One more verse from the Sanskrit version of Bodhicaryāvatāra.
pradhūpitairdhautamalairatulyairvastraiśca
teṣāṃ tanumunmṛṣāmi /
tataḥ suraktāni sudhūpitāni
dadāmi tebhyo varacīvarāṇi // Bca_2.12 //
pradhūpitair=I.pl. perfumed
dhautamalair=I.pl. clean
atulyair=I.pl. by/with unequalled
vastraiś=I.pl. with clothes
ca=and
teṣāṃ=G.pl. of them
tanum=Ac.sg. the form, body
unmṛṣāmi=pres.1.sg. I rub
with clean and perfumed clothes the bodies of them I rub.
tataḥ= thereafter
suraktāni=Ac.pl. well colored
sudhūpitāni=Ac.pl well incenced/perfumed
dadāmi=pres.1.sg I offer/present
tebhyo=D.pl. to them
varacīvarāṇi=Ac.pl. royal robes(cīvara)
With clean and perfumed clothes the bodies of them I rub/dry.
Thereafter, I offer them royal garments well perfumed and excellent colored.
4 comments:
Vaidya reads "ghautamalaiḥ" in a, for ghautamala- I found (somewhere) "flawless".
"unmṛṣāmi" in b is a little bit strange, "ud-mṛjāmi" would be better.
Hi Dan,
indeed is pretty easy do mistake "dha" with "gha" at least in Devanāgarī (I don't know about other scripts) so there is no wander.
I have used GRETIL transcript that is identical with the scanned "" edition. These are the only sources I have.
unmṛṣāmi gave me headaches and pañjikā was of not much help for me.
In the scanned document on this is a note that saids "M. alone has the correct reading: unmṛjāmi. - unmṛṣāmi ?"
I forgot to say, between those quotes, what scanned edition I have.
Is the one edited by Louis de la Valee Poussin and publised in 1904 in Calcutta
Yes, gha/dha confusion is reasonable, don't know what seems really the better word. M. could mean "Minaev", in that edition (1889) it's also "unmRSAmi" (p. 158), but in the footnote there is evidence for a solely reading of "unmRjAmi" in one of the three mss Minaev consulted ("M." / "Minaev" - ms in the private possession of him). Would you share/trade the La Valee Poussin scan (uzstzm@uni-bonn.de) ?
Greetings,
Daniel Stender
Post a Comment