91 (1)–117 (27)1817
Then the female lay follower Bojjhā … Sirimā … Padumā … Sutanā … Manujā … Uttarā … Muttā … Khemā … Somā1818 … Rucī … Princess Cundī … the female lay follower Bimbī … Princess Sumanā … [348] Queen Mallikā … the female lay follower Tissā … Soṇā the mother of Tissā … the mother of Soṇā … Kāṇā … the mother of Kāṇā … Uttarā Nandamātā1819 … Visākhā Migāramātā … the female lay follower Khujjuttarā … the female lay follower Sāmāvatī … Suppavāsā the Koliyan daughter … the female lay follower Suppiyā … the housewife Nakulamātā…
1816 Ee does not number this chapter or the suttas it contains. Ce and Be number it X (or 10), continuing the consecutive numbering scheme used for the earlier vaggas in this nipāta. Ce numbers the suttas 1–27, Be 91–116. The difference in number stems from the addition of one laywoman mentioned in Ce and Ee (which I follow) but missing in Be.
1817 The editions differ in the extent to which they attach epithets to the personal names of the women. Ce has the greatest number; some may be late additions. Ee attaches upāsikā only to Khujjuttarā, Sāmāvatī, and Suppiyā; Be attaches it to these three and to Bojjhā. The designations rājakumārī (princess) and devī (queen) are found only in Ce. I have been irregular in my treatment of the word mātā pertaining to a woman’s identity. When it follows another name occurring in the genitive, I translate it “mother.” When it is the last part of a compound, as in Migāramātā, I leave it untranslated, assuming it was probably part of the woman’s actual name-in-use and not merely a way of indicating her identity. Mp says that all these suttas should be elaborated by way of the undertaking of the uposatha observance complete with the eight factors. Thus presumably they should all be modeled on 8:42. At 8:43 and 8:45 we already find this for Visākhā and Bojjhā respectively.
1818 This name is omitted in Be, which accordingly has only twenty-six suttas in this chapter.
1819 She is probably identical with Veḷukaṇṭakī Nandamātā. See p. 1610, note 141.