The Nepalese Version of the Suśrutasaṃhitā, Śārīrasthāna, based on the
Nepalese MSS, new edition (NE)
Published in 2020-2022 by The Suśruta Project in The University of Alberta.
Siglum: NE
NE
[Śārīrasthāna]
[Adhyāya 1]
The draft edition of this adhyāya is a lightly-edited
duplicate of MS Kathmandu NAK 5-333 (H), waiting to be edited. MS Kathmandu
KL 699 (K) is a witness only for 3.1.1 below. MS Kathmandu NAK 1-1079 (N) is
a witness only up to 3.2.35.
Witnesses N and H read
samudra ivodakaujasāṃ bhāvānām,
which is linguistically and semantically implausible. It might mean
"like the ocean is a support for creatures that take their strength
(ojas) from water." But the
simile and the language remain obscure and unlikely. Philipp Maas
has suggested the minimal emendation to
ivodakaukasāṃ which is compelling
semantically and palaeographically. It relies only on the confusion
of the Nepalese characters 𑐖 and
𑐎.
We emend to the vulgate text,
especially in the light of the other very rare instances of these
parallels in Sanskrit literature. It is hard to make grammatical or
semantic sense of the Nepalese readings svaṃ svaṃ
svaiṣām (or ścaiṣām or
scaiṣām). Perhaps the original reading
dhibhūtam was first mistaken to be
vibhūtam. This is a plausible error since
dhi and vi are similar in
early Nepalese orthography. Subsequently, a scribe might have
normalized vibhūtam to
vibhutvam in order to make sense in the light
of the following list of deities. If these conjectures are correct,
these changes must have happened very early in the transmission, in
an ancestor manuscript of both witnesses K and H. The word
vibhutva occurs in
Sāṅkhyakārikā 42, although in a quite different
context.
Parallel to the homologies
described in Mahābhārata 14.42.27–40, which relate
ontological triples.
The tu is
awkward. Witnesses N and H have daṇḍas after the
tu.
cf. 1938 ed. 3.1.8
tatra sarvva evācetanaḥ eṣa varggaḥ |* puruṣaś ca
pañcaviṃśatitamaś cetayitā | sa tu karaṇakāryasaṃprayuktaḥ | saty apy
acaitanye pradhānasya puruṣakaivalyārthām pravṛttim upadiśanti | kṣīrādīṃś
cātra hetūn udāharanti ||
It is tempting to emend
varga to sarga ``the
emitted creation,'' given the use of the term in
Sāṅkhyakārikā 24 et passim. However, the vulgate
text and Ḍalhaṇa's commentary unanimously read
varga.
It is unexpected to assert,
as the Nepalese witnesses do, that Puruṣa and Prakṛti are
impermanent. Perhaps at an earlier point in the text's transmission,
a scribe improperly repeated the initial alpha-privative that is
used in every other qualifier in the list. This emendation is
influenced by the very similar wording of Mahābhārata
Śāntiparvan 210.8ab: ubhau nityau .... (see note
on testimonia). Note also that the sequence of qualifiers in the
Nepalese manuscripts is different than the vulgate:
anitya-apara-aliṅga rather than
aliṅga-nitya-anapara.
Note the sandhi hiatus,
-dharmiṇī - amadhya-
The daṇḍa here breaks the
sentence but disambiguates the sandhi.
Cf.
Mahābhārata Śāntiparvan 210.7cd-8ab:
anādyantāv ubhāv etāv aliṅgau cāpy ubhāv api // 7 ubhau nityau
sūkṣmatarau mahadbhyaś ca mahattarau /.
cf. 1938 ed. 3.1.10
tatra kāraṇānurūpaṃ kāryam iti kṛtvā sarvva evaite ca viśeṣāḥ
sattvarajastamomayā bhavanti | tadañjanatvāt tanmayatvāc ca tadguṇa eva
puruṣo bhavatīty eke bhāṣante |
cf. 1938 ed. 3.1.11
vaidike tu ||*
svabhāvo niyatiḥ kālaḥ pariṇāmas tatheśvaraḥ |
yadṛccheti ca manyante prakṛtim pṛthudarśiṇaḥ ||
We read vaidike with witness N, against H and
the vulgate, because lectio dificilior
potior; see further discussion in the
translation.
