Paralipomena Zum Sarvasarvatmakatvada II

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269695/1

Page #1
Paralipomena zum Sarvasarvatmakatvavada II: On the Sarvasarvatmakatvavada and its Relation to the VIksayurveda ALBRECHT WEZLER 1. In my contributions to the Commemoration Volume for Ludwig Alsdorf have at some length dealt with the so-called sarvasarvatmakarvaddal. The material drawn upon in this article was mainly from the Dvadasaranayacakra of the Jain philosopher Mallavadin and Simhasuri's commentary on it, viz. the Nyayagamanuskrini. When I examined this material and put the results of my analysis down in writing, I was already aware of the fact that with this vada I had not only discovered a very promising vein of gold, but that it would certainly not be possible to unearth all of the precious metal at once. In fact, it was only shortly afterwards that I came to realize that in Patanjali's Mahabhasya this wada is also clearly attested. I have discussed the relevant passage in another article of mine, published in the WzKS. As I cannot take it for granted that the readers of the present article are familiar with my two earlier studies or that they remember my argument in them, I deem it to the point to summarize in brief' their main results before turning to what forms the actual subject of this second supplement. 2. However, before acquainting the reader with this vada as regards its essen tial philosophical content and the relation it has with other central tenets of the Samkhva school of thought, the following has to be emphasized: both the passages in which this vada is mentioned, and some of the terms used, are not sufficiently explicit to allow to draw a distinct and complete picture, when taken by them Studien zum Dvidaranayacakra des Svetambara Mallavdin. I. Der sarvasarudd karvandda in: Srudien zum Jainismus und Buddhismus. Gedenkschrift for Ludwig Alsdorf. hrsg. von K. BRUHN und A. WEZLER, Wiesbaden 1981, 359-408 (WEZLER 1981). ? Paralipomena zum Sarvasarvatmakatvavada (I): Mahabhasya zu Pan. 4.3.155 und seine einheimischen Erklarer in: WZKS XXV (1982), 149-166 (= WEZLER 1982). cr my article Remarks on the Sarvasarvatmakalvavida' In: Philosophical Essays Professor Ananthal Thatur Felicitarion Volume, Calcutta 1987, 166-181, on which the present summary is partially based Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik (Stil) 16 (1992) pp. 287-315.

Page #2
288 ALBRECHT WEZLER PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 289 selves; therefore, the exegete is thrown back upon his own understanding and his own endeavours to think along the lines of Sainkhya. Thus, the result cannot but be in part hypothetical. Starting from the observation that the sentence sarva sarvatmakam is paraphrased in the texts by the sentences sarvam ekam ekam ca sarvam and sarvar sarvatra (vidyatelasti), this ontological statement can be shown to mean that every phenomenon, and all phenomena are material by necessity, contains in itself at least one representative of each and every species of individual things. Yet it cannot be overlooked that this vada is always exemplified or proved by explicitly referring to what nowadays would be called the 'alimentary chain'. The fact, easily to be observed that animal and vegetal life are mutually dependant, has obviously been interpreted by Samkhya philosophers on the assumption that e.g. a particular animal contains in itself the matter of all those animals and/or plants it consumes. the peculiarity of this conception consists, however, in that the upholders of Samkhya philosophy evidently supposed that all the individuals who have been consumed are nevertheless still existent as such, - a point which will become still clearer in the light of the evidence found in the Mahabhasya. On the other hand, it can be demonstrated that the statement sarvam sarvatmakam does not imply that every phenomenon consists only of all the others; i.e. every phenomenon at the same is an entity in its own right. Obviously the validity of the vida extends to the inanimate evolutes of prakrti, too. In connection with this latter question one would also have to take into account a fragment, assigned to the Varsaganah, "the followers of Varsaganya", by the author of the Yuktidipika which O. STRAUSS has dealt with; it clearly states that the exponents of Samkhya do not accept any annihilation, but only a disappearing out of being manifest (vyakter apa-1); this holds good for the 23 tativas (at the end of a kalpa) as well as for all the other minor evolutes of them (after a more or less limited time of manifestation). In passing it may be noted that the ejoining of a phenonenon with its cause(s) after having been manifest for some time is denoted by the technical term samsarga, whereas the opposite process is called visarga in Samkhya-Yoga terminology. The next important point we have to consider is the additional element jaryanucchedena, frequently met with the sentence sarvami sarvatmakam occurs; for this expression is clearly intended to preclude the possible misunderstanding of the sarvasarvatmakarvavada as implying that by being sarvatmaka the individual phenomenon does not at the same time represent its own species. This vida has predictably been attacked quite early, and the argument, of course, was that if it were true, everything would then be visible everywhere and in everything else. As to the answer of the exponents of Samkhya, some of the relevant pasages say that they took recourse to their specific concept of abhivyakti, i.e. they accounted for the empirical fact that a particular thing is perceived as this and only as this by referring to place, time, shape, etc., as conditioning its manifestation. But there are still more fundamental problems connected with this vada which have to be taken up for discussion. FRAUWALLNER has made the interesting and important observation that the origin of a given doctrine lies elsewhere than in the reasoning adduced for it and that reasons are, on the contrary, adduced only at a later stage, in order to prove the doctrine, the origin of which lied in immediate observation and perception of things. From this it would follow that the sarvasarvatmakarvavada is posterior in relation to the doctrine of prakril, which, together with other reasons, it serves to justify. However, since it cannot have been solely deduced from empirical facts, since furthermore it cannot have itself been derived from the concept of primary matter, it might be the easier assumption that it is later merely in the sense that it was later used as one of the proofs for the existence of prakti. In quest of the origin of this vida one has, therefore, to take into account the fact that it is closely related to the sarkaryavida, i.e. that it forms an integral constituent part of the special theory of causation the Simkhyas adhere to and propound: according to the latter vida, a product already exists before it becomes manifest, and according to the former, i.e. the sarvasarvatmakatvavada, the fact of its existence is not affected by its disappearance. And both these vidas cannot be divorced from the specific Samkhya concept of being which was formulated by Varsaganya, as is clear from a fragment thus preserved by Vasubandhu in his Abhidharmakosabhasya' yad asti asty eva tad / yan nasti nasty eva fod / asato nasti sambhavah / sato nasri vinafah /. Now, regarding the satkaryavada FRAUWALLNER' seems to have taken the view that it was developed secondarily only, viz. in order to meet adverse criticism directed against reasons brought forward by Sarpkhya authors who wanted to prove the existence of primary matter. Thus, il FRAUWALLNER were right, it would In passing, I should like to state here that I disagree with FRAUWALLNER (and others) as regards the reconstruction of the name of the famous Samkhya philosopher: I think the evidence is clearly in favour of "Varsaganya' and not "Vragana'. I do not, of course, want to dispute that the proper name Varsaganya denotes its bearer as a descendent of a certain Vrsagana. "Eine alte Formel der Samkhya-Yoga-Philosophie bei Vatsyayana" in: Festgabe H. Jacobi, Bonn 1926, 358-368 = Kleine Schriften, hrsg. v. F. WILHELM, Wiesbaden 1983, 207-217. Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, Bd. 1, Salzburg 1953, 285. 'Ed. P. PRADHAN, Patna 1967, 301.2. O.c., 1.c.

