Prof. Dr. Klaus Bruhn
(i) Minimal differentiation. This consists of three elements: attending goddess, attending god, symbol. All the three motifs differ from Jina to Jina (the total being 72). However, this pattern developed in stages, and even when it had reached its last phase, the three motifs did not play a very prominent part.
(ii) Additional differentiation (additional, i.e. differing from the triple pattern according to "i"). This is mainly achieved by providing Jinas Nos. 7 (Supārśvanātha) and 23 (Pārśvanātha, note the similarity of the names) with a circle of snake-hoods (forming a halo-like element behind the head), and by showing Jina No. 1 (Ṛṣabha) with strands - instead of or in addition to the familiar curls which the other 23 Jinas have in common with the Buddha (but see p. 30 above).
(iii) Pseudo-differentiation. Jina-images belonging to different periods and regions naturally differ in their style as well as in iconographic details. Thus Jinas in the South have then legs placed one upon the other, while the Northern Jinas sit with their legs crossed. Such cases are not under consideration. The term "pseudo-differentiation" can only be applied to cases where Jina-images of the same time and region, of the same temple, or even of one and the same composition (depicting several Jinas side by side) show conspicuous iconographical differences which have no connection with the identity of the individual Jinas. One of the best examples is the motif below the Jina. Normally, seated Jinas are shown on a lion-throne, standing Jinas on a lotus. This distribution pattern is, however, often ignored. Even here it is unlikely that the difference is misunderstood as pointing to differences in the identity of the respective Jinas. It is only in special cases that differences can create misunderstandings (so that the term "pseudo-differentiation" becomes appropriate). A slab at Deogarh (Deogarh Fig. 27) shows superimposed rows of seated Jinas, each Jina being shown on a lion-throne. The miniature images (Jina, attendant figures, etc.) are almost identical in their upper portions, but the throne motif follows several distinct formulas. This is no problem for the scholar, but the amateur may surmise that the different formulas are "cognizances" (compare the symbols according to pattern "i") of different Jinas.
(iv) In a small number of cases, distinction between true differentiation and pseudo-differentiation becomes a genuine problem. We are referring to the "double symbol" and to "Balarāma-plus-Vāsudeva". The double symbol can sometimes be understood in two ways. Thus the double lion may stand for the lion-throne, or it may be the doubled symbol of the 24th Jina (Mahāvira). In the first case it is "heraldic" in the sense of being a specific motif without specific attribute value (this applies both, to the double lion and to the fully fledged lion-throne); in the second case it is a true attribute. Again, Balarāma-plus-Vāsudeva may be heraldic elements, or attributes (in the sense of "ii") of the 22nd Jina Neminātha (there is a legendary connection between Neminātha, Balarāma, and Vāsudeva). - The motifs discussed under "iv" have been studied by U.P. Shah, N. P. Joshi and M. N. P. Tiwari.
The survey of the different means and methods of differentiation already indicated that the treatment is not uniform. And a classification following the theological system (24 Jinas in the texts and hence 24 Jinas in iconography) would be unsatisfactory in more than one respect. We therefore have to look for other solutions.
A simple and yet absolutely unproblematic classification is the following: [i] Jinas with hood-circle (Nos. 7 and 23), [ii] Jinas without hood-circle (all the remaining members). If the strands are taken into consideration, an enlarged scheme is obtained: fi] Jinas with hood-circle (and without strands), viz. Nos. 7 and 23; [ii] Jinas with strands (and without hood-circle), viz. No. 1; [iii] Jinas with neither - 2-6, 8-22, 24. But this second scheme is correct only if we distinguish between "true" strands (to be considered) and strands as a heraldic motif (to be ignored in this connection). Strands of the latter type are rather indistinct, being a reduced or blurred variant of the true strands. This already indicates a difficulty, and there are other problems as well. It would nevertheless appear that the second scheme has the greatest practical value.
This is at least true as long as the number of Jina-images to be classified is limited (catalogues, monographs, etc.). For a more general survey we propose the following classification which ignores identity altogether and considers only iconographical variety. -
[The examples:]
The "double symbol" and "Balarāma-plus-Vāsudeva" are covered either by [iii] or by [v]: see Jain Journal 8, 2 (Oct. 1973), pp. 84-85 (B.-V.), and U. P. Shah, Studies in Jaina Art, Fig. 18 (double symbol = two "conches").
§ 1.4 Problems of Terminology
Experience shows that systematic arrangement of categories ("abstract subjects") is difficult. The commonest method is the presentation of a comprehensive system where the responsibility of the individual category is reduced by the presence of the entire structure. This author tried repeatedly to follow a different method, establishing rather comprehensive categories which occupied an intermediate position between an all-embracing system and a small category. "Reduction of distinctions", "form-principles", and "repetition" were the main examples (see Distinction, Deogarh, and Repetition). But, on account of their looseness, such comprehensive categories are neither convincing (the reader misses uniformity and compactness) nor very practical for the author (who has to fit a system of sub-categories into the main category).
The problem can be solved by reducing the scope of the main category to some extent. I.e. its scope should not be too limited (this would again necessitate organization on a higher plane by the construction of a comprehensive system), and not too extensive (problem of loose categories just described). An intermediate and balanced category might be repetition-within-a-composition (forming actually the starting point for the article on Repetition), repetition-in-general being too wide, and repetition-of-figures (to mention just one example) being too narrow. The accentuation of such modest categories as areas of organization does of course produce the problem of overlapping (e.g. repetition-within-a-composition vs. symmetry). But this is probably unavoidable, and - as far as the technical aspect is concerned - we can solve the problem by adequate devices (cross references etc.).
Although we prefer in theoretical discussions the word "category", it would appear that for practical purposes "term" is preferable. Hence the title of this paragraph.
§ 1.5 Completeness
Classification is connected with "completeness" both on the logical and on the factual plane. On the one hand, studies in classification produce more and more structural material (see our graphs). On the other, the numerous divisions attract and absorb factual data which otherwise would remain unsurveyed. Documentation implements the classificatory efforts on the factual plane, classification as such coordinates "known" but incoherent facts.
The opposite of completeness is selection. Selection may be called a vehicle of ideology, while completeness tends to disarrange the ideal landscape produced by the selective activity of our intellect. From the point of view of their respective opponents, completeness and selection are virtually isms. And it is in fact easy to lable completeness as an ism as long as the line of demarcation between completeness and senseless collection of facts is wiped out. The violent attacks on what is commonly called "collection of facts" nevertheless show that the supporters of selection are not unaware of the theoretical difficulties which they have to face.