Miscellaneous Ayurvedic Works (Part 2)

[Full tittle: Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) / Rahul Peter Das]

26. Problems of constructions with yasya and yasyah In Das, p.48 and p.63, I had translated the verses Su, Ut 56.4 and Su, Ut 25.6 respectively as anacoluthic constructions. These translations are given below, with a small clarificatory change (the translation in the first case being conditional upon ti actually standing for iti, on which see 1.c.): sucibhir iva gatrani tudan santisthate 'nilah yasyajirnena sa vaidyair ucyate ti visucika (56.4) 'Stinging whose body-members, as if with needles, the wind abides, together with digestive disorder, that (i.e. the affliction) [of that person] is by physicians called thus: visucika-.' yasyosnam angaracitam yathaiva dahyeta dhupyeta siro'ksinasam sitena ratrau ca bhaved visesah sirobhitapah sa tu pittakopat (25.6) 'Whose head, eyes and nose should [happen to] be inflamed [and] burn, hot as if heaped with coals, [of whose affliction] a favourable turn should [happen to] transpire due to cold and at night, that (i.e. the affliction) [of that person], intense pain in the head, is however due to the excitation of bile.' Prof. Dr. Toshifumi Goto (Osaka) was kind enough to point out to me that actually yasya here might have been used in the sense of yadi kasyacid (or the like) (cf. on this usage Speijer, § 459.3, also Delbruck, p.562 and, on ya- used indefinitively, Renou, § 261). Should this be the case, then the translation of Ut 56.4 would be: 'That is by physicians called thus: visucika-, if, stinging someone's bodymembers, as if with needles, the wind abides, together with digestive disorder.' The translation of Ut 25.6 would likewise be: "The intense pain in the head is however due to the excitation of bile if someone's head, eyes and nose should [happen to] be inflamed [and] burn, hot as if heaped with coals, [and if] a favourable turn should happen to transpire due to cold and at night.' I must confess that I did not hit upon this solution at once, which is all the more embarrassing since I had often come across verses in medical texts, especially such describing afflictions etc., with similar constructions in which yasya seems indeed to have been used in the sense of yadi kasyacid; in fact such constructions are in general more often than not translated with this sense being assumed. Nevertheless, I also recollected that (a) not all medical texts seem to make use of this construction, and (b) one sometimes does have difficulties in explaining such constructions in this way. In this connection I may also point out that this mode of translating yasya by assuming it to stand for yadi kasyacid is actually a convention the justification of which has not yet been examined in the necessary detail; since we are however concerned with medical texts only, such a discussion, which must take into account a vast corpus of literature, cannot be embarked upon here. I must therefore content myself with drawing attention to the Vide JEAS, 1, 1990, 47-68.

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 7 fact that, though we do have many cases in which the construction described above is employed, and though the convention of translating mentioned usually seems to serve its purpose pretty well in explaining such cases, this construction seems to be on the one hand limited in its use, and on the other not in all cases explainable by means of this convention without difficulty. To gain clarity on these latter points I went through the four "classical" texts (Ah, As, Ca and Su) as well as the Siddhasara looking for similar constructions not only with yasya, but also with yasyah. Though I did strive for completeness, I cannot rule out that more such constructions than are mentioned below may yet turn up. But even though there is this chance that they may not be complete, the results still seem to be fairly representative; it does not look as if more such constructions found in these texts would change the overall picture much. This overall picture is most interesting, for, considering only yasya for now, to my great surprise I found not a single case of such a construction with yasya in Ah and As, and only one possible case in the Siddhasara, namely in 1.43: panaharadayo yasya viruddhah prakrter api are: sukhatvayopakalpante tat satmyam iti gadyate. As regards Ca, my search turned up only four clear examples from this text. These avisuddhah svaro yasya kanthas ca sakapho bhavet stimito mastakas caivam apitam dhumam adiset (Su 5.53 cd-54 ab), tattvajnane smrtir yasya rajomohavrtatmanah bhrasyate sa smrtibhramsah smartavyam hi smrtau sthitam (Sa 1.101), pittam usmanugam yasya sankhau prapya vimurchati sa rogah sankhako namna triratrad dhanti jivitam (In 9.20) (variant: visusyate for vimurchati), kuryat sapittah pavanas tvagadin sandusya carumsi sapakavanti nasa pradipteva narasya yasya diptam tu tam rogam udaharanti (Ci 26.117). As regards the first case, one could consider seeing in apitam dhumam adiset ('one should specify the vapour as not imbibed [properly]'), which in this form refers to the vapour, a mistake for apitadhumam adiset ('one should specify [him] as one through whom the vapour has not been imbibed [properly]'), correlating to 'he whose voice is not clear...'; such a mistake might have been occasioned through the influence of supitam dhumam adiset in Su 5.53 ab, where the construction cannot but refer to the vapour (52 cd-53 ab: yada coras ca kanthas ca siras ca laghutam vrajet / kaphas ca tanutam praptah supitam dhumam adiset). Since however the editions I consulted all read apitam dhumam, this must remain speculation unless substantiated by other evidence. Another case of what might be an example for the yasya construction which is being considered here is in fact most peculiar. It is preceded by a long passage (Su 18.19- 33) containing a large number of unproblematic relative constructions with yasya in which both relative and correlative pronoun refer to the person afflicted. This is followed by the problematic passage Su 18.34-36, which states: vatapittakapha yasya yugapat kupitas trayah jihvamule 'vatisthante vidahantah samucchritah (34) janayanti bhrsam sotham vedanas ca prthagvidhah tam sighrakarinam rogam rohiniti vinirdiset (35) triratram paramam tasya jantor bhavati jivitam kusalena tv anukrantah ksipram sampadyate sukhi (36).

Here we have a construction with correlated yasya and tasya (both referring to the person afflicted), as in the case of the verses preceding. The difference is that we also have an inserted sentence beginning with tam (referring to the affliction), which does not seem to have any correlating relative pronoun. Do we have a text-critical problem here? On the other hand, it could be that tasya applies not only to verse 36, but also to 35 cd: yasya... janayanti... [tasya] tam vinirdiset, ... tasya ... bhavati; in other words, we could have an anacoluthic construction. But we cannot dismiss out of hand either the possibility that yasya has been used in the sense of yadi kasyacid here, and that tam is to be construed with it as such; tasya could correlate without difficulty with kasyacid too. I also found another verse which looks as if it might be another example of the yasya construction we are considering here, but actually yasya in it seems not to refer to the person afflicted, but the affliction: amartyavagvikramaviryacesto jnanadivijnanabaladibhir yah unmadakalo 'niyatas ca yasya bhutottham unmadam udaharet tam (Ci 9.17) (variant according to Cakrapanidatta's commentary: niyatas for 'niyatas). 'One should declare that madness through/in the case of which speech, power, vigour and activity are non-human through knowledge (?) (vijnana-) [such as] other-worldly knowledge (?) (jnana-) etc., and strength etc., and whose time of madness (i.e. time of appearance) is not fixed (variant: fixed), [to be] arisen through ghosts.' Admittedly, combining unmadakalo DOO yasya 'whose... time of madness' with unmadadoes cause some difficulty, but the construction is nevertheless possible. One might still consider taking yasya as yadi kasyacid to refer to the person afflicted, and that would then have to hold good for yah (then = yadi kascid) too: 'If someone is [a person] whose speech, power, vigour and activity are nonhuman through knowledge (?) [such as] other-worldly knowledge (?) etc., and strength etc., and if someone's time of madness is not fixed (variant: fixed), one should declare that madness [to be] arisen through ghosts.' One could of course opine that unmada- here is not a noun, but an adjective; unmadam udaharet tam would then be 'one should declare him mad'. This adjectival use of unmada-, though common in some New Indo-Aryan languages, is however rare in Sanskrit, and in any case to my knowledge not otherwise found in the "classical" medical texts. Moreover, it appears doubtful whether 'arisen through ghosts' (bhutottha-) would really qualify an adjective. As such, though the possibility of unmada- being an adjective here cannot be categorically ruled out, there are reservations to considering this explanation viable. Yet another verse in which yasya seems to have been used in the sense of yadi kasyacid is Su 18.9: Suyante yasya gatrani svapantiva rujanti ca piditany unnamanty asu vatasotham tam adiset (variant: spandantiva for svapantiva). If we take yasya here to stand in the above sense, we obtain: 'If someone's body members swell, seem to sleep (i.e. probably: are without sensation) (variant: seem to throb), and pain, [and,] pressed, raise themselves soon, one should designate that as intumescence due to wind (vatasotha-).' Cakrapanidatta says hardly anything on this verse in his commentary. Sivadasasena in his commentary (Carakatattvapradipika. SriSivadasasenakrta Carakasamhita-vyakhya (sutrasthanam), ed. by Priyavratasarman and Satyadeva Dube, Jay 'pur 1990) says more,

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 9 but he ultimately simply reproduces the construction: vatena yasyangani svapayuktaniva bhutva tatha rujayuktani ca bhutva suyanta ityadi svapanti rujanti sothavanti syus tam vata- sotham adiset ity arthah. Now the evidence sifted so far seems to show that a construction in which we could assume yasya to stand for yadi kasyacid is rare in Ca; might one therefore not have expected Sivadasasena to have said something on this construction in a sentence of his commentary in which he reproduces it? Of course we do not know whether such an expectation is in actual fact justified, but when one looks at the commentator's statement in an unbiased manner, one is rather tempted to read it as a straightforward relative sentence in which yasya is to be construed with tam, which would mean that vatasotha- designates not the affliction, but the person afflicted. Should one now apply this to the verse in question, one ends up with: 'One should designate him whose body members swell, seem to sleep (variant: throb), and pain, [and,] pressed, raise themselves soon, as vatasotha-. The reason for considering this interpretation is that in Su 18.12 we find a similar construction, but with yah in the place of yasya: yah pitanetravaktratvak purvam madhyat prasuyate tanutvak catisari ca pittasothah sa ucyate (variant: pitamukhanetratvak for pitanetravaktratvak). Should yah refer to the person afflicted, the translation would be: 'He is called pittasotha- whose eyes, face (variant: whose face, eyes) and skin are yellow, [who] first swells from the middle, whose skin is thin and [who] is characterised by diarrhoea.' But yah could just as well refer to the affliction itself: 'That is called intumescence due to bile (pittasotha-) in/due to which eyes, face (variant: face, eyes) and skin are yellow, [which] first swells from the middle, in/due to/of which the skin is thin and [which] is characterised by diarrhoea.' The question is of course whether vatasotha- and pittasotha- can indeed be used to describe the person afflicted by these special forms of intumescence (sotha-). If at all possible, then they would have to mean '[he] whose intumescence is due to/through/ because of wind/bile'. The other descriptions of different types of sotha- (or svayathu-) in the context in question (Ca, Su 18.9-36) use other sorts of constructions, and are thus of no help here. I have also found no parallels in other medical texts in which similar compounds with sotha-, svayathu- or sopha- could be taken to refer to the person afflicted. However in principle such compounds are possible; cf. Wackernagel-Debrunner II.1, §§ 107 b; 109. But it should be noted that op. cit., § 109 aSS (see also the addenda) would seem to speak against an instrumental meaning of the prior member of the compound, and an ablatival prior member is not even mentioned 1.c. A genitival prior member remains possible, though not very probable. In the face of these considerations it would seem that in Su 18.12 yah does indeed refer to the affliction, and that yasya in 18.9 is not to be construed with tam, i.e. that the latter verse is another example for the yasya construction being considered here, even though Sivadasasena's commentary might be taken to mean otherwise. There is however yet another possibility, namely that yah in Su 18.12 might have been used as an equivalent of yadi kascid or the like; this possibility is discussed further below. Should this indeed be the case, then of course one has even more grounds for considering such a possibility in the case of yasya in Su 18.9.