Page #3
290 ALBRECHT WEZLER PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 291 mean that the specific concept of being, too, is of later origina consequence altogether improbable. Against FRAUWALLNER, as also against the implications of his ideas about this part of the historical development of the Samkhya school of thought, I would hold that the whole problem stands in need of a thorough and critical reconsideration which may well lead to quite different results, and this is, of course, also due to new material which has become available in the meantime. The resulting new picture would, to be sure, likewise have the character of a hypothesis. Yet, I think it would be a stronger one. It has, of course, yet to be drawn in full detail; my own attempt is but a rough sketch, and this also because I did not yet find time to examine all the additional relevant material which I have only recently discovered. My attempt starts from the assumption that the Samkhya concept of being has arisen, among other Sruti passages, out of Ch.Up. 6.2.1.E. where - though still in terms rather of cosmological than of ontological thinking - it is stated that a sat can only have originated out a sar. But Ramanuja, too, when he comes to speak of different theories of error refers to one which is evidently based on the sarvasarvatmakarvavada, and it is in this very connec tion also that he actually refers to this Upanisadic teaching of Uddalaka Aruni; therefore one has to reckon with the possibility that the specific concept of being which has developed out of it was not confined to the early and classical Samkhya school of thought, but was likewise shared by the forerunners of the specific theistic school which later used it in its singular theory of error. i.e. long before Ramanuja; and its actual existence at a still earlier point of time is clearly attested by Mallavadin. Both schools, Samkhya as well as the theistic one, should have had this concept of being in common, though their respective "Weltanschauung' would in all probability have differed considerably, a dualistic and non-theistic one in the case of the Samkhya and a theistic and perhaps also monistic one in the case of the other. As for the passage from the Mahabhasya, it is the final sentence of the discussion on Pan. 4.3.155 which proves extraordinarily instructive for the 'protohistory of the sarvasarvatmakarvavada. It reads thus: atha matam erat praktyanvaya vikara bhavantifihapi na doso bhavati. This is meant to answer the question preceding: atha yo 'sav adyah kapotah salomakah sapako na ca samprati praniti katham tatra pranifabdo vartala iti I, "the feathered, winged pigeon that was at the beginning, now (.e. after having been killed) does not breathe any more. How is it that with reference to it (ie the dead plucked bird) a word is, nevertheless, used that (primarily] denotes a breathing being (i.e. a living pigeon)? Although Kaiyata and Nagojibhatta apparently understood Patanjali's answer as referring to words denoting the product of a process of transformation, one cannot fail to observe that Patanjali, on the contrary, aims at explaining a linguistic fact by taking recourse to a philosophical view he knew and considered apt to solve the question under discussion. It was simply their unawareness of this philosophical view that led Kaiyata and Nagojibhatta to misunderstand this passage which doubtless refers to extralinguistic facts in order to explain a particular linguistic one. In reality what Patanjali says is this: "If one takes the view that the original (which undergoes a process of change) is existent in its tranformation(s), there is no room for any objection in this case, too, (i.e., as regards the use e.g. of the word kapota to denote a dead pigeon as it is a vikara of the original living bird which does not cease to exist)." What Patanjali refers to here, is clearly a teaching that is intended to meet the question as to what happens to the prakti when a vikara has manifested itself. And this teaching cannot but be the sarvasarvatmakarvavada, according to which everything that represents a praksti, whatever the position it occupies in a given causal chain," does not cease to exist as such when it passes out of visibility: The individual pigeon as a living being does, indeed, still exists when it has been killed; and it is precisely this ontological "fact" that accounts for the linguistic observation that a pranisabda can also be used to denote that very animal even when deprived of breath! Thus the substance of the sarvasarvatmakarvavada can be traced back to the 2nd century B.C.," which would corroborate my hypothesis that the particular notion of "being underlying this vada was originally conceived by certain Upanisadic thinkers. Yet, at the same time what we owe to Patanjali is a "As is well known, the term prakrel is used by the adherents of Samkhya themselves not only to denote their peculiar concept of "primary matter, but also relativistically, i.e. to denote a phenomenon which forms an original' only with reference to its transformation(s). It should however, be noted, that the process of transformation, though taken to be permanent and incessant, involving change every moment, is largely viewed as leading from one "state" (avastha) to another, i.e. from a cause to its product, and in their notion of what constitutes a particular cause-and of which product-Samkhya thinkers seem to have followed the loka (unless the example adduced by them are only meant to explain their philosophical ideas to ordinary people by taking recourse to concepts familiar to everybody). ertheless, used that primaril chce to it i.e. the dead, plucked Sribhagya on BS 1.1.1. ed. by SRI U.T. VIRARAGHAVACHARYA, I. 1. Madras 1963, 1321 Ed. F. KIELHORN, revised ... by K. V. ABHYANKAR, II 325,15ff. This is, of course, true only on condition that the date assigned to Patanjali viz: 2nd century B.C., is correct. As to this, I basically agree with CARDONA (Panini, A Survey of Research, The Hague Paris 1976,266) who in concluding his report and discussion states that "the evidence is ... not absolutely probative but sufficient to warrant considering seriously that Patanjali lived at this time, but I should like to add that recently I started to have doubts because I do not yet know exactly how to bring into accord such an early date with the stage of development of Samkhya as attested to in the Mahabhasya.

Page #4
292 ALBRECHT WEZLER PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 293 to indicate particular stress is laid on the treatment of diseases of trees, etc. The passage is from the Patanjalayogacastravivarana ascribed to Sankara, the Advaitin, on the Bhasya on YS 3.14. In explaining the sutra the Bhasya among other things quotes from a source which for various reasons cannot but have been a lost text of Classical Samkhya, most probably of Varsaganya or one of his disciples, and this quotation is in its turn explained by the author of the Vivarana." It is the following two sentences in his commentary which are of particular importance for the problem I want to deal with now (257.23-25). particularly clear example of what the sarvasarvatmakarvavada is ultimately about: it is meant to answer the following question one cannot but ask when confronted with the doctrine of satkarya: If each and every thing exists even before it is manifested, what becomes of it when it disappears out of being manifest? In the light of this observation one cannot, I think, feel the least doubt but that the two vadas, the satkarya- and the sarvasarvatmakarvavada, are not only closely related to each other; in fact they are nothing but two logically necessary and mutually supplementary aspects of one and the same concept of 'being'. Accordingly to this concept, peculiar to Samkhya, although probably not confined to it, there is only the dichotomy between things which exist (sal) and things which do not (asar); the view that things are produced and destroyed is unconditionally rejected; all that is admitted and in fact had to be conceded in order to account for the phenomenal world, is that the beginningless and endless being of each and every things is, as it were, interrupted by a shorter or longer period of being manifest, but remains ultimately unaltered. That is to say, this notion of being ("Sein") is remarkably rigorous, and besides it all that can be conceded is a limited period of being manifest, i.e. an almost ephemerical "Dasein." DAS, Das Wissen von der Lebensspanne der ne. Surdlas Vykdywneda, kritisch ediert, abersetzt und kommentiert ..., Stuttgart 1988 (-DAS 1988).1. 3. Almost right at the beginning of my brief survey of the sarvasarvatmaka Ivavada attention was drawn to the fact that this wada is always exemplified or proved by explicitly referring to what nowadays would be called the 'alimentary chain". It is in this connection that in one of the passages examined by me in my first article on this highly interesting doctrine reference is made to the Vpksayurveda, "the science of horticulture or botany, in which as the name itself seems 15 The first part (cf. WEZLER 1981: 3761.) of this quotation, viz. Jalabhampo pdrindorimi raddvallvarpyari shdvaresm drstami forhd sidvardadm Jahgamesu jangamdndm stihdvaresa, has been included in a collection of fragments entitled "The Samkhya-Stras of Palica ikha (and the Samkhyalattvaloka), Delhi-Varanasi Patna 1977, 671.) and compiled by SVAMI HARIHARANANDA ARANYA, a modern Sarkhya-Yogin (18691947) (cf. Samakhya. A Dualis Tradinion in Indian Philosophy ed. by G. J. LARSON and RAM SHANKAR BHATTACHARYA, Princeton 1987, 581). The purely imaginary ascription apart (rectified by Mr. JAJNESWAR GHOSH's note that this sutra is quoted in Vyasa's Samkhya-Pravacana-Bhasya (sic!) III 14 but its authorship seems to have been unknown"), the Sviml's commentary deserves attention, though primarily in terms of the reception of Samkhya in modern India, for what he says is that: sanam sardimakam / kasmd? milakaranarya ckande fra rundh sarvesam kdrdnda mulam 1 tasmad ndisti aryanabhedo vikaranam / pancandm bhanden sid varapranidchaparindo bhavari sth varandi jangamadehaparindmo bhavari jangamand ca punah sthdvaraparinduaheva sarvasmidi sarvami sambhavaini raddidintah / bhardni punah Tanmidiraparinamani / tanmdirani ca asmirdparinamantri vyavasdyabhd vasya vyavasynaparindah maulitaikarudc ca sarve wiarah sarvard bhavanrini siddhaniah II. To complete the picture I should like to add the tippans of BALARAMA UDASINA (YogadarSanam Bhagavarmahdmunipatanjaliprantam . Calcutta 1891 lie the edition used by J. H. WOODS from his translation), 213): sarvan vastu sardimakam - sarva faktimad fry arthah. evamt ca nikhila parinomini wastani avasthirdh sukmarapena ya sarvavikarajananasaktayas d evdivyapadefydity ucyante ini samadhdnartho bodhyah / kegu vastu ke bhavisyanto dharmdir samiksantha prochaimah II - Sthdvaresuly aryartham dha (viz. Vacaspatimisra) - 'vanaspati' fryddind, vanasparilarddise yar phalapuspadigataragandhadival citryam drsam fod rasddigunavalo jalasya gandhadigunavaryds cabhimeh pdrindmikam - parinamanimitatam ily anvayah / jalabhamyor vidyamdnd yd rasddiwikarajanana.lkrih sa 'vapadefyety wchara lil bhdvah II. 1 The distinction between the two modes of being has most probably been overlooked, or deliberately ignored, by the unknown author of the famous satirical verse quoted by Kamalasila (Tattvasamgrahapa jika 29.10-11) yad eva dadhi tar kira yar kira od dadhi ca vadard rudrilenalva khyapita vindhyavdisitd. M. HONDA'S "Dharmapalas' report on Samkhya', in: JIBS Vol. XVII (33) (1968). 446 ( 121) cannot be claimed as containing evidence for the thesis ascribed to Rudrila (Vindhyavasin); for what is recorded by Dharmapala is nothing else but the well-known Samkhya idea that a cause like sweet milk becomes by transformation the product and that cause and product cannot reasonably be said to be distinct; not to mention a passage from the Abhidharmadipavrtti (Abhidharmadipe with Vibhasaprabhdmi, critically edited ... by PADMANABH S. JAINI, Patna 1959), viz. 273.291.- for in the wording there (vidya manam evo date / tadyard ksire vidyamdam dadhi) the locative is used as in Samkhya sources themselves: It should also be noted that the Samkhya distinction between the two modes of being is virtually explicitly refuted in the Abhidharmadipa (274.1). Literally "Science of the duration of the life of trees': R. P. DAS review of G. U. THITE. "Medicine. Its Magico-Religious Aspects according to the Vedic and Later Literature, 1982, in: I 27 (1984), 237. Cr, among others, A. ROSU, JA CCLXXIV (1986). 258, R. P. DAS, "Some Notes on Vrksayurveda, in: Ancient Science of Life, VI,1 (1986), 6 and now R. P. 15 Patanjala-Yogasutra-Bhasya-Vivaranam of Sankara-Bhagavatpida ed. by P. SRI RAMA SASTRI and S. L. KRISHNAMURTHI SASTRI (Madras Gov. O. S. No. XCIV), Madras 1952. - On the passage in the Bhasya Itself cf. also PULINBIHARI CHAKRAVARTI, Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thoughr, Delhi 1975', p. 202ff. fn. 1.

