The Nepalese Version of the Suśrutasaṃhitā, Sūtrasthāna 1-31, based on the Nepalese MSS

Published in 2020-2024 by The Suśruta Project. in The University of Alberta. The Suśruta Project. The vulgate edition of 1938 was used for the collation of this sthāna .

• Siglum: NE

---

The scribe of the earliest MS, K, added the name dhanvantari in the margin; the scribe of N did not have the name; the scribe of H included it in the text. We follow the reading of MSS H and N, pace Harimoto 2013, in spite of the fact that alaṃkṛ[tvā] is a marginal addition in K. K is badly damaged at this point, so it is not completely clear what happend to the manuscript, although it does look as if the word was not included in the text and was added by a different hand. But H is usually a faithful witness to the same text as K, and in this case even N concurs. The use of alaṅkṛtvā in the sense "make accessible" is slightly unusual and probably explains the later banalization to mūla. The Nepalese witnesses commonly use the abbreviation "bha" for "bhavati cātra", introducing the next verse. The reading of dvividhan might be a corruption of dvividhas, which is a permitted sandhi. kuṭṭha is Prākṛta for "skin disease, leprosy," but this sense does not fit this passage; the word here must refer to an insect or similar creature. In our MSS, kuṭṭha appears to be a transmitted form, possibly Sanskritized to kuṣṭha by the scribe of MS H. It is not obvious how it could be a scribal error for the Vulgate's "kīṭa." We read with K. Note the good example of the inconsistent use by the scribe of witness H of anusvāra in 37ab (°n tu) vs 37cd (°ṃ tu). Emending anvaya against the Nepalese MSS is required to make syntactic sense of the passage. Dr. P. Maas pointed out the parallel with the mention of kula ``family'' as one of the qualifiers for a student, in Carakasaṃhitā 3.8.8. Parallel to the Kātyāyanasmṛtisāroddhāraḥ, Rājaguṇāḥ v.66 (Kane 1933: 11). A later hand has inserted coarse parentheses around the sentence tatra ... uttarāyaṇe. In the 1931 ed. of the vulgate, the text numbering skips from 1.61.11 to 1.6.13, omitting the number 1.6.12. In the 1938 ed. the vulgate tatra varṣāhemanta ... nirharaṇaṃ kartavyam is numbered 1.6.12 (not 1.6.13) and the numbers are one more than the 1931 ed. from there to the end of the adhyāya. MS K seems to have veditavyāḥ although the final visarga isn't clear and the manuscript is damaged at this point. It was read as a visarga by Ācārya (1939: 77, note 2). The vulgate here adds a passage that is taken to be a reference to the doctrines of the Carakasaṃhitā. See HIML 1A, 351-352. The commentary Bhānumatī by Cakrapāṇidatta does not support this added passage (ayaṃ pāṭhaś cakrāsaṃmataḥ: Ācārya 1939: 77, note 2). Ḍalhaṇa reported that some people read evānuśastrapātanam as here, as opposed to the vulgate's anuśastrapraṇidhānam. The 1931 and 1938 editions of the vulgate report an insertion at this point, although they report it differently. Ḍalhaṇa reported variant readings at this point in the text. The 1938 edition of the vulgate (p. 55, note 4) reports the insertion of this verse after 1.13.5 at this point. Ḍalhaṇa also reported this reading. The hiatus between ca and alābu is required for correct metre. The transmitted Nepalese reading gṛhītvā is hard to construe unless taken over to the start of the next paragraph. However, then it would sit uneasily before atha, which seems to demarcate the start of different procedural stages. The vulgate edition notes "other readings" that correspond to those in the the Nepalese witnesses for tanvyaś cākṣetrajāś ca yāḥ and poṣayet. Note the irregular sandhi of f. pl. -sañcāriṇī. The vulgate, third edition, reports the reading of this verse in a Nepalese witness, probably H: aprahṛṣṭaśiraḥpādakāyenodveṣṭate sakṛt | yā coṣṇaṃ kurute tāpaṃ tasyām indramadaḥ smṛtaḥ (Ācārya 1938: 58, n. 4). The reading of H here resembles the vulgate. The compound kṛtamaṅgalasvastivācanaṃ is an emendation based on the similar text at Su.