अभिधर्मकोश एवं भाष्य (आचार्य वसुबन्धु - स्फुटार्था व्याख्या सहित सम्पूर्ण बौद्ध दर्शन महाकोश)

->तस्येहhasे. So the typesetter clearly has ैand knows how to use it. Why wouldशैलकम्NOT haveैonश? Wait, what if the text in Dwarikadas's edition actually printed शल्रकम्orशैलकम्? Wait, let's look at शल्रकम्: could it be शैलकम्? Wait, look at the diagonal line on ल. In some fonts, is ल्रused forल? No! Wait, look at line 10 again: चक्रवाडः शल्रकम्२ ॥ ४९ ॥ Wait, look at the footnote 2: २. शल्कः--का० । Wait, look at footnote 2:शthenलthenकः? Wait, between शandकः, there is लwith that same stroke! Wait, no, is itशल्रकः? Wait, why would it say शल्रकः--का०if the text isशल्रकम्? AH! The text has म्(neuter) and the footnote hasः(masculine)! Text:...कम्२ Footnote:२. ...कः