Page #5
294 ALBRECHT WEZLER PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 295 sthavaranam spayuktana jargamesu rasalohiddi vivabhedah/ fatha jangamanam sthavaresu upayuktanam vrkcayurvedapra. siddhan rasadivai varupyam I. "Similarly it is an empirical fact that the manifoldnes of fluids, etc., in animals is brought about by processes of transformation of plants, i.e.) that plants having been consumed by animals, in them become (fluids) of different kinds like organic juice, blood, etc. Similarly it is la fact] well-known from the Vrksayurveda. that the manifoldness of saps, etc., in plants is brought about (by processes of transformation) of animals which have been consumed by them)." When I was grappling with this statement for the first time, I was far from understanding its full significance though I added a rather lengthy fool-note on the Vyksayurveda." It was only in the light of references to the sarvasarvatmakaIvavada which I happened to discover later in other texts that I came to realize that there is much more to it: the very fact that the Vrksayurveda is mentioned in this particular context calls for a more thorough study than I was then able to undertake for lack of parallel material. But now I think I can at least partially repair this omission; in order to do so I shall discuss passages from Cakradhara's gloss on Jayantabhata's Nyayamanjari, i.e. from the NM-Granthibhanga, from Bhasarvajia's Nyayabhisana, and, last but not least, from a Vrksayurveda text itself to which my attention was kindly drawn by a former student of ours who has published a critical edition of it." pusteh sambhavat / pusiau casatyam retaadayah retasi ca putradayah / tesar ca praptakale maranac charirasya kathah, kvathitasya ca kmibhavena parinamah, tad eva ca kvathitam / Vyksayurvede vrksanam vyddhaye friyate: 'tathd ca sativkasyapi fatra sambhavah, vkac ca phalam, phaladrasah, rasad balam ini sarvan krire 'sti, defakalakarapabandhad na samana kalam abhivyajyante' isi/. Already at the first glance it is clear that what this passage is obviously about is a chain of transformation the starting point of which must be milk. There is but one sentence in the subsection of the NM to be considered here to which these statements of Cakradhara's can refer, viz. the remark by which Jayanta concludes his refutation of the buddhi as conceived by the Samkhyas. It reads thus (NM 63.10ff.): api ca sarkaryawadamala esa tapasvinan vibhramah, sarvam sarvatrastiil fato invayasiddhim buddhyamands te pradhana siddhavadhyavasitah, sarkaryavadas ca vicaryamano na samasty eveti kutastya hetusiddhihl, "and moreover, this error of the ascetics (.e. the erroneous conception of the buddhi the Samkhyas have) has its roots in the sarkaryavada; starting from the belief that each and every thing exists in each and every other they are led to assume that the material connection (of things is an established fact and (hence) they are led to decide that primary matter is something the existence of which they have proved); yet, as the sarkaryavada does not stand a critical examination, it is out of the question that the reason (adduced by the Samkhyas for the existence of primary matter) could be valid." Most probably the passage of the NMGBh under discussion is meant to explain the words sarvam sarvatrastiti tato invayasiddhim buddhyamanas of the NM and there cannot be the least doubt that the particular doctrine Jayanta's words refer to, is the sarvasarvatmakarvavada. This vada is, then, explained by 3.1 The passage in the NM-Granthibhanga" I have in mind raises some difficulties: for it is found at the top of folio 26' of the MS, and the folio immediately preceding has been lost. Thus the passage not only starts in the middle of a sentence, but it is also not clear to which phrase or expression of the mila text it refers. But since the last prarika on folio 24' is NM (KSS No. 109) p. 61 I. 19 and that following immediately upon our passage corresponds to NM p. 63 I. 21, the phrase or expression Cakradhara elaborates on must belong to the text in between, i.e. practically the whole subsection given the apt heading Sarkhyamatanirakaranam by the editor. In order to try to identify it, i.e. to make up for what the editor (of the NM-Granthibhanga) failed to do, it is, however, necessary to first take a look at the passage which reads thus (206.5-10): ... ghrtadinam sambhavah, ghytadisu ca pusfer ghrtadyupayoge hi "CF. WEZLER 1981: 379. After all this ydda is quite clearly attested to in secondary) sources which are considerably older than the NM as has been shown elsewhere (WEZLER 1981 and 1982), and it is connected in them, too, with the statement servam sarvards and similar ones). On the other hand, there is no denying that in the present case the emphasis lies not on the aspect of disappearingout-of-being-manifest, but, on the contrary, on the aspect of the amazing manifoldness of products-of-transformation appearing one after the other out of a particular original matter like milk. Therefore, if the sarvasaridmatanadda were indeed, as argued by me elsewhere (WEZLER 1981: 3970.), meant only to explain, in a peculia manner, the disappearing of phenomena - whereas the sarkdryavdda give the reason for their appearing it would seem more appropriate to regard this latter Ydda as the one which is intended in the passage quoted from the NMGBh. However, in the meantime I have arrived at the conclusion that my previous Cl. fn. 14. Cakradhara's Nykyamarjarigranthibhanga (NMGBh) ed. by NAGIN J. SHAU (LD Series 35). Ahmedabad 1972.

Page #6
296 ALBRECHT WEZLER PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 297 Cakradhara thus: "[By a process of transformation milk) is turned into ghee and other dairy products, and ghee, etc., is the source of growth in physical strength; for, when ghee and similar products are consumed, one grows in physical strength, and when one is in a well-nourished condition sperm, etc., (are produced in one's body, and when there is sperm, one [is able to begel) sons and other children. Because they die when time has come, their body is boiled" (i.e. rots in the course of time), and the decomposed (corpse) by way of transformation turns into worms, and these, too, (finally) get putrefied. In the Vpksayurveda (the following is authoritatively taught in order to ensure) a (proper) growth if trees: 'This being so, even a tree can originate from it (i.e. milk) and from a tree (one gets) fruit, from fruit organic juice, from organic juice physical strength; hence each and everything is (contained in milk, yet the different products do not become manifest simultaneously due to the fact that their manifestation is conditioned by place, time and shape."" Now this passage allows to make the following observations: [1] In order to explain the Samkhya contention that sarvat sarvatrasti - which is but an alternative expression for sarvam ekam ekari ca sarvam or sarvami sarvatmakam - Cakradhara gives an example, viz. milk and its various products-of-transformation. Since it is precisely this example which is frequently found in Samkhya texts themselves, or fragments of such texts, there is no question about his having borrowed it in its substance from a Samkhya source, though its identity cannot be determined. [2] . Subsequently he seems to quote from a Vrksayurveda text; this would, of course, be in order to vindicate his preceding explanation. However, the assumption of the editor of the NMGBh that the last sentence forms a quotation is highly questionable, nay demonstrably wrong: The expressions tatha ca sari as well as tatra at the beginning of the alleged quotation lack that which is referred to; of course, it is, at least as regards the latter expression, possible to make the guess that what is actually referred to is 'milk'; but, as to the initial tarha ca sari, one is left only with the conclusion that it cannot but resume what has been said in the preceding portion of the NMGBh itself or similar statements to that effect. Regarding this latter possibility one might feel tempted to ask whether Cakradhara has in this case made an unfortunate choice and given a rather incomplete and imperfect quotation. But this alternative can be safely ruled out, because the alleged quotation is problematic in other respects, too. It is clearly in prose while all Vyksayurveda texts (except for commentaries) which have been preserved or of which we know by secondary transmission are written in verse; in addition, the concluding sentence (defakalakarapabandha etc.) makes one prick up one's ear. At least, this is what happened to me when I read it for the first time, since I was immediately reminded of many a passage I had examined in my first article on the sarvasarvatmakarvavada. In fact, what is given in this sentence is nothing but the usual refutation of the objection frequently raised against this vada, viz. if every material phenomenon contains in itself at least one representative of each and every species in individual things, one would expect all of them to be manifest, or visible, at a time; and, to be sure, the counterargument that this is not the case due to desakalakarapabandha can only be adduced by an upholder of Sainkhya like in the other less ambiguous instances, too. Hence it is much more likely that what we have to do with here is not a quotation, but simply a constituent part of Cakradhara's own text. The final doubts are resolved as soon as it is realized that the final iti does by no means indicate a quotation, but has to supplemented, as also in many other cases in the NMGBh, by a following arthah, and that the words Vyksayurveda vyksana vddhaye Shiyale have to be construed with the preceding one, i.e. tad eva ca kvathitam. This assumption is further corroborated by the observation that the alleged quotation if it were indeed introduced by Vrksayurveda vrksanan yrddhaye friyate would stand in sharp contrast to this statement; for, in the subsequent sentence a means of making trees grow is not even alluded to! The translation of this passage I gave earlier has, therefore, to be amended, but only as regards the sentence tad eva ca kvathitam Vrksayurvede vrkanam vrddhaye friyate which rather means: "and of this (i.e. the corpse) when decomposed it is stated authoritatively in the Viksyurveda that it is a proper attempt at determining the relation between these two wddas was not entirely satisfactory, i.e. that the sarvasardmakarvadda has rather to be taken as the more comprehensive doctrine, covering both aspects, that of appearing as well as that of disappearing: That every phenomenon contains in itself at least one representation of each and every species of individual things can be recognized, and shown not only (e. g.) by the end of an 'alimentary chain', but also by the various products-of-transformation appearing out of a prakti. * The di is most probably added here in view of the widespread idea, met with in the Samnkhya and Yoga texts also, that in addition to sperm blood (fonita etc.) (from the side of a future mother) is necessary for conception #As kudha- cannot but be derived from the root vanhe and quite clearly means rolling. decomposition here, TURNER's assumption ('A Comparative Dictionary of Indo-Aryan Languages", 169, 3.V. KUTII) that a root kuth 'rol" should be separated from Vkvath "boil", accepted also by v. HINUBER, "Pali kathati: Ein Beitrag zur Uberlieferngsgeschichte des Theravida-Kanons" in: IU 21 /1979),21-26). becomes implausible. It seems more likely that originally there was one root wash only denoting the various) changes caused in liquids (cf. e.. Manus. 11. 159) or animal/vegetal matter by warmth or heat CT. WEZLER 1981: 371, 3751, 378, 381.

