On Two Medical Verses In Yuktidipika

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269652/1

Page #1

On Two Medical Verses in the Yuktidipika
ALBRECHT WEZLER
1. The Yuklidipika (= YD), the most important commentary on Isvarakssoa's Samkhyakánika extant and available, contains - as Sastra works generally do not a few quotations, both in prose and verse. R.C. Pandeya's edition (pp. 177599.) includes among other things also an 'Index of Verses Quoted in YD' and an "Index of Prose Passages Quoted in YD'. Already a cursory comparison between these two alphabetically arranged lists shows that the prose passages could be identified to a remarkably large extent, whereas for very few of the verses is their source mentioned. Now it is clear thai in view of the paucity of suitable and reliable research tools an editor is to a con siderable degree dependent on his own knowledge of texts and his own power of recol lection, unless he is assisted by friends and colleagues or by a stroke of luck. I would hence not be fair to find faults with an editor for failing to identity cach and every quotation found in his text, provided he has done what he ought to do, namely add a list of all the quotations.
The importance of such an index is too obvious to call for further comment. Indeed, a consolidated index of the indexes already available (as a rule attached to editions, eg. of philosophical texts) should be compiled (with the help of a PC) and published. Among other things this would surely go far towards identifying many of the quotations that have so far resisted attempts at identification.
But even then there is very great likelihood indeed that in most cases it will be only a certain percentage of the quotations a particular text contains that can be traced back to their original source; the number of Sanskrit texts which have not come down to us is simply too large to warrant the hope that completeness, and perfection, can be achieved in this regard. On the other hand, it need hardly be stated that except for this untraceable rest all the other quotations in a given text should certainly be identified. One of the reasons is the important role which quotations play in discussions about the relative chronology of texts, i.c. in establishing a terminus ad quem and/or a terminus post quem, etc. Quite evidently, such arguments cannot be based on an accidental or arbitrary choice of quotations, but presuppose - ideally that all of them without exception have been identified, but as this is practically never possible that at least all those which have been taken from extant texts have actually been identified.'
I should like to add the remark that the critical edition of this text, the preparation of which I asBounced quite some time ago (see n. 47 oa p.455 of my article 'Some Observations on the Yuklidipaka in ZDMG Supplement II, Wiesbaden 1975, pp 299-455), will finally be completed in the course of the year in cooperation with two Japanese colleagues, Prol. Shunja Molegi and Mr. Hisayoshi Miyamoto-la 1970 Dr. Renkanka Trip published in V asia book ciled Itakuwa Saptha Rondinkap acited Teeprabhat had started Yuridiked ca w which gives the bare ut of the YD following to all appearances Pandya's editie The M publication statioerd below in fo.12 deserves villes to be called an edition
I hope that this kind of quotation is meant by the use of the word 'wome' in the statement possibly who critical edition of the text has been completed and some of the many quotations identified, one will be able to determine a more precise date for the YDI. found on p 728 of GJ. Larson's and

Page #2

128
Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society
(1991)
A Wezler, On Two Medical Verses in the Yuktalipika
129
2.1. As for the YD, the result achieved by Pandeya can be improved upon. Eg the hemistich
grhasthuh sadrsin bharyann vindetanunvapúrvikam found on p.15 1.30 and stated by the - anonymous' - author to stem from another Sastra' (sastrantura) is a quotation of GautDhS (1.4.1, which however reads anunya. purvdm yaviyasim.' The context, but more importantly the contents of the quotation itself, quite clearly point in the direction of the Dharmasastra, so that it is somewhat surprising that Pandeya failed to identify it and hence to recognize that its being part of a verse is highly questionable. Or to give another example, the dry
vrksdgdc cyutapddo yadvad anicchan narah pataty eva
tadvad gunapurusano 'nicchann api kevall bhavati quoted on p.21 11.28-29 is verse 83 of the Paramarthasära of Ādisesa, where however the reading (narah) ksitau patati seems to be attested without variant(s). This identification was apparently made first by Danielson, who also used it as the only) argument for determining the terminus ad quem of the Paramarthasara, in that he subscribed to Frauwallner's view that the YD existed in the year 550 AD.' and hence drew the conclusion that 'the PS must be earlier than that'. This is, I think, a good example of the danger which one should try not to incur, viz. relying on the date of a text B, without carefully examining the evidence, or pseudo-evidence, on which it is based, in order to determine the relative chronology of another text A in which one is primarily interested. It is admittedly rather annoying to have to enter into a discussion of the date of a second text, or even many more texts, since quite often such problems
turn out to have a snowball effect, but there is no way by which this kind of ensuing complexity could legitimately be avoided.
2.2 Pandeya's 'Index of Verses Quoted in YD includes a rather strange entry to, viz samburidhisabdah sapekso 25. for as a rule verses, or parts of verses, quoted in the YD are quite clearly marked off in his edition, but one looks in vain for such a Typographically distinct element on p.25. Only when reading the whole of this line by line does one finally chance upon the clause sambandhifudah sapekso nityam vrau samasyale (1.19). Now this forms part of the counterargument - its prior part being purva eva samdso 'stu- of the defensor; he wants to invalidate an objection (of the opponent) by deciding in favour of the first interpretation of the compound mälupuki (according to which it is to be paraphrased by malam casou praktih, and not mular praktindm) and by (now directly) refuting the view that the karmadharaya compound would not be correct (a view based on and explicitly justified by quoting Patanjali's famous dictum saviesandri vitir na vrasya vd visesanani na pruyuyatel (Mahabhasya 1 361.5ff; cf. II 18.701). 'no word-composition (i.e. compounding) is allowedl of words qualified [by an outside wordt, nor is a qualifying word (fallowed to be added to that part of speech]) which has alreadyll been made a compound') and this view seems to be refuted by the statement, just quoted, viz. sambandhisabduh säpekso nityam vprau samasyate, which is, however, found only in one of the two MSS. used by Pandeya for his edition of the YD, namely that of Ahmedabad.
Now the counterargument as a whole is introduced by an uyate which is used in this function stereotypically in the YD - just like dha announcing an objection of the opponent. Therefore one cannot but wonder why the second part of this counterargu ment could be regarded by Pandeya as a quotation: in fact there is in the text no indication of a quotation. Most probably Pandeya thought of Vakyapadiya III 748 (= 14 (Vritisamuddesa).48.' which reads thus:
sambandhisabdah sapekso nityam sarvah prayujate
(svarthavat sd vapeksasya vstav api na hiyare)." but Pandeya has failed to add this reference, either in a footnote on p.25 or in the "Index and has forgotten to mark off what he considered to be a quotation (if this idea did not come to his mind only later, i.e. at the time of compiling the indexes). In this connection it has to be noted that such confusion would by no means be surprising in an edition which abounds in (prose) quotations which are identified in footnotes given at the bottom of the page where they occur, but which are nevertheless (or for that very
R.Sh Bhattacharya's volume Samke. A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy (Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophics), Princeton 1987.
See also the remark on p.458 (logether with fn.6) of my artick Further References to the Vailesika-Sira in the Patanjalayogalästravivarana (Studies on the Palanjalayogasastrawwarana Illy in Antadhara, Prof. R.N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume, ed. by S.D. Joshi, Delhi 1984, pp. 457-472
The escription of the YD to Vkcaspatimišra (L.) in the colophon of the Poona MS. is so evidenily wrong that I do not dem it accessary explicitly to justily why the author has for the time being to be regarded as unknown la passing I should, however, like to mention that this error of the partially unnecessary - discussion it has provoked, has in its turn had the consequence that MSS. of Vacaspalimisra's Tallvakaumudi which do not contain even a hint to this elfedhave wongly been listed in the entry on the YD in the corresponding not yet published volume of the New Catalogus Catalogni
See also VasDhS 8.1 and the Bhavisyapurana as quoted by F. László, De Parallelversion der Mann smrti i Bhavisapurdna. (AKM X1,2). Wiesbaden 1971, p. 166 (6.5c); cl. also M. Shee, tapus und lapas vin in den erzahlenden Partien des Mahabharata, Reinbek 1986, pp 6311 - It seems that the characterization of Sudaksiaa as didrunid (with reference to Dilipa) in Raghuvamia 1.33 has also to be seen in the light of this rule of the Dharmasastra.
My translation is modelled on that of SD. Joshi, Paranjali's Vyakarana-Mahabya Samanth (P.2.1.1). (Publications of the Centre of Advanced Study in Sanskrit, Class C, N ). Pina
a
p
According to the numbering of the critical edition by W. Rau, Bhangharis Vukwapakiya, (AKM XLII.4). Wiesbaden 1977.
It is introduced by wka ce, but not followed by an ini. TH. Danickson. Aktera, The Essence of Supreme Truh (Paramarthasara), Sansk Test with Transla and N es, Leiden 1990, pp.11 and in. M8 (PT), in the Introduction' it is convincingly shown that this will cannot be clasificd as belonging to the Samkhya school of thought.
10 This harika is also quoted by Kaiyata on Mahabhasya I Il 319 b 25-26
lf, w
Pradipa (NSP Edit
)

