahman, which in Sanskrit is both masculine and neuter,
8 I, Pref | Thus again when we read in Sanskrit, 'Know the Self by the self,'
9 I, Pref | selfs, but it would be bad Sanskrit to say to know himself,
10 I, Pref | close as possible to the Sanskrit original, and where I could
11 I, Pref | have often retained the Sanskrit word rather than use a misleading
12 I, Pref | hón]. In the same way the Sanskrit sat can easily be rendered
13 I, Pref | this Sat was derived in Sanskrit Sat-ya, meaning originally '
14 I, Pref | idiomatic. One could not say in Sanskrit tad âtmâ, it is the Self,
15 I, Translat | raisonnée which is intended for Sanskrit scholars only, on the same
16 I, Translat | who are unacquainted with Sanskrit to understand the thoughts
17 I, Translat | in Pali, the Northern in Sanskrit. Here the selection will,
18 I, Translat | and the Pâtimokkha.~2. Sanskrit Documents.~The Divyâvadâna
19 I, Translit | class. Thus linguals in Sanskrit are treated as nearest to
20 I, Translit | or otherwise. Thus t in Sanskrit is the lingual t. How that
21 I, Translit | the ordinary dental t in Sanskrit has a pronunciation of its
22 I, Intro, 0, 0, 1 | Upanishads were translated from Sanskrit into Persian by, or, it
23 I, Intro, 0, 0, 1 | once been translated from Sanskrit into Persian, at that time
24 I, Intro, 0, 0, 1 | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, second edition,
25 I, Intro, 0, 0, 1 | anticipate that the influence of Sanskrit literature will not be less
26 I, Intro, 0, 0, 1 | mother of our own, while Sanskrit, on the contrary, was spoken
27 I, Intro, 0, 0, 1 | which the translations of Sanskrit works by European scholars,
28 I, Intro, 0, 0, 1 | certain suspicion that our Sanskrit scholars do not understand
29 I, Intro, 0, 0, 1 | probably understood his Sanskrit about as well as we our
30 I, Intro, 0, 0, 1 | Persian syntax, and all the Sanskrit words which the Sultan himself
31 I, Intro, 0, 0, 1 | and philosophical works of Sanskrit literature, I have not been
32 I, Intro, 0, 0, 2 | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 319.~2. '
33 I, Intro, 0, 0, 2 | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p.320.]~last
34 I, Intro, 0, 0, 3 | thought of the Upanishads by Sanskrit scholars or by Oriental
35 I, Intro, 0, 0, 3 | had somewhat subsided, and Sanskrit scholars had recognised
36 I, Intro, 0, 0, 3 | importance.~My real love for Sanskrit literature was first kindled
37 I, Intro, 0, 0, 3 | possess my collations of the Sanskrit MSS. which had then just
38 I, Intro, 0, 0, 3 | Berlin, when continuing my Sanskrit studies at Paris under Burnouf,
39 I, Intro, 0, 0, 3 | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p.317.]~a Brâhmana,
40 I, Intro, 0, 0, 4 | provisionally only, received by Sanskrit scholars, older than 600
41 I, Intro, 0, 0, 4 | M.M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p.325.~3. Dr.
42 I, Intro, 0, 0, 4 | Gough's Papers on Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 193.~4. Weber,
43 I, Intro, 0, 0, 4 | 193.~4. Weber, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 155 note.~
44 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5 | Boehtlingk and Roth in their Sanskrit Dictionary, s.v. satvat,
45 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5 | more we study the nature of Sanskrit MSS., the more, I believe,
46 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5 | the textus receptus of any Sanskrit work, as prevalent in Bengal
47 I, Intro, 0, 0, 5 | Report of a Tour in search of Sanskrit MSS., made in Kásmir, Rajputana,
48 I, Intro, 0, 0, 6 | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 318; Colebrooke,
49 I, Intro, 0, 0, 6 | history and the genius of the Sanskrit language leave little doubt
50 I, Intro, 0, 0, 6 | M.'s History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 318.~3. See
51 I, Intro, 0, 0, 7 | and E. Haas, Catalogue of Sanskrit and Pali Books in the British
52 I, Intro, 0, 0, 8 | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 348. Most
53 I, Intro, 0, 0, 8 | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 325.]~best
54 I, Intro, 0, 0, 9 | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 177, 335.]~
55 I, Intro, 0, 0, 9 | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 336.]~He,
56 I, Intro, 0, 0, 9 | M., History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 235.~2. Not
57 I, Intro, 0, 0, 10 | A MS. in the Notices of Sanskrit MSS., vol. ii, p. 133, ascribed
58 I, Intro, 0, 0, 10 | 1. See Weber, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 50.]~The
59 I, 4, 0, 0, 4 | about 2 pages of verbatim Sanskrit omitted]~3. Balaki said: '
60 XV, Intro | before, that I know of few Sanskrit texts presenting more formidable
61 XV, Intro | the critical treatment of Sanskrit texts, and the text of the
62 XV, Intro | misapprehended the original Sanskrit, is this, that sat, [tò
63 XV, Intro | or 'this was Brahman.' In Sanskrit too we find, Brahma khalv
64 XV, 5 | slight acquaintance with Sanskrit literature and very little
65 XV, 7 | several accretions. The Sanskrit commentator himself declares
|