________________
K. Bruhn
sequences of verses or "blocks." But "blocks," as we use the term, are elements of rough text segmentation, while "tracts" are historical entities which must be isolated from case to case and which belong to the field of intertextual studies. In our paper we use "tract" also as a general term which is neutral with respect to the distinction between "tracts" and "blocks."
14
The concept of "tracts" has a strong analytic bias. It implies that a considerable part of the verse material is multitextual so that the status of the individual texts as ordering factors is reduced. The concept also implies that dogmatic concepts (e.g. vinaya or ahimsa) cannot be studied without reference to concrete tracts, whenever tracts which are relevant to these concepts can be isolated. Tracts in the sense of intertextual units may or may not be isolated on a large scale, but intertextual relations in general are not confined to such pieces. Structural topics like the niksepa are further intertextual components, so that the status of texts will be disputed from at least two different sides. The result of intertextual studies is a network of crossconnections running from text to text.
As a bibliographical study the present article answers directly to the call for "organization of research" in our second paper on sectional studies (Se II). The concept of L.V.L. follows from the necessity to subdivide Jaina literature in a plausible manner into periods, i.e. into historical units (Se II: 19). Our double concept of transformations and parallel versions (in L.V.L. and elsewhere) can now be included as a compact "subsection" in the section of "literature in general" (Se II: 10); this is an improvement on the arrangement in Se II (pp. 12, 34/35, and 37-39). The discussion on tracts follows from the strategy of "distinction" (Se II: 19-21). We "distinguish" between the text plane and the plane of intertextual components (tracts etc.), and likewise between concepts in the standard definitions and concepts viewed as parts of individual texts and tracts. Here and elsewhere, "distinction" is understood as an instrument which produces a diversification of a complex subject and thus helps to view it from all sides. The consideration of tracts also settles the question of "major genres" or "medium-sized genres" as described on pp. 21-22 of Se II. We may add that our "sectional" approach (Se II) is perhaps more easily understood if we call it systematic. The strategies employed in this approach answer more or less to the ordinary views on systematization.
To avoid misunderstandings, we have to admit that our critical approach must be taken for what it is worth. In a way, a Cümni still is a Cürni (genre problem) and a text still a text (issue of tracts etc.). These categories will always remain useful within their limits. A different theoretical problem arises, or seems to arise, in connection with semantics (synonymy, homonymy etc.) and transformations (elaboration, contamination etc.), in so far as it is in both cases difficult to devise a satisfactory logical
Ludwig Alsdorf's Studies in the Arya
organization of the phenomena. But in these two cases (Se II: 36-37 and 37-39) the theoretical problems are minimized by the limitation of the area: semantics in Jaina dogmatics, and only there; transformations in Jaina literature, and only there. Convincing definitions and typologies are not the sine qua non for studies in specific phenomena, as long as the area is small and easy to survey (compare the analogous argument used by us on p. 22 of Se II in a different context).
15
ALSDORF's textual criticism was radical. And yet, we have to introduce a distinction. A. was exceedingly successful in the tracing of parallels, in sloka restoration, äryä detection, text correction, text interpretation, and in the detection of "breaks" in the texts. But as we have seen, A. also tried to reconstruct the disturbed verse texts of Uttaradhyayana, following the principle of "higher criticism" (Et: 47-48). Here, one hundred percent dependable results were the exception rather than the rule, but in these cases A. himself was also his chief critic, not deceiving himself or his readers. He admitted in most cases that he could only present probabilities. Future research might show more clearly what was possible and what was not.
Considering the importance which is as a rule attached to the idea of "understanding," we should not pass over the fact that proper understanding was in a way the basic ethos of A.'s studies. More than others he has accentuated the oddities of Jainism, but more than others he has tried to restore the rational element in apparently confused traditions. Had he spent more time on Jaina dogmatics he might have opened a new chapter in the study of this field. A. wanted above all clarity, a tendency which is reflected in his publications in more than one form (although occasionally the reader wishes that A. had explained his point in more detail). A. was a harsh critic of ancient as well as of modern authors whenever they had made clear mistakes or produced manifest incongruities (see p. 21). As for his own person, he could never suppress the dissatisfaction which he felt when he had not understood a text properly, and this frankness implied, that in most other cases his translations could be relied upon. It can be added that he possessed a stylistic virtuosity which not only helped him to convince his readers in a general manner, but enabled him also to put special lines of research (e.g. comparison of parallel version and reconstruction of transformed texts) on a firmer footing.
A.'s studies in the seven dogmatic chapters are to some extent a continuation of SCHUBRING'S Doctrine. In the case of ALSDORF Ut, the number of topics is limited, but A. was more concerned with the aspect of development and relative chronology than SCHUBRING (ALSDORF Ét: 49). It is evident from A.'s studies that there are many cases where we have side by side an earlier and a later form of a doctrine, one expressed in sloka.s and one in äryä.s. Of course, the pattern of the historical con
