Amarakoshodghatana of Kshirasvamin (study)
by A. Yamuna Devi | 2012 | 77,297 words | ISBN-13: 9788193658048
This page relates ‘Flora (7): Shrubs’ of the study on the Amarakoshodghatana of Kshirasvamin (in English) which represents a commentary on the Amarakosha of Amarasimha. These ancient texts belong the Kosha or “lexicography” category of Sanskrit literature which deals with the analysis and meaning of technical words from a variety of subjects, such as cosmology, anatomy, medicine, hygiene. The Amarakosa itself is one of the earliest of such text, dating from the 6th century A.D., while the Amarakoshodghatana is the earliest known commentary on that work.
Flora (7): Shrubs
(a) Kuraṇṭaka (II. 6. 74; p. 99):
The yellow variety of amlāna is never fading as the name denotes.
Kṣīrasvāmin rightly observes that Vātsyāyana suggests that a garland of kuraṇṭaka was to adorn certain parts of the body (a kūrcakasthāna)—
kuraṇṭako hi mlāniṃ na gacchati tenāmlānaḥ |
vātsyāyano'ta eva kūrcakasthane kuraṇṭakamalācetyaha |
(b) Vāśikā (II. 4. 103-4; p. 107):
Vaidyamātṛ is one of the synonyms of vāśikā. Kṣīrasvāmin observes that since it is used by physicians for curing many diseases it is called so–vaidyānāṃ māteva rogajitvāt |
(c) Bṛhatī (II. 4. 94; p. 104):
Amarakośa mentions bṛhatī and nidigdhikā as synonyms. Kṣīrasvāmin remarks that Amara was mislead by Bhāguri’s statement in giving the two as synonyms. He is supported by Dhanvantari.
Kṣīrasvāmin emphasises that the two are entirely different from each other—
bṛhatī tu nidigdhiketi bhāguri vākyād granthakṛd bhrāntaḥ |
yataḥ ānayormahān bhedaḥ |
kaṇṭakārī tu duḥsparśā kṣudrā vyāghrī nidigdhikā |
kaṇṭālikā kaṇṭakārī dhāvanī duḥpradarśinīti |
bṛhatī siṃhyanākrāntā vārtākī rāṣṭrikā kulī |
viśadāsthūlabhāṇṭākī mahatī tu mahoṭikā |
bhāgurirdvayorbṛhatītvaṃ manyate yacchāśvataḥ—
kṣudrāyāṃ kṣudravārtakyāṃ bṛhatī chandasi kvacit |
?[™]rthe pracodanī kaṇṭakārikā durālabhā ca |
More over bṛhatī and kaṇṭakārī are generally described as two varieties in Ayurvedic texts. Their medicinal properties also vary accordingly.
(d) Hareṇu (II. 4. 121; p. 111):
Also called kauntī as it was believed to be given to Kunti by sage Durvāsa–
kuntyā durvāsasā dattā kauntī ||
(e) Prapauṇḍarīkam (II. 4. 128; p. 113):
Kṣīrasvāmin observes that according to Gauḍa this Prapauṇḍarīkam was a variety of terrestrial lotus–
sthalapadmamiti gauḍaḥ |
(f) Barbarā (II. 4. 140; p. 116):
Kṣīrasvāmin observes that barbarā is a potherb. Its appearance is that of a short wavy, hair like growth–
śāko'yaṃ varvarā kuṭilahrasvakeśābhā āta eva kavarī |