Sectional Studies In Jainology II

Author(s): Klaus Bruhn
Publisher: Klaus Bruhn

Page 15

Sectional Studies
K. Bruhn
Besides the "internal structure" of a term we have to study the relationship of two independent terms x and y. A comparatively simple instance from Jaina dogmatics is the relationship between external tapas and the twenty-two parisaha.s or hardships. But this example should not create the impression that there are always hard and fast distinctions between the different terms. Rather we are faced with the problem of related terms which exist side by side, being sometimes merely kindred and sometimes truly synonymous (e.g. mana, asāyana, hilard...). Finally, we have to detect semantic structures which are below the surface: If taken in an abstract sense, ahired is protec tion" of all beings, but in the daily practice of correct monastic life, ahimsa is in itself the source of countless restrictions and inconveniences, so that a good deal of Jaina asceticism is already implied by the term ahimsä. On the other hand, ahirisd may also have the connotation of compassion (anukampa), although neither arukampa as such nor ahinsa in the sense of anukampa are very prominent in Jaina religious teaching, The best demonstration of all the complexities outlined in the present paragraph is probably the term tapas as used in the epic (see SHEE Ta). But epic tapras, or any term chosen by us, can never be more than a crude paradigm, existing side by side with numerous other cases. As a consequence we need a methodology which enables us to treat the material in its entirety and from all relevant aspects. Refer also to BRUHN Ma (mana studied from numerous angles) and to our observations on synonymy (p.41 below). To be sure, the normal study of "terms and chains of terms", of "synonyms and antonyms" cannot be dispensed with, but in a complex situation it will in no way be the last word. More elaborate forms of analysis must be employed, and extended from basic terms such as tapas, vrata, and Sraddha to all ethical terms, at least to all significant ethical terms.
sions with a quotation from ALSDORF Ku: 29 which focuses attention on a specific problem: "Uberhaupt stellt es sich immer wieder als unmöglich heraus, die verschiedenen Fassungen der Sthalabhadra-Geschichte zu einer Art von Stammbaum zu ordnen, da fast jede von ihnen mit jeder andern durch immer wieder eine andere Reihe von einander fortgesetzt schneidenden Übereinstimmungslinien verbunden wird." Since this is a very general phenomenon, which may surface whenever we study more than two parallel versions, it seems useful to also present the relevant facts in symbolic form using formulas such as the following:
(A+B)+(C) read: "B goes with A against C" (A+C)+(B)
"C goes with A against B* (B+C)+(A)
"C goes with B against A", and also (A)+(B)+(C)
"A, B, and C all differ (A+B+C)
"A, B, and C all agree (A)
"element so and so is only found in A" (etc.). The complexities of this matter only become apparent if we add a few basic observations. First we have to define disagreement which has, roughly speaking, three possibilites, namely (1) deviations, (2) additions or "plus-differences", and (3) omissions or "minus-differences". Another point to be observed is an adequate form of segmentation. We do not compare texts or chapters in their entirety but, one by one, comparatively small textual units which are the products of our analysis. To some extent, segmentation is an end in itself as it enables us to acquire an overview of a text. But whenever we compare two parallel texts, segmentation is in the first place, a vehicle of comparison. As a consequence, we can isolate large segments if the two texts agree or disagree completely, but we need small segments if agreement alternates at short intervals with disagreement. Moreover, differences in the order of the events are fairly common and invariably present technical problems if synoptic tables are to be prepared. Apart from any abstract "grammar of comparison" we need a practical language for daily use. Thus we are basically concerned with different versions, and statements about "subversions" or "recensions are of little use if we have not studied the material in its entirety. One always has to start with pointed observations on limited text portions. In some cases it can be said that the common prototype remains visible (ALSDORF: "die gemeinsame Vorlage schimmert noch durch"). In othe a specific version has elements not found in the other versions, and here ALSDORF would have used the expression Sondergut or "special contribution". Sometimes two or more versions are so closely related that they can be traced back to a single unknown prototype, whereas at some other time two known prototypes have been combined into a third version. ALSDORF also observes: "Nachdem sie "viele finist ische Erzählungen") einmal, meist in uns nicht mehr erreichbaren Literaturschichten,
It is also possible to establish a few minor research schemes (i-iv) which are connected with the methodology of SP. Such "schemes" differ from the "positions in our subsectional lists in more than one respect. In the case of the lists, the emphasis is on exhaustive enumerations, irrespective of the exact scope of future research. By contrast, the schemes are meant to close specific gaps in our knowledge, but they can never produce a complete mosaic. Furthermore, we shall add some notes in the case of each of the four schemes, which may be helpful in carrying out future research. Such a procedure was, as a rule, not taken into account in the case of the positions in the lists.
(i) In the positions 1.1 and 1.7 we have already introduced the problem of parallel versions, which, with reference to Jaina narrative literature, has been initiated by L ALSDORF (-Ku and -Ha). We shall, therefore, start our discussion of parallel ver