Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t11: § 15. The Recensions of the Non-medical Version

Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s1.t11

Language
English

§ 15. The Recensions of the Non-medical Version

c6.s1.t11.1

1. The evidence given in the preceding paragraph renders it practically certain that the Law-book of Yājñavalkya is the original source of the Non-medical Version, from which it passed into the Institutes of Vishnu, and into the two Purāṇas. With regard to the two latter, there can be no doubt on this point, seeing that their versified statements of the Non-medical Version (original Texts and Translations, in § 86) are mere copies of the versified statement in the Law-book of Yājñavalkya. The case of the Institutes of Vishnu might at first seem doubtful because of its statement of the Non-medical Version being in prose, while that in the Law-book is in verse. But it will be shown in § 22 that, while in essentials the two statements are identical, their points of difference indicate that the author of the statement in the Institutes of Vishnu must have been familiar with the statement in the Law-book of Yājñavalkya. The fact, therefore, of his making his statement in prose and in very concise terms must be explained by his desire to write it in conformity with the general character of the diction of the Institutes.

c6.s1.t11.2

2. On account of their essential identity, the four examples may be considered to represent a single recension of the Non-medical Version, of which the example contained in the Law-book of Yājñavalkya forms the representative type. As such the latter will be treated in the sequel of the present dissertation. There exists, however, a rather different recension of the Non-medical Version—differing in essential points regarding terminology as well as numeration—in the commentary of Gaṅgādhar which accompanies his edition of Charaka’s Compendium (Śārīra Sthāna, pp. 187, 188). It becomes necessary, therefore, again to inquire into the evidence of the genuineness of the two recensions. Briefly stated the case is similar to that of the two recensions of the Medical Version in Charaka’s Compendium.

c6.s1.t11.3

§ 15] RECENSIONS OF NON-MEDICAL VERSION

c6.s1.t11.4

For the recension of Gaṅgādhar there exists—so far as my knowledge goes—not a single MS. authority, while all MSS. that I have been able to examine, and all old commentaries, at present known, support the recension as given in the published editions of the two legal treatises and the Agni Purāṇa.¹ These are: Professor Stenzler’s edition of the Yājñavalkya Dharmaśāstra (London, 1849), verses 84–90 of the third chapter (adhyāya), on pp. 89, 90 (translated on pp. 98, 99); Professor Jolly’s edition of the Viṣṇu Smṛti in the Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta, 1881), clauses 55–79 of the 96th section, on pp. 196, 197 (translated in the Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, pp. 283–5); Dr. Rajendralal Mitra’s edition of the Agni Purāṇa, in the Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta, 1879), verses 27 b–33 of the 369th chapter, on pp. 308–9 of the third volume. The MSS. (twelve and eight respectively) which support the published recensions contained in the Institutes of Vishnu and the Agni Purāṇa have been already enumerated in the preceding paragraph. It remains to enumerate the MSS. of the Law-book of Yājñavalkya which I have examined. There are fifteen of these, and they all support the published recension. They are the following:

c6.s1.t11.5

¹ The statement in the Vishnu Dharmottara Purāṇa has not yet been published.

c6.s1.t11.6

1. India Office, No. 1079
2. ,, No. 2035 } with the Mitaksharā
3. ,, No. 2060 } commentary.
4. ,, No. 3022, with Aparārka’s commentary.
5. ,, No. 1278, with Śūlapāṇi’s ,,
6. ,, No. 1176, with Mitra Miśra’s ,, 7–10. ,, Nos. 1786, 2074, 2167, 2823.
11. ,, No. 23 (50), S. M. Tagore Collection.
12. Bodleian Library, No. 55.
13. Asiatic Society of Bengal, No. I B. 51. 14, 15. ,, ,, ,, No. II A. 10, 11.

c6.s1.t11.7

3. Of old commentaries on the Law-book of Yājñavalkya we have four.² The oldest is the Mitaksharā (Mitākṣarā) written by Vijñāneśvara (*Vijñāneśvara*), who lived about 1100 A. D. A near contemporary of his is Aparārka or Aparāditya, who wrote his commentary about 1150 A. D. Rather later comes Śūlapāṇi in the fifteenth, and Mitra Miśra in the seventeenth century A. D.¹ The latter two commentators follow the lead of the Mitaksharā, while Aparārka, in many points, takes a line of his own; but all four comment on a text which was identical with the published recension.

c6.s1.t11.8

² There exists a fifth commentary by Viśvarūpa, which is still older than the Mitākṣarā, and has been described by Professor Jolly in the Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 1904, Heft 4. Only one MS. of it appears to be known, which, however, is not accessible to me.

c6.s1.t11.9

¹ See Professor Jolly's *Recht und Sitte*, p. 33, in the Cyclopaedia of Indo-Aryan Research.

c6.s1.t11.10

4. On the Institutes of Vishnu we have the commentary of Nanda Paṇḍita, called *Vaijayantī*, which was written in 1622 A. D.,² and which supports the published recension of the text.

c6.s1.t11.11

² For the date, see Professor Jolly's edition, Preface, p. i; also his Translation, in the *Sacred Books of the East*, volume vii, Introduction, p. xxxiii.

Cites (6)