Page #3

1-30
Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society 1 (1990)
A Wezler, On Two Medical Verses in the Yukripika
reason?) not included in the corresponding index," so that everybody is free to guess what this index is meant to embrace!
What is then the meaning of this quotation'? Shiv Kumar and D.N. Bhargava, to whom we owe the first volume of an English translation of the YD," have correctly recognized that sapekso has the function of a predicate, but their rendering of the first clause by the related word is always needed' is quite evidently wrong, and nonsensical" (whereas and is also compounded in a complex formation as equivalent of the second dause is unobjectionable). Instead it should be translated as follows: 'A relational word is always dependant on/always shows a relation to the correlated word. Thus this sentence as a whole indeed expresses basically the same idea as Bharthari's verse, although in a very abridged form, especially as regards padas c and d which can be translated thus: This its interdependence with the other word correlated with it is also not abandoned even in a complex formation (i.c. in compounding) just as its own meaning is not abandoned by a relational word). As regards the relation in which the YD's sentence stands to the Vakyapadiya verse, it cannot simply be taken for granted that the former is a quotation of the latter. All that can be said with certitude is that this verse may have lurked in the mind of whoever uttered the sentence. In cases like this it is evidently not at all easy clearly to distinguish between an intended quotation, i.e. an utterance made by someone in order to repeat another person's statement verbatim, but differing from it because of a slip of memory, on the one hand, and an original statement, on the other, the formulation of which is consciously or unconsciously, influenced by what has been said by another person. But it need hardly be added that in spite of the boundary being fluid this distinction as such is of no little importance.
However, it is not only highly questionable whether this sentence can in fact be regarded as a quotation, but it is also not clear at all that it forms a part of the text of
the YD. Doubts seem to be justified first of all because the sentence is attested to only in one of the MSS., but in this case observations about the dialectical structure and the "formulae' used in the stylized discussion that very largely characterize the YD allow one to come to a decision which is well founded and hence convincing. For the taking up of an argument brought forward already earlier - and therefore explicitly characterized as purva -" is not something done only once by the author of the YD. On the contrary. there are some more instances (even though it does not seem to be a particularly common feature of this text), and in the other cases it is significantly enough, also coupled with a subsequent recalling, i.e. quoting of an objection, or objections, raised carlier against it, but now only in order to reject it or them definitively. At YD 38.23 we read: cae ... athavd punor astu purvakam vodaharanam (cf. 38.20) Iyar laktam anekantadii (d. 38.20) atra brumah , and at 3.231.: wyale-purva na pandrostu (c. 3.16) athava punar ashulanirdnarokter ity ayam pariharah (c. 3.18) ya tüktam pramandrupadesaprasanga ir atra brumah... In the second case, though, the clause containing the key word purva is not immediately followed by the yar laktam phrase, but quite evidently only because a second alternative refutation is also taken into account. or rather preferred to the first one. The structure of the formula as such, however, stands out distinctly in relief: it is of such a kind that the clause containing the key words purva and astu must be immediately followed by a tuktam except for the case - which is, however, perfectly understandable both in terms of logic as well as of syntax - when it is stated that a second alternative refutation (parihdra) holds good equally. And this observation is strikingly confirmed if one also looks into the Mahabhasya, which obviously served as a model for the author of the YD in this regard, for it is this immediate sequence that is found also in Patanjali's work, c.g. at I 10.26 athavd punar asturidna eva dharma iti (cf. 10.5) nanu coktam jridne dharma ii cat tathadharma ini (cf. 10.5.) .... or 12.21: athavd punar astu surram (cf. 11.15) nanu coktar sütre wydkarane saslyartho 'nupapanna iti (cf. 11.16ff.) ...or 17.16: athava punar ashevis yena ndalirigakarande siddham iry eva (cf. 17.8, vartt. 9) nanu coktam itsartridprak ptyartham etar sydditi (cf. 17.11), etc. etc. The philologically trained reader of the YD has therefore good reason for rejecting the sentence in question: most probably it is a marginal note that crept into the text in a direct predecessor of the Ahmedabad Ms., whatever its relation to the Vakyapadiya verse may be.
23. Another type of quotation is equally deserving of attention. It is represented in the YD e.g. by the verse (22.12-13):
akke cen madhu vindeta kimartharyi parvatare vrajer
istasydrthagya samprdprau ko vidvan yainam dcaret. This verse is also quoted in Vacaspatimisra's Tattvakaumudi, though already on the first karika and not, as in the YD, in the commentary on karika 2, i.e. in a different content. But Vacaspatimisra's categorizing it as a laukikandm ablidnakah is quite
Thus c cep 23 quotations from the Chandoga-Up. v. 8.7.1 (rightly called proper acon, but containing many variants) and 3.1146 (with variants) and Mundake Up L14 (also with variants: two more ac, vivid drasah prajap nkamyoni kup pred kari n d princ wilaiandy can e bhai acard caran, have been recognized as quotations (from BAU 44.22).
12 Yukipila Vall, Deln (Easter Book Linken) 1971. The test is alte pies, but without any variants or explanations
As for the quality of this translation in general, it is enough to note that wi t h o Arambhailoka is cadered by the materialuse the Carvas) and the perverted persons, and that such boeken we common feature of it -The readering of the YD passage in question) the volume oa Samkhya of the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophy (d. 2 sbove). p.28 te word 'primordal) -- Can be wlached to another word is likewise not acceptable.
W On the term wed. Thieme's review of L Resou. Termine pericole de San Paris 1957, iGGA 212, 1958, 2311. (- Kleine Schafen, Wiesbaden 1971, pp. 73 ).
And perhaps he knew only the versie the one which is iedeg is the Vai b hasa (ed. by RBKP. Trived (RSS LXX), Bombay 1915). p.
M w ih amanstead of prope - On the secondary reading way (for pudishw). SD. Joski op. (0.8), pp.
A particularly noteworthy subwarity of the latter is the allusion to a famous Malemen, low to the cducated, the deliberate use of a formulation, hallowed by time and tradition, is a modified form.
cul (cl)
I should be noted that there we also other formula' used for taking up a previous * We relationship of the YD to the Mahabhasya I shall deal clewhere.
On this verse, and other works in which it is quoted, d.SA Srinivasan, Vacaspalomas Tamme kemud, Hamburg 1987, p. 180-Onantad my article 'A Note on Mahabhasa II 6.2. pinsan drove draryam (Studies on Mallavadin's Dradasaranayacakra Ily' in Buddhism and lu Relation to Other Religions. Essays in Honour of Dr. Sheen Kumar on Mis Semish Birthday, Kyoto 1985, n. 34.

