Ludwig Alsdorfs Studies In Arya

Author(s): Klaus Bruhn
Publisher: Klaus Bruhn

Page 18

K. Bruhn
Ludwig Alsdorf's Studies in the Arya
As far as future work is concerned ("taches futures"), A.'s approach, as described in Ét, must be called conservative. He seems greatly interested in critical editions (pp. 25-30). He even calls the small number of modern editions of ancient Jaina texts a blessing in disguise (our expression), since the haste of the Buddhologists produced, so he feels, too many insufficient editions of Pali texts (p. 26). Here he views Jainology from the angle of Pali studies, quite understandably in so far as his studies in the Pali āryā are primarily a great step forward in the field of textual criticism. At the same time, he does not realize that the projects which he has advocated or initiated himself in the field of Jaina studies point in a different direction. We mention the continuation of LEUMANN's Avaśyaka studies (pp. 81-84), the exploration of the karman literature of the Digambara.s (pp. 88-94), and finally the study of dogmatic topics as demonstrated in ALSDORF Ut. All these projects show that a philosophy which views critical editions as the first and foremost task is too narrow in the case of the literature of early Jainism. Moreover, nothing could better demonstrate the limits of normal textual criticism than the corrupted (gestörten) text portions which ALSDORF studies in Uttaridhyayana and SCHUBRING in the Acärängasūtra (see also p. 27 etc. supra).
The example of the critical editions" already shows that the interpretation of an author must always consider the context of his complete oeuvre, which may contain conflicting elements. A few observations on this point may be added. ALSDORF was an admirer of E. LUDERS, but he also had great respect for 1. HACKERS appr was a staunch philologist, but in his day he was also one of the few German scholars who took a vivid interest in modern India; he was a true Sanskritist, but he started his career with Apabhramsa studies. A. repeatedly criticized Jaina scholasticism, but he often mentioned the Mudbidri manuscripts with great enthusiasm - he almost seemed proud that he was the first Western Jainologist who had realized their importance (Ét: 88-94). Moreover, he studied all the aryd.s of the Jaina canon, some of which presented extreme forms of scholasticism, while he devoted only one single article (Tithiparinna) to the early Jaina tradition. No doubt, ALSDORF wrote (transl. from the original French): "The more we realize with Schubring that Mahavira was one of the greatest and most original thinkers (SCHUBRING: "Denker") of ancient India, the more we are under an obligation to separate his person and his spiritual work from later falsifications" (Ét: 81; SCHUBRING Do: $ 21). However, this is not a demonstration of ALSDORF's false outlook, but rather a demonstration of the limited use of quotations (assuming that this passage is quoted). ALSDORF hardly intended to derogate all Jaina authorities after Mahāvīra. Without analyzing ALSDORF's text in great detail, we can say that, in the passage just quoted, he wanted primarily to pay
his respect to his guru SCHUBRING, and to Mahavira as one of the spiritual heroes of ancient India. Moreover, A. preferred an early dating for the canonical texts, but would hardly have connected substantial parts of the canon with Mahavira.
It is true, ALSDORF reflects an epoch and a school. He had, for example, never heard, so it seems at least, of S. LEVI's criticism of V.S. SUKTHANKAR's critical edition of the Adiparvan (LEVI Re 1929). By contrast, A. could not imagine that his teacher LODERS had not said the last word on many important issues. However, a study of A.'s limitations - like others he was influenced by the academic Zeitgeist - must be undertaken with great caution and sensitivity, and observations on his outlook must be accompanied by painstaking analyses of his actual findings.
Our "ALSDORF criticism" represents our own views. (We had known ALSDORF from 1950 to his death. However, they have resulted from discussions which we have had with Prof. C. CAILLAT, who suggested that we should include in the present paper some remarks on the historical conditions which determined ALSDORF's studies. Prof. CAILLAT also agreed to draft a few additional observations which will conclude the present section:
Ce qui frappait chez LUDWIG ALSDORF, ce n'était pas seulement l'érudition du savant, la clarté, la fermeté de ses connaissances et de son esprit, c'était aussi sa vaste culture générale, que vivifiaient une curiosité, une énergie sans bome.
L'intérêt qu'il avait toujours porté aux textes, quels qu'ils fussent, faisait de lui un philologue convaincu, soucieux de précision et de critique textuelle aussi bien que de cette "höhere Kritik" à laquelle il conviait d'autant plus résolument qu'il souhaitait tout faire connaître de l'Inde, lui qui avait très tôt vécu au contact direct des réalités indiennes, dans ce pays où il avait des amitiés nombreuses et précieuses, où il avait beaucoup observé.
Ardent au travail, l'homme allait de l'avant, poussant à la perfection les études auxquelles l'avaient magistralement préparé l'époque, le milieu intellectuel exceptionnellement brillant où son cuvre s'est déployée, si bien qu'il ne semble pas avoir pris le temps - ni avoir eu l'envie - de s'interroger sur l'impact que le développement des sciences sociales, en cette seconde moitié du XXe siècle, pourrait avoir sur les recherches relatives à l'Asie du sud et du sud-est.
Même dans les domaines où il était totalement à l'aise, celui de la linguistique, L. ALSDORF parait être resté un tenant des traditions établies, celle de la linguistique historique, de la grammaire normative, sans concessions à la linguistique synchronique, aux observations de ceux qui, ailleurs, attiraient l'attention sur le renouvellement, la transformation des systèmes grammati