Apart from this, there is also the possibility that actually all we have are anacoluthic constructions in which we have to supply missing correlatives. Thus Ca, Su 18.9 would be: 'One should designate that [of him] whose body members swell, seem to sleep (i.e. probably: are without sensation) (variant: to throb), and pain, [and,] pressed, raise themselves soon, as intumescence due to wind (vatasotha-).' Similarly we would obtain for Su 18.12: 'That is called intumescence due to bile (pittasotha-) [(in the case) of him] who, as one whose eyes, face (variant: face, eyes) and skin are yellow, first swells from the middle, and [who], as one whose skin is thin, is characterised by diarrhoea.' This alternative analysis as an anacoluthic construction however holds good for the yasya constructions discussed here in general (on the construction with yah in Ca, Su 18.12 see below). However, this consideration applies for Ca, Su 18.9 and Ci 9.17 only if we can take them to belong to this category of constructions in the first place, as they might also be explained differently. But even with Ci 9.17 and Su 18.9 (and maybe also 18.34 f., on which see below) we obtain hardly a handful of examples from Ca for yasya being used in a manner in which we could take it to stand for yadi kasyacid. By contrast, Su abounds in such constructions. Apart from the two already mentioned, these are: sarirasilayor yasya prakrter vikrtir bhavet tat tv aristam samasena vyasatas tu nibodha me (Su 30.3), udgarasuddhav api bhaktakanksa na jayate hrdguruta ca yasya rasavasesena tu saprasekam caturtham etat pravadanty ajirnam (Su 46.503), nibaddhah svayathur yasya muskaval lambate gale mahan va yadi va hrasvo galagandam tam adiset (Ni 11.29) (variant: hrasvas tam gandam iti nirdiset for hrasvo galagandam tam adiset), avedanam sthiram caiva yasya gatresu drsyate masavat krsnam utsannam anilan masakam vadet (Ni 13.42), alpiyahkham yada harsad balam gacchet striyam narah hastabhighatad athava carmany udvartite balat mardanat pidanad vapi sukravegavighatatah yasyavapatyate carma tam vidyad avapatikam (Ni 13.50 cd-52 ab) (variants: alpiyasim for alpiyahkham, balad for balam), krsnani citrany athava sukani savisani ca patitani pacanty asu medhram niravasesatah kalani bhutva mamsani siryante yasya dehinah sannipatasamutthanam tam vidyat tilakalakam (Ni 14.16 f.), sphotaih satodair vadanam samantad yasyacitam sarvasarah sa vatat raktaih sadahais tanubhih sapitair yasyacitam capi sa pittakopat kanduyutair alparujaih savarnair yasyacitam capi sa vai kaphena raktena pittodita eka eva kaiscit pradisto mukhapakasamjnah (Ni 16.65 f.) (variant: avedanaih kanduyutaih sadahair for kanduyutair alparujaih savarnair), udaran medaso vartir nirgata yasya dehinah kasayabhasmamrtkirnam baddhva sutrena sutravit agnitaptena sastrena chindyan madhusamayutam baddhva vranam sujirne 'nne sarpisah panam isyate (Ci 2.45 cd-47 ab), vartmopaciyate yasya pidakabhih samantatah

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) Larisavarnabhih samabhis ca vidyad bahalavartma tat (Ut 3.16), Thyasya dhautani dhautani sambadhyante punah punah vartmany aparipakvani vidyad aklinnavartma tat vimuktasandhi niscestam vartma yasya na milyate etad vatahatam vidyat sarujam yadi varujam (Ut 3.22 f.), sanchadyate svetanibhena sarvam dosena yasyasitamandalam tu 11 tam aksipakatyayam aksikopasamutthitam tivrarujam vadanti (Ut 5.9 cd-10 ab) (variants: svetah samakramati sarvato hi for sanchadyate svetanibhena sarvam, aksirogam sarvatmakam varjayitavyam ahuh for aksikopasamutthitam tivrarujam vadanti), 12 ab) yasyavatukarnasirohanustho manyagato vapy anilo 'nyato va kuryad rujo 'ti bhruvi locane va tam anyatovatam udaharanti (Ut 6.27), avedana vapi savedana va yasyaksirajyo hi bhavanti tamrah muhur virajyanti ca tah samantad vyadhih sirotpata iti pradistah (Ut 6.29), sokajvarayasasiro'bhitapair abhyahata yasya narasya drstih sadhumakan pasyati sarvabhavams tam dhumadarsiti vadanti rogam (Ut 7.39), dosair vidagdhair galatalumule samvasito yasya samiranas tu nireti putir mukhanasikabhyam tam putinasam pravadanti rogam (Ut 22.7 cd-8 ab), ghranasrite marmani sampraduste yasyanilo nasikaya nireti kaphanuyato bahusah sasabdas tam rogam ahuh ksavathum vidhijnah (Ut 22.11 cd- (variant: sampradustah for sampraduste), ghrane bhrsam dahasamanvite tu vinihsared dhuma iveha vayuh nasa pradipteva ca yasya jantor vyadhim tu tam diptam udaharanti (Ut 22.14 cd- 15 ab), ajasram accham salilaprakasam yasyavivarnam sravatiha nasa ratrau visesena hi tam vikaram nasaparisravam iti vyavasyet (Ut 22.16 cd-17 ab) (cf. this verse with Ca, Ci 26.117 quoted above on p.7), yasyanimittam siraso rujas ca bhavanti tivra nisi catimatram bandhopatapais ca bhaved visesah siro'bhitapah sa samiranena (Ut 25.5), sirogalam yasya kaphopadigdham guru pratistabdham atho himam ca sunaksikutam vadanam ca yasya sirobhitapah sa kaphaprakopat (Ut 25.7), (variant: sirobhavam for sirogalam), 11 ab) nistudyate yasya siro 'timatram sambhaksyamanam sphutativa cantah ghranac ca gacchet salilam saraktam siro'bhitapah krmibhih sa ghorah (Ut 25.10 cd- (variant: sphurativa for sphutativa), kincid arabhamanasya yasya svasah pravartate nisannasyaiti santim ca sa ksudra iti samjnitah (Ut 51.7), dustam tu bhuktam kaphamarutabhyam pravartate nordhvam adhas ca yasya vilambikam tam bhrsaduscikitsyam acaksate sastravidah puranah (Ut 56.9) (variant: tu vivarjaniyam for bhrsaduscikitsyam), bastau vapy athava nale manau va yasya dehinah mutram pravrttam sajjeta saraktam va pravahatah sravec chanair alpam alpam sarujam vatha nirujam vigunanilajo vyadhih sa mutrotsangasamjnitah (Ut 58.15 f.) (variants: saktam capi and samsaktam va for saraktam va) abhyantare bastimukhe vrtto 'lpah sthira eva ca vedanavan ati sada mutramarganirodhanah

jayate sahasa yasya granthir asmarilaksanah sa mutragranthir ity evam ucyate vedanadibhih (Ut 58.18 f.) (variants: abhisyandi for ati sada, vedavadibhih for vedanadibhih). Apart from these, there are some more examples which pose special problems and will thus be discussed below. In all the cases given above, taking yasya to stand for yadi kasyacid or the like would permit us to obtain meaningful analyses and thus translations. That one might indeed consider at least yadi 'if' to be presupposed might be deduced from constructions such as e.g. Ut 51.11: adhmato dahyamanena bastina sarujam narah sarvapranena vicchinnam svasyac chinnam tam adiset 'If a man, puffed up, with burning bladder, should breathe [only] painfully, interruptedly, with all [his] energy (or: cut off from all breath), one should designate it (the respiratory malfunction) as chinna-.' Note the optative (svasyat) in this verse, which would fit with a postulated intended yadi (on this use of the optative cf. also Vrk, pp.508 f.). Note too in this context the use of optative forms, either in the main or in the relative clause, in some (though not all) of the examples given above. On the other hand, the use of such forms in verse might be due simply to metrical considerations, especially since there is often hardly any discernible difference between the optative and the indicative forms. Nevertheless, since the diagnosis of a disorder depends on the perception of certain factors, i.e. since the former is conditional upon the latter, in such contexts at least the assumption that the optatives do indeed have a conditional function does seem very probable. Thus in Ut 51.11 too the symptoms described are a condition for the diagnosis. But though the above may speak for an intended yadi in many of the examples given above, a postulated combination of yadi and yasya alone cannot serve as proof that yasya is used in the sense of yadi kasyacid, for in this latter case we have additional noems which do not as such arise out of the combination of yadi and yasya alone (on "noem" s. Karl Hoffmann, Der Injunktiv im Veda, Heidelberg 1967, 37 f.). Moreover, one might also adduce other verses found right in the vicinity of some of the verses given above in favour of the analysis as anacoluthic constructions. Such verses, which contain both a relative and a correlative pronoun, are e.g.: vatavarconirodhas ca kuksau yasya bhrsam bhavet tasyalasakam acaste trsnodgaravarodhakau (Ut 56.8) (variant: trsnodgarau tu yasya tu for trsnodgaravarodhakau), yasyottamangardham ativa jantoh sambhedatodabhramasulajustam paksad dasahad athavapy akasmat tasyardhabhedam tritayad vyavasyet (Ut 25.15 cd- 16 ab). These are merely two examples, chosen at random, of similar constructions with a correlative and an optative. Examples in which we have an indicative are probably even more frequent. This being so, one cannot simply discount the possibility that the constructions we have adduced above as examples of yasya standing for yadi kasyacid are merely constructions with a missing correlative. Even if the use of the optative in some of the examples should point to a yadi or the like being intended, one could still translate these constructions without postulating an indefinite use of yasya. This does not necessarily mean that we can in each case use 'if' to reproduce the intended nuance of yadi in translating, for that might lead to rather clumsy English; we can however use equivalent trans-

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 13 lations with 'should' or the like to reproduce the optative, as in the case of Su, Ut 25.6. Thus Ut 51.11 too might be alternatively translated as: 'Should a man, puffed up, with burning bladder, breathe [only] painfully, interruptedly, with all [his] energy (or: cut off from all breath), one should designate it (the respiratory malfunction) as chinna-.' In any case, the yasya constructions given above can all be translated adequately by simply supplying a correlative, as we have already seen above in the case of Su, Ut 25.6 and 56.4 25.6 and Ca, Su 18.9. Thus for instance Ca, Su 5.53 cd-54 ab, given above, would be: 'One should declare the vapour [of him] [to be] unimbibed (i.e. "to be unimbibed by him", with the common instrumental genitive with the past participle), whose voice should not [happen to] be quite clear (visuddha-), and the throat [filled] with phlegm, and the head verily numb (?; on the problematic term stimita- cf. e.g. Dalhana's comments on Su, Su 41.4.2 and Ut 39.33 f.; 48 and Cakrapanidatta's comments on Ca, Ci 3.86).' Taking yasya here to stand for yadi kasyacid, we would translate: 'If someone's voice should not be quite clear and the throat [filled] with phlegm, and the head verily numb (?) one should declare the vapour [to be] unimbibed.' Similarly Su, Su 46.503 would as an anacoluthic construction be: 'They pronounce this fourth ajirna-, accompanied by nausea, [of him] whose desire for food does not arise even in the case of pureness of belching and [whose] heaviness of the heart[-region] [arises], [to be caused] by a rest of rasa-.' An analysis of yasya as yadi kasyacid would give: 'If however someone's desire for food does not arise even in the case of pureness of belching and heaviness of the heart[-region] [arises], they pronounce This this fourth ajirna-, accompanied by nausea, [to be caused] by a rest of rasa-pee In the same manner Su, Ni 11.29 could be translated by supplying a correlative as: 'One should declare that (i.e. the affliction) [of him] to be galaganda-, on whose neck an attached (nibaddha-) intumescence, be it (va yadi va) large or short, hangs like a testicle.' With yasya in the sense of yadi kasyacid we obtain: 'If on someone's neck an attached intumescence, be it large or short, hangs like a testicle, one should declare that to be galaganda-.' In the face of the fact that the correlative is often missing in verses found in medical texts, it makes sense to consider at least the possibility of our having anacoluthic constructions here. Of course in many cases taking yasya to stand for yadi kasyacid does admittedly give a smoother translation, as in the case of Su, Su 30.3 above: 'If however a change of body, disposition/conduct [or/and] character/constitution of someone should take place, that is, in sum, a sign of impending misfortune (scil. death). [After having learnt this general definition,] learn [these signs] from me, however, in detail.' The analysis as an anacoluthic construction makes for a rather clumsy translation: 'Of whose body, disposition/conduct [or/and] character/constitution a change should take place, that is, in sum, a sign of [his] impending misfortune. Learn from me, however, in detail.'