Page #7
298 ALBRECHT WEZLER means] of [making] trees grow (i.e. that it represents an excellent natural manure)." This re-interpretation of the passage under discussion and I think it is the only correct interpretation implies, of course, that the expression tatra in the subsequent sentence has to be taken as referring to fariram kvathitam so that what results is the interesting statement that "since this is so, i.e. since a decomposed corpse serves among other things as manure of trees, it is not only worms that can be produced by it, but similarly a tree, too." We are, therefore, in a position to add the following additional observations: [3] The chain of transformation adduced by Cakradhara by way of illustration contains the following links: ksiraghrta etc. pusti retas etc. -putra etc. -marana - Sarirasya kvathah krmi or alternatively vrksa phala rasa- and finally bala. Since it is clearly meant to justify the statement obviously at issue, viz. that sarvan ksire 'sti, it is no wonder at all that the process of transformation does not culminate in the manifestation of the original prakrti, i,e, milk. As from other relevant sources, too, one gathers the impression that the Samkhyas never insisted on what we would call the cycle of matter in nature. For, one cannot fail to note in the present case that the chain could have easily been continued after farirasya kvathah by tma which in its turn could, when fed to a cow, to be said to become milk by transformation. On the other hand, it seems noteworthy, or even significant, that such a continuation is absent and that the chain would seem to break off with bala, "strength", a concept similar to pusti, but denoting an effect brought about by a vegetal and not an animal product; and there is no likelihood at all that the author who quotes here from a Samkhya source is responsible for the break, i.e. that he has left out any links that may have followed upon bala in the original. [4] Further, one should take note of the fact that Cakradhara's example is not really the 'alimentary chain'. Of course, it contains elements of such a chain: the ghee is consumed by man, the fruit eaten, etc., but taken together, it is of a distinctly different character, for it can rather be styled a causal chain; yet the different individual links of this chain are conceived each as forming a product-oftransformation of the immediately preceding one in the accordance with the Samkhya parinamavada. [5] Of particular importance, however, is the context in which the Vrksayurveda is referred to; for, an element of its teaching is taken recourse to only in connection with the statement that there exists a parinama relation also between "It is perhaps better, and more in accord with what the text actually says, not to assume an alternative development, but a temporal sequence here too, i.e. to take tad (eva) to mean krmibhavena parinatan sariram; this interpretation is also confirmed by the parallel from the Nyayabhusana, cf. below p. 299. PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II a decaying corpse and a tree, i.e. to use Samkhya terminology, between a jangama and a sthavara. Now, it was precisely this idea which, as you will remember, made the author of the Vivarana refer to the Vrksayurveda! This correspondence, striking as it is, can, to be sure, not by any means be convincingly accounted for by assuming a mere accidental coincidence. On the contrary, it warrants the assumption that the reference to the Vrksayurveda in both these texts was taken over by the authors from their respective sources which may well have been even a common one and which must necessarily have been a Samkhya text. 299 It is hence perfectly legitimate to make the further assumption that it were Samkhya authors themselves who thought it useful or even necessary to refer to the relevant fastra when expressing the view that animals, nay even the foremost of animals, man himself, after death do not only, as could easily be observed, turn into worms, but also form a nutriment of plants, whereas the opposite process, i.e. the transformation of plants into animals, was evidently considered by them common empirical knowledge which did not in any way call for a fastra justifying it. 3.2 Much of what has been said just now in analysing the NMGBh passage is strikingly corroborated by Bhasarvajna who comes in as a most welcome additional witness. For, in examining the last of the famous five vita proofs adduced by Classical Samkhya authors, among them also Isvarakrsna (cf. Samkhyakarika 15), for the existence of primary matter (pradhana) it is thus that he renders the Samkhya argument (Nyayabhusana 564.2-11): itas casti pradhanam vaisvarupyopalabdheh ksiradivat / tadyatha ksirad dadhi, dhadhnas takram ghrtam ca, tadupayogat pustis tato 'pi putradayah / kadacin mytasya farirasya kvathah kuthitasya (read: kvathitasya ?) krmibhavena parinamah kuthitam (read: kvathitam ?) sariram vrksayurvede vrksanam vrddhyartham iti fruyate / tena ca vrksanam api tatkaryatvam, vrksac ca phalam, phalad rasas tadupayogat pustibalam ity etat sarvam ksire 'sti karyakaranayor abhedad / evam sthavaranam jangamesu sadbhavo jangamanam ca sthavaresy ity evam jatyanucchedena sarvam sarvatmakam desakalakaranimittapratibandhan na samanakalabhivyaktis, tad etat sthavarajangamavaisarupyam jalabhumyoh parinamikam jaladiparinamo 'py anyasya kasyacit so 'py anyasya so 'py ansyasya so'py ansyasya tavad yavad avi 25 Apart from the passage quoted from the Samkhya-Saptati-Vitti (Va) in WEZLER 1981: 380f, what should have been mentioned also is the Matharavrtti on this karika; for it concludes its comment with the words: yatha jalabhumyor etad rasagandhadivaivarupyam avibhaktam asty eva sthavardnam Jangamesu Jangamanam sthavaresu evam Jaryamucchedena sarvam sarvammakam iti //.

