________________
KLAUS BRUHN
Soteriology in Early Jainism
65
(b) All the three items (i-iii) have been influenced to a greater or lesser extent by Jaina scholasticism (doctrinal formalism and structuralism). This applies a fortiori but not exclusively to the annihilation theories. Under the circumstances, it becomes necessary, in Jaina soteriology and elsewhere, to distinguish carefully between content and form, form in the sense of mere form (scholastic speculation, calculation etc.). The distinction applies to terms and concepts, to discourses and theories.
(c) The modern subdivision (trichotomical or such similar division) must be tied to a consideration of traditional topics and disciplines. As topics we mention kasāyas, lessās, payatthas, hell, heaven, Isipabbhara (abode of the liberated souls) etc. As disciplines we mention rules for monks and nuns (kalpa), rules for lay men and laywomen (Sravakacaras etc.), karma theory (Karmagranthas etc.), and jiva theory (Jivābhigama, Jivavicara etc.). An overview of the entire field (soteriology etc.) will only emerge in stages as the result of research and usage. Here we shall treat one single topic (kasayas), and this with special reference to one single text (Dasavaikalikasūtra).
the designation is mostly a later addition, we often have to quote Pos.a and Pos.b from different works. Cases where the same term is sometimes used as a designation of a chain and sometimes as a member-term in a more or less identical chain do not seem to exists. The expression "chain" includes conceptual pairs, triads, tetrads etc.
We distinguish between "basic term", "antonym", and "synonym". The expressions "antonym" and "synonym" may be used without regard for the word class (e.g."kuviya" - synonym of "Koha"). Since we always start with the vices, we can call the antonyms also the positiva". In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between "terms". "halfterms", and "non-terms" (95 below). There is furthermore a difference between content terms (e.g. "Koha") and function terms (e.g. degree-markers like "samjalaņa"). --- We shall now make a few obervations on the nature of the texts. (a) Chains of terms are subject to transformation but this process is sooner or later curbed by canonization (see Assmann 1987 on the canon issue). We can describe the situation in terms of different stages: noncanonized (no definite form, material still in an amorphous condition); hall-canonized (the chain is fixed, but there are minor fluctuations); fully canonized. In the last stage, the chain is in principle no longer subject to change. However, there may be school-differences (perhaps only in points of detail) and differences of treatment in different literary genres. It is also not unusual to combine several short chains in one long chain.
93 Our system of presentation and the character of the texts For the sake of uniformity we have quoted Jaina terms almost invariably in their Prakrit form. The titles of the texts are given in Sanskrit. In order to avoid inconveniences to the reader, we have quoted works published in the Jaina - Agama-Granthamala (JAGM) always according to that edition, using a tripartite formula: modern number of the section (unless there is some other arrangement in the JAGM); traditional subdivision (as presented by the JAGM); form of the passage (Mor P, i.e.metre or prose). Works not edited in the JAGM have been quoted on the basis of the editions mentioned in our bibliography (5 8). A systematic distinction between "work" and "text" was not necessary in the present study. In the majority of cases, we use "text" and not "work".
Most terms occur as members of chains. Here we distinguish between "Position a"(general term, designation of the chain) and "Position b" (individual members, member-terms). We always try to quote the earliest available evidence for the standard form. Since
(b) In connection with the observations in (a) it seems useful to er size the difference between ideas (cf. "history of ideas") and scholasticism. The latter is static ("la raison est statique", J. Benda), whereas ideas and world-views are subject to change. However, in the case of Jainism at least we must qualify this statement in two respects. On the one hand, Jaina rationalism and puritanism largely suppr the manifestation of new ideas and attitudes. On the other hand, Jaina scholasticism underwent transformations in its own right. To mention just one example: Texts mostly referring to the kasāyas in a general way (kasaya, cauk-kasāya, soļasa-kasaya), are later than texts which accentuate to a large extent the individual kasayas - provided we are in both cases concerned with the same type of strictly dogmatic literature. In such historical investigations it is of course necessary to be sensitive