But this is only a difficulty pertaining to the translation, as the original Sanskrit construction would, if a tasya were added, in no way be peculiar. Translators' difficulties cannot however be the criteria by which to judge problems of this sort (cf. also p.6 above). In this connection the explanation of Su, Ut 51.7 (kincid arabhamanasya yasya svasah pravartate / nisannasyaiti santim ca sa ksudra iti samjnitah) by the commentator Dalhana is quite interesting. Dalhana says: yasya kincit karma arabhamanasya purusasya yah svasah pravartate nisannasya ca santim eti sa ksudrah svasa iti samjnitah. One can hardly translate this properly unless one either takes yasya to be used in an indefinite sense here, or else supplies a correlative such as tasya. If one does so, then the translation is in the first case: 'The respiratory malfunction (svasa-) which arises of some person beginning some work and, of [him] resting (i.e. when he rests), attains cessation, that is called "ksudra- svasa-".' In the second case it is: 'Which respiratory malfunction of which person beginning some work arises and, of [whom] resting, attains cessation, that is called [that person's] "ksudra- svasa-" (i.e.: That respiratory malfunction is called "ksudra- svasa-" of that person of whom it arises when beginning some work, and of whom it ceases when resting).' If we follow this explanation of Dalhana, then the translation of the verse becomes in the first case: 'The respiratory malfunction which arises of one beginning something and, of [him] resting (i.e. when he rests), attains cessation, that is called "ksudra-"." In the second case it is: 'Which respiratory malfunction of whom beginning something arises and, of [whom] resting, attains cessation, that is called [his] "ksudra-" (i.e.: That respiratory malfunction is called "ksudra-" of him of whom it arises when beginning something, and of whom it ceases when resting).' It is obvious that Dalhana was not quite at ease with the verse, for he has here inserted a relative yah before svasah. Though this does make for a smoother analysis (which the rather clumsy translations cannot show properly), it must be pointed out that svasah and ksudrah are not necessarily to be connected in the way Dalhana presupposes. True, since here we have masculines in both the main and the relative clause (ksudraand svasa- respectively), one is tempted to connect them in this way, but the other examples adduced above show that the pronoun referring to the affliction named in the main clause is as a rule not connected in such a way with a noun or pronoun in the relative clause. Indeed, since Dalhana's analysis does not allow us to take yasya in the sense of yadi kasyacid or the like (but only in the sense of kasyacid), we would not be able to apply his analysis to our other examples. According to these other examples, in which we would, if we do not prefer to analyse the passages as anacoluthic constructions, have to presuppose a meaning including the sense of yadi, Ut 51.7 would most likely be: 'If a respiratory malfunction arises of someone beginning (i.e. when someone begins) something and of [him] resting (i.e. when he rests) attains cessation, that is called "ksudra-"." The translation of a presumed anacoluthic construction would be:

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 'That (i.e. the affliction) [of him] is called "ksudra-", the respiratory malfunction of whom [when] beginning something arises and of [whom] [when] resting attains cessation.' 15 Of course 'ksudra-' is a short form of 'ksudra- svasa-' (where svasa- stands for 'respiratory malfunction'), but that does not basically alter the arguments given above relating to Dalhana's connecting svasa- and ksudra-. It may also be pointed out that Dalhana does not give us an analysis, on similar lines, of any of the other verses cited above; this does seem revealing. One may now pertinently ask why Dalhana did not analyse yasya as an equivalent of yadi kasyacid. Was such a usage (in contradistinction to that of yasya in the sense of kasyacid) in actual fact unknown to him, even though we today seem to take it for granted? On the other hand, his insertion of yah might be taken to show that the construction of the verse was to him anacoluthic; but in this case too his analysis would not be in keeping with our analysis - if we should consider an anacoluthon - presupposing a missing correlative to the given relative pronoun (and not a missing relative pronoun linked with the given personal pronoun in the main clause). Thus far we have considered analysing the constructions with yasya either as anacoluthic or with yasya in the sense of yadi kasyacid. Quite another explanation for the function of yasya is however suggested by a variant to Ni 16.28. This runs as follows: diryamanesv iva ruja yasya dantesu jayate dalano nama sa vyadhih sadagatinimittajah. The verse of which this is a variant runs: dalyante bahudha danta yasmims tivraruganvitah dalanah sa iti jneyah sadagatinimittajah 'That in (i.e. with relation to) which the teeth, connected with piercing pain, are (made to?) split manifoldly is to be known as dalana- (i.e. splitting), arisen due to the ever-moving one (i.e. wind).' This makes one wonder whether yasya in the examples given above might not have been used in a sense akin to that of the locative yasmin. As an example, one might translate the variant of Ni 16.28 with yasya in this sense: 'That disease of (i.e. in relation to) which pain arises in the teeth, [which are] as if being split, is by name dalana-, arisen due to the ever-moving one.' In this context Ni 14.14 cd-15 ab is very interesting, because in this passage we have both the genitive (yasya) and the locative (yatra) side by side: siryante yasya mamsani yatra sarvas ca vedanah vidyat tam mamsapakam tu sarvadosakrtam bhisak. 'The physician should however know that caused by all the dosas [together] [to be] mamsapaka-, of which (i.e. with relation to which) the flesh withers, and in which all the [various types of] pains are present.' Gayadasa in his commentary actually expressly takes yasya to refer to the affliction mamsapaka- (and not to the person afflicted): duravacaritasukadusitadosakrtasya mamsapakasya siryante mamsani galanti. We also find yasya in the verses immediately preceding the above referring to the affliction and not to the one afflicted: chidrair anumukhair vastu citam yasya samantatah vatasonitajo vyadhir vijneyah sataponakah (Ni 14.12) (variants: lingam for vastu; yat tu citam medhram for vastu citam yasya), krsnaih sphotaih saraktais ca pidakabhis ca piditam

yasya vastu rujas cogra jneyah tac chonitarbudam (Ni 14.13 c-f) (variant: dusitam for piditam). vastu- 'seat' (note also Dalhana's explanations: vastv adhisthanam ity arthah and vasty adhisthanam) must refer to the seat of the disorder, and as such yasya cannot but be connected with sataponakah and sonitarbudam respectively. Of course this by no means can conclusively prove that yasya actually is used in a sense approaching that of the locative yasmin (or yatra) here, for in 14.17 we find mamsani siryante yasya dehinah (see p.10 above), where we have a similar statement as in 14.14, but clearly referring to the person afflicted. Nevertheless, it does seem as if at least Gayadasa analysed yasya in the manner proposed, which shows that, irrespective of what Su actually presupposes in this particular case, the possibility of such a construction is not to be dismissed out of hand. I may also draw attention to Dalhana's explanation of Su, Ut 3.22 (yasya dhautani dhautani sambadhyante punah punah / vartmany aparipakvani vidyad aklinnavartma tat), in which he expressly takes yasya to refer to the affliction: yasya rogasya sthanabhutani vartmany asakrt praksalitani punah sambaddhani bhavanti... tad aklinnavartma janiyat. This means either: 'Of (i.e. probably: with relation to) which disease the eyelids, having come [back] to their [correct] position (sthanabhuta-), [when] washed become joined together again repeatedly, ... that one should know as aklinnavartman-,' or else: 'Being at the locus (sthanabhuta-) of which disease the eyelids [when] washed become joined together again repeatedly, ...' etc. In this connection we may also note Ut 22.8 cd-9 ab, which has a construction with both yasmin and yatra paralleling the many constructions with yasya, already quoted above, in this chapter: ghranasritam pittam arumsi kuryad yasmin vikare balavams ca pakah tam nasikapakam iti vyavasyed vikledakothav api yatra drstau. The need to consider the possible locatival use of yasya becomes even more evident when one considers Ni 16.14 ff. where we find yasya and yasmin used in proximity to each other: sonitam dantavestebhyo yasyakasmat pravartate durgandhini sakrsnani prakledini mrduni ca (14) dantamamsani siryante pacanti ca parasparam sitado nama sa vyadhih kaphasonitasambhavah (15) dantayos trisu va yasya svayathuh sarujo mahan dantapupputako jneyah kapharaktanimittajah (16) sravanti puyarudhiram cala danta bhavanti ca dantavestah sa vijneyo dustasonitasambhavah (17) svayathur dantamulesu rujavan kapharaktajah lalasravi sa vijneyah kanduman chausiro gadah (18) dantas calanti vestebhyas talu capy avadiryate dantamamsani pacyante mukham ca paripidyate (19) yasmin sa sarvajo vyadhir mahasausirasamjnakah dantamamsani siryante yasmin sthivati capy asrk (20) pittasrkkaphajo vyadhir jneyah paridaro hi sah vestesu dahah pakas ca tebhyo dantas calanti ca (21) aghattitah prasravanti sonitam mandavedanah adhmayante srute rakte mukham puti ca jayate (22) yasminn upakusah sa syat pittaraktakrto gadah (23 ab)

