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 |