cf. 1938 ed. 3.1.12
tato jātāni bhūtāni tadguṇāny eva nirddiśet |*
tebhyas tallakṣaṇaḥ kṛtsno bhūtagrāmaḥ prajāyate ||
According to Ḍalhaṇa (1938:
341), Gayadāsa also read tato jātāni, with the
Nepalese version and against the vulgate.
cf. 1938 ed. 3.1.16
na cāyurvvedaśāstreṣūpadiśyante sarvvagatāḥ kṣetrajñā nityāś ca |
asarvvagateṣu ca kṣetrajñeṣu nityeṣu ca puruṣākhyāpakān hetūn udāharanti
āyurvvedasiddhāntāt|* asarvvagatāḥ kṣetrajñā
nityāś ca tiryagyonimānuṣadeveṣu ca sañcaranti dharmmādharmmanimittaṃ
|* ta ete 'numānagrāhyāś carāḥ paramasūkṣmāś
cetanāvantaḥ śāśvatāḥ śukrārttavayoḥ sannipāteṣv abhivyajyante | yato
'bhihitam pañcamahābhūtaśarīrisamavāyaḥ puruṣa iti |* sa khalv eṣa karmmapuruṣaś cikitsāyām adhikṛtaḥ |
We emend against the reading
kṣetrajñeṣv anityeṣu of
witnesses N and H, for the logic of the passage and following the
vulgate. The character ṣva is clear
in both N and H, but a copying error from -ṣu is
not inconceivable.
We emend to -śarīri- against N and H, for sense and
because this is a quotation from Suśrutasaṃhitā
1.1.22.
The ca after tiryagyonimānuṣadeveṣu unnecessarily conjoins the
members of the dvandva. While rare, this usage has been observed:
Wackernagel 1896--1964, II.1, para 70.
cf. 1938 ed. 3.1.19
āntarikṣās tu śabdaḥ śabdendriyaṃ sarvvacchidrasamūho viviktatā ca |* vāyavyās tu sparśaḥ sparśendriyaṃ sarvvaceṣṭāsamūhaḥ
sarvvaśarīraspandanaṃ laghutā ca | taijasās tu rūpaṃ rūpendriyaṃ varṇṇaḥ
santāpo bhrājiṣṇutā paktir amarṣas taikṣṇyañ ca | āpyās tu raso ca
rasendriyaṃ sarvvadravasamūho gurutā śaityaṃ sneho retaś ca | pārthivās tu
gandho gandhendriyaṃ sarvvamūrttisamūho gurutā ca |
We emend antar- to āntar-, following the vulgate reading for sense. And
we separate śabdaḥ for the same
reason.
Witness N omits śārīraṃ, which offers a clearer syntax.
Note that the 1931 and 1938 editions of the vulgate text offer two
different solutions to the awkward phrase.
The 1931 and 1938 editions of
the SS by Ācārya have different readings at this point. śonita is included in the 1931 edition
but omitted in the 1938 edition. There also seems to be some textual
confusion between granthi and
gandhi in the next
passage.
The vulgate and Nepalese
texts diverge again this point. The vulgate adds a half-śloka
snigdhaṃ vāntaṃ ... that is not
present in the Nepalese version. The Nepalese version then has about
eleven passages that are absent in the vulgate. The vulgate's verses
3.2.11cd then appears after 3.2.32.
Although not printed in
the vulgate editions, the editor Y. T. Ācārya noted that words to
this effect were present in some sources (1931 ed., p. 290, note 2;
1938 ed., p. 345, note 3).
We emend against all the
manuscript witnesses. MS H adds a Newa comma after ṛtau in the next
section, suggesting that the scribe thought that was the start of a
new section of text.