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) dalyante bahudha danta yasmims tivraruganvitah dalanah sa iti jneyah sadagatinimittajah (28) krsnas chidri calah sravi sasamrambho maharujah animittarujo vatad vijneyah krmidantakah (29) sitam usnam ca dasanah sahante sparsanam na ca yasya tam dantaharsam tu vyadhim vidyat samiranat (30) vaktram vakram bhaved yasmin dantabhangas ca tivraruk kaphavatakrto vyadhih sa bhanjanakasamjnitah (31) sarkareva sthiribhuto malo dantesu yasya vai sa dantanam gunahari vijneya dantasarkara (32) 17 (variants: sparsanasahah for sarujo mahan in 16, kaphasambhavah for kapharaktajah in 18, sausiro nama namatah for kanduman chausiro gadah in 18, casakrt for capy asrk in 20, dahena vestas taptas ca susyante cagnina yatha inserted between 21 cd and 22 ab, yasmin sopakuso nama for yasminn upakusah sa syat in 23, yasya for yasmin in 31, jayate for fivraruk in 31; on 28 see p.15 above). Note the variant yasya for yasmin in verse 31. I may here point out that in verse 17 we do not have any relative pronoun, even though some sort of relatival relationship is obviously implied. it may also not be out of place here to draw attention to verse 33, where we have yada 'when(ever)': dalanti dantavalkani yada sarkaraya saha jneya kapalika saiva dasananam vinasini (a variant of this verse runs: kapalesv iva diryatsu dantanam saiva sarkara | kapaliketi vijneya sada dantavinasini). These examples should caution us against any generalisation, as they show that we must reckon with coming across quite different concurrent constructions in close proximity, constructions which need not necessarily be related (cf. also especially Ca, Su 18.34-36 discussed above on p.7). But even then the verses with the genitive and the locative seemingly juxtaposed remain very intriguing. What is more, others too seem to have had the feeling that the genitive in the yasya construction might have been used in a manner approximating that of the locative. In his Hindi translation of Su, Su 46.503 (udgarasuddhav api bhaktakanksa na jayate hrdguruta ca yasya | rasavasesena tu saprasekam caturtham etat pravadanty ajirnam) Ghanekar (p.308 a) too takes yasya to have a locatival function, relating it to the disorder ajirna-: suddh dakar ane par bhi jis'mem bhojan ki iccha nahim hoti, hrday (prades) mem bharipan rah'ta hai aur muh mem pani sa bhar'ta hai us'ko ras'ses'janya cautha ajirn kah'te hai. Even more important is however a translation of a similar construction from the ninth century, namely the Tibetan translation of a verse from the Siddhasara. The Sanskrit text of 1.43 (panaharadayo yasya viruddhah prakrter api/ sukhatvayopakalpante tat satmyam iti gadyate), already mentioned above, would give, if yasya be translated as a locative: "That is called "satmya-", in the case of which beverages, food etc. lead to well-being even though incompatible by nature.' The Tibetan translation runs as follows: goms-pa ni gan-la zas dan / skom-la sogs-pa ran-bzin-gyis mi-mthun-pa yin yan / bde-ba-nid-du hgyur-ba de ni goms-pa zes bya-bar ses-so. This is rendered into English by Emmerick (The Siddhasara of Ravigupta. Volume 2: The Tibetan Version with Facing English Translation, ed. and trans. by R.E. Emmerick, Wiesbaden 1982) as:

'As for habit (satmyam), that (tat) is known (gadyate) to be called (iti) habit (satmyam) in the case of which (yasya), although (api) food (ahara-) and drinks (pana-) etc. (-adayo) may by their nature (prakrter) be not compatible (viruddhah), yet they tend to contentment (sukhatvayopakalpante).' It is to be especially noted that the Tibetan translation actually uses the locative gan la for yasya. All this does seem to lead to the conclusion that there are indeed cases in which we will have to consider carefully whether yasya might not be used in a sense approaching that of the locative. But that is not all. When we look at the last verse (Siddhasara 1.43) again, we do feel tempted to translate it as: "That is called "satmya-", due to which beverages, food etc. lead to well-being even though incompatible by nature.' In other words, one is tempted to ascribe to yasya a function approaching that of an instrumental. In this connection it is highly intriguing that we have in Su an example of yasya interchanging with yena in variants of the same verse. I am referring to Ni 5.10, which runs: krsnarunam yena bhavec chariram tad ekakustham pravadanti kustham syur yena kanduvyathanausacosas talesu tac carmadalam vadanti. This has a variant which states: krsno deho yasya krsnaruno va tac caikakhyam kustham ahuh sukastam kanducosau todadahau tu yasya talesu tac carmadalam vadanti. However, I do not have any material on such a possible interchange between genitive and instrumental, and must therefore shelve this problem for the present. Reverting to the possible interchange between genitive and locative, I must draw attention to a problem which this poses. This is the fact that in some of the examples for the yasya construction given above the correlative in the main clause is not masculine or neuter, but feminine. If we now should construe yasya in the relative clause with such a feminine in the main clause, we would obviously be faced with a problem (yasmin and yatra above are, by contrast, not construed with any feminine). Against this one could maybe hold the use of yad in nominal relative clauses irrespective of the actual gender (see e.g. Wackernagel-Debrunner III, § 257 gyff., Delbruck, p.567), but the cases are not the same. Moreover, I do not know of any other cases of a similar development in Old Indo-Aryan. As such, we are, in spite of the highly interesting evidence, still rather in the dark as to the exact meaning of the yasya construction in general. Matters are not made easier by the fact that in one chapter (Sa 4) of As we find three prose passages in which a relative pronoun in the genitive is used in a manner similar to that discussed so far; this pronoun is however not yasya, but the feminine yasyah (these are, apart from the verse discussed further below, the only passages of this sort with yasyah I found in the "classical" texts), and there is no possibility of relating this pronoun, here obviously referring to a pregnant woman, to the personal pronouns tam or sah which follow: tatra yasyah kadacitkartavaparisravav alpau ca drsyete satatam ca garbhah praptat parimanad aparihiyamana eva sphurati na ca kuksir vivardhate tam upavistakam ity acaksate (p.308 a), yasyah punar vatopasrstasrotasi lino garbhah prasupto na spandate tam linam ity ahuh (p.309 b),

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) yasyah punar atimatradosopacayad yathoktair va vyavayadibhir anyair va vyadhibhih purvopacitena va jananyapatyayoh karmana bandhanan mucyate garbhah phalam iva vrntat sa muktabandhano garbhasayyam atikramya yakrtplihantraudvivarair avasramsamanah kosthasanksobham apadayati (p.310 b). 19 Interesting too is the fact that the first of these three passages (p.308 a) is followed directly by a passage beginning with yada tu 'if however', which one could take as showing that the preceding passage too is to be analysed in a manner similar to this passage, i.e. with 'if' or the like: . yada tu pratimasam artavam pratyaham va parisravanam natyalpam ca tatha parihiyamano garbhas cirat kincit spandate kuksis ca vrddho 'pi parihiyate tad upasuskakam nagodaram ca. Such problems can nevertheless not do away with the need to investigate the possibility of locatival usage of the genitive of the relative pronoun, since the evidence which seems to speak for such a usage is too extensive to simply ignore. In this context I may draw attention to two verses which occur in both As and Ah. The first, As, Ut 38 (p.291 b), says: sadahat saptaratrad va suklam (= sukram) garbhasayan marut vamet sarun nirujo va yasyam sa vamini mata 'In the case of which the wind, together with pain or without pain, should vomit [out] semen [from the male] from the uterus after six days or seven nights, that is considered as vamini-.' The parallel Ah, Ut 33.38 cd-39 ab however has yasyah in the place of yasyam. But this reading is by no means above suspicion, for the Kairali commentary (ed. Sankarasarman and Ceppat Ke. Acyutavarya, Kottayam 1942) quite clearly reads yasyam, even though the printed text of the verse commented upon has yasyah (this latter is also the reading in the text commented upon by Sivadasasena; on this edition see 33). And a variant even has hy asyam, i.e. another locative. Nevertheless, the fact that a reading with the genitive exists could show that the locative and the genitive were here considered to be interchangeable. The matter is however more complicated than this. According to the commentators, the feminine of the pronoun is due to the feminine vyapad- 'disorder, disease' having to be supplied. This tallies with the fact that disorders or diseases of the female genital tract are often described by feminines, in some cases vyapad- actually being present in the description. There are however many cases where it looks rather as if the feminine nomenclature actually gives us not the name of the disease or disorder, but of the yoniin the diseased state, i.e. vamini might not stand for vamini vyapat, but for vamini yonih, at times one may also consider the woman herself as being meant. The problem of the nomenclature of female genital diseases has to my knowledge not yet been examined in detail in this respect, so that it is not possible to say more on this subject here, but it is obvious that if vamini were indeed to refer to the yoni-, then yasyah would refer to this too and give us an unproblematic and regular relative construction: 'Of which [yoni-] the wind, together...'. Similar are the problems relating to the second verse, which in the version of As, Ut 38 (p.293 a) reads: sa vyapac chlaismiki vatapittabhyam ksiyate rajah sadahakarsyavaivarnyam yasyam sa lohitaksaya

(the relevant portion begins with vatapittabhyam, as sa vyapac chlaismiki relates to a disease discussed in the previous verse). The parallel Ah, Ut 33.45 has yasyah in the place of yasyam. This reading is however, like the reading of the other verse just discussed, not above suspicion either; not only does the edition of Ah mention the variant yasyam, but this is also the reading presupposed by Sivadasasena and the Kairali commentary. Apart from this, we also have the problem of what the relative pronoun refers to; Indu (in his commentary on the As passage) and the Kairali commentary take it to refer to the disorder (yasyam vyapadi and yasyam yonivyapadi respectively), whereas according to Candranandana (from whose commentary on Ah, the relevant portion of which has not yet been published, the editor of Ah quotes) it refers to the woman (yasyam naram). But be that as it may, the constructions with yasyah merely supplement what we have seen with regard to yasya. We are thus still left with three possible explanations for the yasya (and yasyah) construction, namely (a) that yasya is used in the sense of yadi kasyacid, (b) that the construction is anacoluthic, requiring a correlative to be supplied, and (c) that yasya is used in a sense approaching that of the corresponding locative. The material sifted does not seem to allow us to come to any definite conclusion, nor can we be sure that all similar-looking constructions with yasya are actually founded on the same principle (this refers not only to the possibility discussed on p.18 of the genitive standing for an instrumental, but to possible other means of analysing confined to individual constructions). In any case, the fact that the construction with yasya is not rare in Su might be of help in determining the correct reading of Ut 22.13 cd-14 ab. In the edition used this is given as: prabhrasyate nasikayaiva yas ca sandro vidagdho lavanah kaphas tu prak sancito murdhani pittataptas tam bhramsathum vyadhim udaharanti. This is peculiar because the relative pronoun yah must be construed with kapha- 'phlegm', from which it then follows that this must be related to the correlative of the main clause, which is however the disease. Now there is a variant to this verse with yasya in the place of yas ca. Whichever way we analyse yasya, it in any case fits better into the verse, in which kapha- is then no more to be construed with yasya and hence the disease. Considering the fact that the verse with yasya would fall into the same pattern as the other examples we have so far been considering, it does seem as if yasya, and not yas ca, is the original reading in Su, Ut 22.13 cd-14 ab. That the problem of the analysis of relative constructions of the sort discussed so far is not confined to the use of the genitive is shown by Ut 51.12, in which we find a similar construction, but with the nominative yah instead of the genitive yasya: nihsamjnah parsvasulartah suskakantho 'tighosavan samrabdhanetras tv ayamya yah svasyat sa mahan smrtah The verse describes the variant of svasa- called mahat- (here in the nominative: mahan); as such, sah can not be the true correlative of yah. If we analyse the construction as anacoluthic, the translation is: 'But [the respiratory malfunction (svasa-)] [of him] who, senseless, afflicted with pain in the sides [and] dry-throated, should breathe, characterised by great sound [and] with swollen/bulging eyes, intermittently/in lengthy gasps (ayamya), is known as mahat-', If we however take yah to be used in the sense of yadi kascid, we get:

