________________
Repetition in Jaina narrative literature
45
We can call those who subscribe to the three theses « realists » and those who take up a waiting attitude « nominalists » (« cūrni », « niryukti », etc. being mere nomina or names). The three theses cannot be altogether wrong, but they misrepresent the situation to a greater or lesser extent.
We would prefer under the circumstances the nominalistic attitude, and this means that we say very little about the works within a cluster before we have studied them as members of the cluster. And if we say that we study the UH with reference to Āvasyakaniryukti, Āvaśyakacūrņi, and Āvasyakațīkā (mainly with reference to ĀvNi) we need not, and cannot, explain «niryukti » etc. because this is no longer a term but merely the final member of the title of a work 44.
ĀvNi, AvCū, and ĀvȚI have a section on the UH (on the whole parallel in all the three works), although AVSū supplies no basis for the inclusion of such material. The inclusion of the UH into the commentaries is justified by far-fetched logical combinations which need not concern us in the present context. ĀvNi has 2386 verses, and more than 600 deal with the UH. A major handicap in the study of the work is the absence of a generally accepted verse counting and of a rigorous chapter-division 45.
ĀvNi has just like the Kalpasūtra) a non-tabular and a tabular section on the UH, the latter being embedded into the former. The nontabular or narrative section consists of the following: complete accounts of Rsabha and Bharata (including Kulakaras and previous existences of Rşabha) and incomplete account of Mahāvīra (previous existences and biography up to the enlightenment and samavasarana). Both portions are connected because Mahāvīra was in an earlier existence (incarnation as Marici) the grandson of Rsabha. The tabular section is incorporated into Rsabha's biography (near the end). It is difficult to assess the status and character of the Āvasyaka version of the UH. On the one hand, the entire composition shows a semi-systematic touch. On the other hand, we must assume (unless there is evidence to the contrary) that the connection between the first and the last Jina had other ends than systematization and existed prior to the realization (i.e. partial realization) of the UH in the Avaśyaka tradition.
Our fig. 5 is mainly concerned with the interlacement of the Rşabhaand Mahāvīra-biographies (and not with details concerning Rşabha alone or Mahāvīra alone). The study of a repetitive text (or of a text where the underlying concept is repetitive) is by itself not necessarily a study in repetition. Conversely we need our fig. 1 because any study of a genre (literature on the UH in our case) is made more concrete by a demon
44. Studies in Niryuktis, Bhāşyas, etc. would be facilitated by a (tentative) descriptive model.
45. See Āv Studies I, SS 16-17.
