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.
cf. 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.
cf. 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 |
cf. 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).
Vulgate verse
5.3.32ab, kīṭair daṣṭān ... samupācaret
does not appear here in the Nepalese witnesses, but it
does appear, mutatis mutandis, at 5.8.42 (Ācārya 1938:
588).
cf. 1938 ed. 5.3.34
yathāviṣaṃ sa rogeṇa kliśyate mriyate pi vā |
ataś cāpy anayor māṃsam abhakṣyam mṛtamātrayoḥ |
cf. 1938 ed. 5.3.35ab
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.
Mādhavanidāna 69.21: kṣīṇakṣate
mehini kuṣṭhayukte rūkṣe ’bale garbhavatīṣu cāpi |
śastrakṣate yasya na raktam eti rājyo latābhiś ca na
saṃbhavanti 21.
5.3.35.add2
saran tu saukṣmyataikṣṇyoṣṇyād vikāsitvāt tathaiva ca |**
Corresponds
to the passage in MS H after SS.5.3.39.add1. The wording
also corresponds to Suśrutasaṃhitā
1.45.205ab, where it describes how alcohol has a pervasive
effect on the body.
We add
saran tu because of
its occurrence in the parallel passage at
5.3.39.add2
5.3.35.add3
viṣam etair guṇair yuktaṃ kṣate samanudhāvati
vātātapābhyāṃ nihataṃ nirvīryam upajāyate |
tasmād viṣahataṃ sarvam bhakṣitan tu na mārayet*
Most of this
verse is presented as a marginal insertion in witness K
and the insertion in MS K after SS.5.3.39.add1.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.3.36ab
savātaṃ gṛhadhūmābhaṃ purīṣaṃ yo 'tisāryate |
Most of this
added as a marginal insertion in witness K.
SS.5.3.39.add2
saran tu saukṣmyatair ślakṣṇyād vikāsitvāt tathaiva ca |
viṣam etair gguṇair yuktaṃ kṣate samanudhāvati ||
vātātapābhyān nihatan nirvīryam upajāyate |
tasmād viṣahataṃ sarvvam bhakṣitan tu na mārayet || *
This passage
in MS H corresponds to SS.5.3.35.add2 and
5.3.35.add3.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.3.40cd
śastrakṣate yasya na raktam asti
rājyo latābhiś ca na saṃbhavanti |*
Mādhavanidāna 69.21:
kṣīṇakṣate mehini kuṣṭhayukte rūkṣe ’bale
garbhavatīṣu cāpi | śastrakṣate yasya na raktam eti
rājyo latābhiś ca na saṃbhavanti 21.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.3.41
śītābhir adbhiś ca na romaharṣo
viṣābhibhūtam parivarjayet tam |
jihmam mukhaṃ yasya ca keśaśāto
nā sāvasādaś ca sakaṇṭhabhaṅgaḥ |*
Mādhavanidāna 69.22.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.3.42
kṛṣṇaḥ saraktaḥ śvayathuś ca daṃśe
hanvoḥ sthiratvaṃ sa visarjanīyaḥ |
vartir ghanā yasya nireti vaktrād
raktaṃ sraved ūrdhvam adhaś ca yasya |*
The Nepalese
witnesses agree in reading vāsukī with
long final -ī. This is probably a
transfer of the type documented in Oberlies 2003: 82-85,
para. 3.3.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.4.6
mahīdharāś ca nāgendrāḥ hutāgnisamavarcasaḥ |
ye cāpy ajasraṃ garjanti varṣanti ca tapanti ca |
cf. 1938 ed. 5.4.7
sasāgaragiridvīpā yaiś ca sandhāryate mahī |
kruddhā niśvāsadṛṣṭibhyāṃ ye hanyur akhilaṃ jagat |
cf. 1938 ed. 5.4.8
namas tebhyo na taiḥ kiñcit kāryam atra cikitsayā |
ye tu daṃṣṭrāviṣā bhaumā ye daśanti ca mānavān ||
cf. 1938 ed. 5.4.9
teṣāṃ saṃkhyāṃ pravakṣyāmi yathāvad anupūrvaśaḥ |
aśītir eva sarpāṇāṃ bhidyate te tu pañcadhā |
cf. 1938 ed. 5.4.10
darvīkarā maṇḍalino rājīmantas tathaiva ca ||
nirviṣā vaikarañjāś ca trividhās te punaḥ smṛtāḥ |
cf. 1938 ed. 5.4.11
viṃśatiḥ phaṇinas teṣāṃ ṣaṭ ca maṇḍalinaḥ punaḥ |
tāvanta eva vijñeyā rājīmantas trayodaśa |
cf. 1938 ed. 5.4.27
kṛṣṇā vajraprabhā ye ca lohitā varṇṇatas tathā |
dhūmrāḥ pārāvatābhāś ca vaiśyās te pannagāḥ smṛtāḥ ||
cf. 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.
