to the Vairi [’s]akha.  Mutilated or wrongly written, the first word occurs also in inscriptions Nos. 2, 6 and 9 as koto-, ke[t.][t.]iya, and ka ..., the second in No. 6 as Vora.  One of the families of this ga[n.]a, the Va[n.]iya kula is mentioned in No. 6, and perhaps in No. 4.  The name of a second, the Pra[’s]navaha[n.]aka, seems to have appeared in No. 19.  The last inscription mentions also another branch of the Ko[t.]iya ga[n.]a, the Majhima sakha, which, according to the Kalpasutra, 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-Udehikiya ga[n.]a, called the school of the Arya-Roha[n.]a in the Kalpasutra, to which belonged the Parihasaka kula and the Purnapatrika [’s]akha, as also the Chara[n.]a ga[n.]a with the Pritidharmika kula. Each of these names is, however, somewhat mutilated by one or more errata in writing. [Footnote:  Dr. Buehler’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 Kalpasutra leads still further however:  it proves on the one side that the Jainas of Mathura were [’S]vetambara, 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 Svetambara 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 Vardhamana, 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 [’S]vetambaras 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 three centuries distant from Vardhamana’s time, and that the sect, long before the first century of our era kept strict account of their internal affairs. [Footnote:  See Weber’s and Barth’s opinions quoted above in note I, p. 23.]