________________
Sectional Studies
K. Bruhn
ment» in 85. We have also separated problems of genre theory (below) from the main-stream of our discussion. But however limited the scope of exposition, order must be described as a strategy in its own right. In such a description, it will be close to classification. On the other hand, it will be supported by distinction, according to the maxim that distinction must be used as an ordering principle, where order in its narrowest sense cannot be established. Thus distinction becomes a surrogate for order.
However, there are exceptions. In the field of dogmatics, a subdivision into periods is possible. One may object that Jaina tradition in its entirety is subject to the dynamism of historical change. But change is more prevalent in some areas than in others, and dogmatics (mainly the theoretical or theorizing parts) is probably the best example of constant change. It is true that some dogmatic elements cannot be studied in their initial stage, because they are already fully developed when they surface for the first time. But such facts, as well as discontinuities in the development of dogmatic traditions, do not reduce the scope of historical studies, including the subdivision into periods. It must be admitted that our observations are based on the Svetambara side alone and that, in the case of Digambara Jainism, the question of periods would appear in a different light.
In the case of the Svetāmbara tradition we are rather confident that the concept of periods can be used, with the emphasis being on relative chronology, since one such project has only recently been published by S. OHIRA (OHIRA Bh). However, the very fact that a procedure of this type is not a standard strategy in Indology makes it neces. sary to add a short comment. The subdivision of complex material into periods in the manner of OHIRA Bh is beset with specific methodological difficulties. In the case of the quite different field of Indian art, such a method has been developed and tested by PH. STERN (C.. compare VIENNOT Te). In current research, the emphasis is mostly on the clearly visible evolution of selected concepts (A or B or C), such as terms, patterns etc, but not on the chronological subdivision of extensive materials (A plus B plus C...) which are subject to whole-sale transformation. However, both approaches can converge as soon as traditional research proceeds from the study of the evolution of selected concepts to the study of the evolution of complete mosaics of concepts.
In order to give at least one more example for orders, we mention the question of different literary styles. The difference between verse and metre, as well as the suc cession of different idioms (Prakrit, Sanskrit, Apabhrama) has produced a broad spec trum of different modes of expression. As is natural, there are additional differences of style which arise from dogmatic or poetical requirements. A "readerof Jaina texts could demonstrate the situation and thereby pave the way for a typology of styles.
The discussion of distinction will be more detailed than the discussion of worders. At first sight, distinction merely keeps apart what is different in character.
But, in many cases, distinction operates within a larger whole, and while separating subject A from subject B, it may also help in establishing A and B clearly as subjects in their own right, more particularly in cases where a study of one side is less promising than a study of the other. A standard example is the distinction between Jataka verse and Jataka prose (ALSDORF Āk: 42). It was this distinction which made a proper study of the "Jatakas possible, but we can also argue that this distinction paved the way for a passable study of the prose material (NORMAN Pa: 78), more particularly of the paccuppannavarthus. Below we supply a tentative list of cases where distinctions are helpful in organizing and evaluating the material. What matters is not the individual case, which may be trivial, but the emphasis on distinction as a methodological device.
In the Svetāmbara canon we notice a few cases where a single work can be split into two parts. This is different from a situation which encourages attempts at stratification. Stratifications are complex and may produce quite a number of different layers, whereas distinctions, as we understand them, take mostly the form of dichotomies. Examples are Acărānga Sutra (Pt.I vs. Pt.II), Sūtrakstānga Satra (also Pt.I vs. Pt.II), Uttaradhyayana Sutra (early chapters vs. late chapters, Satra proper vs. dryd stanzas), and Bhagavati (nucleus vs. accretions). From single works we proceed to larger literary areas. Within the Svetämbara canon, we can separate the scientific Bhagavati circle (Bhagavati, Prajnapană etc.) from the rest. The Prakirnaka.s may be called canonical or postcanonical, but in any case, we have to distinguish between the Prakirnaka.s and the truly canonical texts which precede them. Again we must distinguish within the Prakirnaka corpus between earlier ("old nucleus": CAILLAT In: 35) and later material. In the case of the exegetical literature (Niryuktis, Curnis etc.), nothing could be more gratifying than a thorough and far-reaching distinction between different types of texts. However, little can be done in this way at the present stage, with the distinction between "ordinary commentary" and "stories" being the only exception. On the other hand, it may be useful to distinguish between exegetical literature in the narrow acceptance of the term (Niryuktis etc.) and flat exegetical superstructures (Tika.s only). The latter category may deserve more attention than it has received hitherto. The last distinction to be mentioned here is that of the difference between texts on monastic and those on laic discipline. So far we have no study describing in a systematic manner the relationship, or agreement and disagreement, between both types of texts. Without going into details, we would finally like to add that a comparison of Svetămbara and Digambara literature, at least in some areas, could lead to distinctions as we discuss them here.
A completely different type of distinction separates the academic from the nonacademic forms of Jainism. Jainism was, after all, a religion and not a pure shastra. As a consequence, we can expect that there were discrepancies in those spheres which