Page #4

192
Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society
(1990)
A Wezler, On Two Medical Verses in the Yuhtidepku
133
evidently not provoked by the context, but merely by the contents of the verse itself and perhaps by his knowing it as a popular saying, a proverb'.
In a case like this it is, of course, not reasonable to search for the source of the quotation, even though it cannot but ultimately have been composed by an individual author. On the other hand, it cannot a limine be excluded that the label "proverb' is wrong or that the verse, or prose passage, became a proverb' only secondarily, nor should it be forgotten that a list of occurrences of (genuine) proverbs is a natural tool of any philology
3. But my main concern is with two medical verses which are quoted in the YD on Särpkhyakarika (12.12-15) and which read thus:
sarvesdy Wyddhirupandir nidánar trividhar smistam dhdraf ca vihdras ca karma púrvaklap fatha 11 tardhdraviharothan rogar draga apohati
yas tu karmakto vyddhir marandi sa nivartale. The quotation is introduced by the ca, and in accordance with that (i.c. what I stated just now) it is said': the particle in is added only after a third verse which is also quoted, though separated from the two earlier ones by an inserted puntar apy dha. The pair of verses is adduced as a vindication of the defensor's proposition preceding the aha ca, viz. (YD 12.107.): pratyaks evitad upalabhyale yad ayurvedaviuitasya kriydkramaryabuyuktam armavantam bhesajabhisakparicdrasampanar praty dhartha kyam, which in its turn is meant to answer the opponent's objections (clothed in a question and directed at the last part of the karika). viz. (12.9): katham etad avaganyate Ill vad dostara helor anaikannikarvam andyantikarvam ca 'how is it known (ie, is there really a means-of-valid-cognition which proves) that the perceptible means (for removing the threefold suffering are neither certain (i.e. by necessity efficacious) nor final (i.e. successful once and for ever)? The answer given is this: 'It is in fact perceived directly that the course of actions (ie the medical treatment in its particular deliberate Succession) prescribed by the Ayurveda is useless/does not achieve the desired object leven?) with regard to sa sick person who is careful, possessed of self-restraint (and has the right medicine, a physician and people to attend and nurse him'. And it is clear already at first sight why the two verses are quoted thereafter, not, of course, because the author of the YD wants to draw attention to an individual case or a particular kind of such a perception - which would result in an unnecessary redundance or overexplicitness, since everybody knows from his own experience that what he has said about the failure of medical treatment is true, but because he wants to make an additional point, víz, to point out that the science of medicine itself not only admits the unreliabili ly of the remedies it provides, but in fact recognizes a particular class of diseases to be by its very nature incurable and hence absolutely fatal!
Hence there seems to be little doubt that the two verses are quoted from a lex belonging to Ayurveda literature, cven though the expression dywneda(viitasyu) does not (directly) refer to them and they are also perfectly clear in this regard.
3.1 Two expressions used in these verses, however, seem to call for closer inspection, viz. dhdra and vihara.
3.1.1 As for the former, there can hardly be any doubt that it is only the meaning 'taking food' or 'food' which can be countenanced here. Both meanings are well attested. Thus dhdra e.g. of Manu 5.105 is explained by Medhatithi by simply adding pavitrandin payomulando 'taking (via. food) which, prepared from milk, serves as a means of purification', or (gramya) hdra of Manu 63 is taken to mean wnuyamayam anam by Medhatithi and similarly godhumatilakadikur by Ramacandra while Raghavananda, explaining the attribute only, gives the explanation krydiyatnotpadyan (scil.bhakyan). But it is not always possible to decide with certainty whether in a particular case the expression dhidru is used to denote the action or its object: e.g. in the Manu verses referred to just now the commentator Maniráma explains aldra of 5.105 by huvisya rupuh, i.e. starts from the assumption that it means food or rather a particular kind of food, or Govindaraja in paraphrasing grdmya ahdra of M 6.3 'by grdmodbhavannaMaksanam shows that he regards it as a nomen actionis! As justly pointed out already by the Larger Petersburg Dictionary. indigenous Indian grammarians are of the opinion that the meaning "food' does not derive from the fact that the suffix is added to denote the object of the action (karman), but the apadana, i.e. what normally is ex pressed by the ablative; for the author of the Kasika it even serves as the example for this function of the suffix ghart, for in explaining Pån. 3.3.19 he says: ahuranti tasmad rasam iry Gharah 'adra is semantically equivalent to the phrase) They (ie the living beings) take from it the rasa (the digestible part of food, i.e. that which the organism is able to utilize for itsell)". Now, this looks like a very medical, scientific conception of food, so that one even feels justified in doubting whether in this case the grammarians have really been led by their feeling for language and not rather by their knowledge of Ayurvedic theories, for there is little likelihood that this expression was coined to render the rather complicated notion of that from which a living being or an organism takes what it needs as nutriment', and as far as I can see a/hr itself is also not used, at least not idiomatically, in a manner which would lend credibility to the explanation given in the Kasika. It is much more probable that Lingayasarin hits the target when he para phrases ahdra by Shriyate, bhujyate, p.587. i.e. that his explanation in fact agrees with
No Wikas follows from Medict's commentary on Menu 11.10. his explanation of honum by pumalaglende
alabo Kullita (vrhyddiko bhak syar) and Manirama (Wihuddibhaksyon).
V 12.17 18
sopdravo sarvanipo balamamisendetypahalı
saia caivo yo vyddhistam bhisek parvarjayer. This verse, 100, still needs to be identifiedsce also below, fa. 112
21 This reading found in the Ahmedabad MS. is unfortunately not even mentioned in Pandya's editie His reading prayoge can hardly be correct as the locatie is obviously, ic, accurding to the dictionaries, used only as a quasi prepositive
Raghavananda's explanation A ddiyanaidyam is less open to misconstruction than that given by Govindaraja which could be taken to refer to provisions obtained in a village
C abo VS. Aple's dictionary (the reference to the Siddhanta Kaumudi I was, however, not able to verify) as well as P. S. Ramasabha Sastri et al. Kontani pombe, Madras 1971. p.1419.
Amarokosail with the United South Indian Comments Amarapodom of Linguin and the Amarap dapdryde of Mallindia, critically cd ... by A. A. Ramanathan, Adyar: Madras 1971.p.587

