Bibliography Of Studies Connected With Avasyaka Commentaries

SR No.: 269496
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Klaus Bruhn
Publisher: Klaus Bruhn
Total Pages: 18
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 2 MB

Page 3

To the two paragraphs of our <brief outline> we add two supplementary notes. (i) A specific problem is raised by the basic parallelism between Sūtra and commentaries, as well as between different commentaries. Avaśyaka Sutra, Avaśyaka Niryukti, Avaśyaka Mülabháşya, Višesăvasyaka Bhāşya, Avaśyaka Cūrņi, and Avaśyaka Țikā are parallel (quasi-parallel, supplementary) compositions. External parallels (canon etc.) can be added. This situation produces simple questions about relationships which concern the works in toto and which require more than generalizing answers. So far this matter has been ignored, unconsciously rather than deliberately, the reason being the lack of palpable content deviations within the Av.-literature. Obviously it has not been thought necessary to describe (for example) in a systematic manner which parts of the Av. Sutra have been treated in the Av. Niryukti and in which way they have been treated (but see Übersicht 1", fn.** and BALBIR 1993a: 83). We therefore need synopses and, to some extent, minute comparisons. There are also points of more than ordinary importance. It would for example be worthwhile to study the attitude of Jinabhadra to the niksepa technique, which was part and parcel of his basic text, the Av. Niryukti. The archaic niksepa technique had already been discarded in Umásvāti's Tattvårthādhigama Sutra, and Umásváti's life-time is placed in the fourth century, i.e. about. Two centuries before Jinabhadra. There is furthermore (ü) an extensive literature, Svetāmbara and Digambara, which lies outside the exegetical sequence (Av. Sūtra plus Av.-commentaries) and for which we can use the term "Avasyaka orbit" (BALBIR 1993a: 90-91). "Av.-literature" is thus Av. Sūtra, plus Av.-commentaries, plus Av.-orbit. See for the orbit Übersichr: 2-6 on "Āv.2" and "Āv.). LEUMANN defines Av.? (Svetambara) and Av.' (Digambara) in terms of thematic structures rather than in terms of well-defined literary works. In his description, Av. is fourfold (I-IV), while Av.' is threefold (Kriyakalapa: A-C) and fivefold (Sravakapratikramana: I-V). Refer for Av.? or "Şadāvaśyakasutra" also to BALBIR 1993a: 33-34. N. BALBIR has given an extensive survey of the Av.-literature on pp.33-91 of her Av. monograph (1993a). The survey includes a conspectus of the Av. Niryukti (pp. 63-75). The relevant paragraphs of the English Summary (pp.474-78) can also be consulted. Naturally, scholars have tried until recently to grasp the exegetical literature in its entirety. The attempts to describe the structure of the exegetical literature in toto started with LEUMANN who presented in 1892 an advanced but complicated Denkmodell of the ex. literature as part of his study in the Daśavaikålika-literature (591-92). Later on, H. JACOBI tried to describe the situation in his own words and with special reference to the narrative material within the exegetical literature. However, he finished with a note of resignation, quoted at the head of this article (1932: vii), and added a reference to LEUMANN. Since then several scholars have tried to reduce the exegetical literature to a basic model, but there has not been and probably never will be a proper break-through (BRUHN 1996: 11-12). We should therefore mention that we understand our optimistic second motto (LEUMANN 1885: 135) in a very general sense and not with respect to a future Denkmodell.
$ 1.2 Ernst LEUMANN's Übersicht So far we have referred only once to LEUMANN'S Übersicht, by now an almost legendary work. Far from being an "Übersicht" in the usual acceptance of the tenn, the book is a loosely connected aggregate of highly technical studies. Printed before the end of the nineteenth century, when there were no more than five or six Jainologists in Europe, it is in a strange way directed to a hypothetical reader who is already familiar with the main facts. In particular, there is no basic information about the exegetical genders (Niryukti.s etc.); LEUMANN probably
- 121 -