________________
PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVĀTMAKATVAVĀDA 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 fülaprota 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 Sadāsivavyasa'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 Vpkşayur
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 Vpkşayurveda 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 Vpkṣāyurveda 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 Vidyāsāgara by adducing as witnesses unknown vrkşayurvedavidah whom he quotes or states as making the prescription amla madhu māmsam ca samvifyasificed dugdhodakan in order to cure discases of trees caused by people urinating at their roots. Similarly Simhasūri refers to what is taught in the Vpkşãyurveda 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 KuşAna 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...
