________________
Repetition in Jaina narrative literature
55
the discourse is described as «< arid », « dry », « artificial », and << unproductive ». This scholasticism is certainly not a well-defined tendency, but research cannot ignore phenomena of this type simply because they are indistinct: « ancient Indian pessimism » also has more than one form, and it is also reflected in more than one genre. Indistinct phenomena are not necessarily ghost-phenomena.
That this scholasticism has so far not been studied systematically, is in the first place a Denkarten problem 6, and problems of definition are only one aspect beside others. « Scholasticism » is not absolutely vague, but neither is it clearly perceptible. It is more than a bundle of mental habits, and it is less than a philosophy. It is more than hairsplitting and less than logic. It is connected more with form than with content, and thus considered as hollow rather than as solid. Above all it has little limitation in terms of traditions, disciplines, and genres. It is found in Jainism and Buddhism, in arthaśāstra and kāmaśāstra, in fiction and non-fiction. It is not ubiquitous, but there is hardly any place where we can be absolutely sure that it will not surface.
The consequences can hardly be called surprising. For the student scholasticism must appear like a ghost who materializes and dematerializes according to the circumstances. We cannot say that scholasticism has not been studied: the relevant works have been edited and translated. We cannot say that this subject has been ignored in monographs and surveys: there are passing references besides incisive remarks. Nor would it be possible to ignore scholasticism. In spite of its aridity it is, in the case of India (and elsewhere), interwoven with the history of ideas. But it never attained the status of a « subject ». There are countless observations on the Indian belief in reincarnation and on the cyclic world-view of Indian thinkers, but nowhere even one whole paragraph on scholasticism. Whatever the character of the statements, they are invariably very short. Furthermore, there is the problem of quotations. In order to demonstrate scholasticism's full extent one has to quote at least a full page from a particular text. Quotations of this length could easily be accommodated in compilations of « source readings ». But editors are expected to escape from such matter rather than to get entangled in it.
Amongst the more noteworthy responses to scholasticism is the liberal use of metaphors. Scholasticism is one of the many << facets >> of Indian culture. It is the « chaff » which has to be sifted from the wheat. It is the << wrapping » which conceals the more valuable contents. It does not follow the main-road of Indian thinking but it is a « dead end ». It is
66. M. SCHELER. Die Wissensformen und die Gesellschaft, 2. Aufl., Bern, 1960, p. 171. It is possible to fit the opposed views on Indian scholasticism (casual treatment vs. systematic treatment) into SCHELER's well-known scheme. There is, however, also the possibility of preparing further Denkarten catalogues (sociological or not) for different fields of knowledge.
