Sectional Studies In Jainology II

Author(s): Klaus Bruhn
Publisher: Klaus Bruhn

Page 20

Sectional Studies
48
K. Bruhn
As our last topic, we mention mutually opposed undercurrents in research which are best described in the form of a series of opposites:
Jainism is a religion/a shastra; Jainism is static/dynamic, rational/overburdened with scholastic growth,
transparent/not transparent, coherent/incoherent, überschaubar/not
überschaubar (see JRK and JSK); Jaina terms are an adequate means of screening the Jaina doctrine/they must
be supplemented by modern terms; Jaina works are a whole/they are composites. It can be argued that the preference always depends on the individual case. However, in a general survey of Jainism, we cannot consider all the individual cases and, in the discussion of an individual case, the decision is often a matter of discretion. A specific work may, in many respects, form a unit, but at the same time it may contain significant elements which already occur in earlier sources. Again, a specific work may be varied in its composition and, yet, show a certain degree of logical coherence. Considering all these complexities, it becomes obvious that the preference is not simply based on "facts and that the presentation of the material reflects, to some extent, the disposition of individual scholars.
effort. We shall mention a few such subjects in order to illustrate what we are driving at. One subject is doctrinal incoherence, an issue which was touched upon on pp.20-21 as well as on p.47. Here, the doctrine of karma is a case in point. On the one hand, it is obvious that the karma doctrine of Jainism is neither a consistent whole nor a concept which tries to explain human experience in its entirety. On the other hand, we notice not only high-level syncretism, but also the dynamism of popular beliefs and the parallelism of karma and fate. Our second subject is 'situation', first mentioned in BRUHN Sc (p.50) and outlined again on pp.27-28. When we try to study 'situation or 'situations' systematically, we must also try to explain why such enquiries have nowhere been made in the past. The third subject is semantics (pp.36-37). In BRUHN Ma (p.165-166) we have proposed a <field of concepts >; on p.41 above we have referred to <synonymy>; finally, we have mentioned on p.36 above <ambiguity>. The three subjects incoherence etc.) show that considerable conceptual efforts are required if completeness in a more rigorous sense is to be achieved.
Key to the text and bibliography
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. A discussion of methodological issues requires careful wording. We are therefore grateful to Mrs. SHARON LIVNY (Berlin) who read the English text of this paper and made a great number of suggestions for its improvement.
Postscript
We owe the reader at least a few words regarding further work on our scheme (99 1-5). More lists should be added to the lists given in $ 1, even if the scheme is extended only gradually. Additions of one type or another are also necessary, a case in point being the group of minor research schemes described on pp.37-41. More theoretically, one could ask for a better definition of the strategies, in other words for a re-consideration of the concept of strategies. This would include a new discussion of the strategies already treated, as well as the presentation of new strategies. Further more, our paper stands for typological variety, and such variety could be discussed along with a more extensive description of the strategy of distinction, which in itself leads to different types of investigation and to increased differentiation amongst the phenomena. Finally, our exposition is dominated by a pronounced pluralism of aspects, which produces considerable overlapping. Such pluralism will also require a more detailed presentation, which would again be connected with the issue of the strategies. A point of theoretical and practical importance is the limitation of this pluralism. Thus one cannot make use of all terms which are either suggested by common sense or required by more exacting methodological standards.
The sectional principle also leads to the discussion of subjects which by their very nature transgress sectional boundaries and which require specific methodological
THE TEXT. The symbol "" is to be read as "chapter". Terms and titles of Prakrit works almost always appear in their sanskritized form. For all captions which are closely connected with the structure of our paper (e.g. current canons, parallel versions, and distinctions), we have used angle brackets (« ») whenever called for (e.g. for a first quotation). In the postscript (p.47) we mention the problem of overlapping which is caused by the wpluralism of aspects. In the text of the article, actual overlapping has been kept to a minimum, but in some cases the reader will find closely related observations at different places, traditional ethical terms being a case in point. We mention chains-of-terms on p.28, as well as on p.36, "criticize" the traditional vocabulary on pp.36-37, and discuss on p.41 the issue of synonymy in the area of dogmatical terms.
REVISION OF BRUHN Se. Although only a preliminary attempt, still BRUHN Se would have been easier to read if the discussion of some of its topics had been reserved for a later occasion. Broadly speaking, 81 (general observations) was more difficult than $ 2 (the scheme), but the inevitable difficulties of exposition were increased by the lengthy discussion on model-guided research in $1. In a similar way, 2 suffered under the conjectural inclusion of parallel versions, as well as of the topic of Bhagavart studies.