Page #5

134
Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society I (1990)
A. Wezler. On Two Medical Verses in the Yuklipika
135
the idea normally connected with the word when used in the meaning of food, but on the other hand it cannot be disputed that the interpretation offered by Jayaditya is equally possible in terms of Sanskrit word formation.
The next question which arises is whether or not ahdra - a yate is semantically identical with food' as defined c.g. in The New Penguin English Dictionary: (minerals, vitamins, etc. together with) material consisting essentially of protein, carbo-hydrate, and fat taken into the body of a living organism and used to provide energy and sustain processes (eg growth and repair) essential for life'. In this connection it is important to take note of a remark found in the Sabdastomamahanidhi. viz. nidhdraf cayelvditi smpiau jalapdne py aharafabdah, according to which the word ahara is also used with reference to the drinking of water, and the sloka pada quoted as an example - albeit from a text which I was not able to identify-contains a compound which indeed bears witness to this assertion, for nirahdra can only mean one whose thdra consists of water (only) and thus quite clearly demonstrates that water and other liquids can be subsumed under dhara.
This observation is confirmed c.g. by Sarvajnanarayana who in his commentary on the Manu verse referred to already above, viz. 5.105, explains ahdra by brahmasuva cala panddir dustajaladipdne, or by Ramacandra who (on the same versc) similarly equales dharah to jalapdnddir. In the light of this evidence food' seems to be too narrow a concept, a more correct equivalent being what is taken, i.c. received into one's body through the mouth.
3.1.2. The second expression to be examined, viz. vihara, is likewise used as an illustration in a grammatical work, or at least a grammatical context, viz. in a karika which
Kaundabhatta quotes in his Vaiyakaranabhūşanasara (on verse 46 of the mulu), qualifying it as a wrddhok and which reads thus:
upasargena dharvatho balad urtyara nyare
pralidráhärasarphdraviharapariharuvar The commentators obviously deemed this so clear that they unfortunately thought they could do without an explanation, and Kaundabhatja confines himself to demonstrating that this verse indeed supports the point he wants to make in discussing the various theories about pasargas and nipdtas. But this does not really matter; for, what the primary nouns pralara, ahdra, etc. are meant to illustrate is the semantic difference caused by the preverbs, therefore a commentator could only be expected to make clear this aspect, but not to discuss the various meanings each of these words has.
After all vihdra, in the verses from the YD. poses a problem in so far as none of the meanings listed in the dictionaries really seems to fit, cxcept perhaps for that of walking for pleasure or amusement, wandering, roaming: sport, play, pastime, diversion, enjoy ment, pleasure' (Monier Williams). However, this clearly calls for a critical examination, and in this regard it is certainly useful to look for explanations of vihara in commentaries of other works.
In as much as vihdra, too, can be used as a verbal noun, it is legitimate to take into account also another derivative, viz. viharana, which is attested in Särrkhyakarika 28 in an enumeration of the functions (vtt) of the five karmenriyas, i.e. faculties which serve action'. Since Isvarakosoa also follows the yathasankhya-principle, there cannot be the least doubt that viharana (no. 3 in karika 28cd) refers to pada (no. 3 in karika 26 cd), i.e. that it denotes the function of the feet. Now the author of the YD explains viharana as follows (p. 1041.2): visistam haranan viharanam atas ca yad eva samani samanimnonnatacankramanaparivartanandyavydydmddih sa indriyantho ndryuh. That is to say that the word denotes different kinds of what one does with one's feet, viz. walking circumambulating (?), dancing, doing physical exercises, etc, on the various kinds of ground. Hence the aspect of pleasure is not totally absent, but is quite evidently not dominant, being merely one among many others. A semantic development ce from walking to walking for pleasure, and even to enjoyment, pleasure is therefore
to say thaornatacarikramanade plus am haranayev
17 See also the passage quoted below on p.136 from Sankara's Glabhaya.
Harmondsworth 1986.
Note that this definition is also primarily based on (the) science (of medicine) and not on common understanding of what food is
In the Vaiyakaranabhosana the quotation is simply followed by all canyah in order to make clear that it is so also a verse of Kumarilabhalta's like the two quoted before it (which are taken from the Tamiravartika on MS 13.3), ASS editikoa Il 250).
(A Sanskrit Dictionary) compiled by Srl Taranatha Bhatjacarya, Varanasi 1967. It is quite remarkable tha Bhalfacaryl coalincs himself to adding Islaw to this quotation akhough, according to Prafulla Mitra's 'Memoir' (p.XII) heeg 'had the entire Mahabharata committed to memory which was so extraordinaryły retcntive that he could tell anybody offhand the contents of any Sanskrit book and particular pages there of wherein the subjects occurred.
It should be noted that the locative can, in a case like the prescalone, not be rendered by a the canine/case of
Ordrink of water, since jalapina need not be anomen actions. Not listed in the dictionaries (as far as I can see)
» Note the variant anyah prutiyale.
This remark holds good for the compilers of the K andarupamala ( 25 above) to, al Upodgbata p.IX.
CI. karmarthanindriyani karmendrini (YD 99.15) in contradistinction to budulher indriydi bud dhindrydni, 99.61.
Oa which soc H. Brinkhaus "Yathasarkhya und versus rapportati", Sall 7, 1981, 21-10
"Unless this latter meaning is derived from the elliptic use of whdra "passing wway the time lo any case it is important to take into account the barrower or wider coated in the Arthalara e thara always means "(place of recreation' (1.10.13, L19.142.133, 2.2.3, 5.1.23 and 28: 7.15 22; 12.5.47, 13.2.45) or "sportive) amusement, pleasure' (2.26.5, 33.21; 5.5.7, 13.5.8).
See also la 56 and in 81 below.
1 c. in this regard also the common translation 'eat' for verbs seeming rather to bean take ia' in modern Indian languages; seg RP Das, 'Dravidischer Einfluß bei der Bildung muindoarischer periphrastischer Passive? Sull 11/12, 1986, 151.

Page #6

136
Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society 1 (1990)
indeed possible. Hence it is not necessary to check the passages on which this entry is based; but it is imperative to recognize, and not to lose sight of the fact that viharana and wihara are not basically connected with the idea of pleasure, amusement, play etc.
On the other hand, it is also possible that isvarakroa, and following him the author of the YD, deliberately restrict the meaning of viharana for obvious reasons. The criticism directed by Jayantabharta against the Samkhya conception of the karmendriyas, or to be more precise, against the feet as a karmendriya, is based on different considera. tions, for what he says is (11 379.87.): api ca viharanam api na kevalar caranayugula. karyan, apiru janürujarighadisahirapddasampadyam api and in addition walking is also not only to be performed by just the pair of feet, but on the contrary, also something that is brought about by the feet in cooperation with the knces, thighs, the shanks, etc.' At least it has to be noted that in the Mahabhagya the following sentence is found (1 363.256.): antarena khalv api sabdaprayogam bahavo hd gamyante 'ksinikocach pdnivihdrait ca (cf. also I 388,46.), where the compound pdnivihdra can only mean 'move. ment, gesture of the hand(s) (used as signal)' (hastacesta)." And it cannot simply be argued that the addition of the prior fimber is significant in that it shows that vihdra alone does not refer to a movement of the hands, for the qualification can likewise be accounted for by assuming that in the given context it was necessary to exclude movements of other parts of the body like the feet, etc. It is therefore at least probable that wildu docs not refer exclusively to functions of the feet -as is in fact to be expected in view of the basic meaning of vi/hr 'to pari asunder, keep apart, separate, to
A. Wezler, On Two Medical Verses in the Yukuha
137 Another very interesting passage is Matsyapurana 1842 lcd-23ab"
aslau masán vilárah sydd yaliram santyatarmanam ekutra caturo mäsan vürsikan nivaset punah 11 avimukse pravistanam vihdras tu na vidyute
na deho bhavita futra drstam scistre puratane; for it testifies to the fact that vilara is used in stark contrast to its meaning 'monastery - to denote precisely the opposite, i.e. the specific activity of mendicant ascetics during the rest of the year, their homeless roaming about. It is noteworthy that more than just the constant movement on foot is here at least implied.
In a metaphysical and slightly extended meaning wharu is used in the Yogabhasya (on YS 4.10), viz. the passage ye caite mairrydduyo aliydyind vihdrds ..., which should cer tainly not be rendered - as it was by Woods - by 'as for friendliness and such (exalted states-of-mind), they are the diversions of contemplative (yogins', but rather by ... are the activities (of the mind-stufi) of lyogins) practising meditation, for the explanation given by the author of the Patanjalayogasõstravivarana (330.221.), viharah / - / cittavydparah, cestäni is highly convincing indeed."
open,
4 la the edition by Panicamana Tarkarna, Calcutta 1891; it is 183 2181. in Marsyapurdna, Texia Devanagarl, Translation and Notes in English, Foreword and Translation by H. H. Wilson. Arranged by N.S.Singh, Delhi 1983
However, it cannot be denied that the action primarily thought of in connection with the word vihdra and hence denoted by it is that of the feet, or rather legs, although the movement of walking or marching etc. affects, of course, the body as a whole.
To adduce a few more pieces of evidence: Bhag. Gita 11.42ab
yac cavahdsartham asakyto 'si viláraśayydsanabhojanesu and that you have not been shown due respect by me, while walking, lying, sitting or cating (together with you) because I wanted to mock you', where Sankara's explanation viharanarri vihdrah padavydyamah is indeed to the point since Arjuna clearly has in mind rules about giving precedence to another person, walking behind a person of higher rank and similar 'rules of etiquette'.
On this place name see V.S. Apie's dictionary
"I wonder bow wihdra became to demake monastery: I doubt whether this is a specialization of the meaning place of residece because, at kast originally served as a temporary abode only Monier-Williams' explanation ('originally a hall where the monks met of walked about') is also not really convincing and place of recreation, pleasure, amusement can certainly also be excluded. I should like to propose that it is derived from (Alem) whip, to pass away the time, he that originally denoted a place where monks, and nuts, spent the rainy season, ie. the time during which they could not roam about the somatically closely related middk lodic expression lena (< Ski, layana). place where an animal cowers for shekar - burrow hok, den' and place where monks take shelter during the rainy season monastery Sukumar Dull's explannion of the term lena is, however, wirely different (Buddha Meniks and Monasteries of India, their History and their contribution to Indian Culhwe, London 1962, p.93), on the other hand this book coolains many picces of information which seem to support at least my interpretation of whdra (ch. pp. 581,93 and particularly 94 ('The original purpose of a whara was apparently to provide shcher from inclemencics of weather and nouous things - they were no more than shelters for monks to dwell in fux wassoudces'). Cl. also his book Early Budha Monachus, (2nd roved). London 10, pp.9911 and 1 Solr.
5 Cf the expression
waset and dwimuke pravistand
clearly in contrast to
hidra
4 That is to say kride as is the usually paraphrased by commentator (dee Cakraplaidalla Caraka, Cikitsak. 20.41 or Adiyadarsana, Devapala and Brahmanabala on K GS 1.19 (C. Dreycr, Das Kajhake-Ghya-S e.... Stuttgart 1946, p.20). By way of a specialisation of meaning where can even have the meaning of surata, d.cg the commentary called Laksmi on Sahityadarpana 3.110 (ed. by Acharya Krynamohan Sastl, Varanasi 1967, p.14%), Sukranila 3.112 (kwrydd wharum hdrant nudrat jane nada)
"Reference is to Vol. Il of the edition (MORIS 1W) by K.S. Varadacharya, Mysore 1983
* This is the coplanation given by Carudeva Sauert in his Upasurgarthacandrika, Vol. 3. Delhi - Varanasi 1979, p.419, d. Nigojibhaija's Uddyola (NSP-edition), 11 378 b.
"C. RV 10.1624 and Air 2.35 (Adhyâya 10.3).-a.also Panini 1.341 (veh plaviharane) "As rightly pointed out by Jayanta!
According to Vacasparimisra this is a statement of the caryol quoted in the Bhasya
52 The Yoga-System of Patanjali.... (HOS 17), repr. Delhi-Varanasi --Paina 146. p. 309.
5) The italics are minc
In this connection Arunadanta's characterization of where as wapkhamanifcstalaksona should be hoxed (Astangahrdaya, Sarirasah. 3,44).

