________________
40
Klaus Bruhn
was lost. But although this may be correct it will never explain — as is intended in that line of argument — the peculiar character of the extant works. Even in ancient days there was a huge mass of narrative literature (always adaptable to catechetical requirements) which could have been used to replace what had been lost. Similarly it is quite possible that a complete version of the UH existed in earlier times but fell into oblivion for one reason or the other. But considering the fact that there were intense literary activities in the canonical and postcanonical periods it is surprising that during a thousand years or so no comprehensive version of the UH has been prepared. Sīlānka, who lived before Hemacandra and beside him was the sole Svetāmbara author who wrote a « complete » version of the UH, used it mainly as a frame for his literary activity and treated all those biographies which were of no interest to him in a superficial manner. Obviously, the UH was not en vogue during those centuries and things were left as they were. It can likewise be synchronically argued that the tabular matter was considered as the general background and that every author was free to relate selected portions in full.
Multiplication of mythological figures is common in Indian tradition. Whatever the historical roots, it is possible to multiply a figure, i.e. to transform an individual into a type. Normally, this procedure is connected with the fabrication of names and the construction of a chronological frame (different representatives of the type in different periods). Narrative elements are however no basic requirement. For us, the absence or presence of narrative elements (connected with each individual figure) is the criterion for using either the term « multiplication » or « repetition » (strictly speaking « multiplication plus repetition »). In the case of the UH (63 great men and 7 Kulakaras in « our >> system) we are concerned with « repetition ».
Another related phenomenon is what we would call « categorization ». Here the movement is in the opposite direction: different stories are made similar so as to form one category 32. Normally, stories combined in one « category » have intrinsic motifemic similarities, and this similarity can be reinforced by the generalization of certain features. Such developments are not missing in the UH. But as they are not part of our discussion we mention here only the Brahmanical avatāra doctrine as the easiest way of demonstrating what is meant.
§ 10. The Jinas in the Universal History
In the case of the 24 Jinas of our system we are mainly concerned with slot-filler repetition and standard episodes. The terms « slot >> and
32. The opposition has been emphasized in an earlier contribution on repetition in Jaina (etc.) narrative literature: K. BRUHN, Silānkas Cauppannamahāpurisacariya, Hamburg, 1954, pp. 134-35.