Page #8
ALBRECHT WEZLER PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 301 bhagah kvacid abhiut / yatra cavibhagas tat pradhanam iti II. The correspondence of the first half of this passage with what we found stated in the NMGBh is almost a complete one; it also clearly confirms the re-interpretation of the latter text proposed by me, and this to such an extent that I think I need not translate it. Similarly 1 withstand the temptation to examine the relation in which the whole passage evidently stands not only to the Vivarana, but also to quite a number of other relevant passages discussed in my first article on the sarvasarvatmakarvavada; suffice it to state that this relation is so close that there cannot be the least doubt that Bhasarvajna has borrowed from one of the other texts or - and this is more likely - is even indebted to the same common Samkhya source. In view of the parallel from the Nyayabhusana it can be regarded an established fact that it is only with regard to a particular element of the sarvasarvatmakatvavada, viz. the transformation of a being of the jaigama class into a sthavara, that Samkhya authors felt prompted to call Vrksayurvedins into evidence and to support their view by the deposition of these umbiassed witnesses. It is most natural to assuine that corresponding statements can actually be found in texts of botany, and, indeed, I was able to point out some already in the article mentioned just now. They have, however, the common feature of referring to animals only, or constituent elements of the organism of animals, while the transformation spoken ol by Cakradhara and Bhasarvajna is clearly that of a human corpse. One has, therefore, still to search for passages in Vrksayurveda texts that would agree with what both these authors assert them to say: for, to be sure, neither Cakradhara nor Bhasarvajna seems to harbour the least doubt that the reference to the Vrksayurveda is fully justified. In fact, in Surapala's Vrksayurveda?? we find also the following verses: arkolha-taila-narataila-su-bhavitam yat [bija sva/bhava-paripakva-phalad dhi nitam / sajayate jhariti fat karakambu-siktamitand-cayopetam idam atra na citram asil // 277 II "A (grain of seed) which has been properly steeped in the oil of the arkolha plant as well as in oil (prepared from human [fat), if it has been taken from a fruit (naturally ripened, no doubt, sprouts at once, if it is furnished with a heap of fertile soil which has been thoroughly moistened with water from a vessel/hail-stone water, there is nothing amazing in this anekadha kurkufa-rakta-siktam dadimba-bija ravi-suskam uptam / nr-masa-medah-paridhupa-sekat prajayate tat phalati ksanena // 280 // "A grain of seed of a pomegranate tree which is sown after it has been dried in the sun and repeatedly moistened with chicken/cock blood sprouts on account of having been (steeped in a decoct of human flesh and fat, of having been fumed and on account of being watered; it bears fruits in no time." arkolha-matsya-sifumara-nr-kola-nakratailabhibhavita-visosita-bijam uptam / sekad varavani-tale karakambu-sikte sute sa-puspa-phalitam jhariti drumam hi // 281 // "For, a grain of seed which has been steeped in oil prepared from the arkolha plants and from fish, dolphins, men, hogs and/or alligators and which has been carefully dried, produces an account of being watered at once a tree full of blossoms and fruits, if it is sown in a piece of excellent soil, moistened with water from a pot/hail-stone water." Similar verses are attested in the Upavanavinoda section of the Sarngadharapaddhati and other texts in which issues of the Vpksayurveda are dealt with. Yet, I think those I have noted just now render sufficient evidence to prove my point, viz. that Vrksayurveda texts in fact strongly recommend the use of certain products prepared from human corpses, in particular of 'human oil', and, indeed, as has been stated by Cakradhara and Bhasarvajna, "in order to ensure a (rapid) growth of trees" and other plants. But this extraordinarily interesting material calls for a more detailed discussion which will be attempted in what follows, although I am also bound by limitations of space - and time. [1] As regards chronology, no real difficulties arise. Although Surapala can certainly not be assigned to a period prior to Classical Samkhya," there is no doubt that his work is, for the greatest part, based on older works and thus ultimately on a tradition which can be traced back to the time of the Kautilya ArtinaSastra where the VIksayurveda is referred to for the first time. It has, of course, to be admitted that there is no direct evidence for the assumption that the *This evidence, in fact it is an ample one, is now easily accessible in R. P. DAS' edition of Surapala's Voksdyurveda (cl. fn. 14) and it need not hence be discussed here. *The preparation of this oil is described in Sivatattvaratnakar a 7.2.1811. (Vol. II p. 2650). On Surapala's date see R. P. DAS, O.c., p. 17. Viz. 2.24.1. For parallels in der Vrksayurveda texts and additional explanations see R. P. DAS, O.C., p. 3667.

Page #9
PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 303 302 ALBRECHT WEZLER Sastra known to Kautilya already contained such instructions, nevertheless I am pretty sure that this assumption is perfectly justified. For, [2] one cannot help wondering why Samkhya authors should have thought it necessary to refer their readers to the corresponding Sastra, had the use of "human oil', in gardening been a well-known element of common everyday practice in their times, too. One is rather given the impression that this reference is, at least partially, caused by the fact, that this use of nara-taila, etc., was not easily observed or even common knowledge. [3] In any case, I see no reason to suspect these Vyksyurveda instructions to be a mere fabrication. On the contrary, there is every likelihood that they have been derived from a real, not necessarily accidental experience" which clearly demonstrated that the dead body of a man is very much something that can be regarded as suitable for use in gardening. After all in India we have to do with a society which not only, down to the present day, could not bring itself to ignore the phenomenon of death - although the corpse is heavily tabood - but which has also frequently been stricken by all sorts of natural disasters and epidemic diseases. But is is equally possible, nay even probable that the usefulness of the dead body of man was not discovered separately and independently, rather its use may have been the result of a simple consideration to the effect that what holds good for certain animal products" should be true of human products, too; or perhaps in view of the higher rank of man) even more true, viz. that it represents an excellent manure. Yet, whatever may have induced the Indians to use hurnan fat, etc., in gardening, a question which suggests itself with similar urgency is that of how they could have procured such fertilizers. For, quite clearly we cannot go so far as to assume that human flesh and 'oil' have in India at any time be a merchandise easily available in the nearest market. On the other hand, the possibility that human flesh was nevertheless occasionally sold cannot be entirely excluded, not so much because of testimonies like e.g. that of act V of the Malatimadhava" or that of the Harsacarita (which might well derive from the arsenal of poetic imagination or the depths of popular horror stories), but rather in view of the fact that in the Arthashstra (4.10.14: punishment in the form of cutting off individual limbs and selling vima", 4.10.15: manusamarsavikraye vadhah) penalty of death is prescribed in the case of the sale of human flesh"; for the inclusion of this paragraph in the 'Ancient Indian Penal Code' cannot plausibly be explained by assuming that it is based exclusively on considerations of a merely theoretical nature: something real must have been the reason for it, whatever it may have been." But even so it cannot be disputed that the central question remains how >> Cf. also WEZLER, Die wahren "Speiseresteesser (Skt. vighasdsin), Wiesbaden 1978, p. 1811. * CE. The Harsacarita of Banabharta with Exhaustive Nores ... by P. V. KANE, Delhi-Patna-Varanasi 1965, ucshvisa 5, p.21 (text) and p. 72 (note) as well as uechvasa 7. p. 65 and p. 204 (note); cf. also D. N. LORENZEN, The Kapalikas and Kaidmuthas, New Delhi 1972, p. 11 and 21 as well as p. 28, 56f. and 94 (on other sources about the sale of human flesh). Cf. also M. HARA, 'A Note on the Sanskrit Phrase dendndmi priya', IL 30 (1969) (Katre Felicitation Vol. II, p. 236 MH.-G. TURSTIG (Jyoriya. Das System der indischen Astrologie, Wiesbaden 1980, p. XV) maintains that the knowledge of medicine herbs ... can certainly ... not be acquired through experience and by trial and error and refers in this connection to LEVI STRAUSS famous work La pensie sauvage. However, it seems that he has fallen a prey to a misunderstanding for the French anthropologist clearly even emphasizes that such knowledge presupposes active and methodical observations and he consequently distinguishes between two different types of scientific thinking. It would have been correct to say that such knowledge can not have been derived exclusively from experience based on perception. Apart from this, it appears to me necessary to take into account in the whole discussion that certain species of higher animals, e.g. dogs, take particular plants when they do not feel well. Cr. also "DER SPIEGEL", Nr. 10 / 46. Jahrgang. 2. Marz 1992, 279 ("Heilkunde der Schimpansen"). >> Regarding this term, R. P. KANGLE (The Kauritiya Arthasdstra, Pt. II, p. 327) rightly refers to AS 2.26.12 (parisanam asirahpdddishi wgandham sayapuntan a na wikriniran, they shall not sell (meat that is) swollen, without head, feet and bones, foulsmelling and (of a) naturally dead (animal). He renders it, in his translation of 4.10.15, by "unclean"; but one should bear in mind that the passage 2.26.12 clearly shows that the uncleanness" is twofold vit, caused by decay having already set in (cf. also Gaut. Dh S. 17 2.8)38) or uncertainty about the cause of death, on the one hand, on the other by the difficulty of determining its true nature in case when no characteristic limbs are left, le, by the danger that meat of animals that are not eaten by the Indians is sold and in the end also unknowingly eaten. The practice of Nepalese butchers to lay out the severed head of goats and not to cut off the animals legs, rather a repulsive sight to the Western visitor, is hence not only due to the fact these parts are also purchased, but most probably also by a legally motivated tradition which can be traced back to Kualya. Cf. In this connection also Yajn. S. 2.297 and Visnu S. 5.49. Dried blood of animals slaughtered is still used as manure, and available in every market garden, The use of the blood of sacrificial animals as fertilizer is also referred to by H. ZIMMER, Die indische Weltmutter, Frankfurt 1980, p. 21; for the use of flesh in this capacity see also Sukraniti 4.4.45 as quoted in Dharmkosa, Rajanltikanda p. 1431. -Note that the idea that blood makes the earth fertile is attested already in the RV (g. 1.32.5) (cf. K. HOFFMANN. Der Injunktiv im Veda, Heidelberg 1967, 244). The eating of human flesh or, to be precise, an atonement for it, is mentioned in the abhakyahatsanaprdyaittaprakarand of the Mitaksara, subsequent to the explanation of Yaji. S3.289 (on p. 488 I. 11ff of the NSP-edition). On cannibalism and necrophagia in ancient India, and Iran, cr. H. FALK, Bruderschaft und Warfelspiel .... Freiburg 1986, p. 371, 3911; FALK himself also refers to E. ARBMANN, Rudra..., Uppsala 1922, p. 2661. and G. WIDENGREN, Hochgonglaube im alten Iran..., Uppsala 1938, p. 335. - For an arta, le a special type of medicinal preparation from human flesh se G. J. MEULEN