Page #7

Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society I (1990)
Muvement for the bodyl." but first of all of the feel', is hence a meaning of wihdra that is not only well-attested, but seems also quite suitable for the context of the two verses under discussion. 'Mode of life', an equivalent found eg among others in the Pali-English Dictionary of Rhys Davids und Stede, clearly suffers from being too broad, and inexact, a meaning, For, closely connected with the expression andra as vihdra is in our verses, it cannot by any means denote a concept which already by itself quite naturally includes the manner of eating. The syntagma Sharat ca vihdras ca of the second line of the two verses at issue almost gives the impression of being the vigraha," the separation of the corresponding dvandva compound ahdravihdra. In fact the compound ahdravihara occurs quite frequently especially in Ayurvedic texts; both words are often mentioned together, either by themselves or as parts of a larger compound or series of expressions, so that one feels tempted to assume that the concepts denoted by them are in fact closely connected with or even supplementary to each other. But one should not count one's chickens before they are hatched, i.e. one should first take a closer look at some at least of the relevant passages in order to find out in which of its numerous meanings the word vihara is in fact used in the Ayur veda, and whether the meaning is the same in all cases.
At Caraka, Vimanasth. 8.92-93 it is said in the context of dealing with certain topics (viz. ten factors) to be examined for the knowledge of physicians (.e. by the physicians in order to know more about the patient) (kanicit prakarandi bhisajam iridndotham: 68, d. 84) among which figures also dela: delas tu bhumir atural calatra bhumipariksa - durajinahator wdydd magadhaparidaetor wd tatra da bom dhuraparijridnahetohradyasha-ayar kami bhumidesejarah saidaho wddhito vd; tamil ca bhumidese manusydndm idam dhdrajdiam, idari vihdrajtam, kdam acara jdiam, it looks very much as though the various physical activities of people, as such activities are specific to a particular place or region, are here set off against cooking and drinking on the one hand, and conduct and manners, on the other. A somewhat
A Wezler, On Two Medical Verses in the Yukriipika
139 different picture presents itself if the initial part of the kushandana of the Susruta is compared with its parallels in the Asiangahrdaya, and Astangasangraha. for what corresponds to Susruta, Nidánasih. 53 mithyaradrasa) ved riddhasatmyajinahitajinah ... yo v... tasya pittaslesmanau prakupitau... in the Astangahrdaya is Nidanasth. 14.11.
mithydhdravihdrena višesena virodhind sadhunindavadharyasvaharanddys ca sevia II
pdpmabhi karmabhik sadyah praktanaih prenita malah and this would seem to indicate that vihdra and dcdra are semantically so closely related (as regards a particular part of their respective semantic fields) that they can be interchanged in this regard), Gayadása strikingly confirms this observation in that he ex plains in his commentary on the Susruta passage: (mislydlabdah dhardcdrabhyden saha prayekam abhisambadhyale tutra dvadaidianapravibhagoktavidhiviparitavidhir mithyd harah 1/" Acarah kayavdrimanobhadena trividho vihdruh asid vastavad and badhavidhandd aryathakarana mithydarah .... It should also be noted that Todara in his commentary on the passage quoted just now from the Astangahrdaya offers an ex planation of vihara which is in remarkable agreement with that given by Gayadasa for dcdra, viz. mithyavi drena/ / hirsdsteddikena kayavdrimdrasena prdnympagharaparusa vacundnis avertind. According to both these commentators vihdra means 'activity of the (age-old) triad of body, speech and thought'. and this is a very interesting piece of in formation no matter whether the activity is considered to be wrong (Mithya) for ethical or for medical reasons, since it permits one to assign (tentatively) to vihdra the meaning 'habitual or occasional behaviour' - and the lexical content is thus indeed in accordance
contre de recherches
"a. on this also RE. Emmerick, "Some Remarks on the History of Leprosy in India, Ind. Tour. XII. 1984, 93-105 as well as Die Lepra in ladica' in Aussa. Lepre. Hansen Krankheit, Ein Menschheitsproblem im Wandel Teil It Aufsdee, hrsg. JH. Woll, Wurzburg 1986, pp. 185-199.
& Reference is to the edition by A.D. Alhavale, Poona 1986
Reference is to the edition by Jaderaj Trikamji Acharya, NSP. Bombay 1916.
» c. also the expression miliard, referring to rendere paricdrakah, Sulrula, Utara 60.22 which is explained in the content sell, vi by Miscardam (ind y ...) in the subsequenterDalhasa paraphrases the former by w ramana; dalso Cakrapanidanta's explain when ( Caraka Clash 214 by warm.
It is allested to also clsewhere, eg Amangah daya. Sariasih. 3.44-le is commentary on this passage Arunadalta qualifies Share as pintanddilaksane (the perhaps referring to liding etc.)
On this term se. Thieme, Meaning and form of the pammarol Panin, Sell 8/9, 1962/) Pp 2011
"Dalbara explains: strokavidhibhrayandcarusya.
Reference is to the edition by Anna Morcivar Kunc, NSP Bombay 1925
A nasampah, Nidanash. 14.2. "As kindly pointed out to me by Dr. R.P. Das, the implicit reference is to Survila, Uttarat. 6453 (or 56 in the edition used by GJ Meulenbeld, The Madhavanidaria and Chief Cu a ry -, Leiden 1974, p.344 fa, where the latter passage is translated).
Most of them were kindly pointed out to me a couple of years ago by Dr. R.P. Das.
The bolding is in
The editie wed by me is that oladavaj Trikan Acharya NSP: Bombay 11.
In The Caraka Saphia..., ed. and published in si volumes ... by Shree Gulab unverba Ayurvedic Sexiety. JAMAA 1949, this is translated as follows (1 928) ... such and such we the likes of diet wed by the people, and such this modes of exercise and customs Priya Sharma, Carate-Samphid Apuvela's treatisefined and r ed by Caraka and redacted by Dedahale , 2 voks, V -Del 1981,readers
thus that type of the people mostly have such die behavior, ed . A parallis Angus, Setrash. 23, ale the compound andravsharap.recha ) M Cake, Sarah. 814 and Awangas, Sariasih.
Quote ic. by the editor in the sixth edition of the work-NSP. Bombay 1999 - mcntioned in fa on the MS. sed sceno. 32 on p. 15 of the Socipatta section of this edition
See fa 54 above; d ako Arusdalla on Asiangah daya, Nidánasih. 16 (quoted in Nilamegha's Tanirayuktivira on 2 (ed. NE. Muthuswami, Trnadrum 1926. p 3: whBrat ca am cekapher dichamenevypadroparama

