（二）本行是交叉引用，所指之处确实担得起。本注作「虔信运动的低门槛竞争见第五篇第三章所引 Hardy 1983」；05/03:27 处作「南印阿尔瓦尔（毗湿奴系）与纳衍纳尔（湿婆系）虔信诗人运动约起于六七世纪，以泰米尔颂歌与巡礼争夺人群，不靠论辩」。「以颂歌与巡礼争夺人群，不靠论辩」即本注所谓「低门槛竞争」，两处相扣，交叉引用方向无误。Hardy 一书正以此为题：全书 Alvar 一一九六见（Alvars 五六七见）、temple 三七七见、Tamil 四九六见、hymn 六一见，通篇即论泰米尔语虔信诗与神庙、巡礼所构成的宗教形态。（三）另两环前已补齐：Bronkhorst《Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism》(2011) 有专章论婆罗门乡村化（见 02-那烂陀体制.md:43 的复核记录）；三链既全，本行由无从核转确。书中论及湿婆一侧时写道：「Another, more obvious and probably far more important, lacuna is Śaivism … But the available material (Purāṇas, Āgamas, hymns of the Nāyaṉārs, and so on) is far more extensive than what has been investigated for Kṛṣṇaism … Scholarship has not yet prepared the ground for a critical and reliable picture of the complex Śaivite situation which would allow for safe comparisons and reasonable theories.」通检亦相符：Alvar 一一九六见而 Nayanar 仅十一见、Saiva 仅六见。故 05/03:27 若要并举二系而只挂 Hardy 一书，湿婆一侧无据；宜或限定 Hardy 只担毗湿奴（阿尔瓦尔）一侧，或另取一部论纳衍纳尔的书（如 Peterson《Poems to Śiva》一类，所据材料未见）。此事动到该注的援引范围，且该行不在两面的分区之内，故不径改，记此备考。（五）该本 错字多（727 面中 692 面可检索），上引英文句已回看抽出的整段核对。
本注前半「法论对生命周期礼仪的收归与土地授予制的婆罗门乡村化，见第五篇第二章所引 Bronkhorst 2011、Sharma 1987」所指之处。该章 （书 41 行）挂 R. S. Sharma《Urban Decay in India (c. 300–c. 1000)》（New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1987），（书 43 行）挂 Bronkhorst《Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism》(2011) 论婆罗门教早期中世纪的乡村化与制度扩张（土地授予、法论、往世书、庙宇经济）
（二）本行是交叉引用，所指之处确实担得起。本注作「虔信运动的低门槛竞争见第五篇第三章所引 Hardy 1983」；05/03:27 处作「南印阿尔瓦尔（毗湿奴系）与纳衍纳尔（湿婆系）虔信诗人运动约起于六七世纪，以泰米尔颂歌与巡礼争夺人群，不靠论辩」。「以颂歌与巡礼争夺人群，不靠论辩」即本注所谓「低门槛竞争」，两处相扣，交叉引用方向无误。Hardy 一书正以此为题：全书 Alvar 一一九六见（Alvars 五六七见）、temple 三七七见、Tamil 四九六见、hymn 六一见，通篇即论泰米尔语虔信诗与神庙、巡礼所构成的宗教形态。（三）另两环前已补齐：Bronkhorst《Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism》(2011) 有专章论婆罗门乡村化（见 02-那烂陀体制.md:43 的复核记录）；三链既全，本行由无从核转确。书中论及湿婆一侧时写道：「Another, more obvious and probably far more important, lacuna is Śaivism … But the available material (Purāṇas, Āgamas, hymns of the Nāyaṉārs, and so on) is far more extensive than what has been investigated for Kṛṣṇaism … Scholarship has not yet prepared the ground for a critical and reliable picture of the complex Śaivite situation which would allow for safe comparisons and reasonable theories.」通检亦相符：Alvar 一一九六见而 Nayanar 仅十一见、Saiva 仅六见。故 05/03:27 若要并举二系而只挂 Hardy 一书，湿婆一侧无据；宜或限定 Hardy 只担毗湿奴（阿尔瓦尔）一侧，或另取一部论纳衍纳尔的书（如 Peterson《Poems to Śiva》一类，所据材料未见）。此事动到该注的援引范围，且该行不在两面的分区之内，故不径改，记此备考。（五）该本 错字多（727 面中 692 面可检索），上引英文句已回看抽出的整段核对。
Padmanabh S. Jaini《Collected Papers on Buddhist Studies》（Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2001）所收〈The Disappearance of Buddhism and the Survival of Jainism〉
书页
书内第 144 页书内第 145 页
核查结论
重印本 [0151] 书内，逐页回看：144 在家者无可辨认的身份标准；145 化身说与佛教著述的沉默；146 南印天衣派反例与天界菩萨说之提出；147 「It was this fact, we believe, that finally made the essential difference」；147—149 卡德里寺。脚注补重收本出处与各处坐标，并补 Jaini 本人的归因一句，免读者以为「疏于在家」即其结论。正文不动。
按
①在家身份无界：「there seems to have been no clearly defined set of criteria (vows, social codes, modes of worship, etc.) whereby these individuals could be identified as belonging to a separate and unique group within the larger society」；②改宗无感之由：佛陀被列为毗湿奴化身而佛教一侧「not a single extant text shows any attempt either to assimilate the popular Hindu deities into Buddhist mythology or to refute the notion of Buddha as avatāra」，「by their very silence Buddhist writers seemed to lend tacit support to the Hinduization of their founder」。
