Dear colleagues,

In verses of Middle Indic, Skt. me becomes mi (m.c.), cf. Pischel 1900 §§ 85, 415, 417, 418; BHSG §§ 20.13, 20.63. 

Schubring (Die Lehre der Jainas: nach den alten Quellen dargestellt, Berlin 1935: W. de Gruyter  = The Doctrine of the Jainas: Described after the Old Sources, Delhi 1962: Motilal Banarsidass, § 159 ) wrote tassa micchā me dukkaḍaṃ, and Caillat translated tassa micchā me dukkaḍaṃ as "my fault < has been due> to error" (Caillat Atonements in the Ancient Ritual of the Jaina Monks, Ahmedabad 1975, p. 133 = Les expiations dans le rituel ancien des religieux jaina, Paris 1965: Boccard, p. 155).

I think, therefore, that mi in the phrase micchā mi dukkaḍam is a variant of mĕ (< me), though probably not m.c.

Oberlies (Āvaśyaka-Studien, Glossar ausgewählter Wörter zu E. Leumanns ,,Die Āvaśyaka-Erzählungen“, Stuttgart 1993: F. Steiner, p. 134), however, takes it as “< mithyā asmi duṣkṛtam”, which is, to my opinion, implausible. See the attachment.

The phrases quoted in Oberlies’s glossary clearly demonstrates that the phrase was not interpreted as “mā + icchāmi”.

Cf. also Willem B. Bollée, Bhadrabāhu Bṛhat-kalpa-niryukti and Sanghadāsa Bṛhat-kalpa-bhāṣya: Romanized and Metrically Revised Version, Notes from Related Texts and a Selective Glossary, Stuttgart 1998: F. Steiner, vol. 3 (Beiträge zur Südasienforschung, Bd. 181.3), p. 188.

With best wishes,

Seishi Karashima

IRIAB, Soka University, Tokyo

https://sokauniversity.academia.edu/SeishiKarashima

http://iriab.soka.ac.jp/en/index.html