Page #8

140
Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society 1 (1990)
A Wezler, On Two Medical Verses in the Yuknidipika
141
with that of dcdra as the latter too scems to be explained within the context itself of the passage from the Susrutasamphita, viz. by sachapisya vantasya wa vydymagamyadhar. masevino of one who performs physical exercises or has sexual intercourse immediately after partaking of an oleaginous substance or after vomiting, and by yo wa majary apsasmabhirapa sahasd chardir vd praranti for who unwisely takes a bath in (cold) water after an exposure to heat or who forcibly suppresses any nature urge for vomiting'. Admittedly, sexual intercourse, a refreshing bath, and even killing of other living beings does in fact or can give pleasure, but clearly the aspect of amusing oneself, indulging in a particular action, is 'nocmatisch' not relevant" here: but it is not for that reason alone that Hilgenberg and Kirfel's rendering of vihdra in this Astangahdhaya passage by Tätigkeit is not entirely satisfactory.
Another of the ten topics of Caraka, Vimanasth. 8.68 and 84 already mentioned above, are the characteristics of (< consisting in) physiological parent state etc. which the author explains in 8.95: (utra prakryddin Widvd auvyakhydsydmah 1) tadyatha - Sukraton napraktikalugarbhalayaprakrim, drurdhdravihdrapraktion mahabhatavik drapraktiv ca garbhasariram apeksute. One has, of course, to read
praktim máur sharawiharapraktim." which means the organism of the embryo depends, for its own development, on) ... the kind of food (or more precisely: what the mother takes into her body) and behaviour activities of the mother
This passage it is that Cakrapanidatta may have had in mind when he explains samyagupacaraih of Caraka, Särirasth. 33 yada.. tada garbho bhivariate sa sdtmya Pasopayogad arogo Mivardhare sarnyagupacdrait copacaryamdnah ...) quite convincingly by garbhahitair dhdravihdraih, and he need not add mdtur, or a similar expression, in order to make clear what he wants to say, viz. that the growth of the embryo is not impaired when the mother takes proper care of it by eating and drinking only what is salutory to it and by avoiding all activities that might be detrimental to it.
In a similar way a dependence is - again in principle correctly - seen between the ahdra and vihdra of a wet-nurse, or more generally a breast-feeding woman, and the quality of her milk; d. e.g. Susruta, Sarirasth. 10:32ff.:
dhdtryds i gurubhir bhojyair visamair dosalais fatha dosa dele prakupyanti tatah stanyair pradusari 11 mishaharaviharinyd dusja vaiadayah striyah disayani payas tena farina wadhayah fitoh 11
bhavani kufalas tarpus ca bhisak samyag vibhāvayet. Here too vihara is dearly not used in the meaning of 'pleasure' or 'amusement', and therefore one will accept K.K. Bhishagratna's rendering as (basically) correct, viz. 'of
woman, vitiated owing to injudicious and intemperate eating and living. His interpretation of minhyd is also quite convincing, and he, of course, starts from the assumption that this member of the compound has likewise to be construed with vihdra 100 - as explicitly stated by Gayadasa on the passage from the Susrutasamhita just quoted At Astängahrdaya, Uttarasth. 1.17ab the following recommendation is met with:
hithdravihdrena yaindd upacarec ca te (i.c. the two wet-nurses one should employ if the mother herself is not able to feed her baby). The translation proposed by Hilgenberg and Kirfel" diese pllege man sorgfältig mit zuträglicher Nahrung und Erholung' is somewhat problematic, apparently they did not recognize that hita qualifies Whara as well as ahara just as mityd does in the other cases: 'Salubrious way of living does not, however, mean here recreation' or 'resi, but 'keeping bodily activities within certain flimits in order to avoid any decrease of the "milking capacity or any deterioration of the quality of the milk').
A further and particularly clear confirmation of the foregoing determination of one of the meanings of vihdra is provided by Susruta, Cikitsasth. 30.5 in so far as somavad Ahdravihdrau vyakhydiau, said in connection with prescriptions about the use of certain medicinal plants, must refer to the preceding adhyaya (29). And this latter contains a detailed description of the treatment, behaviour, diel etc. of a patient who has taken one of the somarayanes in the course of the many weeks of his developing a 'new body (navdanuh, 29.14). Therefore, K.K. Bhishagratna's translation the regimen of diet and conduct is the same as in the case of Soma' is fully justified.
At Caraka, Indriyasth. 1.3 a number of factors are enumerated which a physician should examinc if he wants to determine a patient's remaining span of life, and among them ahdra and wihara are also mentioned. Although that latter topic does not seem to be dealt with in detail in the Indriyasthana, it is, I think, not unreasonable to assume that the expression vihara is used in a meaning identical with that which it has in the Ayurveda passages discussed in the foregoing and hence to accept Priyavrat Sharma's rendering ('diet, activities') as the one most probably correct and to reject that found in the edition and translation of the Shree Gulabkunverba Ayurvedic Society (his diet, recreation")
For the same reason H.H.M. Schmidt's translation of the compound pdndhdravi harabhesajan" occurring in verse 102(fr.) of the Yogašataka ascribed to Nagarjuna by
the foregoing only correct and to rejectely (his diet,
The tallics are mine
"Op. cit(cf. fo.72), p.518.
Op. cit. (d. In.75), p.541
On this term and the semantic theory with which it is connected, cf. K. Hollmann, Der Injunktivim Vede, Heidelberg 1967. pp37 TML Hilgenberg and W. Kirfel, Vagthopa Asidigendaye topluid.,Leiden 1991, p.270.
According to Cakrapnidatta prakse is here equivalent to srabhde.
This is also evinced by Cakrapanidalta's explanation can gurbhafua hala dosah, m urahan whdraw tatkalinaw yaddosakarunasabhww.
Oddly though this idea is not even mentioned by Cakrapnidaltain is commentary on this passage and therefore se reference is preciber.
Das Yogalate, En Zaimi altindischer Medizin in Sanskrit und Tibetch, trag u bersel, Bona 197 p 213.
An English Translation of die Sushrut Sam
... Varanasi 1']vol. II, p.228
Note that bere pana is mentioned separately, and not subsumed under the

