On Two Medical Verses In Yuktidipika

SR No.: 269652
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Total Pages: 11
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 2 MB

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.