Page #10
304 ALBRECHT WEZLER PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 305 human flesh and 'oil could have been procured in ancient or early mediaeval India. Not, to be sure, from killing of old people or from places where anatomy lectures were held, so to say" a possible source for procuring usable products of the human body could, however, have been human sacrifice the existence of which even in the 'Great Tradition cannot reasonably be doubted." But apart BELD. "Observations on the Arkaprakasa, a medical Sanskrit text ascribed to Ravana in: Les medecines fraditonelles de l'Asie. Actes du Colloque de Paris 11-12 Juin 1979, ed. G. MAZARS, Strasbourg 1981, p. 120. >> On this costum cf. F. J. SPROCKHOFF, "Die Alten im alten Indien. Ein Versuch nach brahmanischen Quellen", in: Saeculum XXX HA. 4 (1979), 374-433. But cf. also KLAUS E. MULLER, "Zur Frage der Altentotung im westeurasiatischen Raum, in: Paideuna XIV (1986). 17-44 und J. JETTMAR, "Altentotung in Dardistan', in: Paideuma XV (1969), 162-166. Regarding the question whether there were dissections of human corpses in India cf. K.G. ZYSK, "Some Observations on the Dissection of Cadavers in Ancient India' in: Ancien Science of Life 2.11 (1983). 187-189; R. P. DAS, "More on the Dissection of Cadavers in Ancient India In: Ancient Science of Life 3.1 (1983), 48, I. FISER and O. FISEROVA, "Dissection in Ancient India. History and Culture of Ancient India' (For the XXVT International Congress of Orientalists). ed. By W. RUBEN, W. STRUVE, G. BONGARDLEVIN, Moscow 1963, 306-328 and, finally K. G. ZYSK, "The Evolution of Anatomical Knowledge in Ancient India, with Special Reference to Cross-cultural InMluences in: JAOS 106.4 (1986), 687-705. Something like an autopsy is perhaps intended by Kumarila Bhala in the Slokavarttika (Atmavada, verse 99f.); cf. C. OETKE,"Ich und das ich. Analytische Untersuchungen zur buddhistisch-bralvanischen Ammankontroverse, Stuttgart 1988 p. 441). Gesellschaft in Wien, XXXXVII (1917), 1-65. BAHADUR HIRA LAL RAI: "Human Sacrifice in Central India', in: Man in India, 1 (1921), 8-66. H. WHITEHEAD: The Village Gods of South India, Madras 1921, repr. Delhi 1983, p. 59ff., 82, 86 ff. SARAT CHANDRA ROY: "Ethnography in Old Official Records", in: Man in India, Vol. 2 (1922), 78-96. J. G. FRAZER: The Golden Bough.... London 1924, p. 433. H. ZIMMER: "Die indische Weltmutter". Aufsatze hrsg. u. eingeleitet v. F. Wilhelm, Frankfurt 1980, p. 23 (originally published in: Eranos Jahrbuch 1938, Zurich 1939). K. K. HANDIQUI: Yasasnilaka and Indian Culture (livaraja Jaina Granthamala No. 2). Sholapur 1949, p. 221. (for further references see General Index s.v. Candamari). DHAIRYABALA P. VORA: Evolution of Morals in the Epics (Mahabhdrata and Ramdyana), Bombay 1959, p. 230ff. J. GONDA: Die Religionen Indiens / Stuttgart 1960, 1978, p. 173, 325.; // Stuttgart 1963, 5, 50, 97, 211 and 218 (containing also further references). J. C. HEESTERMANN: "The Case of the Severed Head" in: WZKS XI, 1967, 22-43. D. SCHLINGLOFF: 'Menschenopfer in Kaufambi" in: IIJ 11 (1969), 175-189. SUDHAKAR CHATTOPADHYAYA: Evolution of Hindu Sects up to the time of Sank ara, Delhi 1970, p. 123, 127. D. N. LORENZEN: The Kapalikas and Kaldmukhas. Tivo Lost Saivite Sects, New Delhi 1972, p. 86. A. W. MACDONALD: Essays on the Ethnology of Nepal and South Asia, Kathmandu 1983, p. Ifr. ("On Prajapati"). H. FALK: "Die Legende von Sunahsepa auf ihrem rituellen Hintergrund", ZDMG 134 (1984) 115 135, especially 134 + note 53. K. G. ZYSK: 'The Evolution of Anatomical Knowledge in Ancient India ... in: JAOS 106.4 (1986), 6891. M. WITZEL: "The Case of the Shattered Head in: Sill 13/14 = Festschrift Wilhelm Rau ..., 1987, 363-415 (especially ! 8 and 9 as well as notes 49, 551, 66, 74, 95 and 103). - Sacrifices of animals and men to tree deities are referred to in Jataka no. 50 and 353,Note that even today one finds once in a while in the media news about, real or alleged, human sacrifices in the Indian subcontinent(e.g. "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" of 6th July 1991: "Zehn Jahre altes Madchen einer Gottin geopfert"). It is, however, necessary to distinguish not only, as rightly pointed out by A. W. MACDONALD (sce above), between various stages in the cultural development of mankind in the framework of which such sacrifices become understandable, e.g. that of hunters in contradistinction to that of "Some of the titles subsequently listed contain information about further relevant literature on human sacrifice in India; I therefore deem it justified to confine myself to presenting what is the result rather of an accidental discovery than of a systematic search. A. WEBER: "Uber Menschenopfer bei den Indern der Vedischen Zeit", ZDMG 18 (1864) 262-287. J. CAMPBELL: A Personal Narrative of 13 years amongst the wild tribes of Khondistan. Human Sacrifices in India. With a prefatory new introduction by Prof. Birwal S. Das, Delhi 1986. A. BARTH: Les Religions de l'Inde. Paris 1879. p. 38. The Religion of India, trans. into English by Rev. J. Wood, repr. Delhi 1969, 57-59. S. A. WEDER: Ober die Konigweihe, den Rajasuya, Berlin 1893, 8, 47, 52, 64, 108. E. THURSTON: Castes & Tribes of Southern India, Vol. I, Madras 1909, p.XV. R. VON HEINE-GELDERN: "Kopfagd und Menschenopfer in Assam und Birma und ihre Ausstrahlungen nach Vorderindien, in: Minellungen der Anthropologischen

Page #11
PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 307 306 ALBRECHT WEZLER from the problem of the diffusion and frequency of human sacrifice, it is the secrecy (that must have surrounded it), the fear of arousing the suspicion of a general public or the organs of state that must have domina the participants) which makes one hesitate to regard such sacrifice to have been a probable, or at least the most probable, source of supply of human flesh, etc. Now in the commentary on an unknown Viksayurveda text, the Vrksaropanaprakaravyakhya of Sadasivavyasa - the edition of which we also owe to R. P. DAS", there is a passage in which it is clearly stated that the bones, marrow and flesh needed should be taken from Sastraghatena yo mrto Thava sulaprotena yo wytas tadySamanusasya ..., i.e. "from a man who has been slain with a weapon or impaled on the stake". One cannot, however, be sure that this forms an original piece of information, based on the author's own observation; it might likewise be merely part of Sadasivavyasa's erudition;" for precisely the same expressions, and in identical sequence at that, are repeatedly met with in the Arthasastra. Significantly enough all references are to the last but one adhikarana, i.e. the fourteenth, "Concerning secret practices" (aupanisada), viz. 14.2.28, 14.3.4, 64 and 79 (sastrahatasya fulaprotasya va purusasya/purpisah)." The evidence of the AS - in which the Vrksayurveda is mentioned for the first time in Indian literature (see above p. 301) - is particularly welcome as it definitely proves that the use of parts or products of human corpses was known at least in a certain kind of ancient Indian magic and sorcery. On the other hand, it is this magical context that creates a problem regarding the qualifications of the man whose fesh etc., can or should be used, viz. Sastrahata and Silaprola: Are they to be taken as a specific condition indispensable for the magical cure to be effective or are they a general quality inevitably to be present in the qualified, in that only flesh, etc., of such a person can at all be thought of being available? The implication this alternative has is clear: Only in the latter case would it seem possible to regard, without further ado, the statements found in the Vrksaropanaprakaravyakhya and especially in the Arthasastra as pieces of evidence giving information about the source(s) of procurement of human corpses or parts of them for practical or magical purposes. In order to answer this question we have first to determine the meanings of the decisive expressions fastrahata and Sulaprota in the AS. The latter does not pose any problem as it quite clearly denotes a man who has been sentenced to death and has been executed by a method apparently widely used in ancient and mediaeval India, viz. by impaling. In view of the juxtaposition of the two attributes it is legitimate to examine first whether fastrahata might likewise refer to a person on whom a death sentence has been carried out, but then, of course, with the sword. Although this method was also known in India," it can't be what is intended by this expression here; for this attribute is found applied, in the same section of the AS, viz. 14.3.69, to a cow which is thus qualified as "killed with a weapon" (MEYER and KANGLE)" or "a sword/knife". Following the dictionaries (PW, MONIER-WILLIAMS, etc.) one may, of course, consider also the possibility that Sastrahata means "fallen (warrior]"; and there is, no doubt, some likelihood that not all corpses of warriors or soldiers fallen in battle were always ritually cremated. But this seems to be too narrow a meaning especially as in AS 14.3.14 the expression svayamurta is met with (said of a Brahmin) and it suggests itself to take it as standing in direct opposition to Sastrahata; for MEYER's assumption that what is meant is a man who has committed suicide, is far from convincing, not only because of general semantic considerations (the root mr means "to die") but also, as rightly pointed out by KANGLE," because of the parallel at AS 2.2.9 (where svayammsta (scil. hastin) stands in opposition to a hastighatin)." "Dies naturally, the correct meaning of svayanmyta at 14.3.14 (and other places), then points, for fastrahata, in the direction of "one who has met with death by violence (except for those who have been executed by impaling)", "CI. P. V. KANE, History of the Dharmasastra, Vol. III, Poona 1973, p. 400. arriculturists, but also between the killing of human beings as part of or essential element of a ritual act, on the one hand, and outside any sacrificial contexts, on the other. This point apart, one wonders that C. VON FURER-HEIMENDORF did not deem human sacrifice even worth mentioning (according to the "Index") in his book on Tribal Populations and Cultures of the Indian Subcontinent, (HDO 11.7), LeidenKoln 1985. Note that at 14.3.15 a masculine go is referred to that is slaughtered in the funeral rites of a Brahmin (brahmananya prerakarya yo gaur midryare ...). Regarding vegetarianism In the AS see H. SCHARFE: Untersuchungen zur Staatsrechtslehre des Kowalya, Wiesbaden 1968, p. 291ff. "See his dissertation (cf. fn. 14). p. 485 (beginning of $23). " J. J. MEYER, Das altindische Buch vom Well- und Staarsleben ..., Leipzig 1926. p. 652, n. 2. The suspicion is aroused by the fact that the sequence of the two qualifications is the same as in the Arthasastra, but first of all by the expression Salaprofena in the place of which one would rather expect Sularopanena. "R. P. KANGLE, The Kauciliya Arthasastra, P. II, Bombay 1963, p. 584 n. "Another parallel, not less significant than that mentioned by KANGLE, Is AS 2.26.12 (cf. note 35, above). 42 At 14.3.70 Galaprotasya alone occurs; should we emend the text here and read also Sastraharasya Sulaprotasya wd? As for 14.3.58 see below, n. 48.