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 'But if someone, senseless, afflicted with pain in the sides [and] dry-throated, should breathe, characterised by great sound [and] with swollen/bulging eyes, intermittently/in lengthy gasps, that is known as mahat-.' 21 As ksudra- in Ut 51.7 above (a construction with yasya; see p.14), so mahat- too stands for mahat- svasa-. Indeed, Dalhana expressly remarks on this: sa mahan maha- svasah. atrasrayasrayinor abhedat mahasvasa eva mahansabdenocyate. evam sarvatra, i.e. the masculine form of mahat- (the asrayin-) is due to that of svasa- (the asraya-), mahan seemingly standing for mahasvasah (a Karmadharaya and not a Bahuvrihi parallel to yah, as one might perhaps be tempted to assume at first glance). Note that here the relative clause does not contain svasa-, and that Dalhana in this case too does not offer us any explanation on the construction, contrary to his commentary on 51.7 (see above). The same construction could be present in Ut 51.13: marmasv ayamyamanesu svasan mudho muhus ca yah urdhvapreksi hataravas tam urdhvasvasam adiset. But is urdhvasvasa- a Karmadharaya here ('urdhva- svasa-'), or is it a Bahuvrihi ('one whose svasa- is urdhva-')? In the latter case we would have a perfectly regular relatival construction, with correlative and relative in agreement with each other. In Ut 51.8, on the other hand, there is no relative pronoun at all: trtsvedavamathuprayah kanthaghurghurikanvitah visesad durdine tamyec chvasah sa tamako matah. The trouble here is that /tam may mean 'choke, gasp for breath; feel faint' and as such refer here to the afflicted person, but it may also mean 'stop' and as such refer to the breath itself. In the former case we would, if we consider our two alternatives discussed so far, translate either with: 'The svasa- [of him who], replete with thirst, sweat and nausea, connected with gurgling in the throat, should choke/feel faint especially/exceedingly on a rainy/cloudy day (durdine), is understood as tamaka-', or with: 'If one replete with thirst, sweat and nausea, connected with gurgling in the throat, should choke/feel faint especially/exceedingly on a rainy/cloudy day, [then] the svasa- is understood as tamaka-.' In the latter case we would translate: 'The svasa- [which], replete with thirst, sweat and nausea, connected with gurgling in the throat, should stop especially/exceedingly on a rainy/cloudy day, that is understood as tamaka-.' Dalhana in his commentary on this verse says that the afflictions in 8 ab describe the disease (sa tamakah svaso matah. kimvisistah. trtsvedavamathuprayah). This looks as if he analyses the verse in accordance with the last translation, though whether he is right in his analysis is something I cannot decide upon. In any case, even if Ut 51.8 should not fall into the same category as the other examples adduced, we still have enough evidence for an interesting mode of expression, the exact analysis of which however remains unclear. A similar group of verses is found in Ut 49; of three adjacent verses (9-11) two have yah, one no relative pronoun at all: pracchardayet phenilam alpam alpam sulardito 'bhyarditaparsvaprsthah srantah saghosam bahusah kasayam jimne 'dhikam sanilaja vamis tu (9) yo 'mlam bhrsam va katutiktavaktrah pitam saraktam haritam vamed va

sadahacosajvaravaktrasoso murchanvitah pittanimittaja sa (10) yo hrstaroma madhuram prabhutam suklam himam sandrakaphanuviddham abhaktaruggauravasadayukto vamed vami sa kaphakopaja syat (11) (variants: yas chardayet for pracchardayet in 9, murchanvita for murchanvitah in 10, gauravasadayuktam for gauravasadayukto in 11). As regards verse 9, this can clearly not be (alternatively) analysed as actually having the disease as the subject of the subordiante clause (as considered as an alternative in the case of Ut 51.8). The variant of 9 mentioned actually turns this verse into one with the same construction as the two following verses by adding a yah; in view of the fact that this not only makes all three similar, but also lets them begin with the very same word, one should consider seeing the correct reading in yas chardayet, even though the commentator Dalhana reads pracchardayet, though he does say that others adhere to a different reading, which he himself however does not know. Nevertheless, he explains the verse by means of a relatival locative: evambhutah puruso yatra roge evamvidham chardayet jirne cadhikam chardayet sa vamir anilaja jneyeti sambandhah. This we may translate as: 'The [syntactic] connection is: "in the case of/in which disease (or: in which case/where, in a disease) a man being thus vomits [something] of this nature/vomits in this manner and vomits more when [his meal is] digested, that vomit is to be known as arising from wind"." 0009 In other words, we would, following Dalhana, have to supply a relative pronoun and analyse Ut 49.9 as: 'In (the case of) which one vomits that is called ...'. This is exactly the analysis that we have considered in the case of the yasya construction above, yasya being analysed as standing for a locative, though of course this analysis was only meant to show a possible way of interpretation. Though 9 in the reading of Dalhana does not actually have a relative pronoun, the following verses and the variant do have yah. Unfortunately Dalhana does not tell us how he analyses the other verses, but the question whether he analysed them in the same manner raises itself automatically, i.e. whether he took yah to stand in the sense of yasmin. If he did, then we would have the most interesting case of the nominative relative pronoun, even though formally the subject of the relative clause, functioning as the locative of the relative pronoun correlating with the personal pronoun of the main clause, the subject of the relative clause then being not specially mentioned, but only contained in the verbal form (i.e. 'one'). One could of course also consider analysing such constructions by taking yah to be the equivalent of yadi kascid, parallel to yasya as the equivalent of yadi kasyacid. Then yah in the verses Su, Ut 49.10-11 (and the variant of 9) would refer to the man: 'If someone..., then that is .... Applying this consideration to Ca, Su 18.12 which we have discussed on p.9 above, we would obtain: 'If someone, whose eyes, face and skin are yellow, first swells from the middle, is one whose skin is thin and is characterised by diarrhoea, that is called intumescence due to bile (pittasotha-).' But in that case one must of course also consider an anacoluthic construction, as already done above for this verse, and this then holds true also in the case of Su, Ut 49.10-11 (and the variant of 9), as well as in other similar cases. In Su, Ut 3.17 too we have a construction with the nominative yah referring to the patient, in which the correlative seems to refer to the affliction: kandumatalpatodena vartmasophena yo narah na samam chadayed aksi bhaved bandhah sa vartmanah.

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 23 What makes this verse most interesting is that it follows directly upon a verse (3.16, quoted above) in which we have a similar construction, but with yasya. Similar is probably the case as regards Ca, Ci 26.110, which too is close to a similar construction with yasya, namely Ci 26.117 (quoted above): rodhabhighatasravasosapakair ghranam yutam yas ca na vetti gandham durgandhi casyam bahusah prakopi dustapratisyayam udaharet tam. One could of course hold that dustapratisyaya- here actually refers to the patient, as 'one whose pratisyaya- is dusta-', but as dustapratisyaya- as the name of a disorder is quite common and indeed occurs as such in Ci 26.107, i.e. in the vicinity of 26.110, this does not seem very likely. Finally, I would like to draw attention to a construction in which we not only have yasya in a relative clause, but seem also to have to supply yah or yadi in parallel clauses, all of which do not grammatically correlate properly with the main clause: niraharasya yasyaiva tivram sulam udiryate prastabdhagatro bhavati krcchrenocchvasitiva ca vatamutrapurisani krcchrena kurute narah etair lingair vijaniyac chulam vatasamudbhavam (Su, Ut 42.82 f.). Further investigation may turn up more examples of constructions similar to those discussed here from the "classical" texts, and should in any case turn up examples from other medical texts too. 27. nirbhatsayanti or nirbhartsayanti? (continued) As an addendum to Das, pp.64-66, I may point out that in As, Ut 7 (p.64 b) we find nirbhatsana- (... abhighnantam nirbhatsanad dinasankitavadanam ...); nirbhatsana- is also what Indu's commentary has (nirbhatsanam santarjanam). The edition of Ganesa Tarte (Mumbapura Saka 1810) however has nirbhartsanad on p.207. Similarly, As, Su 12 (p.103 a) has bhatsana- (...trasasanksobhanaharsanabhatsanahasanasvapnajagaranasamvahanadini), the edition of Tarte however reading bhartsana on p.74. And in As, Ut 7 (p.62 a) we find bhatsana- too (... svapne devadibhir bhatsanam ...), whereas Indu (in the same edition) comments on bhartsana- (bhartsanam santarjanam), and the edition of Tarte (p.205) reads devadibhir abhibhartsanam. As it is, I have not found a single bharts°form in the mula text of As, i.e. the edition of Rudraparasava, which does create the impression that this edition consistently misrepresents bharts through bhats°. In most cases this indeed seems a justified conclusion, but, as Das, 1.c. pointed out, we also have at least one case of a similar reading in the edition of Anamt Damodar Athavale (Punem 1980) with regard to the cases considered l.c., which does rather complicate matters, and what makes the whole even more confusing is that in this edition of Athavale there are also similar cases as regards the new As passages quoted above; thus we find, in Ut 7.26, which corresponds to As, Ut 7 (p.64 b), nirbhatsanad - Indu's commentary too has nirbhatsana--, whereas Su 12.3, which corresponds to As, Su 12 (p.103 a), has °bhartsana°, Ut 7.16, corresponding to As, Ut 7 (p.62 a), however reading exactly the same as the edition of Rudraparasava, namely bhatsana- in the mula text, but bhartsana- in the commentary of Indu! Moreover, we must also not overlook the fact that Indu's commentary in the editon of Rudraparasava once has bharts and not bhats°, even though the latter is found in the passage commented upon; if bhats° is thus indeed a misrepresentation of

bharts in this edition, it is in this case at least not consistent, which does make one ask for the rationale behind its being used. Do we thus have true misrepresentations (i.e. not just editorial errors due to carelessness or printing mistakes) of bharts through bhats? If so, what could have caused them? Goto, p.228, notes 490 and 491, draws attention to Vedic verbal forms in which we have a confusion between bhats and bharts (the former from /bhas 'chew'?), but could this really explain the cases we are here considering? What I rather suspect is that, if the misrepresentations are really genuine, i.e. based on the textual material available to the editors (which is impossible to decide upon, since the extant editions lack any critical apparatus), then we have in bhats the influence of or an incorrect back-formation from bhacch°, the Middle and New Indo-Aryan (tadbhava) representation of bharts° (consider e.g. the case of Bengali, in which tatsama words are, regardless of how they are written, pronounced as tadbhavas, which influences Sanskrit as spoken in Bengal too, sometimes even leading to hypersanskritisms). But whether we would in this case have recitatorial or scribal errors, or even editorial errors (then not due to simple carelessness), I do not know. 28. Shortening of names In Su, Ci 16.43 we find the otherwise unattested plant name tini- (priyangudhatakirodhrakatphalam tinisaindhavam). Dalhana says on this: tinis tinisah. ekadesenapi samudayo budhyate. yatha satya satyabhama bhimo bhimasena iti 'tini- is [the plant] tinisa-. Through only a part the whole is understood. Like: "satya [for] satyabhama, bhimah [for] bhimasenah". On such shortening of names in South Asian onomastics cf. e.g. M.B. Emeneau, Journal of the American Oriental Society 98.1978, p.118 (= Sanskrit Studies of M.B. Emeneau. Selected Papers, ed. B.A. van Nooten, Berkeley 1988, pp. 159 f.). Another to my knowledge otherwise unattested case seems to be contained in Su, Ut 21.48: priyangumadhukambasthadhatakisilaparnibhih (the parallel Ah, Ut 18.20 has °dhatakyutpalaparnibhih); according to Dalhana sila- (sic; does sila- stand here metri causa according to him?) is a shortened form of manahsila-. 29. asthabhih As, Ci 11 (p.195 b) has the line bilvakapitthajambvamrasthabhir va. asthabhih does look like an archaic form or an archaism, but it is difficult to say with surety that it is indeed one and not simply an editorial or a scribal mistake, since in other editions (e.g. that of Tarte - see 27-, p.69) we have °asthibhir va. We thus find here another problem waiting for resolution through a critical edition. 30. vajikaranaAs an addendum to Das, pp.53 f. I may here draw attention to Dalhana's comments on vajikarana- in Su, Su 40.5: vajikaranam vajivad yenapratihatah striyam yati. anye tu vajisabdena sukram ucyate. tato 'vajino vajinah kriyante yeneti vajikaranam sukrotpadakam ity ahuh 'vajikarana-: through which one goes unimpeded to the woman like a stallion. Others however [say that] with the word vaji- semen is meant. By this they say: "vajikarana-, through which those without vaji- are made to those with vaji-, is (i.e. means)