Witness N is faint and
written close to the abraded top of the folio so that superscript
vowels are uncertain. Witness H has a scribal correction of the
vowel i. The reading adopted here,
with a feminine sentence subject, is neither the Nepalese nor the
vulgate and is almost certainly unoriginal. Without further evidence
it is not possible to recover the oldest reading.
cf. 1938 ed. 3.2.44
āsekyaś ca sugandhī ca kumbhīkaś cerṣyakas tathā |
saśukrakās tv amī jñeyā hy aśukraḥ ṣaṇḍhasaṃjñakaḥ ||
cf. 1938 ed. 3.2.45
anayor vviprakṛtyā tu teṣāṃ śukravahā sirā ||
harṣāt sphuṭatvam āyāti dhvajocchrāyan tato bhavet ||*
We emend H's reading
āyānti to the singular. There
are two semen-carrying vessels in the
Suśrutasaṃhitā's anatomical theory (śārīrasthāna
9.12), not many.
Witness H has a strange
conjunct consonant after bhavanti,
followed by na. The whole looks
like sttāna, which is not visually
similar to sattva. We have followed
witness L, which at least make good sense.
In both Nepalese witnesses,
the dental na in anunā is unambiguous, but we have to
emend to the retroflex for grammar and sense. In
Suśrutasaṃhitā sūtrasthāna 14.16, a similar
phrase, aṇunā viśeṣeṇa- has the
retroflex in the witnesses K and N, so the emendation is
certain.
We emend H's reading
abhivyakte to abhivyakto for sense and following the
vulgate. MS H, our only witness to the Nepalese version at this
point, is badly damaged here and while it looks as if the akṣara is
kte, it is just possible that a
vertical line after the character has been destroyed. The damaged
portion may have supported the word bhavati
Note the absence of sandhi
between māse and abhiprāyam.
The form śucyaḥ appears to be a contraction of
śucayaḥ, metri causa. It could be seen as a transfer of an
-i stem to an -ī stem (Oberlies 2003: 83-84).
cf. 1938 ed. 3.3.36
aṅgapratyaṅganirvṛttiḥ svabhāvād eva jāyate |
aṅgapratyaṅganirvṛttā ye bhavanti guṇāguṇāḥ ||
te vai garbbhasya vijñeyā dharmmādharmmanimittajāḥ ||
iti śārīratṛtīyo 'dhyāyaḥ ||
[Adhyāya 4]
The text of this adhyāya is a duplicate of NAK 5-333,
waiting to be edited.
cf. 1938 ed. 3.4.17
bhavati cātra ||
yakṛt samantāt koṣṭhañ ca tathāntrāṇi samāśritā |
uṇḍukastham vibhajate malam maladharā kalā ||*
We emend from plurals to
feminine singular, with the vulgate, for kalā and
its qualifiers because of sense, because other passages describe
single kalās, because
vibhajate is singular and because a plural
would break the metre.