Page #12
PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 309 308 ALBRECHT WEZLER veda texts in certain cases was most probably gained from the corpses of people who had either been impaled on the stake or met with death by some other form of violence. One cannot help asking oneself further questions at this point, e.g. how an Indian gardener could get hold of such corpses, etc. But the material at disposal does not, as far as I can see, permit us to answer such questions, not even the particularly momentous one regarding the quantity of corpses available on an average within a given period of time; meticulous book-keeping about killing, etc., is evidently a more recent 'achievement' in the history of mankind. or perhaps "executed" and this necessarily means "put to death by impaling", or "executed (by impaling or another method"). The meaning of at least one of the two qualifications given in the As, viz. Sastrahata, is hence such that the possibility of its relating to a magical requirement only can be ruled out with very high a degree of probability: It is simply not special enough. On the other hand, it has to be taken into account that fulaprota and fastrahata are not at all the only qualifications occurring in such contexts in the 14th adhikarana of the AS. At 14.3.16, e.g. "The ashes of one bitten by a serpent" are mentioned, and according to 14.3.58 "one should make a bull out of the bone of a broken man". Evidently the particular way of suffering the end of physical life is itself of (some) importance here, and this conclusion does not depend on the Western philologist's ability, or inability, to fully understand the relation obtaining between the type of death and the magical rite in which the ashes or bones, etc., are used. It is hence more than probable that the mode of death is relevant in the case of the other two qualifications also, viz. Sulaprota and Sastrahata so that the alternative noted above (p. 307) seems to have to be decided in favour of the first possibility. There is, however, more that has to be taken into consideration. None of the qualifications is by itself fantastic, i.e. refers to something clearly unreal. It is therefore legitimate to assume that the question of the availability of the special type of corpse needed is not totally ignored in the AS 'recipes', but is on the contrary likewise simultaneously paid attention to. And thus what finally turns out is that the alternative at issue is at best only a theoretical question, if not even a pseudo problem: Whether magically relevant or not, in any case the qualification in the AS give also information about the availability of human flesh, etc.; and the question whether a particular type of corpse was more easily available than another, can, if at all, be answered of the corresponding AS passages themselves. Considerations of this kind lead also to the assumption that e.g. the corpse of a person killed by snakebite-though this may have been not too rare a cause of death in ancient India - was most probably not considered as suitable for purposes of gardening or horticulture. The result is this that Sadasivavyasa's explanation, whatever its origin(s) may have been, can nevertheless be regarded as trustworthy in substance: The human 'oil', etc., the use of which is recommended in Vpksayur 5. Yet apart from such concrete questions there is another problem, and one of much greater significance at that, which is raised by the text material presented above, viz. that of the relation(s) between philosophy and natural sciences in India in general. If I am not mistaken, all that can be said at present is that this problem has hardly ever been touched upon." Nobody seems to have addressed himself to it until now in a systematic, comprehensive and serious manner; and I for one cannot, and dare not to venture so far in the present essay. But the reference to the Vpksayurveda in (an) early Samkhya text(s) with which I am dealing here is a particularly instructive instance of this relation so that at least a few remarks are certainly called for; indeed such individual observations form the most reliable basis for the comprehensive study of the general problem which we still lack. It is true that this reference to the Vpksayurveda is not the only one that can be found in philosophical texts, or tracts. To give but a few more examples: The argument vyadhipratikriyarvat, brought forward in Mahabharata 12.177.15, is explained by the commentator Vidyasagara by adducing as witnesses unknown vrksayurvedavidah whom he quotes or states as making the prescription amla madhu mamsam ca samvifyasificed dugdhodakan in order to cure discases of trees caused by people urinating at their roots. Similarly Simhasuri refers to what is taught in the Vpksayurveda on the occasion of Mallavadin's assertion that fruits are also found not to be ripe at the time of their natural ripening." And, "See e.g. K. S. ARJUNWARKAR, "The Rasa Theory and the Darsanas in: ABORI LXV (1984), 81-100. On theory versus practice see S. POLLOCK, "The Theory of Practice and the Practice of Theory in Indian Intellectual History' in: JAOS 105 (1985), 499-519; cf. his contributions "The idea of Sastra in traditional India and "Playing by the rules: Sastra and Sanskrit Literature to volume of Shastric Traditions in Indian Arts, ed. by A. L. DALLAPICCOLA, Stuttgart 1989, 17-26 and 301-312 (respectively); cf. also PH. B. ZARILLI's article "Between text and embodied practice: Writing and reading in a South Indian martial tradition, in the same volume, p. 415-424. MEYER (O.C. p. 656, n.) changes bhagnarya of the MSS into magnasya "drowned"; but KANGLE (0.c., p. 588 n.) seems reluctant to accept this conjecture and remarks that "Whagnasya evidently refers to a murdered man', however without adducing any parallel Perhaps G. v. MITTERWALLNER's observation that in KusAna art the Devi is depicted as Overcoming the buffalo "by breaking his spine and strangulating him with her main hand" (cf. her article in: German Scholars on India II, Bombay 1976. p. 196-213) is of importance here, too, in that it draws our attention to the possibility that killing without bloodshed could be denoted by the root bhanj. * Cf the critical edition of the Mbh., Vol. 15, p. 1009, App. #Cf. Dvadasdram Mayacakram of Acarya Sri Mallawadi Ksamdramang...

