________________
310
ALBRECHT WEZLER
PARALIPOMENA ZUM SARVASARVĀTMAKATVAVADA 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 Vpkşãyurveda". 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 virksaņain Sriryate or kuthitam Sariram vrksãyurvede vyksanam vyddhyartham iti friyate. Quite clearly the predicate früyale 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 Vrkṣāyurveda 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 Vrksãyurveda 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 Vrkṣāyurveda 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 Vyksãyurveda, 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 Vrkṣāyurveda 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 Vrksãyurveda has in view is a process like the Samkhya pariņāma 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 parināma, however, is not only not even alluded to in the Vrkṣāyurveda 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 Vrksãyurvedins; 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 Vyksãyurveda, 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 Výkşayur. 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 Vyksãyurveda (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 Caranavyuhasútra 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
