One of the only two places in
the Nepalese version where this phrase appears. The other
is Suśrutasaṃhitā 6.60.2. The latter location also adds
the phrase śruṇu vatsa suśruta, similar
to the marginal note of a scribe of MS H here.
Note that in the Nepalese
version, it is Divodāsa, the king of the earth, who
teaches the medical discipline to Suśruta, not
Dhanvantari, king of Kāśī, as in the vulgate.
The scribe of MS H first copied the same text as MS K,
but corrected it to read with the vulgate. He must have
known another manuscript with the correct reading. The old
reading of K appears to be a plain textual error.
1938 ed. 5.2.22
āśutvād āśu tad dhanti vyavāyāt prakṛtiṃ bhajet |
vikāsitvād anuviśed doṣān dhātūn malān api |
The character
śū in c is hard to read in witness
K, and this same character has a similar flaw in witness H
and is corrected in the margin. This suggests that H was
copied from K or a very close intermediate witness that
copied the error of K.
The reading of the K witness is
grammatically clearer than the vulgate. The erroneous
reading of nominative naraḥ in H may be
the reason for the rewriting of this verse in the vulgate.
Gayadāsa on the next verse shows that he read the same
syntax as the Nepalese version.
1938 ed. 5.3.11
spṛśanti gātreṇa tu yena yena
govājināgāḥ puruṣāḥ striyo vā
tad āśu śūyaty atha dahyate ca
śīryanti romāṇi nakhāś ca tasmin |
1938 ed. 5.3.12
tatrāpy anantāṃ saha sarvagandhaiḥ
piṣṭvā surābhiḥ saha yojyamārgān |
siñced athādbhiś ca mṛdanvitābhir
mārgo 'sti cānyo yadi tena gacchet ||*
Ḍalhaṇa noted a variant reading
of this verse that bears a close relationship to the
Nepalese transmission: tatrāpy anantāṃ saha
sarvagandhair vacāṃ tu piṣṭvā surayā 'numārgam/ siñcet
tathā mṛtsahitābhir adbhir mārgo 'sti nānyo yadi tena
gacchet SS 5.3.12 (Ācārya 1938: 568).
1938 ed. 5.3.34
yathāviṣaṃ sa rogeṇa kliśyate mriyate pi vā |
ataś cāpy anayor māṃsam abhakṣyam mṛtamātrayoḥ |
1938 ed. 5.3.35
muhūrtāt tad upādeyam prahārādaṃśavarjitam* |
The scribal correction of
ra to rā in both
witnesses K and H shows H's dependence on K or an
exceptionally accurate unknown intermediate, or that the
scribe of H corrected K.
1938 ed. 5.4.27
kṛṣṇā vajraprabhā ye ca lohitā varṇṇatas tathā |
dhūmrāḥ pārāvatābhāś ca vaiśyās te pannagāḥ smṛtāḥ ||
1938 ed. 4.28
mahiṣadvīpivarṇṇābhās tathaiva paruṣatvacaḥ |*
bhinnavarṇṇāś ca ye kecic chūdrās te parikīrttitāḥ ||
There is some scribal confusion
in witnesses K and H about the second term in the first
compound. Possibly dvipa "elephant" has
been corrected to dvīpin "tiger". In H,
dvija has been added in the
margin.
1938 ed. 5.4.31
rajanyāḥ prathame yāme sarvāś citrāś caranti ha |*
śeṣās tv atho maṇḍalino divā darvīkarās tathā |
The reading sarvāś seems to be sure in K
and H, though sarpāḥ
would be an easier reading.
1938 ed. 5.4.29
kopayanty anilañ jantoḥ phaṇinaḥ sarva eva tu |
pittaṃ maṇḍalinaś cāpi kaphaṃ cānekarājayaḥ |
1938 ed. 5.4.36
tatra sarveṣām eva sarpāṇāṃ sāmānyata eva daṣṭalakṣaṇam
upadekṣyāmaḥ | kiṃ kāraṇam | viṣaṃ hi hutahutavahaniśitanistriṃśāśanikalpam āśukāri muhūrttam apy
upekṣitam āturam atipātayati | na cāvakāśo 'sti vāksamūham
anusartum | pratyekam api ca daṣṭalakṣaṇe* 'bhihite sarpatraividhyāt
kriyātraividhyaṃ bhavati | tasmāt traividhyena vakṣyāmaḥ | etad
dhy āturahitam asaṃmohakarañ cāsminn eva ca
sarvavyañjanāvarodha* iti |
We emend against K and H, since
daṣṭalakṣaṇa is mentioned as the
topic at the start of this passage and is attested in the
vulgate.
The Vācaspatyam has a
reading sarvasarpavyañjanāvabodha,
which is closer to the vulgate and suggests that others
too found this phrase hard to construe.
