________________
K. Bruhn
works known as "Niryukti.s" ("Bhäsya.s" etc.). A. was clearly embarrassed by this problem (ALSDORF Eudes ... Destivāda ... Exegetical ...), but he could not solve it and became a victim of his occasional rashness, when he suggested, probably under the influence of certain views expressed by LEUMANN (Da: 592), that the Bhasya.s were versified Cumis (Ex: p. 5). He also had not noticed other observations by LEUMANN which pointed in a different direction (Ob: 32a, lines 34.44). Recently, B.K. KHADABADI has demonstrated in detail that A.'s hypothesis cannot be reconciled with the facts (KHADABADI Ex). The general possibility of versifications is not affected by this controversy, but versification requires demonstration in each individual case.
In actual research, one must realize that genre terms like "Niryukti" do not stand for well-defined classes of works, and that cross-relations between apparently unrelated works create additional problems. There is some osmosis for example between the "Āvasyaka literature and the Behatkalpa literature." Those who have studied LEUMANN Er have noticed differences in the headers of the booklet. Page 6 has an AvNi header, p. 7 has a combined header (AvNi and ViAvBha), pp. 8-13 have only ViAvBha, and pp. 14-48 again have ĀvNi. This reflects the fact that the basis for the Avaśyaka prose is not always AvNi, but sometimes VivBhd. Moreover ViAvBhả may in its tum agree with Br KaBha (Er: 20 etc.), so that the verse basis becomes even more uncertain. This example is sufficient to show that we have no general formula for describing the relationship of the various Avasyaka texts, and that external connections with other L.V.L. clusters or "literatures" add to the internal complexities of a given cluster. It may therefore become necessary to prepare-prior to the writing of complete synopses for different works-simpler devices such as conspectuses for single texts, "narrow synopses" for two to three texts, or "short synopses" for limited pieces of text. In connection with LEUMANN's Avalyuka-Erzählungen, we can add that the entire material has now been studied by N. BALBIR in her Avasyaka-Studien (e.g. compare Av: pp. 126 and 231-44 for "Visesh. I, 863-862-861"). The same author has included a demonstration of Avaśyaka complexities in BALBIR Sa. She has shown that, in the samavasarana portion, the Avasyaka Cürni is not in conformity with the Avašyaka Niryukti. It omits six secondary verses of the AvNi ("post-cumi insertion"). which are also missing in the Bhatkalpabhāsya (BALBIR Sa: 75-76). Moreover, in the implementation of the dvåra verse on the samavasarana (Sa: 74). Avca and Ksemakirti (BxKaBha, Tikā) go partially together versus (gehen teilweise zusammen gegen) the version recommended by Haribhadra (AvNi, Tika).
L.V.L. (including the prose) forms a continuum which cross-cuts the conven tional boundaries between late canonical and post-canonical texts, as well as between Svetambara and Digambara texts. We may add that an analytic essay on LEUMANN'S
Ludwig Alsdorf's Studies in the Arya studies, Obersicht et alia, would be an important step towards a better understanding of this material. It would also be complementary to several LEUMANN titles, published recently or forthcoming: () BALBIR Av. (ii) Kleine Schriften of ERNST LEUMANN, (1) TH. OBERLIES' study of the Brahmadatta tales in the present volume). and (iv) PLUTAT Li.
A generalizing term like "L.V.L.", which includes exegetical (pseudo-exegetical, para-exegetical and non-exegetical literature, produces a degree of disorientation, but at the same time it removes the burden of problematic classifications.
Comparisons, or mere juxtapositions, of L.V.L. verse with L.V.L prose have up to now been the exception rather than the rule. We mention as examples LEUMANN Üb: 32a, lines 34-44 (Bhāșya.s, Cúrni.s, Tīkä.s), "Destivāda" (ALSDORF Dr: Avcu and ViAvBhā), the "five negative bhāvana.s" (p. 27 infra: prose from Aup. and Thana), and the time-table" (ALSDORF Ut: 40-41 - prose of Dronacarya). Instances of extensive parallelism of verse and prose are not rare in the narrative literature of L.V.L. One example is Kastha Rsi (METTE Oh: 97-102: OghNi tradition et alia, verse and prose), and further examples can be found among the Avasyaka stories, e.g. "Višesh. 1,927,1-3" (BALBIR AV: 253-69: Avasyaka and Bhatkalpa traditions, verse and prose). More extensive studies would possibly help in some cases to determine the direction of the transformation (verse+ prose, or prose-verse). It can be objected that, instead of "L.V.L.," a term should have been coined which includes the verse corpus and the prose pendant (Cümmi.s and sīkā.s). However, we need a term for the verses, and a second, more comprehensive term for verse and prose is not required in the present context.
In any case, future work will not be oversensitive to the genre problem but rather try to explore the unwieldy text material of L.V.L. This may be done with the help of pointed studies in narrative or dogmatic tracts" which occur in different versions. We have already mentioned the samavasarana, and we can add that, in her study of the subject, N. BALBIR uses the term "tract" more or less in the same way in which it is now used by us. Further examples of "tracts" are the Avasyaka niksepa (ALSDORF Ni, HANAKI An: 8-10, BALBIR Áv: 231 f.). "Ryabha's prebirths" (LEUMANN Üb: 3031'). "fifth samiti" (p. 24-26 infra), the five negative bhavanas (p. 26-28), siva-andajiva (p. 28 infra), samayari (METTE Oh: 5-7), and vinaya (LEUMANN Ob: 17b: OKUDA Di: 140-48). Tracts are not a homogeneous class (in particular their sizes may vary), and we use the concept mainly as starting point for intertextual studies in the area of L.V.L. Any analysis of a complete L.V.L, text will suffer under the burden of constant comparison with other texts, reflected in endless synopses (supra), whereas tracts" are smaller units which can be handled more easily. Naturally, each synopsis (LEUMANN et al.) and cach conspectus enumerates besides single verses
