Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T07:42:24.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contributions to the study of the Jīvaka-pustaka

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

R. E. Emmerick
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The India Office Library MS Ch ii 003 contains 73 folios of a medical text written alternatingly in Sanskrit and Khotanese. The folios are numbered from 44 to 116. Although the text ends in the middle of a Sanskrit recipe, the beginning of the text has survived. As no title and no colophon are extant and as the text has not been traced elsewhere H. W. Bailey assigned the text the convenient label Jwaka-pustaka ‘The Book of Jivaka’. The text begins as an exposition made by the Bhagavant to the famous physician Jīvaka, called elsewhere in Khotanese ‘the king of physicians’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 235 - 243
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The main conclusions of this article were made known in a German summary presented as a lecture under the title ‘Beiträge zum Jīvaka-pustaka’ at the XX. Deutscher Orientalistentag in Erlangen on 4.10.1977. The article was, however, conceived and written in honour of Professor Burrow in recognition of his valuable contributions to Indian and Central Asian studies.

The abbreviations and editions referred to are those listed in my earlier articles on Indian medicine in BSOAS, xxxiv, 1, 1971, 91–112., and XXXVII, 3, 1974, 628–54. In addition note the following:

Amarakosa of Amarasimha, ed. H. Śāstrī (Kāśī Sanskrit Series, 198), Varanasi, 1970. Tibetan version: The Amarakosa in Tibet, ed. Lokesh Chandra (Śatapitaka, XXXVIII), New Delhi, 1965.

Anantakumara, Yogaratnasamuccaya, Pt. 3, ed. V. A. R. Śāstrī (University of Travancore, Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, 152), Trivandrum, 1947.

Bheda = Bhela-samhita, ed. Girijādayālu Śukla (Vidyābhavan Āyurveda Granthamāla, 25), Varanasi, 1959.

M = Mādhava.

N = Nāvanītakam or The Bower manuscript, ed. K. B. Singh Mohan, Lahore, 1925.

Paris = The Paris Siddhasara described by me in BSOAS, XXXVII, 3, 1974, 636. Meantime, I have received photographs kindly taken for me in Madras by Prof. Dr. O. von Hiniiber, Mainz, of the original Madras MS from which the Cordier MS was copied: Madras R. No. 799. This MS differs from the Cordier MS in that it contains additional matter in Telugu script. The initial pages were kindly examined for me by Prof. Dr. S. A. Srinivasan, Hamburg. They seem to contain no information concerning the compilation of the MS. but make it likely that it was opied from a still earlier MS in Nāgarī script.

Śā. = Śārngadhara-sarnhitā, ed. Dayāśańkara Pāndeya (Haridas Sanskrit Series, 151), Varanasi, 1966.

Sodhala, Oadanigraha, 2 vols., ed. Gańgā. Sahāya Pāndeya (Kāśī Sanskrit Series, 182), Varanasi, 1968–9.

References

2 jīvai vijā re (Mañj 358 KBT 131).

3 A medical text in Khotanese, Ch. II 003 of the India Office Library, with translation and vocabulary, ed. Konow, S.,Oslo 1941 (Avhandlinger utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, n/Hist.-Filos. Klasse 1940, No. 4)Google Scholar .

4 ibid., p. 6.

5 JA, ccxxxv, 1946–1947, 134–5Google Scholar .

6 Additional verses found in MS A of the Siddhasāra.

7 BSOAS, XXXVIII, 3, 1975, 649–50Google Scholar ; Indologica Taurinensia, III–IV, 1975–1976 [1977], 209–21Google Scholar .

8 Indologica Taurinensia, ibid.

9 Note the similarity between the kātfijsa recipe in Ch ii 002 100 v 4–5 and that in P 2893.186–9 KT 3.90.

10 As also in the Tibetan translation of Vāgbhata, e.g.karsa at Ci. 5.56; 9.113 tr. źo gñis (Peking 154 a 3; 171 b 5). In Vagbh., Sū. 19.44 karsārdham ‘½ karsa’ is also rendered źo gnis (Peking 60 b 7), but the rendering may imply a reading karsāmśam, although the reading karsārdharn is the only one attested and it is also confirmed by the commentaries of Indu and Paramesvara, as kindly pointed out to me by Prof. Dr. C. Vogel, Bonn. In Si. 13.21 źo gnis gñis corresponds to Skt. prakuñca, which is there the equivalent of pala according to the commentators and as would be expected from Vāgbh., Ka. 6.27. The reason for the discrepancy is not clear.

11 Cf. Pathak, R. R., Therapeutic guide to Ayurvedic medicine, Varanasi, 1970, 261 Google Scholar : ‘Milk if mentioned should be four times of the ghee’.

12 So also [41] 84 v 3; but see below.

13 So also [41] 84 r 5.

14 It is not possible to draw any conclusions from the proportions of milk to ghee, as it is exceptional to find as in [18] and [33] that the proportion is milk 4 to ghee 1. There is always at least as much milk as ghee except in [22] 67 v 3, where the proportions are ghee 1 satfiga to milk 4 śimga. Here samga is presumably a mistake for śiniga.

15 So also in the Tibetan translation of Vagbh.: Icha-ra sraii brgyad (Peking 171 b 6).

16