Mutilated or wrongly written, the first word occurs also in inscriptions Nos. 2, 6 and 9 as _koto-, keṭṭiya_, and _ka_ ..., the second in No. 6 as _Vorâ_. One of the families of this _gaṇa_, the _Vâṇiya kula_ is mentioned in No. 6, and perhaps in No. 4. The name of a second, the _Praśnavàhaṇaka_, seems to have appeared in No. 19. The last inscription mentions also another branch of the Koṭiya gaṇa, the _Majhimâ sâkhâ_, which, according to the _Kalpasûtra,_ was founded by Priyagantha the second disciple of Susthita. Two still older schools which, according to tradition, sprang from the fourth disciple of the eighth patriarch, along with some of their divisions appear in inscriptions Nos. 20 and 10. These are the _Aryya-Udehikîya gaṇa_, called the school of the Ârya-Rohaṇa in the _Kalpasûtra_, to which belonged the _Parihâsaka kula_ and the _Pûrnapâtrikâ śâkhâ,_ as also the _Charâṇa gaṇa_ with the _Prîtidharmika kula._ Each of these names is, however, somewhat mutilated by one or more errata in writing. [Footnote: Dr. Bühler's long note (p. 48) on these inscriptions was afterwards expanded in the _Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes_ Bd. I, S. 165-180; Bd. II, S. 141-146. Bd. III, S. 233-240; and Bd. IV, S. 169-173. The argument of these papers is summarised in. Appendix. A, pp. 48 ff.—Ed.] The statements in the inscriptions about the teachers and their schools are of no small importance in themselves for the history of the Jainas. If, at the end of the first century A.D.(?) many separate schools of Jaina ascetics existed, a great age and lively activity, as well as great care as regards the traditions of the sect, may be inferred. The agreement of the inscriptions with the _Kalpasûtra_ leads still further however: it proves on the one side that the Jainas of Mathurâ were Śvetâmbara, and that the schism, which split the sect into two rival branches occurred long before the beginning of our era. On the other hand it proves that the tradition of the Svetâmbara really contains ancient historic elements, and by no means deserves to be looked upon with distrust. It is quite probable that, like all traditions, it is not altogether free from error. But it can no longer be declared to be the result of a later intentional misrepresentation, made in order to conceal the dependence of Jainism on Buddhism. It is no longer possible to dispute its authenticity with regard to those points which are confirmed by independent statements of other sects, and to assert, for example, that the Jaina account of the life of Vardhamâna, which agrees with the statements of the Buddists, proves nothing as regards the age of Jainism because in the late fixing of the canon of the Śvetâmbaras in the sixth century after Christ it may have been drawn from Buddhist works. Such an assertion which, under all circumstances, is a bold one, becomes entirely untenable when it is found that the tradition in question states correctly facts which lie not quite