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 25 semen-producing"." Note that here avajin- and vajin- are plural, and as such can hardly refer to semen itself; thus the words most probably refer to the persons with(out) this semen. The form vajin- then however is most probably a derived form on -in, which makes it probable too that the word for 'semen' is vaji- (as in the translation above) and not vajin-, as it would be extremely difficult to explain simply vajin- as the opposite of avajinotherwise; were the word for 'semen' vajin- then we would have expected savajin- or the like. But of course we cannot categorically exclude the possiblity that we have an unusual form on -in here, i.e. that vajin- is actually with vajin-' (which latter vajin- we then would have to postulate as being meant in vajisabdena and avajinah too). In any case, it is quite clear that to Dalhana as well as, so it seems, scholars in his days in general vajikarana- was not a cvi-formation from vaja- 'vigour', the tendency to derive it from vajin- probably being furthered by the not infrequent comparison in the 'classical' texts of the man who has taken aphrodisiacs with a stallion, for instance Su, Ci 26.6, Siddhasara 28.19 f., Ah, Ut 40.2 f., As, Ut 50 (p.450 b). 31. Masculine anguli-? As, Ut 32 (p.240 b) has the line: bhagnan sandhivimuktams ca krtva purvavad angulin ...; the otherwise feminine anguli- is obviously masculine here. As other editions of the text too have this reading, we cannot talk of a printing mistake here, but it is well worth examining whether angulin is not simply a (scribal? editorial?) mistake for an original angulan, which would be unproblematic. 32. misranaAh, Ni 16.54 cd-55 ab = As, Ni 16 (p.83 a) runs: misraih pittadibhis tadvan misranabhir anekadha taratamyavikalpac ca yaty avrtir asankhyatam The verse refers to the 'coverings' (avrti-) of wind due to various substances in the body. Hilgenberg-Kirfel translate misranabhih as 'durch ... Mischungen' (p.285) ( 'Ebenso wird durch die vielfachen Mischungen [d.h. Mischungsmoglichkeiten] mit den gemischten [Arten] Galle usw. und durch die Unterscheidung der Graduation die Umhullung [d.h. werden die Moglichkeiten der Umhullung] unzahlbar'), in which they obviously follow Arunadatta, who glosses misranabhih with samyojanaih (variant: samyojanabhih) 'through joinings/unitings'. And it is indeed impossible to see in misranabhih a feminine adjective, as there is no noun which it might qualify either in the verse or in adjoining verses. We thus have here a to my knowledge otherwise unattested feminine misrana- 'the mixing; mixture' corresponding to the neuter misrana-; this form is in keeping with WackernagelDebrunner II,2, §85 a. 33. uttaravaruni- and variants Ah, Ut 37.79 ab runs: mulam uttaravarunya vamsanirlekhasamyutam. The plant name uttaravaruni- is to my knowledge unattested elsewhere. The commentator Arunadatta writes: uttamaranimulam vamsanirlekhanayuktam va; here uttaravaruni- (or whatever it is Arunadatta reads) seems only to be explained as uttamarani-, since the latter cannot metrically be a part of the verse. Sivadasasena in his commentary on this verse (37.80 in

the edition of Jyotisacandra Sarasvati, Kalikata 1942, which contains only Ah, Ut with this commentary) however says uttamakarini dugdhika; obviously, he reads mulam uttamakarinya here. The verse is however printed as mulam uttarakarinya etc, i.e. has uttarakarini- and not uttamakarini-. Hilgenberg-Kirfel, p.706 speak of 'Wurzel von Asparagus racemosus', but do not mention the word they are translating. In their list of the plant names found in Ah we however find, on p.739, uttamakaruni-, uttamarani- and uttamavaruni-, all three explained as synonyms of satavari-. Since no similar words are given, either the first or the last of these names (the second is metrically impossible) seems to have been what Hilgenberg-Kirfel read in 37.79. Now they have used the edition of A.M. Kunte, Bombay 21891 (see their "Vorwort"); the reading of 37.79 in this edition of Ah is however uttaravaruni- too, so that it is puzzling why this is not mentioned. In any case, we see that there is quite some confusion as regards the reading of this line. This confusion is heightened by Ah, Ut 30.27 ab, which runs: mulair uttamakaranyah piluparnyah sahacarat. uttamakarani- is also what Arunadatta comments upon, explaining it as karambha- (variant: karambha-). According to the editor's footnote 1.c. however, Candranandana comments upon uttamavaruni- (mulair uttamavarunyah). Two other variants are also mentioned, namely uttaravaruni- and uttaravarini-. Sivadasasena however (as well as the verse, 30.28, as given in the edition used) reads mulair uttamakaranyah, i.e. the same as Arunadatta, whose explanation Sivadasa cites, adding however: anye tv uttamakarani lata desantaraprasiddhety ahuh. It should also be noted that some manuscripts of Arunadatta's commentary have uttamarani- in the place of uttamakarani-, which of course raises the question of whether uttamarani- in the commentary on Ut 37.79 too may not actually be a mistake for uttamakarani-, which would then be what Arunadatta read here. Finally, it may be recalled that Hilgenberg-Kirfel, who on p.663 translate whatever they read in 30.27 too as 'Wurzel von Asparagus racemosus', have uttamakaruni- and uttamavaruni- in their list on p.739, but not uttamakarani-, only uttamarani-. 19 I have only found one similar case of confusion in another of the 'classical' texts, namely in As, Ci 21 (p.267 a), where we have khadirasimsapasaram uttamakaranim brahmim..., uttamakarani- being glossed by Indu as karambha-. The edition of Tarte see 27 has uttamavaranim on p.113. Now such variants may be explained as due to scribal error, since k and v are similar in several Indian scripts, though this does not of course tell us which of the two readings then could be regarded as original (since both editions of As used are not critical, we also have no means of knowing whether Indu's commentary actually does read as printed or whether the editor has changed it to conform to the text of As given). A similar explanation could account for some of the variants of Ah, but it cannot account for all, and neither does it settle the question of priority. 34. siprayante (continued) In my remarks on siprayante in Ca, In 10.19 (Das, pp.54 f.) I forgot to mention that Cakrapanidatta continues his commentary on this word by giving us an alternative explanation too: kim va siprayanta iti sithilibhavanti. anekarthatvad dhatunam 'or else "siprayante" [means] [the body members (gatrani)] become flaccid, due to the (verbal) roots' many-meaningness (i.e. having many meanings)'. This remark is puzzling, and I am at a loss as to which roots Cakrapanidatta is referring to apart from that presupposed in his explanation already discussed by Das, pp.54 f. The best I can come up with is what he

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 27 might presuppose to be the root on which sipra- 'moustache(d lip)', taken also to mean 'cheek' or 'lip', is based, which might account for 'flaccid'. On this, as well as on other words beginning with sip° which Cakrapanidatta might have had in mind, see Mayrhofer 3, pp.336-338; as regards words beginning with sip°, there do not seem to be any which could be taken to be meant too. 35. On vatika-, paittika-, slaismika-, sannipatikaSutra 5.1.38 of Panini's Astadhyayi (tasya nimittam samyogotpatau) is concerned with the usage of certain secondary suffixes with the connotation "its cause", saying (in the translation of Albrecht Wezler, Bestimmung und Angabe der Funktion von SekundarSuffixen durch Panini, Wiesbaden 1975, pp.122 f.): [Die 5.1.18 ff. gelehrten Sekundar-Suffixe] sind semantisch aquivalent [dem Syntagma] "dessen Ursache", [und zwar] "eine Verbindung" oder "eine ungewohnliche [ominose] Erscheinung" (d.h. in Gestalt einer Verbindung oder einer ungewohnlichen Erscheinung)'. Katyayana adds to this two Varttikas to the effect that this also holds good for that appeasing/calming (samana-) and that exciting (kopana-) wind, bile and phlegm, as well as their combination: tasyanimittaprakarane vatapittaslesmabhyah samanakopanayor upasankhyanam, and sannipatac ca. Patanjali in the Mahabhasya ad l.c. explains this by means of the examples: vatika-, i.e. vatasya samanam kopanam va 'appeasing/calming or exciting [agent] of wind', similarly paittika-, slaismika- and sannipatika-. In other words, a substance (to take an example) would be a vatika- substance if it appeased or excited wind, and so on. Needless to say, Katyayana must be referring to actual speech usage as he observed it. The terminology he alludes to can hardly but be of a medical nature. This does not of course mean that he must have had some definite medical text in mind, for it is just as (or maybe even more) probable that what we have here is the common terminology of people when generally talking of substances or actions with effects such as those mentioned; we too often use medical terms in every-day speech without necessarily being physicians. Now vatika-, paittika-, slaismika- and sannipatika- are common words in the 'classical' medical texts (Ca, Su, As and Ah). To find out whether and to what degree they conform to the usage described by Katyayana, I went through the mentioned texts, as well as the Siddhasara, examining the usage of these terms. The passages in which they seem at first glance in the majority of cases to be in keeping with the described usage are those on poisons, namely Ah, Ut 35-38 and the parallels of As, Ci and Su (the chapters of these are conveniently cited in the notes on the respective first verses of the Ah chapters), as well as chapter 27 of the Siddhasara (see also Su, Ut 43.10). In these chapters various poisons, as well as poisonous animals or their bites, are often called vatika- etc. However, even a cursory perusal of the chapters cited shows that there seem to be extremely many cases in which the text seems to refer to poisons or animals in which wind etc. predominate, i.e. not primarily as regards their actions; in such cases vatika- etc. would mean rather 'characterised by/having an excess of wind' etc. or the like. That this is more than a feeling is clearly demonstrated by e.g. As, Ut 40 (p.312 b): visam yaddosabhuyistham tam dosam prak prapadyate 'poison first resorts to that morbific entity by which it is chiefly characterised/which is its chief part'; in other words, the

