________________
K. Bruhn
composition, so that Utt. 13 (vss. 5-7 [see p.*189 for vss. 1-4]), and not Jätaka 498 (vs. 16 [vss. 1-3 are the secondary recognition verses]), demonstrates the original order. But even then the original narrative structure is only apparent from the Jaina kathanaka and from the Jätaka prose (p.*188, lines 21-26). Refer also to pp. 275-78 (and pp. 300-01) of the paper by TH. OBERLIES in the present volume.
20
NAMIPAVAJJA. Chapter 9,1-62: NAMIPAVAJJA. A. pp. 215-24. LAI no. 31 (1962); ALSDORF Āk: *45; → ALSDORF Ét: 74.
A. analyzes the Utt. version of the well-known story of Nami's pravrajya and comes to the conclusion that the kernel of Chapter 9 is an "old samvada, composed entirely in slokas" (p.*216) and also "composed on very regular lines and according to a wellthought-out plan: one introductory stanza (6); ten single stanzas spoken by Indra (7, 12, 18, 24, 28, 32, 38, 42, 46, 51) to which the King replies in single stanzas with the only exception of the first answer comprising two stanzas; every change of interlocutor is marked by the same formal stanza repeated nineteen times; and, corresponding to the introductory stanza, one narrative stanza (61) concludes the whole" (p. 224). The original prose of the samvada (existing in the form of oral literature) "was replaced by fixed metrical additions" (p. 224; ALSDORF Ét: p. 74, lines 4-10) in the ārya metre. "The redactor(s) of the Uttaradhyayana made to the ancient verses the minimum of additions that would create a self-sufficient whole, intelligible without reference to a fuller prose tale. These additions in most cases betray their later origin by their different metre; in particular where we find äryäs, so characteristic of the latest layer of the Jain canon, we may almost automatically assume that they are secondary additions" (p. 215). This "process of creating an independent ballad" (p.*189) was already in evidence in the story of Citta and Sambhūta. Refer for the samvada / akhyāna issue furthermore to the following observations in ALSDORF AK: "... the Jain redactors of the Utt. dealt with the same kind of material as the Buddhist redactors of the Jātakas, but in a somewhat different way. The Buddhists invested with canonical dignity the ancient verses only, the indispensable prose supplements lacked a fixed wording and therefore remained outside the canon. The Jainas disliked the fragmentary character of the verses; for inclusion into their canon, they made the minimum of metrical additions which would make the tales self-sufficient. That no more was intended is shown by the fact that besides these canonical texts there exist numerous full versions of the tales in the vast commentary literature: they are the counterparts of the Buddhist Atthavanṇana" (p. *45).
ALSDORF Åk was published in 1963/64, and his characterization was endorsed in 1965 by general observations on the narrative elements of the Uttaradhyayananiryukti (ALSDORF Ét: 23-24). Refer for a narrative specimen of UtNi also to ALSDORF VO: 18
Ludwig Alsdorf's Studies in the Arya
and ALSDORF Ar: 21. ALSDORF returned to the äkhyāna subject in 1968: In Pa (p. 60, fn. 2) he emphasized the primacy of the verse versions in "double tales" (prose version followed by a verse version).
21
UTTARAJJHAYA STUDIES. Chapter 10: DUMAPATTAYAM; Chapter 15: SABHIKKHO; Chapter 12: HARIESUJAM and Chapter 25: JANNALIJAM.-A. pp. *225-51; LAI no. 32 (1962). - There are no ārya.s in Chapters 12, 15, and 25.
At the beginning of his paper, A. makes the following observation (pp. 225-26): "Every attentive reader of canonical Jain texts cannot fail to make two observations. First, even the oldest and best commentators are completely unreliable. We are greatly indebted to their traditional knowledge and shall always carefully examine their suggestions; but in countless instances they misunderstand and misinterpret perfectly clear passages and offer fanciful explanations for palpably corrupt ones. Second, many, if not most, of the real textual corruptions are very old, much older in fact than all our commentaries, let alone even the oldest Mss. This is why high hopes based on the old palm leaf Mss. at last becoming accessible have been and will be largely disappointed. We are not only entitled but bound to disregard the commentaries wherever necessary or advisable and to correct the text even against them and the combined authority of all our Mss. I hope to give some convincing proofs of these contentions on the following pages." A.'s criticism must be viewed in light of the fact that CHARPENTIER had declared in the Preface to his edition of Utt. expressis verbis that he proposed to "restore as far as possible that text of the sutra which was used by the commentator Devendra" (p. 5). If a stimulus was needed to direct A.'s attention to the inadequacies of the old commentaries, it was provided by CHARPENTIER's trust in Devendra's sūtra text. ALSDORF St is in fact mainly concerned with textual criticism, including some critical observations on Devendra.
Chapter 10,1-37: DUMAPATTAYAM -A. pp. 226-30 and ALSDORF Ut: 7; → ALSDORF Ét: 74. - Utt. 10, named after its incipit "Dumapattayam," deals with the difficulties of reaching salvation (in technical language anityatva and bodhidurlabhatva). Each verse ends with the same exhortation to Goyama ("do not squander your opportunity," p.*228). There is an interpolation of eleven verses on the possible incarnations of a jiva (Utt. 10, 5-15: "driest dogmatic statistics," p. *229). Moreover: "The interpolator has indeed tried to adapt his product to its metrical surroundings, but with only partial success" (p. 229). The eleven verses are "a strange patchwork of Vaitaliya and Arya padas" (ALSDORF Ut: 7) with a total of "eleven odd [ārya] pādas and three quarters of a [ārya] stanza" (ALSDORF Ut: 7). "When this interpolated passage is removed... there remains a poem of 26 pure and nearly perfectly regular Vaitaliya stanzas"