Page #9

142
Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society I (1990)
A Wezler, On Two Medical Verses in the Yukudipika
there to be 'mithyaharu be mentioned, since,
cessively disturbed
She secondar
"Trank Nahrung und Vergnügungsmedizin cannot be considered a successful attempt to render the original; no doubt J. Filliozai's 'medication par boisson alimentation et manière de vivre' is decidedly much nearer the point. Obviously the remedies referred to here correlate to corresponding causes, or types of causes, of diseases; in this connection Siddhasara" 5.2 and 9.1 should also be mentioned, since, respectively, particular dosas are stated there to be 'mithydhdravih droithan, and the wind etc. to be excessively disturbed (dusta) mithydhdravihdratah'!
But there are passages where one cannot be as sure as in these last cases, or where vihdra is quite evidently used at least in the meaning 'pleasant, amusing activity if not directly pleasure, amusement' etc.
An interesting paragraph (12) of Caraka, Särirasth. 5 is devoted to an explication of the means of ascending of those desirous of liberation' (mumukind udayand), the lengihy list that is given in this paragraph also comprises suprasthitapalaprekidhara vihdraprayarigaces Adikes drambhesu smrtipurvika pravsttih; in view of para 'going moving'. one hesitates to assume that vihara means bodily activity here, but pleasure etc. is evidently excluded. It would appear that two traditional prefabricated' chains have been stringed together here, one made up of past participles used as verbal nouns and the other of primary nouns, and what is meant by vihara, in contradistinction to "food' and to the movement of minor limbs of the body is most probably the remaining activities of the body, such as urinating, defecating etc.
In the description of various types of sativa at Caraka, Sartrasth. 4.3611., however, expressions like ambhovihdrarati (37.5), sukhavihara (37.6). strtvihdra (37.7). vikrishdraviharaila (38.3) or alarawiharapara (35.6) are to be interpreted in the light of Cakrapănidaita's explanation wiharah =) krida. That is to say, it has to be admitted firstly that wihdra can be used even in Ayurvedic texts to denote ways and doings which are first of all thought of as giving pleasure, and, sccondly, that this holds good of the word too when it forms a compound together with ahdra. This compound as such cannot hence be regarded as an absolutely reliable indication of vihara meaning walking bodily activity etc.
t hi's corals like W
Nevertheless there are passages in non-Ayurvedic texts too in which no other choice can reasonably be made. What I have in mind is e.g. Bhag Gitá 6.17
yukthdravihdrasya yuklacespasya karmasu
yuktasvapndvabodhasya yogo bhavati duh khaha, and the relevant part of Sankara's commentary on this verse, viz. dhriyara ity ahdruh // annarr, viharunarr wiharah padakramalı, tam yuktau niyutaparimdau yasya sah yuktharavihdrah tarye, tarha yuktacespasya (anyd cal yukid niyuld cesidyasya karmas tasya. For, just as in the case of Caraka, Sarirasth. 5.12 the fact that the compound under discussion and a second compound containing the word cesid are juxtaposed does not by any means warrant the conclusion that it cannot therefore have the meaning walking'. all that has to be assumed is that cesid refers to other activities of the body. and this is expressed in the Caraka passage by the prior member pratyanya', and suggests itself quite naturally in the verse from the Bhagavadgitá too, as is also shown by the secondary explicatory addition of anyd ca.
Or consider Medhatithi's commentary on Manu 1.96, in which he takes bhuta to refer to plants like trees etc. and animals like worms, insects (?) (kira) etc, but explains pranin - and the prdninah are said to be the relatively best among the bhutas by Manu - by thdravihdradices diamarthah those (among them who are able to eat food and to perform movements like walking etc..
Finally, the sentence dryante ca podrindr kalaurupdh svabhdhdravihdravyavasthah. found at YD 131,12, has undoubtedly to be classed with this group too.
By way of summary it has to be emphasized that none of the entries found in special dictionaries or glossaries of technical terms of the Ayurveda s.v. wihdra fullfils the requirement of being comprehensive (i.c. distinguishing the various meanings as well as of being precise (i.c. specifying the individual meaning). Thus, the author of the Vaidyaka-Sabdasindhu confines himself to quoting the Medinikosa (cestydm, bhramane); in the glossary attached to vol. VI of the edition and translation of Caraka by the Shree Gulabkunverba Ayurvedic Society all that is given is the explanation
omanabhramanddilartraces, and with reference to just one passage (Sarirasth. 2.29) at that; and the Ayurvediya Mahakosa" does not contain more than the remark kaya vihdral chuvidhah amanacarikramanasthåndsanabhedena, which is in fact merely a part of Dalhana's explanation of vihare at the very end of Susruta, Cikitsasth. 29,10, although it has to be admitted that the remark is of no little significance: what Dalhana seems to have in mind when he states that the particular wihdra referred to in the text is a keyuvihara, is the threefold division of body, speech and thought and his
performantadininal are so
The fact that the Tibetan translator readers whereby pre does it as Schmid thinks wi th conclusie the took it to mean 'Alenkatsort, is ther the serotypical equivalent of this word it does not mean monastery) or abbreviation for pros hip position' (etc.).
Fillioza, Yopalataka, Termédical attribut a Nadjane, Podichéry 1979, p.107. CERE. Emmerick, The Siddhasare of Rovigupta. Voll The Saruk Ten, Wiesbacka 1980
The Tibetan translation for which we RE Emmerich, The Sidihard of Ravippa. Vol2 The Tibetan Version with Facing English Translation, Wiesbaden 1982, pp.84 and 180) s e planation in both cases), v. 'Wong polices ach a wong way of sitting and lying down
On kiad, ako R.P. Das, Dar Wissen von der Lebensspender Bewn. Sureplies Visurveda Stuttgart 1988, p.265
Compiler Kaviraja Umeiachandra Gupta Revised and enlarged 2nd ed. by Kaviraja Nagendra Natha Sena, Varanasi-Delhi 1983. p.990
Is this due to Buddhis influence or do we have to do here with a common trait of the Indian ascetis meditative tradition?
"at the explanation of the commentator on verse 101 of the Yogalataka (Film, op. cit., p.150), Whare win t er . This meaning is alicreatively taken into consideration also by Carudeva Samir Upacargar kacandria (1.4). 418. Note, however, that was Siddhiub 11.10 (Blondrade son) the maldinime (Cakraplnidalta) is expressed by indre; a parallel is found A s , Setrash.
* See is above
Audiwa Mahakodah aha Ayurvediya Sabdakota... Samppadakao Ventmadhavaldus Mobi, Nily Hart Joll, Bombay 1968, p.779.
a.p.139 and foodnodes S4 and 70 above.

Page #10

Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society 1 (1990)
distinction of the four kinds of bodily activity', viz. 'going, marching," standing and sitting (down)', is, of course, likewise worthy of note.
Only the lemma in the 'Index Sanskrit' added to J. Filliozat's edition and translation of the Yogafataka testifies to a capacity of making distinctions, for it reads thus: 'situation, conditions extérieures (de l'organisme), manière de vivre, hygiène générale ....
144
I on my part should like to propose, in view of the evidence discussed in the foregoing, to enlarge the entry on vihara in our Skt. dictionaries by inserting: "bodily movements, especially going and walking, but also other kinds; activity/activities not only of the body, but also of speech and mind > way of living, mode of life (excluding eating and drinking)."
3.2 Of course what I am aiming at is the argument that vihara - in the two verses of the YD which have provoked the rather lengthy discussion making up paragraph 3.1.is used in the meaning determined in the foregoing and just described by way of summary. Hence I should like to propose the following translation:
'All the various types of diseases have a threefold cause, as is known from trustworthy tradition, (viz.] 1) what is taken into the body through the mouth, and 2) the bodily activity/mode of life and 3) the deeds done previously/in a former birth. Among these the diseases arising from what is taken into the body and from bodily activity/mode of life are removed by a drug; but a disease which is caused by [former] deeds, comes to an end [only] because of the death (of the person suffering from it].'
Quite evidently the dichotomy of curable versus incurable diseases underlies this threefold distinction. As regards the particularly interesting distinction of two different causes of - in principle-curable diseases, viz. ahara and vihara, attention may first be drawn to some of the passages mentioned in the preceding paragraph, viz. Suśruta, Sarirasth. 10.32ff. and Siddhasara 5.2 as well as 9.1. In addition two verses quoted in the Bhasya on the Rasavaiseşikasutra should also be considered. The first one reads thus (on 1.83):
viharaharahetünām tukalopajanmanām
doṣaṇām samanāthāya svasthakarma vidhiyare || Sayanasthanagamanasnānapānāšanādibhiḥ,
while the second is the following varśastha (on 1.2):
vipakvabhoji pratikarane (ra)to hitāni cannāni samācaran (mitam) asahasam karma samacaran sadā šatam sama jivati mānavaḥ sukhi.
"It seems that the intensity expressed does not refer to the speed, but to the distance and the manner of walking.
94 P.150 (cf. fo.83 above)
"The dichotomy taught by Darila in his commentary on Kausika-sutra 25.2, quoted by S. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy II, Cambridge 1965, p.275, viz dviprakārā vadhayah aharanimina alubhaniminas ceti/tara aharasamushanan vaisamya ayurvedam cakara (recte: ayurvedah carakadipranicah famanāthaḥ) adharmasamuthānām tuästram idam (viz. the Atharvaveda) ucyate, is basically not different, and cannot simply be put aside as a mere fabrication meant to explain the existence of both, the Atharvaveda and the Ayurveda (forming the upaveda of the former). (My attention was kindly drawn to this passage in Dasgupta's work, and to passages from the Suśrutasamhita and the Astangasamgraha about a threefold division of diseases discussed below, by GJ. Meulenbeld in a letter dated 14 June 1987).
A. Wezler, On Two Medical Verses in the Yuktidipika
The first verse bears further witness to the idea that vihara and ahara have in fact been regarded, though among other factors, as causes of 'disturbances', and the second one, though the two expressions are not used in it, confirms the existence of the idea that by observing a proper diet and by not overstraining oneself one lives as long as what is believed to be the ideal span of life (a hundred years), i.e. that one does not fall ill and die an untimely death.
The central importance which food has for the preservation of health is stressed also at Caraka, Sütrasth. 25.31.: hitaharopayoga eka eva purusaviddhikaro bhavati, ahitaharopayogah punar vyadhinimittam. And in the same text the idea is expressed that a hitabhojana lives a hundred years (Sütrasth. 27.348; cf. 342ff.); the opposite idea, i.e. that among other faults an annadosa leads to death (of Brahmins) is known to Manu (cf. 5.4 and 5ff.).
145
As for bodily activity, in the verse from the commentary on the Rasavaisesikasutra one aspect only is emphasized; the other aspect, however, viz. that such activity, nay even exertion is physiologically necessary, is given its due in a verse occurring in the Kasika on Pan. 6.1.63" viz:
vyayamaksuṇnagatrasya padbliyam udvartitasya ca
vyadhayo nopasarpanti vainateyam ivoragah."
In a similar manner further evidence will now be presented for the third cause, i.e. the idea that karman, too, exercises influence on the physical condition of man, although in this case also I cannot offer more than some material I have come across by chance since I have not had the time necessary for systematic search or comprehensive reading. To all appearances, the expression kşetriya, taught by Panini in a nipătanasútra (5.2.92), and stated by him to be equivalent to the syntagma paraksetre cikitsyalı 'curable [only] in another dwelling/living-place (of the soul] (ie. another body in the next birth)," has to do with the idea that certain diseases are by necessity fatal and that they are caused by karman, for the conception of a disease, in the proper sense of the word, which can only be cured after death in the next life would in itself be very strange
indeed.
In other sources karman is regarded as a cause of diseases, or particular diseases, but no specification is given as to their character, i.e. severeness. Thus at Rasaratnasamuccaya 1.25 the importance of rasa is highlighted by stating:
hanti bhakṣaṇamatrena purvajanmäghasambhavam rogasangham aşeśānām narārām nātra samıśayaḥı;
CL. also Caraka, Šarirasth. 2.46: naro hidharaviharasevi... bhavaty arogah.
97 I am grateful to Mr. Mahes Raj Pant, Kathmandu, for drawing my attention to it.
Note that the construction is anacoluthic.
"CY. Kasika on P. 5.2.92:... kseriyam kustham (cf. fa.61 above) / paraksetram|-|janmantarasanam tara cikitsyah ketiyah / asadhyo 'pratyakhyeyo vyadhir ucyateinamumasya nivartata ity anthah. Note that this is merely one of four different explanations offered, all of which, however, are stated to be 'authorita tively valid' (sarvam caitat pramanam).