poison itself is characterised by wind, bile etc. The commentator Indu explains this as tac ca visam asrayadravyavisesavasena yena ca dosena bhuyistham sadrsam tam eva dosam prathamam prapadyate 'And that poison, by force/on account of the particular substance on which [it] depends, resorts first to that very morbific entity, to which morbific entity it is most alike' (I cannot translate the second ca); according to this, the poison is naturally most alike that morbific entity by which it is mostly characterised, and hence resorts to this. The As text however then goes on, after the line just quoted, by saying that the morbific entities in those receptacles of the body that the poison enters cause disorders arising through them (asaye yasya yasyaiva tatas tad avatisthate / tajjan vikaran kurute yan sarvesupadeksyati); in other words, if the poison enters the receptacle of wind, then disorders due to wind arise, and so on. This means that a morbific entity causes disorders because it is excited by coming into contact with poison, which on its part resorts to the particular morbific entity because it is characterised by the entity in the first place. It is clear that if vatika- etc. be used in such a context to characterise the poison, it may become extremely difficult to decide with certainty whether this characterisation refers to the entity or entities characterising the poison, or excited by it. This may be illustrated by an example. The Kairali commentary (on this see 26), with regard to Ah, Ut 37.48-50, where the bites of spiders are, without the individual terms being explained, classed as paittika-, slaismika- and vatika-, draws express attention to As, Ut 44 (p.362 a), which classes spiders as causing disorders of bile (pittavikarada-), phlegm (slesmavikarada-) and wind (vayurogada-). But As, Ut 44 (p.364 b), where the bites (damsa-) of the spiders are described, uses not only slaismika- and vatika-, but also pittatmaka- (and not paittika-), which latter means 'characterised by bile' and is glossed by the commentator Indu (who obviously sees an ellipse here) as pittatmakalutadamsa- 'bite of a spider characterised by bile' (slaismika- and vatika- are glossed only with kaphatmaka- and vatatmaka- respectively). In any case, saying that something is 'characterised by bile' is not the same as saying that it is 'exciting bile', and this of course raises the question of what slaismika- and vatika- here (and, along with paittika-, in the Ah parallel) actually mean. When one goes through the chapters mentioned with the above in mind, one finds that there is, as far as I can see, not a single case in which one can confidently say that vatika- or the like are used in the sense Katyayana gives; the individual cases are either ambiguous, or else do speak against assuming such a meaning in the first place. But at least in the case of these chapters one can consider the meanings Katyayana gives. Apart from these chapters, however, I found to my surprise that, though there are scores of passages in which vatika-, paittika-, slaismika- and sannipatika- are used to denote 'having an excess of ...', 'caused by ...', 'due to ...', 'characterised by ...' or the like, there are, as far as I could see, only two cases in which to my understanding a usage such as that described by Katyayana could be considered, both however quite clear cases, the term used being each time vatika-. 606 The first passage is Ca, Su 14.44, which mentions substances such as roots etc. which are vatika- and uttaravatika- (vatikottaravatikanam punar muladinam utkvathaih sukhosnaih pranadir va purayitva... parisecayed iti parisekah). Cakrapanidatta in his commentary says on this: vatikani vataharany uttaravatikany uttaravate pradhanavate vataslesmani hitaniha grahyani 'vatika- ones, [i.e.] those taking away wind, [and] uttaravatika- ones, [i.e.] those beneficial in the case of the uttara- wind, [i.e.] the principal wind, [the combination of] wind and phlegm, are here to be utilised'. That

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 29 Cakrapanidatta is correct as regards vatika- is borne out by vatahara- in 14.45: vataharotkvathaksiraghrta...kosthakavagahas tu yathokta evavagahah (I am unable to comment on uttaravatika-, as I have not found the word again in the texts examined). The second passage is Ca, Ci 8.73, which runs: bastamatsyasirobhir va nadisvedam prayojayet kanthe sirasi parsve ca payobhir va savatikaih, where savatikaih (characterising payas- 'milk') obviously means 'together with vatika- [substances]'. Cakrapanidatta says that vatika- here subsumes uttaravatika-, citing in this context from another (unidentified) text a passage of four verses listing plants which are vatika- and uttaravatika-: savatikair iti vatikottaravatikaih. tantrantare tu vatikany uttaravatikani ca ganena pathitani. yatha... (here the verses mentioned follow) iti. This paucity of cases of absolutely clear usage of any terms in the sense Katyayana refers to except for the two mentions of vatika- in one and the same text is extremely interesting, for it could show that Katyayana is here referring to a linguistic peculiarity not part of the speech generally used by the authors of the medical works here examined. This would be in keeping with the fact that these works are seemingly of a north-western or western origin, whereas Katyayana was an Easterner or a Southerner (cf. e.g. George Cardona, Panini. A Survey of Research, The Hague/Paris 1976, pp.268 f.) ("Southerner" here refers most probably not to someone from the modern Deccan, but from a region south of the Doab region in North India). 36. On the treatment of a gulma- with a jar In Das, p.63 I falsely stated that Ca, Ci 5 and Ah, Ci 14 had no information on the treatment of a gulma- by means of a jar. I clearly had a bad day while preparing this note, for actually Ca, Ci 5.137 ff. and Ah, Ci 14.84 ff. do mention this treatment. According to these passages, the gulma- is to be made flaccid by sudation and brought into the jar (Ca has ghata- 'jar', As ghatika- 'small jar') as in As, Ci 16 (p.233 b) (see Das, pp.63 f.), the latter then being broken. In contrast to the As passage, Ca and Ah tell us that the gulma- is then to be wrapped in a cloth and split open (bhindyat) or cut open (chindyat) respectively, after which it is to be pressed (prapidayet). The As passage mentions only the pressing, but since it mentions the same instruments used for splitting or cutting as the other two texts, it seems reasonable to infer that it too presupposes a similar operation. Ah and As say that the gulma- is then to be cleansed (pram rjyat-); from this it would seem to follow that it has been pressed out (as Hilgenberg-Kirfel, p.423 assume: 'und drucke nur den Tumor ... aus'). Ca however does not mention such cleansing; instead, it speaks of pressing (mrdniyat in the place of pramrjyat; the Ca and Ah passages have nearly the same wording otherwise). Then it says that a gulma- due to phlegm (slesmagulma-) is to be smeared (parilipya) with certain substances and then sudated (5.141). As it is, the whole procedure with the ghata- is expressly prescribed in cases of gulma- due to phlegm (pradadyat kaphagulmine, 5.137), 5.141 forming the tail-end of the passage in question. Since 5.52, the verse containing vilayet (Das, p.63), is part of a passage (5.48-56) dealing with a gulmadue to phlegm too, and since Das, p.64 has drawn attention to passages stating that a ghati- 'jar' has as one of its functions the vilayana- 'dissolution/disappearance' of a gulma-, it seems safe to connect 5.52 with 5.137 ff., especially since in both cases an im-

portant part of the treatment seems to be sudation; indeed 5.23 says that sudation removes a gulma- (in general): svedo gulmam apohati. Matters are however not that easy. Ca, Ci 5.48-56 actually describe the treatment of the gulma- due to phlegm by means of medicines and purging agents to be taken in (a gulma- seems in general mostly to be treated by such methods), saying expressly that due to this the gulma- is 'removed from its place' (5.53: sthanad apasrtam jnatva kaphagulmam). Only in special cases (5.55: krtamulam mahavastum kathinam stimitam gurum) is a caustic mixture (ksararista-) or fire prescribed. The former is in general something that is ingested. As regards the latter, see 5.62 f., as well as Ah, Ci 14.116 ff. and As, Ci 16 (p.235 b); especially the latter two passages make it clear that fire is used to burn the gulma-out. Nowhere in Ca, Ci 5.48-56 or its near vicinity is a jar mentioned, so that it does rather look as if the treatment with this were an alternative to the methods described here. This does not however speak against, but rather for the derivation of vilayet from vi/li in Das, pp.63 f., for a clear connection between Ca, Ci 5.48 ff. and 5.137 ff. would of course, because of bhindyat in the latter passage, at once throw up the question of whether vilayet might not after all be derived from /vil(//bil), whereas otherwise we would simply have a general statement referring to the removal or disappearance of the gulma-, which would fit with the other statements of this sort mentioned above. The actual treatment of the gulma- with the jar however remains problematic. We have already seen that Ca has mrdniyat in the place of pramrjyat. The latter is also found in the As passage (p.233 b), and is explained by the commentator Indu as mranksayet (= mraksayet), which could mean 'one should rub (hard)' or 'one should smear/anoint'. What further makes this even more problematic is that, while As, Ci 16 (p.233 a) clearly refers to a gulma- due to phlegm (as in Ca) which is to be treated by means of the jar, Ah, Ci 14.84 speaks of 'everywhere in the case of a gulma-' (sarvatra gulme), the commentator Arunadatta even seeming to comment upon the reading sarvasmin gulme 'in all cases of gulma-'. Now the passage on the use of the jar is followed in Ah too by the very same verse as Ca, Ci 5.141, namely Ah, Ci 14.87 cd-88 ab, relating to the treatment of a gulma- due to phlegm by sudation, which Arunadatta explains as being an alternative treatment, it being unclear whether he takes it to be an alternative to the treatment with the jar immediately preceding, or to the treatment of the same sort of gulma- described in 14.76 ff., where however no jar is mentioned, as in the case of Ca, Ci 5.48 ff. Ah, Ci 14.88 cd then says that the gulma- is thus removed from its place (evam ca visrtam sthanat kaphagulmam), which is an echo of Ca, Ci 5.53 mentioned above, but in quite a different place. The confusion (to which we may add the use of vinayet in Ah, Ci 14.78; see Das, p.63) is heightened by As, Ci 16 (p.233 b), which (in prose) echoes the Ah passage (also alluding to a removal of the gulma- from its place: evam amuna kramena sthanad apasrte sithilibhute ca gulme), but quite clearly in the same context as the Ca passage (Ci 5.137 ff.), as the whole procedure with the jar is expressly said to apply in the case of a gulma- due to phlegm, the removal being due to this and the subsequent sudation. But we have seen above that the As passage does not expressly mention a splitting or cutting open of the gulma-; the mention of the same instruments could however be taken to be a reference to this, though we must also reckon with the possibility of these being here taken to be used only for pounding the gulma-, as the text would say if taken literally and without reference to the other passages (gulmam vimargajapadadarsanytamena vastrantaritam prapidayet pramrjyat). As it is, it is unclear what the splitting or cutting

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 31 open of the two other texts is supposed to do; whether Hilgenberg-Kirfel's 'pressing out' in this connection is correct is a matter of debate. Are we to assume that the following sudation described by Ca makes the gulma- flow out of the opening? I am unable to bring clarity into this matter. 37. heman- amd hiranyaCa, Vi 8.11 tells us that in. connection with the rite of initiating a new student a piece of sacrificial open ground (sthandila-) is to be made yathoktacandanodakumbhaksaumahemahiranyarajatamanimuktavidrumalankrta-, i.e. decorated with the substances mentioned in this long compound. Among the substances mentioned we find two words for 'gold' side by side, namely heman- and hiranya- (followed by rajata-, silver). Do the two words here allude to different sorts of gold, maybe to unworked and worked gold? (Cf. in this connection also Das, p.60, no.19, on apparent synonyms being used differently.) Or is hiranya- used here in the sense of 'precious metal', which seems to be the oldest known meaning of this word (cf. Wilhelm Rau, Metalle und Metallgerate im vedischen Indien, Mainz/Wiesbaden 1973, 18, also J. Gonda, The Functions and Significance of Gold in the Veda, Leiden etc. 1991, 63 ff.)? Then heman- would probably be an adjectival qualification, maybe indicative of the colour of the metal (on this cf. especially Paul Thieme, Kleine Schriften, [ed. Georg Buddruss], Wiesbaden 1971, 150 ff.). The trouble is that this meaning of hiranya- is highly archaic; can we really postulate it here? There is of course also the possibility that one of the two words for 'gold' is an old gloss that is not original to the text, but has later been incorporated into it; unfortunately, we have no evidence to prove or disprove this. (On the words for 'gold' used here see also Mayrhofer 3, 598 f.; 607.) 38. murdhaIn a note on Ah, Ut 16.33 the editor remarks that Candranandana in his as yet unpublished commentary comments on an additional line after this verse; the line runs: yastihimotpalaksiraih kuryan murdhasya lepanam. Though murdha- as the final member of a compound is attested, to my knowledge this was not hitherto true of uncompounded murdha-. 39. ant- avi-, frequently used in medical texts to denote birth pangs, has according to our dictionaries (which also list avi- in the same meaning) the nominative singular form avi (older avi). I have come across only three instances of the nominative singular in the four "classical" medical texts and the Siddhasara. In the case of Su, Sa 10.9 the nominative is in keeping with what our dictionaries tell us: na capraptavi pravahasva. In the other two instances, however, the nominative is not avi, but avih; both are to be found in Ca, sa 8.40: anagatavir ma pravahisthah. ya hy (variant: yady) anagatavih pravahate vyartham evasyas tat karma bhavati. This seemingly more archaic form is to my knowledge not attested anywhere else. It is however interesting to note that there is an only lexically attested avih (nominative) ('menstruating woman'?) (cf. also Wackernagel-Debrunner III, § 87 b, with p.596). It must of course also be pointed out that the nominative