cf. 1938 ed. 3.5.10
śravaṇanayanavadanaghrāṇagudameḍhrāṇi nava srotānsi narāṇām vahir mmukhāni
| tāny eva strīṇām aparāṇi ca trīṇi | dve stanayor aparam adhastād raktavāhi
ca |
cf. 1938 ed. 3.5.11
ṣoḍaśa kaṇḍarās tāsāñ catasraḥ pādayos tāvanta eva hastagrīvāpṛṣṭheṣu |
tatra hastapādagatānāṅ kaṇḍarāṇāṃ nava nava prarohā grīvāhṛdayanivandhanīnām
meḍhraśoṇipṛṣṭhanivandhanīnāmadhogatānām nita mvam ūruvandhotkapiṇdīnāñ ca
cf. 1938 ed. 3.6.29
hṛdbastikurccagudanābhi vadanti mūrddhni catvāri pañca ca gale daśa yāni ca
dve ||
tāni ścapāṇitalakuñcitasanmitāni, śeṣāṇy avaihi parivartti tato gulārddhaṃ
||
cf. 1938 ed. 3.6.34
jīvanti tatra yadi vaidyaguṇena ke cit te prāpnuvanti vikalatvam asaṃśayaṃ
hi ||
sambhinnajarjjaritakoṣṭhaśiraḥkapālā jīvanti śastravihataiś ca śarīradeśaiḥ
|
cf. 1938 ed. 3.6.35
chinnaiś ca sakthibhujapādakarair aśeṣaṃ yeṣān na marmmapatitā vividhāḥ
prahārāḥ ||
agnīṣomānilāḥ sattvaṃ rajaś ca tama eva ca |
prāyeṇa marmmasu nṛṇāṃ, santi
bhūtātmanā saha ||
cf. 1938 ed. 3.9.3
caturvviṃśatir ddhamanyo bhavanti | tās tu nābhiprabhavāḥ | tatra kecid
āhur ācāryāḥ | sirādhamanīsrotasām avibhāgaḥ | sirāvikārā eva hi dhamanyaḥ
srotānsi ceti | tat tu na samyag atrocyate | anyā eva hi dhamanyaḥ srotānsi
sirāśceti | kasmād vyañjanānyatvāt mūlasanniyamāt karmmavaiśeṣyād āgamāc ca
| kevalaṃ tu parasparapratānasannikarṣāt sadṛśakarmmatvāt saukṣmyāc ca
vibhaktakarmmaṇām apy avibhāga eva karmmasu bhavati |
cf. 1938 ed. 3.9.7
adhogamās tu vātamūtrapurīṣaśukrārttavān abhivahanti | tās tu pittāśayam
abhiprapannās tatrastham annapānarasam abhipakvam auṣṇād vivecayantyo
'bhivahantyas tarpayanti ūrddhvagānān tiryaggānāñ ca rasasthānāñ
cābhipūrayanti | tatra mūtrapurīṣasvedāṃś ca vivecayaṃty āmapakvāśayāntare
tridhā tridhā prajāyante tāṃs triśat | tāsān tu vātapittakaphaśoṇitarasān
dve dve vahatas tā daśa | dve annavāhinyau | antrāśrite toyavahe dve dve
mūtrabastim abhiprapanne | śukraprādurbbhāvāya ca dve | evaṃ raktam
abhivahate | nārīṇām ārttavasaṃjñe dve | varcconiḥsarataḥ
sthūlāntrapratibaddhe dve | aṣṭāv anyas tiryaggās tāḥ svedam arppayanti |
tās tv etās triṃśat saṃvibhāgā vyākhyātāḥ | tābhir adho nābheḥ
pakvāśayaikaṭīmūtrabastigudameḍhrasakthīni dhāryante |
cf. 1938 ed. 3.9.8
bhavati cātra ||
adhogamās tu kurvvanti karmmāṇy etāni sarvvaśaḥ |
tiryaggās tv eva vakṣyāmi karmma cāsāṃ yathātathaṃ ||
cf. 1938 ed. 3.9.9
tiryaggānāṃ tu catasṛṇām ekaikā śatadhā sahasradhā ca bhidyante | tās tv
asaṃkhyeyā | tābhir idaṃ śarīraṃ gavākṣitaṃ vibaddham ātatañ ca | tāsāñ ca
mukhāni romakūpapratibaddhāni yaiḥ sveda prasravati rasaś cābhisantarppayati
antar bbahiś ca | tābhir eva cābhyaṅgapariṣekāvagāhāvalepanavīryāṇy
antaḥśarīram abhiprapadyante tvaci vipakvāni | tābhir eva ca sparśaṃ śubham
aśubham vā gṛhṇīte | tāś catasro dhamanyaḥ sarvvāṅgagatāḥ savibhāgā
vyākhyātāḥ ||
This verse is unique to
the Nepalese version and is supported in witness H. It is hard to
parse, partly because of the plurals in the first pāda and the
singular in the second. Some transmission problem is signalled by
the need for the emendation of H's evās
tāḥ and vahatī.