Page #11
146 Journal of the European Ayurvedic Society 1 (1 A. Wezler, On Two Medical Verses in the Yuklidipika 147 it should be noted that it is the central aim of Indian alchemy to create a new body', i.e. ultimately to overcome death." The compound paparoga (e.g. Manu 5.164) - its derivative paparogin is also attested c.g. Manu 3.92 and 159 - is commonly taken to be a karmadhanaya, but as the diseases referred to (according e... to the commentators on Manu) are ultimately incurable ones like kusthall and ksaya ('decline'), it is worth considering whether it should not perhaps be analyzed as a tatpurusa, viz. papad rogah. At least, Manu himself clearly distinguishes (11.48) between a nupaviparyaya 'in consequence of crimes committed in this life (duscariain) and 'in consequence of those committed in a former existence (purvakrtaih)," and it is most probable that this verse, and those following upon it, were regarded by Buhler! as justifying the translation of paparogin (c.g. at 3.92) by 'those afflicted with discases that are punishments of former sins'. That adharma is the cause (karana, nimitta) of diseases is an idea with which also Medhatithi, Govindaraja and Kulluka were familiar (cf. e.g. their commentaries on Manu 1.83)." Finally, the tripartition of the causes of diseases deserves consideration. Various threefold classifications of diseases (as such) are found in medical texts e.g. at Susruta, Sutrasth. 24.4 the division of duhkha into adhyatmika, adhibhauika and adhidaivika, referred to in Samkhyakarika 1 and made explicit in the commentaries on it, is met with in connection with defining diseases to be duhkhasamyoga. According to Tisajacaryal diseases are classified into three groups, viz. karmaja, dosaja and ubhayaja, and Caraka (Sarirasth. 1.86ff.) distinguishes between past, present, and future vedands. We also find threefold divisions of the causes of diseases. Thus e.g. Caraka, Sutrasth. 1.54 reads thus: kalabuddhindriyanthanam yogo mithyd na cati ca dvyasrayanam vadhindm trividho hetusamgrahah, wrong use, non-use and excessive use of time (i.e. seasons etc.), intelligence and sense objects is the threefold complex of causes of diseases which have two loci (viz. body and mind)". Or in the Astangasamgraha (Sutrasth. 22.6) the dosas, which are the only cause of all diseases (sarvarogaikakaranam: 22.5), are said to have in their turn a threefold nimitta, viz. asatmyendriyarthasamyoga, prajnaparadha and parinama. On the other hand it has to be noted that Caraka (Sutrasth. 1.23) teaches a quadruple division of agantu, sarira, manasa and svabhavika diseases. It is hence as clear as one can wish that the threefold classification of the two verses quoted in the YD is merely one among many different attempts at systematically dividing the causes of diseases, and no clear parallel to it has so far been presented from a medical text. Haritasamhita 3.2.23 as quoted by Pandeya in a footnote on p.12 of his edition of the YD, viz. karmaja vyadhayah kecid dosaja santi capare sahaja kathitas canye vyadhayas trividha matah, does not, of course, meet this requirement, but it has also not been possible to identify the source from which the author of the YD quotes here. It cannot even be regarded as certain that it is a medical work, for when making the corresponding assumption" 1 did not yet take into consideration the pronounced tendency of proper Ayurveda texts" to declare all diseases without exception, whatever their causes may be, to be curable. In fact it cannot at all be precluded that the source drawn upon in the YD belongs to quite a different branch of learning, "" although the argument (that the quotation is meant to make) is, no doubt, strongest if it is the science of medicine itself which is called to witness. Yet a definite answer to this question can only be given when a comprehensive investigation of all systematic divisions of the causes of diseases, found in medical texts, has been undertaken."") In view of the richness of the relevant material such a study would, however, clearly go beyond the scope not only of the present essay, but also of anything which could still be subsumed under the term 'article'. Nevertheless it is hoped that the above discussion has at least demonstrated: (a) that it is sometimes worthwhile to examine a quotation more closely even if it cannot be identified, (b) that semantic studies are very much needed in the field of Ayurvedic research, and above all (c) that 'cataloguing' of ideas, i.e. collecting, analysing and describing them with a view to 100 Cf. also the prescription for the use of soma referred to above on p.141. 101 On which see (n.61 above. 102 Cf. also Sivatattvaratnakara 23. 107 Note how the author expresses himself, i.c. that na and ati correspond to the compounds ayoga/yogabhova and atiyoga. 10 The Laws of Manu, (SBE XXV), reprint Delhi-Varanasi-Patna 1967. 108 Cf. the immediately following verse: Sdriram sativasamiriam ca vyddhinam asrayo matah .... 109 Al Astangas., Satrasth. 22.1 a sevenfold division is taught. 10 a. also A. Rosu, 'Medicine and Psychology in Ancicat India' in Curare 4, 1981, 205-210, in particular p.206, and last but not least M. G. Weiss, Caraka Samhita on the Dodriac of Karma' in Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Tradition, ed. by W.D. O'Flaherty, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1980, pp.90-105. Much interesting information is also contained in works such as Visvesvara Bhaffa's Madanamabarnava (cd. by E. Krishnamacharya and M.R. Nambiyar, (GOS 117), Baroda 1953), which discusses the causes of and cures for diseases mainly in terms of what may be called karman and adharma, and pridyascina respectively. The great Bengali author Bankim Candra Cattopadhyay's Dharmmalattba (first published in book form in 1888) also contains a very interesting discussion on discases being caused by adharma (in his own special nco-Hindu definition). This important work has unfortunately Dot yet been translated into any European language. 110 Sec above p.132. M a . c.g. Astangasarpgraha 22.3. 113 And this could likewise apply to the verse quoted in the YD after the two verses under discussion and mcationcd alocady above (fn.20). 105 Cl. Susruta, Satrasth. 1.22 106 Cikitsakalika, verse 10f. 113 A preliminary altempt to gather material relevant for such an investigation has been made by R.P. Das, op. cit. (in fq.88). pp.268 and 519.