On Two Medical Verses In Yuktidipika

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

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
)