DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.29591#0359
Commentary: Chap. 20
355
of the medical science quoted by the philosophic writers, e. g. Vyasa
ad Y. S. II, 15 (cp. Madhava Sarvadars. p. 143 &c.): yathci cikit-
s as as tram caturvyuham rogo rogahetur arogyam bliciisajyam iti &c.
28. S. records the various reading: cinuttara-m-anuvvayci.
29. S. mentions that there is a various reading to this verse,
but it is not at all clear to me how it runs.
30. Here as in Vv. 24. 25 vimoei (vimoeti A) must be the
correct reading, not vimoyanti as the younger Mss. have it. I
have not quoted this as a varia lectio, as it is clearly only a
mistake arising from negligence. The word phittai is explained
by apayciti in D.; it is phittai bhrasyati in He. IV, 177 (cp. phidai
ibd.). Cp. J. J. Meyer Hindu Tales p. 92 n. 1.
31. cihamsu cp. Pischel § 5:8. — dukkhamd is explained in
the comm, by duhsahah; it probably represents Set. duh-ksama-
(not in the dictionary).
32. saim is = scikrt (Pischel § 181).
35. This verse does not seem to be treated by the comm.,
but I cannot find this a sufficient reason for rejecting it (cp. note
on v. II above).
36. About kudascimali cp. XIX, 52 supra; about -sdmali cp.
Pischel § 88 who records also the form sdmari.
38. Jacobi (SBE. XLV, p. 104 n. 2) probably is right in
suggesting that the Vv. 38—53 do not belong to the original
chapter.
39. plicisayai is = sparsciyati. Forms with uncontracted -aya-
(instead of -e-) are not very common according to Pischel § 490.
40. dlura0 is also the reading in D.
41. klesayitva loccldind bddhayitvd D.
42. poll a- is explained by antahsusira ’hollow in the middle’;
but J. J. Meyer Hindu Tales p. 129 n. 5 thinks that it more
likely means ’knotted, bunched’ on account of poll ay a- or pollara-
(Ausg. Erz. p. 36, 34), which ought to have this sense. However,
hollo’w’ would certainly suit our passage much better, and I find
no reason to reject the explanation of the comm. — ayantie -
ayantritah is not clearly explained by D. {yathci hy asciu [kiita-
karsdpano\ na kena cit kutatvena niryantryate), cp. SBE. XLV,
p. 105, n. 3. — rdclhdmanih = kdcamanih; I do not know this word
from elsewhere.
ArchOr. Charpentier
23
355
of the medical science quoted by the philosophic writers, e. g. Vyasa
ad Y. S. II, 15 (cp. Madhava Sarvadars. p. 143 &c.): yathci cikit-
s as as tram caturvyuham rogo rogahetur arogyam bliciisajyam iti &c.
28. S. records the various reading: cinuttara-m-anuvvayci.
29. S. mentions that there is a various reading to this verse,
but it is not at all clear to me how it runs.
30. Here as in Vv. 24. 25 vimoei (vimoeti A) must be the
correct reading, not vimoyanti as the younger Mss. have it. I
have not quoted this as a varia lectio, as it is clearly only a
mistake arising from negligence. The word phittai is explained
by apayciti in D.; it is phittai bhrasyati in He. IV, 177 (cp. phidai
ibd.). Cp. J. J. Meyer Hindu Tales p. 92 n. 1.
31. cihamsu cp. Pischel § 5:8. — dukkhamd is explained in
the comm, by duhsahah; it probably represents Set. duh-ksama-
(not in the dictionary).
32. saim is = scikrt (Pischel § 181).
35. This verse does not seem to be treated by the comm.,
but I cannot find this a sufficient reason for rejecting it (cp. note
on v. II above).
36. About kudascimali cp. XIX, 52 supra; about -sdmali cp.
Pischel § 88 who records also the form sdmari.
38. Jacobi (SBE. XLV, p. 104 n. 2) probably is right in
suggesting that the Vv. 38—53 do not belong to the original
chapter.
39. plicisayai is = sparsciyati. Forms with uncontracted -aya-
(instead of -e-) are not very common according to Pischel § 490.
40. dlura0 is also the reading in D.
41. klesayitva loccldind bddhayitvd D.
42. poll a- is explained by antahsusira ’hollow in the middle’;
but J. J. Meyer Hindu Tales p. 129 n. 5 thinks that it more
likely means ’knotted, bunched’ on account of poll ay a- or pollara-
(Ausg. Erz. p. 36, 34), which ought to have this sense. However,
hollo’w’ would certainly suit our passage much better, and I find
no reason to reject the explanation of the comm. — ayantie -
ayantritah is not clearly explained by D. {yathci hy asciu [kiita-
karsdpano\ na kena cit kutatvena niryantryate), cp. SBE. XLV,
p. 105, n. 3. — rdclhdmanih = kdcamanih; I do not know this word
from elsewhere.
ArchOr. Charpentier
23