________________
Repetition in Jaina narrative literature
63
On the whole, « genre » designates a homogeneous literary ensemble but as indicated already we should not overemphasize the aspect of uniformity. The Universal History of the Svetāmbaras includes at least two texts which deviate from the main stream in their treatment of the repetition issue (deviation in form but not in content). We are referring to the Kalpasūtra and the Mallījñāta 94 which are both earlier than the Āvaśyakaniryukti. Therefore, our description of « repetition in the UH >> (UH in the sense of « all ancient works on the UH » does not apply in all details to these two literary compositions.
The concept of « fields and zones » may give the impression that we are mainly concerned with the classification and arrangement of the literary material. This is, however, not the case. In the first place we want to focus, with the help of these terms, attention on distinct types of literary dynamism. This implies a tendency to introduce more and more categories (e.g. repetition) into the description of the texts.
Postscriptum
Most of the painstaking formal analyses presented in SS 1-15 answer to a specific situation in Indian literature. Over and over again we come across recurring structures peculiar to a smaller or greater number of works. These recurring structures are factors which determine the production of the literary material and which were employed more or less consciously by the ancient authors (who knew what they did and were no mere media). The structures may also be called generative principles. They are clearly set off against all categories imposed upon the works by modern authors. Martin Pfeiffer with whom we discussed the situation (and the problem of describing it) used the German expression Gebautheit to characterize the impression conveyed by many works.
This can be rendered as « state of being built or fabricated ». M. Pfeiffer had himself made similar observations in the field of the Brāhmaṇas.
The phenomenon (generative principles) is unmistakable but to isolate and identify it is not quite easy. A definition and a systematic survey is therefore not suggested. Rather should we start from the example given, viz. from « repetition ». Even if taken in a general sense, wide-spread repetition points to the existence of the said peculiarity. This is still more true of wide-spread « narrative repetition ». Ultimately we can isolate a « hard core » within Indian narrative literature which gives clear indications of generative principles (SS 1-15) and helps to establish the concept as such.
The phenomenon may also be called an intellectual habit or a mental disposition of the ancient Indian authors. This « habit > is in evidence
94. G. ROTH, Malli-Jñata, Wiesbaden, 1983.