śā.3.2.25. Ḍalhaṇa recorded the alternative reading bhakṣyaviśeṣair vā before bālakrīḍanakaiḥ pralobhya in the vulgate. At this point, witness K is missing a folio, so the rest of this chapter is constructed on the basis of witnesses N and H. Ḍalhaṇa (1.16.6) stated that some do not read surūḍhañ cainam punar vidhyet. The unusual form sthūlatarīṃ is supported by both manuscripts and we have retained it in spite of only meagre evidence for the form in epic Sanskrit. Cakrapāṇi (1.16.9–13) and Ḍalhaṇa (1.16.10) pointed out that others read pañcadaśakarṇakṛtayaḥ (instead of pañcadaśasandhānākṛtayaḥ). Ḍalhaṇa (1.16.10) also mentioned that some read samunnatasamobhayapāliḥ (instead of vṛttāyatasamobhayapālir) and others do not read saṃkṣiptādayaḥ pañcāsādhyāḥ. The MSS reading viśeṣataś cāgropaharaṇīyāt has been emended to viśeṣataś cātropaharet to make sense of the list of ingredients, which is in the accusative case. Also, the repetition of agropaharaṇīyāt in the MSS suggests that its second occurrence, which does not make good sense here, is a dittographic error. The additional verses in A (from bhavanti cātra to śāstravit) were probably also absent in the version of the Suśrutasaṃhitā commented on by Cakrapāṇi, who cited them in his commentary as being "read by some" in regard to the joins (sandhāna) they describe. Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā 1.18.52--53: atha grathitvā keśāntaṃ kṛtvā chedanalekhanam | niveśya sandhiṃ suṣamaṃ na nimnaṃ na samunnatam || 52 || abhyajya madhusarpirbhyāṃ picuplotāvaguṇṭhitam | sūtreṇāgāḍhaśithilaṃ baddhvā cūrṇair avākiret || 53 || Ḍalhaṇa (1.16.18) noted that some read rājasarṣapajaṃ in the place of gaurasarṣapajaṃ. This reading appears to have been accepted by Cakrapāṇi (1.16.18–20), who glossed rājasarṣapaja as śvetasarṣapa. Cakrapāṇi also said that some read sarpis in the place of payas. In the compound beginning with arka, Ḍalhaṇa noted that some read arkapuṣpī. N has a kākapāda after ane, but the missing letter (one would expect 'na') has not been supplied in a margin or elsewhere. Ḍalhaṇa (1.16.23) noted that some read teṣām apāṅgacchedyaṃ hi kāryam ābhyantaraṃ bhavet. Ḍalhaṇa (1.16.26) stated that some read suniviṣṭaḥ (the reading of the Nepalese version) instead of suviśiṣṭaḥ. Cakrapāṇidatta said that others read nāsāsandhānavidhim here. Ḍalhaṇa (1.16.27–31) stated that some read, chinnāṃ tu nāsikāṃ dṛṣṭvā vayaḥsthasya śarīriṇaḥ | nāsānurūpaṃ saṃcchidya patraṃ gaṇḍe niveśayet || This repeats 1.23.10cd. In the 1931 vulgate edition, this passage comes after 1.24.6, before daivabalapravṛttā …. Ḍalhaṇa pointed out that others read svavaiguṇyād (instead of khavaiguṇyād). Prose from here to 12ab. These passages are in verse in the vulgate. This passage replaces vulgate 17-28.. This passage and 1.29.19ab were known to the Chinese translators An Shigao (ca. 148-180 CE) and Dharmarakṣa (fl. 284 CE) (Lu 2025: 7). The expression caturthyāṃ is present in the vulgate only. The Chinese sources all have "fourth." There follow ten verses not present in the vulgate.

• NE