−−−−¦⏑−−−¦
“Ye me pubbe viyākaṁsu, BJT: vyākaṁsu. icc-āyasmā Hemako,

−−⏑⏑⏑¦⏑−⏑−¦¦−−−⏑¦⏑−⏑− Anuṭṭhubha
‘iccāsi iti bhavissati’, We must take the resolution as being at the 4th here. Norman in his note to this verse is incorrect to state that the opening ⏓−⏑− is unusual in Siloka even lines in the canon, it is only in the post-canonical form of the Siloka that the opening is avoided under the influence of classical Sanskrit norms; in Pārāyanavagga cf. 980d, 1005d, 1010b, 1032b, 1054b, 1067b, 1127d. ~ sabbaṁ taṁ itihītihaṁ,

−−−−¦⏑−⏑−¦¦−−−⏑¦⏑⏑⏑− Anuṭṭhubha
sabbaṁ taṁ takkavaḍḍhanaṁ ~ nāhaṁ tattha abhiramiṁ. If this is the second half of the pādayuga we would expect to find a reading abhīramiṁ to correct the metre. Otherwise it could be read as the first half of a pādayuga with the navipulā, but then the opening is unusual. This verse recurs at 1135, but there pāda f is omitted.

−⏑−−¦⏑−−−¦¦−−−−¦⏑−⏑−
Tvañ-ca me Dhammam-akkhāhi ~ taṇhānigghātanaṁ muni,

−⏑−−¦⏑−⏑−¦¦⏑−−−¦⏑−⏑− Anuṭṭhubha
yaṁ viditvā sato caraṁ, ~ tare loke visattikaṁ.”

⏑⏑−⏑⏑¦⏑⏑(⏑−−)−−¦¦⏑⏑−−¦⏑−⏑−
“Idha diṭṭhasutamutaviññātesu ~ piyarūpesu Hemaka, Thai places viññātesu in brackets, which shows that the editors understood that the line is hypermetrical, but to correct the metre we need to exclude -aviññāt- m.c. which then leaves the savipulā. BJT divides these lines differently, making the 2nd line start with -viññātesu, leaving Hemaka as hypermetrical, perhaps thinking that it is a recitor’s addition. So far as I am aware compounds across the pādayuga do not occur in the canon (although they are fairly common in late Pāḷi verse composition).

−⏑−⏑¦⏑−⏑−¦¦−−⏑⏑¦⏑−⏑− Anuṭṭhubha
chandarāgavinodanaṁ ~ nibbānapadam-accutaṁ.

−⏑−−¦⏑−⏑−¦¦−⏑−−¦⏑−⏑− Anuṭṭhubha
Etad-aññāya ye satā, ~ diṭṭhadhammābhinibbutā,

⏑⏑−−¦⏑−⏑−¦¦−−−−¦⏑−⏑− Anuṭṭhubha
upasantā ca te sadā, ~ tiṇṇā loke visattikan”-ti