cf. 1938 ed. 3.9.12
ata ūrddhvaṃ srotasāṃ mūlaṃ viddhalakṣaṇaṃ vyākhyāsyāmaḥ | tāni tu
prāṇānnodakarasaraktamāṃsamedomūtrapurīṣaśukrārttavavahāni yeṣv adhīkāraḥ |
eṣāṃ viśeṣā bahavaḥ | teṣāṃ mūlaṃ dayaṃ rasavahinyaś ca dhamanyas tatra
viddhasya krośanavinamanabhramaṇāni saṃjñānāśo maraṇañ ca | annavahe dve
tayor mmūlamāmāsayonnavāhinyaś ca dhamanyaḥ | tatra viddasya
prāṇavahaviddhavat maraṇaṃ | talliṅgaś ca raktavahe dve tayor mūlaṃ
yakṛtplīhānau tatra viddhasya śyāvāṅgatā jvaraḥ pāṇḍutādāhaṛ
śoṇitābhigamanañ ca | māṃsavahe dve tayor mmūlaṃ snāyustvagraktavahāś ca
nāḍyas tatra viddhasya śvayathur mmāṃsaśoṣaḥ śirāgranthayor mmaraṇañ ca |
medovahe dve tayor mmūlaṃ kaṭīvṛkkau ca tatra viddhasya svedāgamanaṃ
snigdhāṅgan tāluśoṣaś ca | mūtravahe dve tayor mmūlaṃ bastimeḍhrañ ca |
tatra viddhasyānaddhabastitā mūtranirodhastavdhameḍhratā ca | purīṣavahe dve
tayor mmūlam pakvāśayo gudaś ca tatra viddhasyānāho
durggandhatāgrathitāntratā ca | śukravahe dve tayor mmūlaṃ stanau vṛṣaṇau ca
| tatra viddhasya klaivyaṃ cirād vā pra sekaḥ praseke cālpaśukradarśanaṃ |
sevanīcchedā pradurbbhāvo maraṇañ ca | srotoviddhan tu pratyākhyāyopakrameta
| uddhṛtaśalyaṃ tu kṣatavidhānenopakramed iti |
13.add1
ślokau ||
ya evaṃ na prajānāti srotasām mūlaniścayaṃ |
mahadbhayam avāpnoti na sa karmmasu siddhyati ||
13.add2
yaḥ samyag etaṃ jānīyāt sa bhaved rājasammataḥ |
pūjārho bhiṣajāṃ hy eṣa iti dhanvantarer mataṃ ||
cf. 1938 ed. 3.10.3
tatra garbhiṇīm prathamadivasāt prabhṛtyādi sennityaṃ
hṛṣṭaśucyalaṃkṛtavāsasā śāntimaṅgaladevatābrāhmaṇaguruparā ca bhavitavyaṃ |
malinavikṛtahīnagātrāṇi ca na spṛśet | durggandhadurddaśanāni ca dūrata eva
pariharet | vahin nniḥkṛṭāśūnyāgāracaity aśmaśānacaity avṛkṣasevāś ca
krodhāyāsakarāṃś ca bhāvān uccair bhāṣyādikaṃ ca pariharet | udvejanīyāś ca
kathāḥ śuṣkam paryuṣitaṃ kuthitaṃ klinnaṃ cānnanopayuñjīta yāni ca garbham
vyāpādayanti | na ca tailābhyaṅgotsādanādīni niseveta | na cāyāsayec
charīraṃ pūrvvoktāni ca pariharet | śayanāsanañ ca samṛddhās taraṇaṃ
nātyucchritam apāśrayopetam asaṃvādham vidadhyāt | hṛdyaṃ
dravamadhuraprāyasnigdhan dīpanīyaṃ saṃskṛtabhojanañ ca bhojayet sāmānyam
etad ā prasavakālāt |