On Two Medical Verses In Yuktidipika

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 4

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