________________
Ludwig Alsdorf's Studies in the Arya
K. Bruhn
bhramsa literature, and in his thesis A. expressly mentioned the new sentiment (den neuen Geist) in the Gujarati rasa.s. These rasa.s were related to Apabhramsa literature but showed a clear departure from the didactic and technical conventions of the preceding periods (ALSDORF Ku: 34-43). It was always the human element which attracted ALSDORF's interest, and on the whole he felt that early literary sources brought him closer to Indian life as he knew it from personal experience, than did intervening phases of shastric sophistication and literary perfection. Perhaps one should mention in this connection also his comparison of satya in the Veda with satya in the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi.
clusions differs from case to case, so much more so since in many cases the discussion cannot do without external evidence. But ALSDORF used external evidence in the majority of cases. That he paid attention mainly to textual parallels and did not consider mere content parallels is true, but it had, on the whole, not much influence on his philological findings.
As a rule one must acknowledge that both SCHUBRING and ALSDORF tried to study each individual dogmatic topic on the basis of several different texts. This often helps to make Jaina dogmatics more lucid, as it paves the way for historical evalua tion. Treatment of dogmatics on the basis of a limited number of texts always runs the risk of describing Jainism as uniform and inflexible. Generally speaking, one should not underrate the necessity of investigating the entire area in greater depth. P. THIEME recounts that W. SCHUBRING in his day admitted "we have just scraped the surface" (of Jaina dogmatics).
As is natural, ALSDORF made full use of the available Tikes (Santisuri, Droncarya et al.). These Tika.s must be consulted with caution (ALSDORF EU: 39-44; ALSDORF St: see p. 21 infra), however, and they are of little avail in the discussion of more intrinsic textual problems. In this connection, A.'s former students remember his very pronounced and often-expressed scepticism vis-à-vis Slyana's Rgveda com mentary. A. could use a commentary published as "Cümi" (Dasavvr: p. 46 infra), and in ALSDORF Ét (pp. 37-39) he stressed the general importance of the Carni.s for textual criticism. However, he never studied a Cümi text very closely, and he had not seen the Uttaradhyayanacūmi (ed. 1933). No doubt, the Cūrni.s offer interesting textual variants as recorded in the JĀS editions (CAILLAT Da, Va, and Cr), but, however valuable, this evidence does not provide something like a new basis for our understanding of the texts.
It follows from our numerous quotations infra) that A. had his own peculiar "mental habits". Apart from his indebtedness to the methodology of higher criticism, A. preferred in a general manner the earliest stratum (early Agama, early Tipitaka) to the later strata, largely because he appreciated its quasi-classical simplicity. In his article on the Vidhurapanditajätaka, he quoted H. LUDERS who called the Jätaka verses "literargeschichtlich unschätzbare[n] Zeugen der alten Volksdichtung" (Vi: *380). This partiality for the Jataka.s was even stronger in the case of ALSDORF. It must be viewed in connection with A.'s occasional studies of Jaina scholasticism, which he analyzed systematically - when circumstances made it necessary - but which he never studied without fully exposing its eccentricities (see p. 30 infra). A'S preference for the natural against the artificial (and for "living" literature against "lifeless" literature) is seen in connection with later Jaina literature in reverse chronological order. As is well-known, A. started his Indological studies with Apa
The individual parts of our $S 2-4 can be designated as "reviews". However, they are neither criticisms (or true reviews) nor extensive summaries, but aids for the interested reader. In the case of ALSDORF's Prakrit studies, more particularly in the case of Ut the "reviews" have been extended in more than one respect, and we have also included some observations of our own. A strict formal separation has not been introduced, however. The present paper is meant to be read in connection with A.'s text, and the reader will thus easily distinguish between the primary matter (ALSDORF) and our extensions. The extensions are mostly bibliographical and mostly contained in the "Bibliographies" which are appended to our reviews. The bibliographical addenda (concerning original texts as well as modem literature) are diverse in character and include for example references to SCHUBRING's Doctrine of the Jainas, appearing at the beginnings of all the sections for the seven dogmatic chapters.
In the case of these chapters (pp. 23-38), we have supplied in the "Bibliographies" a number of parallels traced with the help of the Jaina Concordance (verse concordance). However, those who are familiar with the texts know that verses which are only marginally connected often have the same beginning (mainly in the form of a chain of terms), whereas closely related verses may show different beginnings. The Concordance is, therefore, no plethora of parallels, and it mainly helps to trace related text portions in a general manner. If the same subject is treated in two different texts, one can expect that there are at least one or two verses on both sides which belong to the discussion of the relevant subject and which agree in their beginnings if not in toto. It is with the help of such verses that the user of the Concordance can find his way from text A to text B, and so on. Again, the user may not expect textual parallels but merely treatment of the same term, or rather concept, in other texts. In this second case the Concordance will almost invariably offer useful information, since most terms occur in a great number of verses. The parallels can be traced in one way or another, but how this should be done is a matter which need not be discussed here (a verse concordance has its limitations). Our efforts to trace relevant parallels, main
