________________
supplementation was justified since in 1.1,19 ff. too, the 2nd and 5th mahāvratas are missing for unknown reasons. The metrically wrong pādas 2c, and afterwards 3c as well as 4b and kammaņā instead of kummuņā do not make the impression of an old text.
(2) Among the mis-carried attempts at suicide of Teyaliputta, 10,1.12ff., the one standing in the 2nd place in Nāyādh. 1906, is missing. II has it in the correct place 10,1.14, in the following form (whose spelling mistakes are corrected here). Tetaliputteņam amaccenam
ņīluppala-gavala-guliya-ayasi-kusuma-ppagāse asi khura-dhāre khandhamsi nipātite, se vi ya se asi uccalei, ko me tam sudda-hissati?
Regarding the Vedha nīluppala etc. cp. Uvav. 33.II continues:
T.a. mahati-mahālayam rukkham duruhittā pāse kahamsi (kandharamsi?) nibaddhe, se vi yase pāse cchiņne ko me t. s.?
The happening, it is true, is told somewhat more completely than in the printed text, yet it is still defective, cp. Nāyādh. 1905-rukkham durūhati 2ttā pāsam rukkhe bandhati 2ttā appāņam muyati, tatth'avi ya se rajjū chinnā.
(3) In 16.1.4.5.7, we find after the verb gijjhai, the abbreviations ajjho (vavajjejjā), ajjhova (vajja) māņe, ajjho (vajjejjā). According to 24,1.7. they were to be expected to stand for ajjhovavaijati, but also correspond to Āyāra II 1, 5, 5.
(4) In 20, 1. 22, after esa jīva jīvati, and before etam tam jīvitam is added esa mae no jīvai. This addition does not make much sense between the two statements as to what life consists in.
(5) Again, in the wrong place, like I., namely in 21,1,3, between annāņa-mulakam khalu bho puvvam and na jānāmi, stands the following, which also belongs to 20,1.30.
di(da?)yāņavi...ņa(?) damsaņā iti Ukhalavāiņā arah(ay)ā isiņā buiyam. uddham pā(ya)-talā ahi kese (d.i. ahe keśaggamatthakā) esu āyā taya-pari (yante). esa made, etam tam. se jahā ņāmae adaddhesu biesu (a)nnā ankur uppatī bhavai, evām eva adaddhe sarīre annā sarīr’uppatti bhavai. tamhā tavasamjamebhi mūle sarīram (dahettā ņo puņo sarīr 'upatti bhavai).
W. Schubring, Isibhāsiyāim, Commentary 493