Distribution Of Absolutive In Una In Ittarajjhaya - Book Summary

This paper, "The Distribution of the Absolutive in -ūna(m) in Uttarajjhāyā" by Herman Tieken, investigates the presence and significance of the grammatical form "-ūna(m)" (an absolutive, similar to a gerund or adverbial participle) within the Uttarajjhāyā, one of the oldest texts of the Jaina canon.

Here's a comprehensive summary of the key findings and arguments presented in the paper:

1. Uttarajjhāyā's Complex Nature:

Mixed Metrical Structure: While generally considered old, Uttarajjhāyā contains a significant number of āryā stanzas, which are identified as a younger layer of metrical practice, indicating later additions. These āryā stanzas are predominantly found in the dogmatic and disciplinary chapters.
"Late Canonical and Post-Canonical Verse (L.V.L.) Literature": Many āryā verses are borrowings from younger texts, and some are composed ad hoc for legendary chapters. This suggests Uttarajjhāyā is an early text with later additions.

2. The Significance of the Absolutive in -ūna(m):

Māhārāṣṭrī Prakrit: The absolutive in -ūṇa(m) is a characteristic feature of the literary Prakrit Māhārāṣṭrī, where it is the sole form of the absolutive.
Rarity in Early Texts: This form is rare in early Indian languages like Pāli and in other Jaina canonical texts such as Āyāra and Sūyagada.
Striking Frequency in Uttarajjhāyā and Dasaveyāliya: Uttarajjhāyā contains around 50 instances, and Dasaveyāliya (a smaller text) has ten. This frequency aligns with the nijjuttis (commentaries) and other texts identified as "late canonical and post-canonical verse (L.V.L.)".
Contrast with Other Jaina Texts: The absence of -ūṇa(m) in narrative Jaina texts, which are argued to be late and possibly subject to archaization, further highlights the unique position of Uttarajjhāyā.

3. Distribution and Context of -ūna(m) in Uttarajjhāyā:

The paper meticulously analyzes the distribution of these absolutives:

"Frames" in Legendary Chapters (17 instances):
- These are found in narrative passages that introduce or conclude dialogues in the legendary chapters (Chapters 9, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22).
- The analysis of legendary chapters with Jātaka parallels (e.g., Chapter 12 vs. Jātaka 497) reveals that the dialogue verses are often older, while the narrative "frames" were added by the compilers of Uttarajjhāyā.
- A linguistic difference (use of vayam vs. amhe) further supports the distinct origins of dialogue and frame material.
- The author argues that these frames, and consequently the -ūṇa(m) absolutives within them, are likely later compositions.
"Frames" in Other Chapters (6 instances):
- These occur in the dogmatic and disciplinary chapters (Chapters 7, 26, 35, 36).
- Many of these instances are found in verses identified as late additions, containing late vocabulary, or being likely fabrications.
Miscellaneous Instances (8 instances):
- These are found in passages considered later interpolations or ad hoc compositions.
Variant Readings (6 instances):
- In some cases, the editors had a choice between a form with -ūṇa(m) and a more standard Ardha Magadhi form. This indicates flexibility in transmission and the potential for -ūṇa(m) to replace or be replaced by other forms.
- The paper suggests that the preference for -ūṇa(m) in these cases might reflect the influence of a particular literary tradition.
Absolutives in Āryās: All instances of -ūṇa(m) found within āryā verses are naturally considered late additions, given that the āryā meter itself is a later element.
Remaining Instances (13 instances):
- These are found within the "core" text, not in frames or clearly interpolated passages.
- However, the author suggests that even these are likely later additions, given the rarity of -ūṇa(m) in other early texts.

4. Re-evaluating the Ur-Uttarajjhāyā Hypothesis:

Tieken challenges the idea of a simple Ur-Uttarajjhāyā (an original version without the āryās and frames).
He argues that if the -ūṇa(m) absolutives in the "core" text are also late additions, then the concept of a clean, older original text becomes more problematic.
The Uttarajjhāyā itself appears to be a late compilation that incorporates older material, rather than an early text with simple additions.

5. Implications and Conclusion:

Late Compilation: The pervasive use of -ūṇa(m) in the "frames" strongly suggests that these frames were composed by later redactors who compiled the individual chapters. Many of these frames are themselves late compositions. This leads to the conclusion that the Uttarajjhāyā as we have it is a late compilation.
Influence of Nijjuttis: The absolutive in -ūṇa(m) is typical of the nijjuttis, just as the āryā metre is. This strongly suggests that the compilers of Uttarajjhāyā, particularly those responsible for the frames and āryā additions, were part of the same literary tradition that produced the nijjuttis.
Working Hypothesis: Tieken proposes a working hypothesis that Uttarajjhāyā was compiled by the same redactors who wrote the nijjuttis.
Shift in Research Focus: Future research on Uttarajjhāyā should focus on its role alongside the other four Mūlasūtras (Avassaya, Pinda, Oha, and Dasaveyāliya), rather than viewing it solely as an "elder" canonical text.
The Case of Dasaveyāliya: The paper briefly notes that Dasaveyāliya also contains instances of -ūṇa(m), with a peculiar concentration in the chapter on the begging tour, which is also the subject of Pinda-Nijjutti.

In essence, Tieken's analysis argues that the presence of the Māhārāṣṭrī-like absolutive -ūṇa(m), particularly in the framing narrative sections of the Uttarajjhāyā, is a significant indicator of later compilation and the influence of a specific literary tradition, likely associated with the nijjuttis, rather than representing the archaic language of the earliest strata of the text. This challenges a simplistic view of the Uttarajjhāyā as purely an ancient text with minor later insertions.