________________
K. Bruhn
Ludwig Alsdorf's Studies in the Arya
methodological requirements, and they are not even the last step in Uttaradhyayana studies. A. proceeds in the case of the seven dogmatic chapters from the depiction of stratification to efforts at reconstruction, often reconstruction on the basis of parallel versions, and here a more demanding methodology is required. It is not unusual in L.V.L. to find sequences of three, four, or more verses in different versions, and it is this parallelism which makes it sometimes possible to reconstruct an Urform (p. 36) or to describe in outline the literary processes which produced the present form of the text. In a number of cases, A.'s statements are hypothetical, but on the whole we can say that there may exist alternative solutions to A.'s suggestions, but that there will hardly be alternatives to his general method.
The expression "reconstruction" implies that the present form of the texts is the result of transformations. But to say or to guess what happened by way of transformation in a particular case is one thing and to describe the general situation in a plausible manner is another matter. Such a description requires at any rate the consideration of "parallel versions" (BRUHN Se II: 37-39). Parallel versions may help to explain the ruptures and obscurities in a given text, but the very considerable number of parallel versions in Jaina literature primarily creates additional problems. Different versions of dogmatic topics and of stories may contain any number of differences, some easily explained, some inexplicable, and as a consequence one has to isolate, tentatively at least, specific lines of transformation in order to explain the diversification of the textual evidence in a general manner. Transformations are ubiquitous, and
ey can be studied on the basis of a single text or on the basis of several texts. Again parallel versions are numerous, they may show significant differences or not. In fact, we do not know which was first. Did the demand for parallel versions call for transformations, or was the dynamism of transformation at the root of the numerous parallel versions?
Transformations can be described in terms of addition, reduction, merger, splitting, rearrangement (change in the order of verses), substitution (replacing one verse by another verse), change of metre, change of language (Prakrit Sanskrit), prose
+ verse transformation, and verse prose transformation. But rather than forming the basis of a sound typology, this indicates only that the processes under review were mechanical rather than creative. From the point of view of content, we can detect in L.V.L. two, but only two, clear trends, both mutually related, viz. implantation of later doctrines on earlier ones and scholastic elaboration. The addition of supplementary text (prose or verses) to the metrical akhyana/samvada skeletons can perhaps be mentioned as a further trend, but it concerns only a limited corpus of L.V.L. material. With considerable interest, ALSDORF described in Ut the numerous cases of disturbed transmission due-to-transformation, but the material did not
encourage systematic theorizing. Some observations in Ut (pp. 16-17: contamination) were therefore A.'s only precise statement on transformation. Under the circumstances, the development of early, and also later, Jaina literature remains intransparent. We cannot distinguish between authors and compilers, and we do not know by which principles the responsible individuals were guided. It must be added that the transformations as discussed here on the basis of A's studies are basically connected with metrical material, but that they also affect the prose literature (Curi.s and Tiki.s) which forms a complement to the verse literature under discussion.
A. was interested in the wide field of early Buddhist and Jaina verse texts with their peculiar metrical and textual fluctuations, but he did not say which texts exactly met with his special interest. In Ut, he excluded from his search for parallels certain äryä texts of the L.V.L. corpus (mainly the Brhatkalpa-, Nišitha., and VyavahiraBhäsya.s), perhaps because he thought them to be later. However, an age difference would have been irrelevant, since any later text might have contained parallels to earlier texts. Actually, there are parallels in the three Bhäsya.s, but they are not very numerous. Be that as it may, the question remains, whether or not there is a detectable lower time limit for the textual transformations within the arya literature of L.V.L. - the lower the limit, the greater the scope for A.'s method, i.e. for the specific form of his philological approach as demonstrated in ALSDORF Ut.
Problems of a different type arise if we study L.V.L. and its prose pendant under the aspect of literary form.
This problem is connected with the structure and nomenclature of the exegetical part of L.V.L. The ancient authors and redactors distinguished between different exegetical categories, and there seemed to emerge a basic tetrad of four classes (Niryuktis and Bhisya.s in verse, Cummi.s and Tīkās in prose). Modem scholars therefore felt that all these classes had to be defined that their historical relationship had to be described, and that they had to be brought into a clear relation to the relevant body of müla texts (Dasavaikälikasūtra etc.). This problem (which may be called the genre problem") has given rise to a complicated model published by E. LEUMANN (Da: 591-92) and followed by related hypotheses proposed by other scholars (SCHUBRING Do: $ 43, ALSDORF Et: 37-39, ALSDORF Ex, BRUHN Av: 64, TRIPATHI Pa: 120, KHADABADI Ex). Only a very recent study has avoided a discussion of the issue (BALBIR Av: 474-78). It can be claimed that the study of selected portions of the exegetical material (ViAvBha and samavasarana on p. 12, the seven dogmatic chap ters on pp. 23-38) has now helped to solve the problem, but it can also be argued that such studies have, on the contrary, demonstrated that a solution of the genre problem is hardly possible. We still do not know what a Niryukti (Bhasya etc.) actually is, i.e. we have to this day not been able to isolate a substantial common denominator of all
