________________
62
KLAUS BRUHN
but also to the way of spreading knowledge of the particular (specific facts and aspects). Substantial observations of this type which are found in monograph studies are not always considered in general surveys. By contrast, sectional studies try to cover various aspects simultaneously and they can therefore serve as channels through which particularized observations reach a greater number of non-specialists. They present an attempt at mediation between specialized and general studies. The principle of completeness is finally linked with a shift of emphasis from systematicity towards cumulative strategies of interpretation (overlapping sections, variety of approaches etc.).
We have seen that sectional studies are linked with the task of isolating separate units on the sectional and subsectional levels. As this can normally not be done in abstracto, research will automatically follow different courses. The most general approach will produce a mere scheme ("Bearbeitungsschema") in the sense of a bare skeleton. However, it is also possible to supply a more detailed overview in the form of brief accounts of the different sections or subsections (Bruhn 1987a and 1987b).
As far as research proper is concerned we have to distinguish be. tween limited studies (brief accounts, specimen research) and the actual implementation of the scheme. For the entire concept of sectional studies and the ensuing oscillation between overview and detail we can use the expression "preliminary research".
Each section requires its own methodic machinery, and this applies to some extent even to the subsections. In this connection, the premise is that, by their very nature, the sections will stimulate the emergence of an adequate "bunch" of methodic strategies. These strategies are taken from contemporary research in different fields, innovative being merely the processes of selection and adaptation. The result can be described as an extension of the existing methodic canon. The strategies will be presented in an implicit manner (by executing research within the sections) or in a more explicit form (observations as given mainly in §§ 3 and 7).
Each sectional study can be called a paradigm for the sectional approach. It explains the principle as such and it can be transferred mutatis mutandis to related sections. Our three previous studies (1983-87) may in fact be mentioned in this context. However, the title of the 1983 publication ("Repetition in Jaina narrative literature") is
Soteriology in Early Jainism
slightly misleading from the point of view of the sectional concept. "Repetition" is not a coherent phenomenon, and many forms of repetition are products of scholasticism. For both practical and more intrinsic reasons, it would therefore be preferable to assign the topics of that paper in the first place to a comprehensive section called "Jaina scholasticism". This would overlap with other sections (narrative literature etc.) but here and elsewhere it seems advisable to study scholastic developments up to a certain point in the general context of scholasticism (and not in the context of specific - more or less scholastic subjects).
§ 2 Soteriology
A study of the infrastructure of Jaina soteriology (the section under discussion) poses a number of problems which will be discussed one by one.
63
(a) In Jainism, the term "soteriology" can be used without hesitation in the context of a conventional enumeration of subjects. One may distinguish between monastic (and laic) discipline, general ethics (five great vows etc.) and soteriology. The subject of ritual could be added as a fourth item in this field ("practical dogmatics"). However, in the case of a more analytic approach we would suggest the following trichotomy: (i) monastic and laic discipline, including part of generel ethics ("deontic judgements": prohibitions and injunctions); (ii) psychological ethics and ethico-soteriology (basically "aretaic judgements" or statements on virtues and vices); (iii) eschatology or ontological soteriology (the entire journey of the soul with the exception of the present existence). It may prove possible to label items (ii) and (iii) without additions as "soteriology" and "eschatology" respectively. We must, however, admit that this analytic scheme can only be used for early Jainism. It does not provide an adequate framework for the annihilation theories (directed against karma, kaṣāyas etc.) which start with the Bhagavati period (§ 3f below). The necessity of subdividing the soteriological field has been noticed by K. K. Dixit (1972, p. 13; 1978, p. 32). For deontic and aretaic judgements, the reader is referred to Frankena 1963, p. 1o.