________________
6 ANALYSIS
more precisely - a religious framework. We might suppose with Noël Caroll 1990:31-35 that the idea of what constitutes horror is to some extent a matter of reacting to specialised cultural constructs such as the categories which people regard as compelling.
In the case of the chosen section of Vasunandin's Sr the means of style should be taken as a deliberate choice of the author. In this case we could consider the term "substrat model" 285 in the way it is employed in Seyfort Ruegg 2008:VI, and 42, note 65, because it helps to classify the central theme. The usage of the term "substrat model" in the discipline of religious studies is different from its linguistic use in the strict sense. I would rather say that the term denotes patterns and motifs which occur in different religious and ethnic contexts in geographically close or adjoining cultural centres. The similarities neither result from external facts only, nor have they been introduced only from outside. They arise more or less from changes, adaptions and modifications of internal structures in natural communities.
As stated by Seyfort Ruegg several motifs, namesakes and counterparts appear at certain levels in Buddhist, Hindu and Jain religious strings of thought. A way of explaining the presence, for example, of certain celestial and daemonic divinities in the mythology of what we call today "Jainism", "Hinduism", and "Buddhism", is to assume that they belong to a "common ground", a "substratum" which was in a great part shared by different religious schools and sects.286 In the following we take up one motif that has been introduced already in the third section, "Geography of Death", in order to classify some semantic features of the verbs of "shrieking” and "mourning". Obviously, this motif occurs with various connotations in religious texts in and outside Asia. It might have appealed to medieval authors, because it serves didactic aims. This motif was easily transferred to diverse ethnic and psychological contexts. We can conclude that the key motif could not be exclusively Jain, because it occurs in Persian, Indian, Central Asian, Chinese, and Greek strings of thought, too. I would prefer to speak either
285I use "models" of explaining patterns as a device for developing some categories for the interpretation of the text. Thereby, I follow some suggestions put forward by Bruhn 1991 in "Models in Indology", Sectional Studies of Jainism, and the "substrat model theory" by Seyfort Ruegg 2008, which is used in a related religious context. Bruhn 1991:40-42 maintains that "concentrating once more on models", if we are concerned with classification etc., we might feel that a "given model c may serve various purposes but that it cannot be construed so as to serve a fixed set of purposes. [...] In fact, one and the same passage embedded into tert r may have one, or more than one of the following relations to other texts: (i) textual relations (parallels in the usual sense), (ii) content relations, (III) structural relations."
286 Seyfort Ruegg, if I understand his thesis rightly, refers to observations of local cults in Brahmanism/ Hinduism/ Buddhism/ Jainism, in which divine beings are conceived from a mundane view and are worshipped by laymen or trainees of certain schools and sects. See Seyfort Ruegg 1964 and 2008:33ff.
