Abstract

Passing the Gāhā in review we may note that in composition (i.e., frequent patchwork) and vocabulary it could very well be a part of the Āyāranga, as Schubring suggested — an idea as ingenious as it is probably difficult to prove. Also, if Gāhā originally was the title of Āyār 2, 16, it is strange for a dozen tri $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$$ $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}$$ ubh stanzas to be thus called, for if the end leaves were exchanged, the text would hardly be separated from the title (colophon).I therefore raised the question if Gāhā might mean ‘song praising men.’ N 141ab could support this, though the text is in prose. If, however, the stanzas of Āyār 2, 16 were the 16th lecture of Sūy 1, the itle of Gāhā is only justifiable in view of its being given to all Sūy 1 lectures, as said in Utt 31, 13, but in that case the number 16 must be added, as in fact is done in N 141cd (gāhā-solasa-nāma $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{m}$$ ajjhaya $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$$ a $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{m}$$ ).This would be a canonical explanation, i.e., with the help of Samav 16 and Utt 31, 13.A post-canonical (Nijjutti) explanation would be to assume Gāhā to be short for Gāhā-solasaga, which would normally mean ‘(the lecture) of the 16 gāthās’, a title as strange for prose as it is for 12 tri $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s}$$ $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{t}$$ ubhs.Therefore, is gāhā not equivalent to Sa. gāthā or is Sūy l, 16 as we have it a substitute for a text lost and different from Āyār 2, 16? Or was the title of the prose Sūy 1, 16 lost and somehow substituted by the colophon of the Śrutaskandha? Is there a connection between this problem and the lacuna in the Sūyaga $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{d}$$ a-Nijjutti after stanza 22? At least this question I would tend to answer in the affirmative