cf. 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.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.4.29
kopayanty anilañ jantoḥ phaṇinaḥ sarva eva tu |
pittaṃ maṇḍalinaś cāpi kaphaṃ cānekarājayaḥ |
cf. 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.
cf. 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 khurakhuraka, which is a
documented 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.
cf. 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.
cf. 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.
cf. 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.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.7.11
taṇḍulīyakakalkaṃ tu lihyāt tatra samākṣikam ||
putrakeṇāṅgasaṃsādaḥ pāṇḍuvalguś ca jāyate |
cf. 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.
We emend to the
vulgate text. The patient was previously bathed, and the
Nepalese readings, though probably representing a
different reading, are not coherent.
cf. 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
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 |
viśeṣeṇa daṃśaty etāḥ netrayor netravallabhāḥ |
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
maṇḍalaḥ pārvataś caiva kṛṣṇaḥ sāmudra eva ca |
5.8.36 verse 2
maśako hastināmā ca maśakāḥ pañcakīrttitāḥ |
tair daṣṭe roṣasaṃyuktaṃ śūnam ādaṃśamaṇḍalam |
It is hard to
construe the sentence with the locative
madhye found in both N and H. The
emendation is done with an eye to the vulgate text, which
is more coherent at this point.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.8.59
kṛṣṇaḥ śyāvaḥ karburo romaśaś ca
gomūtrābhaḥ paruṣo mecakaś ca |*
śveto rakto romaśīrṣogradhūmaḥ
sarve 'py ete mandaviṣā matās tu |
I emend to the
colour-word mecaka following the
vulgate. Witness K omits the first syllable of this word;
witness H reads modaka ``sweet'' which
is nowhere attested as the name of a scorpion, although K
does read dakaś that suggests it might
once have read the same as H.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.8.60cd
ebhir daṣṭe vedanā vepathuś ca
gātrastabdhaḥ kṛṣṇaraktāgamaś ca |
cf. 1938 ed. 5.8.61
śākhāviddhe vedanāñ cordhvam eti*
daṃśasvedo mukhaśophaś ca tīvraḥ |
raktaṃ pītaṃ kapilaṃ codaraṃ tu
dhūmro varṇṇas tatra yo madhyavīryāḥ |
I emend to the f.
pl. vedanā with the vulgate and against
the Nepalese witnesses, for sense and to govern
eti.
The form
ajñātvād is clear in both Nepalese
witnesses, but is perhaps an attraction to the
-tvāt causation suffix, although
that would require a following genitive.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.8.79
yadvat prasūtena navāṃkureṇa
na vyaktajāti pratibhāti vṛkṣaḥ |*
tadvad durālakṣyatamaṃ hi tāsāṃ
viṣaṃ śarīre pravikīrṇṇamātraṃ |
Presumably sensing
vyaktajāti as neuter.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.8.80
īṣatsakaṇḍū pracalañ ca koṭham
avyaktavarṇṇaṃ prathame 'hani syāt |
anteṣu śūnaṃ parinimnamadhyam
pravyaktavarṇṇañ ca dine dvitīye |
cf. 1938 ed. 5.8.81
tryaheṇa tad darśayatīha daṃśaṃ
viṣaṃ caturthe 'hani kopam eti |
ato 'dhike 'hni prakaroti janto
viṣaprakopaprabhavān vikārān |
cf. 1938 ed. 5.8.82
ṣaṣṭhe dine viprasṛtan tu sarvān
marmapradeśān bhṛśam āvṛṇoti |
tat saptame 'tyarthaparītagātraṃ
vyāpādayet martyam atipravṛddhaṃ |
The Nepalese
witnesses read ve for
dhe in
dhenvarthe. The letters
va and dha are
similar in Nepalese script, but not identical and they are
routinely distinguished correctly by our scribes. The
present case may point to an error in a common ancestor to
both manuscripts K and H.
The most common
form of the plant name is kampillaka;
kampilya, as read in witness H, is
attested in MW (252), but witness K could be attesting an
unknown form kampilī.
cf. 1938 ed. 5.8.121
kṛcchrasādhyā viṣā hy aṣṭau lūtāḥ proktā yathāgamaṃ |
avāryaviṣavīryāṇāṃ lakṣaṇāni nibodha me |*
Witness K has a
hole over the word before -viṣa- and
witness H has a gap at that point in which the scribe did
not write. Both witnesses seem to have a final
-ra, which suggests that the
obscured word was not avārya.