Page #13
310 ALBRECHT WEZLER PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 311 finally, Siddhasena does not fail to point out that at least some of the facts which he adduces in order to prove the thesis of the trees' celanata "are stated in the Vpksayurveda". And it is equally true that the latter references, too, deserve a more detailed analysis than can be undertaken here. Nevertheless, the reference in the unidentified Samkhya source demands scholarly attention to a much higher degree. The reference, or quotation, has already been shown above (p. 297 and p. 299) to run thus: tad eva ca kvathitam vrksayur vede virksanain Sriryate or kuthitam Sariram vrksayurvede vyksanam vyddhyartham iti friyate. Quite clearly the predicate fruyale cannot be taken literally, i.e. to mean is heard", if this is equivalent to "is known from hearsa The reason for taking at all this possibility into consideration is, of course, that the well-known technical meaning would imply that the Vrksayurveda is regarded as forming part of the Sruti, a conception which the Western philologist can not by any means accept. However, the 'science' at issue here is, after all, called -veda, or rather -ayurveda, and in any case in India the latter has ultimately come to be regarded as a constituent, though subordinate part of the Vedic lore (whether solely because it is a 'Veda" or for other reasons, too). This is shown most conspicuously by the inclusion of the Ayurveda in the lists of the so-called Upavedas. Although the Vrksayurveda as such is apparently not mentioned in these lists, not even in the course of explanations of the 'Science of the Span of L or as a science subordinate to it, the assumption is fully warranted that the final member of the compound Vrksayurveda could be taken as indicating a close con nection with human medicine, one of the 4 Upavedas, and this in such a manner that the notion could be extended to include the Vyksayurveda, too. Nevertheless, I have the impression that the Samkhya author referring to this science, or even quoting from one of the works dealing with it, deliberately chose the expression friyate in order to ensure that the authority of the source he adduces is established beyond any doubt: Understandably enough his way of arguing is influenced to some extent by his aim. This is obvious also in what forms the actual contents of the reference. For, literally, what it means is nothing but that a decomposed human body according to the Vrksayurveda furthers the growth of trees; but this statement is injected in such a context and in such a manner that the hearer or reader is almost automatically given the impression that what the Vrksayurveda has in view is a process like the Samkhya parinama at the beginning of which stands a human corpse and at the end of which a particular part of a vegetal body!" The concept of parinama, however, is not only not even alluded to in the Vrksayurveda passage, but there is also no reason whatsoever for assuming that the concept was taken over by Vrksayurvedins on their part and applied to their field of learning. Quite the reverse is evidently true: It is the Samkhya philosopher who projects his idea of (ubiquitous) transformation upon the fact observed and made use of by the Vrksayurvedins; it is he who has, or claims to have, a thorough, clear and full understanding of the phenomenon observed and of the reason by which it is ultimately caused: Samkhya philosophy is qua theory of the world in a sense also the basis of the natural science': the philosophical laws' recognized by it are universally valid - whether the scientists were aware of them or not. And as regards the Vyksayurveda, there can be hardly any doubt, at least judging by Surapala's work of the same name, that the representatives of this science kept (apart from certain rather fantastic or poetical (traditional) ideas) almost entirely to empirical facts and their description, i.e. that they did not take any notable interest in looking behind phenomena and discovering their causes: The Vyksayur. vedins show a conspicuous lack of inquisitiveness and readiness to address themselves to theoretical questions, but this has clearly not detracted from the high reputation this Sastra enjoyed from of old." Whether it is due to its predominantly edited with critical notes by MUNI JAMBOVUAYNI, Pt. I, Bhavnagar 1966, p. 202 I. 3 and 1411. (cf. also p. 367 I. 1207.); as for methods meant to prevent ripening or postpone the period of ripening etc., see Surapala's Vyksayurveda (cf. fn. 14), p. 35611, and 313 (verse 225). ... Pam Becara 12 Samaritarka-Prakaranam ... Part Suthlaidlasanghavind dasadosind ca... Samutodhitam, Ahmedabad Sarva 1980-85, p. 652. In the Sabdakalpadruma and Vacaspalya wpraveda is paraphrased by upamiro vedena and thereafter explained as pradhanaveddririkrah in the former lexicon and by vedasadre dyurvedddaw in the latter. Note also the term undaga likewise applied to the Ayurveda etc.. cf. J. FILLIOZAT, The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine, Delhi 1964, p. 1 n and S. DASGUPTA, A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, Cambridge 1965, p. 274. The fact that Surapala refers only to parts or products of a human corpse, and not to the dead body as a whole does not in the least detract from the appropriateness of this statement "That Ayurvedins themselves should have developed quite independently a concept identical with or similar to that of Samkhya parindims can safely be ruled out. L RENOU (The Destiny of the Veda in India. Delhi-Patna-Varanasi 1965. p. 14 is rather evasive in the little he has to say on this question. "Che.. Saunaka's Caranavyuhasutra 4.1, Madhusudana Sarasvati's Prasthanabheda (ed. A. WEBER, Ind, St. 1, 1849. p. 91. and p. 207.) and Sivatattvaratnikara 1.2.156. A particularly clear piece of evidence in this regard is Manusmrti 1.46-48 (with which one should compare, inspite of the time gap. Surapala's Vrksyurveda (cf. fn. 14 p. 13011.): P. HACKER's remark on Manu 1.43-48 ('Two Accounts of Cosmography". In: Janamukavall, Commemoration Volume in Honour of Joh. Nobel, Delhi 1963, 86 - Kleine Schriften, Wiesbaden 1978, 398), viz. Divisions of living beings and plants. Not in TGI' (a particular

Page #14
PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVATMAKATVAVADA II 313 * 312 ALBRECHT WEZLER practical outlook that the Vrksayurveda does not show any vestiges of an influence exercised on it by the Sarkhya system, is a problem that cannot be solved at the moment: The alluring, but obviously very vast and dense jungle of the reception of Samkhya (as also its scope and its limits) still awaits its courageous explorer. Appendir When I gave a talk on the subject of the present article in Vienna in 1987 my attention was kindly drawn in the ensuing discussion by my friend Gerhard Oberhammer to a painting of Edvard Munch's that practically illustrates the relation between a human corpse and a tree the unknown Samkhya author has in view. I finally succeeded in identifying the painting: It is given the title "Metabo lism or Assimilation of Nutritive Material or Two Living Beings and was, according to R. STANG," painted around 1898, but later changed by the artist, viz, around 1918. The painting forms part of the marvellous collection of the Oslo Kommunes kunstsamlinger, Munch-Museet and is catalogued there as "Metabolism 19899 (OKK M 419)". Its size is 175 x 143 cm. As it does not belong to the better known pieces and hence is not generally included in illustrated books on Munch, I deem it advisable to add to the present article at least a black-and-white reproduction of it. I am most grateful to the Oslo kommunes kunstsamlinger for granting me the permission to do so (see the plate on p. 315). Important additional information on the painting is given by A. EGGUM in the exhibition catalogue "Edvard Munch. Symbols and Images": "In its original form, the picture had another iconographic content. Up from the roots in the frame grew a small bush or a large flower with a small embryo inside. The woman's hand pointed toward the embryo and almost touched it ... A photograph from 1903 shows how centrally the motif was placed in the "Life Frieze", and we see that the upper part of the frame which depicts Christiania, was not yet completed. In his pamphlet The Life Frieze, Munch later expressed that he found the picture as necessary for the frieze as a buckle from the belt, even though it deviated somewhat from the general context. The picture was probably once repainted in connection with Munch's plans for a monumental execution of the "Life Frieze" motifs. A tree trunk between the man and the woman was added, which covers the bush or flower with the embryo ... The picture was originally part of an eschatology of metabolism, but this aspect is almost gone in the final version...". However, the final version not only almost perfectly matches the particular parinama at issue in the present essay, but obviously also expresses much more clearly an idea that is met with, and more than once, in writings of Munch's, too. E.g. in his bocklet "Livsfrisen" - which most probably dates from 1918 - he says (p. 2)" "The motif of the largest pictures, man and woman in the woods, ... is a picture of life as well as of death, and of the town which rises behind the trees." Or in a paper left by him he says: "I rejoiced feeling myself die, united with or transformed into this earth that always lived, always fermented, always was warmed by the sun... I ought to be united with her. Out of my decomposing body plants and trees should grow ... 1 ought to be in them. Nothing will pass away. ... That is eternity." But the elementary parallels to the Samkhya-Vrkayurveda idea are not limited to Western art only; they can be found also in literary works and other written documents. I have not searched for them systematically, but I think that there should be material enough for a comparative study, a contribution to cultural anthropology which could perhaps even counteract to some extent our present alienation from nature. The few examples I have chanced upon during the last years will, I hope, at least demonstrate that this assumption is not entirely unjustified, or perhaps even inspire others to follow this path further. A poem of Felix Pollak's entitled 'A Matter of History' begins thus:62 "It all has passed and is gone, the cries silenced, the blood/ congealed in the earth. The cries dissolved in air, the blood / sucked up by grass, transformed into the sap of young trees. / In A. Watt's booklet "Nature, Man and Woman there is a foot-note which runs thus: "It is curious to speculate upon the consequences of civilized man's refusal to be eaten by other forms of life, to return his body for the fertilization of the soil from which he took it. This is a significant symptom of his alienation from nature, and may be a by no means negligible deprivation of the earth's resources." A similar idea is found expressed already in G. Th Fechner's "Nanna oder Uber das Seelen group of Puranic Texts as distinguished by W. KIRFEL) has therefore to be thus supplemented: "because these verses have been taken over from or inspired by certain Sastra texts dealing with animals and plants". * Cr. her book: Edvard Munch - der Mensch und der Kansler, Konigstein L.T. 1979, p. 123. National Gallery of Art, Washington 1978, on cat. no. 46. My attention was kindly drawn to this article by Mrs. K. E. Lerheim, Secretary of the "Oslo kommunes kunstsamlinger'. *Cf. R. STANG, O.C. (fn. 59). pp. 123 and 301. " quote from: Vom Nutzen des Zweifels. Gedicht hrsg. von R. GRIMM, Frankfurt 1989, p. 48. # Vintage Books, New York 1970, p. 105, En. 5. The text of the English original I owe to the kind assistance of Dr. H. Jamison, Harvard

Page #15
314 ALBRECHT WEZLER leben der Pflanzen",64 viz. on p. 154: "Mit demselben Rechte, wie man sagt, dass die Menschen und Thiere die Fruchte des Feldes essen und fressen, kann man in der That sagen, dass die Fruchte des Feldes die Menschen und Thiere fressen; denn alles, was von Menschen und Thieren abgeht, geht wieder in die Pflanzen uber, und muss in sie ubergehen, damit sie wachsen und gedeihen. Sie zerreissen den Menschen nur nicht so bei lebendigem Leibe, wie wir es mit ihnen tun. Sie warten auf das, was von uns abgeht, bis es zu ihnen kommt, erwarten unseren Tod, ehe sie sich ganz unserer bemachtigen." And finally the text of an inscription I happened to discover in September 1989 near the top of a mountain in Austria called "Stoderzinken": "Hier irgendwo ruht die Asche von Emil Ritter von Horstig, gestorben am 30. Oktober 1931 im 87. Lebensjahr. Er wollte 'ein Blumlein am Stoder werden'": Cremation does not seem to stand in the way of the fulfillment of this modest wish. o Reference is to the 3rd edition, Hamburg und Leipzig 1903.