________________
85
In any case they are not in the MSS of the Third South-Indian recension:
18
See also Gātha 76 in which āsaṁs ia in K, W, B, Y, P and S beside asaghia in Bh (cf. as adhia in R).
19 The present MS must have been compared with another MS, as appears from the many marginal additions. Occasionally mistakes are corrected: 419 voras avādin (cf. T), v vorasaṁghādin, 461 ramiavva (cf. Y), ramiavvaa. Other instances concern variants. In a number of cases these variants seem to have been drawn from a MS belonging to the K-version; 'e.g. 214 maída, v2 suņha (K), 289 tti paripucch°, tti ia pucch (K); in other cases from a MS like.y: 46 suņņai, v suvvai (v, B), 369 phaggucchana, 2 phaggucchava (Y, T). In some cases the source is not known: 474 nakkhāņa kāmiņio surae rehāith vi gananti.
20
The outward appearance of the text in Bh and R is practically the same. The MSS differ, however, on the following points. In R two Gathās of Bh are missing: 282 and 551. Bh 140 is found in R as 109. In R, Bh 382 occurs twice, namely as 14 and as 386. Furthermore, in R, Bh 353 and 354 have accidentally come to be combined into one Gatha: 358. In Bh the following Gātrās of R are missing: 2, 101, 144, 304, 315, 414, 416, 548 and 569 (569 in R in the margin). Note that several of these Gathas, namely 101, 144, 304, 416 and 569, are not found in Ma, Ti and Tp either.
21
It is not clear how much importance should be attached to the addition of Ed. 552 (562 W, Y, 563 1, missing in Bh, Ma, Ti and Tp) in R in the margin after (?) 568 (Ed. 550: 560 V, Y, 561 , 562 Bh, 446 Ma, Ti, Tp). It is, for instance, not clear if the addition is to be taken as a correction for an initial oversight on the part of the scribe, or whether We have to do with a marginal addition made by a later reader of the MS. Note that the Gathā in question, like R 568, mentions a buffalo (mahisa).
