________________
Repetition in Jaina narrative literature
57
when he had to write an essay called «Der Jinismus » 72. There he made the following remarks on the Svetāmbara Agama: «Der Kanon der Svetāmbaras, im ganzen betrachtet, verbirgt hinter einer oft formal abschreckenden Gestalt den reichen Inhalt, den eine Sonderkultur im Rahmen der gemeinindischen notwendig haben muß. Seine Gesamtausgabe, welche die seinerzeit zu einem bunten Mosaik vereinigten Bausteine kritisch sichtet und die meist monströse Gestalt lesbar gestaltet, bleibt eine unabweisbare Forderung des wissenschaftlichen Ordnungsbedürfnisses ». Earlier (1927), W. Schubring had himself demonstrated in the form of a translation) how he wanted to present the Āgama to modern readers 73. L. Alsdorf noticed the problem on more than one occasion (see below), but what impressed him most were the great Digambara works on karma theory: « le schématisme des nombres d'une scholastique d'une sécheresse parfois presque insupportable mettra à rude épreuve la patience de celui qui les étudiera » 74
For the general reader the matter has been summed up by A. L. Basham in a well-known presentation of selected Indian texts. He writes of the Svetāmbara Āgama inter alia: «... the passion for tabulation and classification, which can be detected in much Indian religious literature, is perhaps given freer rein here than in the scriptures of any other sect » 75.
In the relevant texts, some problems are less clearly perceptible than others. After everything has been done in the matter of edition, translation, etc., a feeling of uneasiness may remain. This uneasiness has to do with syntax and semantics in some cases, with the rationale and logic of the matter in others. In such a case we want to know « what is really going on », « what it is all about », and « why the whole thing ». L. Alsdorf often expressed his dissatisfaction in such idioms, and on more than one occasion he successfully tried to describe what was really meant 76. Perhaps, we can use for such initiatives the expressions « specification > and <representation ». What matters in such cases is, the discovery of a question and a pointed answer (this does not
72. Contribution in C. M. SCHRÖDER, Die Religionen der Menschheit, Band 13. For bibliographical details (German and French version of W. SCHUBRING's essay) see W. SCHUBRING, K1. Schr., p. XI, nos. 20 and 22.
73. W. SCHUBRING, KI. Schr., p. 75. 74. L. ALSDORF, Les études Jaina, Collège de France, 1965, p. 93.
75. WM. TH. DE BARY, Sources of Indian Tradition, Columbia University Press, New York, 1958 foll., p. 55.
76. We mention only his observations on the (post-canonical) niksepa and on the caturbhanga.. (caturbhanga): L. ALSDORF, The Arya Stanzas of the Uttarajjhāyā, Wiesbaden, 1966, pp. 186, 179-200, especially pp. 186-87. On pp. 183-84, L. ALSDORF refers to the intricate technicalities... which have partially baffled Jacobi and Charpentier ». (niksepa): L. ALSDORF, Kl. Schr., pp. 257-65. See also the last paragraph (pp. 264-65) where ALSDORF indicates that the ancient commentators must have experienced difficulties in defending the niksepa method « against the criticism of more progressive rival schools ».
