2. The apacíts that are on the neck, likewise those that are along the sides, the apacíts that are on the perineum (? vijā́man), self-deciduous.
In translating the obscure vijā́man, the comm. is followed; he says viçeṣeṇa jāyate ‘patyam atre ’ti vijāmā guhyapradeçaḥ; Ludwig renders it "knöchel." Upapakṣyās he paraphrases with upapakṣe pakṣasamīpa upakakṣe bhavāḥ.
3. He that crushes up the breast-bone (? kī́kasās), [that] descends to the sole (?)—the whole jāyánya have I cast out, also whatever one is set in the top.
That is, apparently, has become seated in the head (or the prominence at the base of the neck behind?); Ppp. reads kaçcit kakudhi. The obscure talīdyàm is here translated according to Bloomfield's suggestion in AJP. xi. 329 or JAOS. xv. p. xlvii. The comm. explains the word as follows: talid ity antikanāma: antike bhavaṁ talīdyam:...asthisamīpagatam māṅsam: a worthless guess; Ppp. reads talābhyām,* which might mean 'palms' or 'soles.' For nír ā́stam in c was conjectured nír-astam in the AV. Index—not successfully, on account of the gender of jāyānya (m.). Ludwig proposes nir āstham, and Bloomfield ⌊l.c.⌋ does the same; this seems acceptable (whatever the real origin of āstham), and the translation follows it. ⌊For the "root asth," see note to xiii. 1. 5 below.⌋ The comm., however, reads nír hās (hār, from the root hṛ: = nir haratu) tám, which SPP. accepts, thinking that the comm. "has doubtless preserved the genuine reading" (!), and he even admits it into his text. The comm. further reads prasṛṇāti in a, and cit for ca in d. He calls the jāyā́nya a rājayakṣma, and also regards it as identical with the jāyénya of TS., and quotes the TS. passage (ii. 3. 52) that explains the origin of the latter: yáj jāyā́bhyó ‘vindat; he states it thus: sa ca jāyāsambandhena prāpnoti, or nirantarajāyāsambhogena jāyamānam; this might be understood as pointing to a venereal disease; R. conjectures gout. *⌊in fact, R's Collation gives talābhyam: W. seems to take it as a slip for -bhyām.—Further, this is followed by upa-, not ava-.⌋
4. Having wings, the jāyánya flies; it enters into a man; this is the remedy of both, of the ákṣita and of the súkṣata.
Ppp. has in b yā viçati (i.e. ya ā v-) pāu-, and lacks c, d. The meaning of the words ákṣita and súkṣata is very doubtful and much disputed. They seem most likely to be two kinds of jāyānya, as the intrusion of any other ⌊malady⌋ here would be very harsh. Yet it is also much to be questioned whether the two half-verses belong together. Their discordance of form is strange: one would expect an antithesis of akṣita and sukṣita, or else of akṣata and sukṣata. In fact, the comm. reads sukṣita, and explains the two as meaning respectively çarīre cirakālāvasthānarahitasya and cirakālam avasthitasya, or, alternatively, as ahiṅsakasya çarīram açoṣayataḥ and çarīragatasarvadhātūn suṣṭhu niḥçeṣaṁ çoṣayataḥ. Ludwig's translation accords with the former of these two explanations. Zimmer and Bloomfield, on the other hand, would emend to akṣatasya, Bloomfield quoting for akṣata from both the Kāuçika and its commentary and from the later Hindu medicine; his rendering, however, 'not caused by cutting' and 'sharply cut,' is unacceptable, since kṣan does not mean distinctively 'cut,' but more nearly 'bruise.' There is no variation of reading in the mss. as regards the two words; and it seems extremely unlikely that, if they once agreed, they should have become thus dissimilated.
5 (81. 1). We know, indeed, O jāyā́nya, thine origin (jā́na), whence, O jāyā́nya, thou art born ⌊jā́yase⌋; how shouldst thou smite there, in whose house we perform oblation?