1938 ed. 5.4.37
tatra darvīkaraviṣeṇa tvaṅnakhanayanavadanamūtrapurīṣadaṃśakṛṣṇatvaṃ raukṣyaṃ
sandhivedanā śirogauravaṃ kaṭīpṛṣṭhagrīvādaurbalyaṃ jṛmbhaṇaṃ
svarāvasādaḥ khurakhurako* jaḍatā
śuṣkodgāraḥ kāsaḥ śvāso hikkā vāyor urdhvagamanaṃ śūlodveṣṭanaṃ
kṛṣṇalālāsravaṇaṃ phenāgamanaṃ srotovarodhas tās tāś ca vātavedanā
bhavanti || maṇḍaliviṣeṇa tu tvaṅnakhanayanadaśanavadanamūtrapurīṣadaṃśapītatvaṃ
śītābhilāṣaḥ paridhūpāyanaṃ dāhas tṛṣṇā mado mūrcchā jvaraḥ
śoṇitāgamanam ūrdhvam adhaś ca māṃsavasāvasādaḥ śvayathur
daṃśakotho viparītadarśanam āturakopas tās tāś ca pittavedanā
bhavanti || rājīmadviṣeṇa* tu
tvaṅnakhanayanadaśanavadanamūtrapurīṣadaṃśapāṇḍutvaṃ śītajvaro romaharṣaḥ
stabdhatvaṃ gātrāṇām ādaṃśaśophaḥ sāndrakaphaprasekaś chardir
akṣṇoḥ kaṇḍū khurakhurakaḥ ucchvāsanirodhas tās tāś ca kaphavedanā
bhavanti ||
We emend against K and H since
kharukharuka, which is a known
lexeme, appears later in this same passage. This is an
onomatapoeic word for "gurgling." The vulgate version,
ghurghuraka also appears in
dictionaries.
Note the variant
rājīmat, an attested alternative to
rājimat.
The reading
tāḥsv of witnesses H and K is hard
to account for. The confusion may have arisen over the
ligature of a conjectured reading tās tv
ekaikaṃ.
Unusually,
viṣaḥ has masculine gender in both
witnesses K and H. The Siddhāntakaumudī
allows a masc. form.
1938 ed. 5.4.41
yenāntareṇa tu kalāḥ kālakalpaṃ bhinatti ha |
samīraṇenohyamānaṃ tat tu vegāntaraṃ matam ||
Ḍalhaṇa noted that his text of
4.44cd, that began dhyāyati prathame
vege was not read by some authorities
(kecid ācāryāḥ). The Nepalese
version does not read exactly as the vulgate or Ḍalhaṇa,
but it is similar, and not absent.
We read
viṣanāśane, agreeing with the acc.
dual of nastaḥkarmāñjane, against the
Nepalese witnesses K and H, because an accusative does not
construe. It is most unlikely to be an adverbial form
qualifying yuñjyat.
At this point in manuscript K,
the scribe's eye skipped from the word
yavāgūṃ forward to the phrase
yavāgūn dāpayed dhitāṃ in verse
5.5.26b. A different scribe noticed this and added an
asterisk to the text and inserted the skipped passage at
the bottom of the folio, between two asterisks. This
addition is very faint.
We emend ntu
to rtu; the readings of this akṣara in
the Nepalese manuscripts are hard to judge, but on balance
it looks as if scribes at an earlier stage of transmission
may have misread rtu as
ntu.
These two hemistiches are in
different eleven-syllable metres,
śālinī and
indravajrā. The vugate casts the
same general material into two śālinī
hemistiches.
1938 ed. 5.5.58.add-1
liṅgāny etāny eva vā yasya vidyād |
vraṇe viṣaṃ yasya dattaṃ pramādāt |
digdhāhataṃ viṣajuṣṭaṃ vraṇañ ca |
ye cāpy anye viṣapūtivraṇārttāḥ ||
I emend the Nepalese reading
kokilā in accordance with the
vulgate, for grammar. One solution would be to read
kokilā, but there is no other
evidence for this lexeme.
1938 ed. 5.7.6
śvetaś ca mahatā sārdhaṃ kapilenākhunā tathā |
mūṣikaś ca kapotābhas tathaivāṣṭādaśa smṛtāḥ ||
I emend the Nepalese reading
lālanā in accordance with the
vulgate, for metre (in the case of K, which is short of a
syllable) and to provide a subject for the sentence. The
use of the instrumental also follows the grammatical
pattern of rat-names in the subsequent paragraphs. Reading
K as an ablative, lālanāc chardi still
leaves the verse short of a syllable.
1938 ed. 5.7.11
taṇḍulīyakakalkaṃ tu lihyāt tatra samākṣikam ||
putrakeṇāṅgasaṃsādaḥ pāṇḍuvalguś ca jāyate |
1938 ed. 5.7.12
cīyate granthibhiś cāṅgaṃ śiśur mūṣikasaṃsthitaiḥ |*
śirīṣeṅgudipatraṃ tu lihyāt tatra samākṣikam ||
The expression śiśur
mūṣikasaṃsthitaiḥ is problematic. Various
ideas for emendation do not greatly help.
We emend to
viṭsaṅga, a known condition.
Witness K is so effaced at this point that one could
project any reading on it. Witness H has post corr.
tamperings that obscure its readings. The vulgate retains
the -ṭch- conjunct at this place in the
text, albeit in different words. Probably it is the sandhi
of viṭ+śaṅga (Macdonell para. 53a:
-ṭ+ś- to -ṭch-)
with the common Nepalese scribal insensitivity to the
s/ś distinction.