singular is in all the cases mentioned the last member of a compound (a feminine adjective), though it is doubtful whether this can have exerted an influence on its inflexion. Of course the above is provisional on avih really standing for the nominative singular and not the accusative plural, but it is difficult to see how the latter could be taken to be meant here. (On pravahisthah see 44 below.) 40. anaSu, Ni 13.39 cd (jayante pidaka yunam vaktre ya mukhadusikah) has a variant which runs: yuvanapidaka yunam vijneya mukhadusikah. yuvana- is seemingly to be analysed as yuvan- (yuva) + ana-, i.e. 'youth's face'. ana- is a problematic word, and one might thus hesitate to accept this analysis, but Gayadasa, who clearly reads according to the variant (with pidika for pidaka: yuvanapidika), adheres to it too: salmalikantakakara ityadina yuvanapidikah. yunam ananam yuvanam (printed yuvananam). tasya pidika yuvanapidikah. prsodarader akrtiganatvad ekasya nakarasya lopah. In other words, he explains ana- as being formed from anana- through the elision of one na according to Panini's Astadhyayi 6.3.109 (prsodaradini yathopadistam). One must in this connection however also point to a Vedic attestation of this word, namely ana- in Rgvedasamhita 1.52.17 (whether the word is also to be found in the Kashmirian version of the Paippalada recension of the Atharvavedasamhita, namely in 1.97.2, is a matter of debate). Ah, Su 12.48 says: 41. ardita-, m. (continued) rogamargah sthitas tatra yaksmapaksavadharditah murdhadirogah sandhyasthitrikasulagrahadayah. One might be tempted to see in yaksmapaksavadhardita- an adjective qualifying murdhadiroga-, which would then give: 'afflictions of the head etc. afflicted/distressed/tormented with/by yaksman- and paksavadha-', but not only would that be peculiar, but it would also not do justice to murdhadiroga-: adi- 'etc.' would already subsume the diseases mentioned, which afflict the thoracic region; moreover, ardita- as the name of an affliction would fit murdhan-, since it is the name of an affliction of the head. Thus Hemadri is most probably right in taking ardita- to be the name of an affliction here (ardita ekayamah). This means however that we would in this verse have a further attestation of ardita- as a masculine (and not a neuter) name of an affliction (see Das, p.58). 42. ksiriSu, Sa 4.11 has the line vrksad yathabhiprahatat ksirinah ksirim avahet. If ksiri- is not simply a mistake for ksira- here, then it seems to be a back-formation from ksirivrksa-, in which the first member of the compound is actually ksirin-. That this reading was not accepted by all is shown by the variant ksirinah ksiram asravet. 43. Cakrapanidatta and lions In Ca, Ci 9.82 lions (simha-) are mentioned. Since this text seems to stem from a region previously inhabited by lions or at least near to such regions, this is not surprising.

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 33 By contrast, the commentator Cakrapanidatta hails from Bengal, where lions are unknown but tigers are common. It is thus highly interesting that Cakrapanidatta glosses simha- with vyaghra- 'tiger' (simhair iti vyaghraih). Does he not know what a lion is, or may vyaghra- also be used sporadically to refer to lions? The latter is not impossible, but seems unlikely. 44. pravahisthah According to As, Sa 3 (p.301 b) a woman about to give birth is to be given certain rules of conduct by the physician, amongst these being the admonition to press only gently at the beginning of the process of delivery, the words the physician is to use being sanaih sanais ca purvam pravahisthah. Morphologically pravahisthah would seem to be an injunctive of the is-aorist of pra/vah, used, as is not rare in Vedic, in an imperative sense. Intriguingly, an imperative form of pra/vah is actually found in Sa 3 (p.301 a), namely pravahayasva. An injunctive is clearly present in Ca, Sa 8.40 in 39 above (ma pravahisthah), seemingly clearly derived from pra/vah, since the next sentence has the verbal form pravahate, and since we also find the participle pravahamana- (twice) and the finite form pravaheta in the same passage. This very same injunctive is even present in As, Sa 3 (p.301 b) itself: anagatayam vedanayam ma pravahisthah (on p.302 a we also find pravahamana-). But if pravahisthah is thus an injunctive in purvam pravahisthah in the As passage too, then we have here a modal usage which seems to be quite archaic; is pravahisthah thus actually a mistake for the precative *pravahisisthah? The other editions of the text I could consult (see 27) however read pravahisthah too (the edition of Tarte has pravahistah on p.210, clearly a misprint). Moreover, the verb /vah, which is to my knowledge found only in classical Sanskrit (i.e. rather late), seems apart from the cases mentioned above to be attested only in the present system (as far as actually verifiable forms are concerned, though of course forms from the other tenses may yet turn up). As it is, the etymology of /vah is unclear; it has been variously connected especially with /vah and with the ultimately Middle IndoAryan bahayati/vahayati (baheti/vaheti) 'remove; expel', common especially in Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, of which again it is not clear whether this is to be derived from bahis or from the causative (vahayati) of /vah. Actually, pravahisthah may morphologically just as well be derived from pra/vah (this also applies to the infinitive pravahayitum in Ca, Sa 8.39); indeed, nouns like pravahana- etc. are as a rule derived from pra/vah. The problem in this case is however that though /vah does form a sigmatic aorist, this is, as far as I can see, attested only with s and not with is. If however pravahisthah should indeed derive from pra/vah, then it needs to be examined whether (pra)/vah might not ultimately have been secondarily derived from this or similar forms. Should we however really have such a back formation here, then pravahisthah and pravahate etc. side by side in Ca, as well as pravahisthah and pravahayasva etc. in As, would show that the connection between pravahisthah and pra/vah was no more felt by the respective authors. One could also consider deriving pravahisthah etc. from pra/badh (pra/vadh); then one would of course have to postulate a "Middle Indo-Aryan" phonetic change, but on the other hand the is-aorist of /badh (/vadh) is well attested, and there are also semantic arguments in favour of such a derivation: /badh (/vadh) 'press; force; remove; repel', later also 'press back' > 'resist; stop, prevent', has, according to our dictionaries, in combination with pra the meaning 'press forward; drive, urge'. However, this meaning

seems to be confined to the very oldest stratum of the language; actually, we know of only sporadic cases where it can be postulated (Rgvedasamhita 7.95.1 and 10.108.9), and these have to my knowledge not yet been studied semantically in this regard. In any case, the meaning does not seem to be clearly attested from later times; bahu kasmat prabadhata abhyam karmani in Nirukta 3.8, in which it is often taken to be present, is problematic as regards the meaning of pra/badh (though on the other hand the etymological derivation of bahu- from /badh here shows that to Yaska the change of dh to h posed no problem). Otherwise, we seem to have only the meaning 'repel, keep off', or 'torment', or the like, which does make the derivation of pravahisthah etc. from pra/badh difficult, though not impossible, on semantic grounds. But however pravahisthah in sanaih sanaih purvam pravahisthah is ultimately to be correctly explained, that the form was considered archaic or at least difficult is amply demonstrated by the variants pravahethah and pravahayethah, which are "normal" optative forms of pra/vah, in some manuscripts of Arunadatta's commentary on Ah, Sa 1.81, where the As passage is quoted (the Ah passage itself has pravaheta). Indu in his commentary on the As passage also glosses pravahisthah with pravahayethah. Even the "correct" injunctive form in ma pravahisthah (see above) seems to have occasioned difficulties, since the edition of Tarte mentions a variant ma pravahetha[h]. And in Su, sa 10.9, the parallel to Ca, Sa 8.40 we find pravahasva (also quoted above in 39) and pravahethah. 45. staimit'ya-? Su, Ka 5.49 ab runs: sophasosapratisyayatimirarucipinasan. Dalhana in his commentary says that Jejjata reads staimitya (or staimityam?) in the place of pratisyaya (pratisyayasthane jejjatacaryah staimityam pathati. atra staimityam niscalata). Since in this reading Dalhana ascribes to Jejjata one syllable is missing to complete the metre, we must ask whether Dalhana has simply not mentioned a padapuraka such as ca or the like, or whether in Jejjata's reading staimitya- is to be pronounced as staimit'ya-. I herewith tender my thanks to Prof.Dr. Srinivasa Ayya Srinivasan and Dr. Gerrit Jan Meulenbeld for commenting on drafts of these miscellanea. blu Ah As Ca Ci Das Delbruck Ghanekar ABBREVIATIONS Astangahrdaya (with the commentaries of Arunadatta and Hemadri), ed. Anna [sic] Moreswar Kunte and Krisna Ramchandra Sastri Navre, Bombay °1939. Astangasangraha (with the commentary of Indu), ed. Ti. Rudraparasava, Trichur 1913-1926. Carakasamhita (with the commentary of Cakrapanidatta), ed. Jadavaji Trikamji Acharya, Bombay 31941. Cikitsasthana/Cikitsitasthana. see p.6, footnote Bertold Delbruck, Altindische Syntax, reprint Darmstadt 1976. Bhaskar Govind Ghanekar, Susrutasamhita. Sutrasthanam. 'Ayurvedarahasyadipikakhyaya' vyakhyaya samullasita, [reprint] Nai Dilli 1977.

R.P. Das, Miscellanea de Operibus Ayurvedicis (II) 35 Goto Hilgenberg-Kirfel In Ka Mayrhofer Ni Renou Sa Si Siddhasara Speijer Su Su 855 Ut Vi Vrk Wackernagel-Debrunner II,1 Wackernagel-Debrunner II,2 Wackernagel-Debrunner III Toshifumi Goto, Die "I. Prasensklasse" im Vedischen. Untersuchung der vollstufigen thematischen Wurzelprasentia, Wien 1987. Luise Hilgenberg, Willibald Kirfel, Vagbhata's Astangahrdayasamhita. Ein altindisches Lehrbuch der Heilkunde, Leiden 1941. Indriyasthana. Kalpa(siddhi)sthana. Manfred Mayrhofer, Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindischen, Heidelberg 1956-1980. Nidanasthana. Louis Renou, Grammaire sanscrite, Paris 21961, reprint 1984. Sarirasthana. Siddhisthana. The Siddhasara of Ravigupta. Volume 1: The Sanskrit Text, ed. R.E. Emmerick, Wiesbaden 1980. J.S. Speijer, Sanskrit Syntax, reprint Delhi 1973. Susrutasamhita (with the commentaries of Dalhana and Gayadasa), ed. Jadavji Trikamji Acharya and Narayan Ram Acharya, Bombay 31938. Sutrasthana. Uttarasthana/Uttaratantra. Vimanasthana. Das Wissen von der Lebensspanne der Baume. Surapalas Vrksayurveda, ed. Rahul Peter Das, Stuttgart 1988. Jacob Wackernagel and Albert Debrunner, Altindische Grammatik II,1, Gottingen 21957. Idem II,2, Gottingen 1954. Idem III, Gottingen 1930.