________________
work. Leaving aside the fact that they were none in any case, Gośāla is here obviously more than a renegade disciple of Mahavira, and the conjecture already uttered before that the relationship of both has been given a biased representation in Viyahapannatti 15, gets confirmed. Other peculiarities, such as wavering in the judging of the riddhi (9 and 45), and the error concerning the agandhana (45), the repeated use of the same motto in 26 and 32, the transforation of current names, the Rși Ketaliputta besides Tetaliputta, may have been found less striking. They doubtlessly must be laid at the author's door, wbile frequently the diffcctive tradition is to be blamed. The apportioning of the findings to author or tradition cannot always be effected without doubt. The mutilation of Vedic names cannot be thought to have been perpetrated by a person who proves his Sanskrit in Sandhi forms like, among others, ego' saddheyam 10, 2; purāriyam 19, line 1; atthi nn esa 20, line 15; vattey a'. 24, 11. 16, in purā jāņāmi 21, line 1, in vahni 9, 24; durbuddhi 41, 6 and in the reference to the animal iable. Concerning those names, it however be objected that Asila and Divāyaṇa, which strongly differ from Asita and Dvaipāyana, are also found in other Jaina texts. On no account howeveer can we make the author responsible for those omissions which are to be stated in the beginning of 3 and at the end of 10. For these lacunae and various kinds of obvious disorder (cp. 10. 12. 17. 18. 22. 33. 36, 40), the tradition, or rather its contrary, is just as responsible a; for the incorrect or unsatisfactory shape of words. Opposite it, the editor often had to resort to conjectures of which the joint sigla HD render account. The right thing can scarcely be expected to have been hit upon in all cases; certain things resisted even conjecture. The translation of the whole has been reserved for the future.
For the edition of the text, after all, only two expedients were available. First the above-mentioned printed text, which, for (he matter of that is not very accurate. Its unnamed editor too has made conjectures (which partially were useful), by placing words or syllables into parentheses, sometimes also into square brackets. The former have been replaced by angular brackets in our foot-potes. The desire to be able to examine the MS. itself, was understandable. If it was true that it was with Acārya-mabārāja Anandasāgara Sūri, a request addressed to him has in any case not found a response. In a way so much the worthier of acknowledgement, and thanks to the mediation of my respected friend Muni Jayantavijaya, the Vijaya. dharma-Lakşmi-Jnāna-Mandira, Belaganj, Agra, sent me an undated, rather modern MS. (H), comparing which was not without value, though its wording does not essentially deviate from the print This MS., and in some cases also the print, writes about a dozen times (espeically in the second half of the text) initial p for b (pahue 14, line 9, palavam 22, 7, pahave 28, 3), once medial duppala for dubbala (38, 28). This points to a
p. 501