1938 ed. 5.7.62
alarkajuṣṭam etan me nirviṣaṃ kuru mā cirāt || svāhā ||
dadyāt saṃśodhanan tīkṣṇam evaṃ snātasya dehinaḥ |*
We emend to the vulgate text.
The patient was previously bathed, and the Nepalese
readings, though probably representing a different
reading, are not coherent.
1938 ed. 5.6.19
uśīre dve varuṇakaṃ kustumburyo nakhāni ca |
tvacaṃ taskarasāhvañ ca granthilāṃ saharītakīm |
śvete haridre sthauṇeyaṃ lākṣāñ ca lavaṇāni ca |
The Nepalese reading was
known to Ḍalhaṇa, who quoted it as the reading "of some"
(Ācārya 1938: 587): pratisūryaḥ piṅganāso
bahulomā mahāśirāḥ | tathā nirupamaś ceti pañca
goudherakāḥ smṛtāh || tair bhavantīha daṣṭānāṃ
vegajñānāni sarpavat | rujaś ca vividhākārā granthayaś
ca sudāruṇāḥ ||.
5.8.28 verse 2
tair bhavantīha daṣṭānāṃ vegajñānāni sarpavat |
rujaś ca vividhākārā granthayaś ca sudāruṇāḥ |
5.8.29 verse 2
tābhir daṣṭe daṃśatodo hṛtpīḍā dāha eva ca |
daṃśaśophaś ca bhavati granthijanma ca dāruṇam |
5.8.30 verse 1
paruṣā kṛṣṇacitre ca kapilā pītikā tathā ||
raktā śvetāgnivarṇṇā ca śatapādo 'ṣṭadhā smṛtāḥ |*
In spite of describing
broadly similar animals and symptoms, the Nepalese version
and the vulgate texts differ so much that it is only
marginally worth collating them against each other.
5.8.30 verse 2
tābhir daṣṭe rujās tīvrā daṃśaśophaś ca dāruṇaḥ |
daṃśe ca piṭakotpattir mūrcchāṃ cāpi sudāruṇāḥ |
5.8.31 verse 1
śvetaś ca kṛṣṇavarṇṇaś ca śaravarṇṇo 'yam aprabhaḥ
kuharo haritaś cāpi bhṛkuṭī koṭikaś ca yaḥ |
5.8.31 add 1
jalaukāḥ ṣaṭ samākhyātāḥ salakṣaṇacikitsitāḥ |
ahikutthuḥ kutthukaś ca vṛttaśūkas tathaiva ca ||
5.8.32 verse
trayo viśvambharāḥ proktāḥ dāhajvararujāvahāḥ |
tair daṣṭamātre śvayathur ādaṃśe kaṇḍur eva ca |
5.8.34 verse 1
phenāgamo 'tisāraś ca koṭhajanmaṃ ca dāruṇam |*
samvāhikā sthūlaśīrṣā brāhmaṇy aṅgulikā tathā |*
The reading
koṭhajanme of both witnesses K and
H can only be a dual and that makes no sense and does not
agree with dāruṇam.
We emend to
samvāhikā with the vulgate reading
in 5.8.34, against the clear gam- in
both witnesses K and H. This suggests that the latter
reading predates witness K.
5.8.34 verse 2
vivarṇṇā kapilā* cāpi ṣaṭ
proktās tu pipīlikāḥ |
tābhir daṣṭe rujā dāhaḥ kaṇḍuśvayathur eva ca |
In MS K, there is an
original scribal deletion of kā in
kapikālā. And a few characters
later, there is a scribal note in the lower margin saying,
ṣaṭ proktās tu pipīlikāḥ, a reading
we find in MS H and the vulgate that completes the number
of syllables for a good śloka.
Note also the scribal
marginal note at the same place in MS H, noting a variant
reading karṇṇilā (for
kapilā) as being``in another
book.''
5.8.36 verse 1
viśeṣeṇa daṃśaty etāḥ netrayor netravallabhāḥ |
maṇḍalaḥ pārvataś caiva kṛṣṇaḥ sāmudra eva ca |
5.8.36 verse 2
maśako hastināmā ca maśakāḥ pañcakīrttitāḥ |
tair daṣṭe roṣasaṃyuktāṃ śūnam ādaṃśamaṇḍalam |
1938 ed. 5.8.59
kṛṣṇa śyāvaḥ karvuro romaśaś ca gomūtrābhaḥ paruṣodakaś ca |
śveto rakto romaśīrṣāgradhūmaḥ sarve py ete mandaviṣāmatās tu
|
1938 ed. 5.8.60
ebhir daṣṭe vedanā vethuś ca gātrastabdhaḥ kṛṣṇaraktāgamaś ca
|
1938 ed. 5.8.61
śākhāviddhe vedanāś cordhvam eti daṃśasvedo mukhaśophaś ca tīvraḥ
|
raktaṃ pītaṃ kapilaṃ codaras tu dhūmro varṇṇas tatra yo
madhyavīryāḥ |