Cauppannamahapurisacariam

22쪽

uite recently, Κariet has made a SImIlar observation WIth refereuce to the avatara concepi Accordingio him, the avatara doctrine of the Is indus Uas evolven In analogy to the universat histones of the

e mord is used both for an individual texi and sora particular tradition cmbodaed in one or moro l xis.

23쪽

INTRODUCTION

27쪽

INTRODUCTION

30쪽

Theoreticatly we can expiam the disserence belween an earher and a later Version Oi a Rost in three ways First we can assume that the changes were introduced by the later author This isumahely for two reasons On the one hand be auSe the s called Innovations of the later auctore cangeneralty be traced bach to Some older version, On the other hand because the transition belween the different fornas in Whicli an ancident as related is otten not gradual Whach 1t should is the lator voters were responsible ) On the Contrary, we meet in many Cases WIth two or three weli definenversions os an incident Which, as It were, coeXISt, Some authors preferring one t3pe and some preferring the other - Segondly We can explain the differences by Intermediate versions or a common archetypeor both The yeater the number of such hypothetical links the smaller the degree of originatity with vhicli the andividual author must be credited Thirdly We can assume that the authors contaminatest different versions The actuantages of this thiro eXplanation are obvious In v1ew of the iaci that theauthors followed their sources closely and that we cannot rechon w1th an unlimited number of tost texis nor with a permanent influX of orat traditions, we have to admit that the third method ofexplanation, WhIch can do without much hypotheticat matter, is preferable to tho second But denyangintermediate imLs altogether is as clangerous as Including too many of them Ue Would thereiore not