'Siva and Ak.sapaada

[mhcrxlc at dir.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk]

Nobumi Iyanaga writes:

>The "translation" of 'Samkara by "Chain of Bones" is very strange.
>The Dictionary Mochizuki (p. 2562c-2563a) tries to explain this
>anomaly by saying that the sk. word for "Chain of Bones" being
>"asthi-'s.rnkhalaa" (which became in prakrit [?] "a.t.thi-'sankhalaa")
> while the prakrit [?] form of 'Samkara is "Sankara", so that the two
>("'sankhalaa" and "Sankara") have been confounded to result this
>"translation".  Is this plausible...??

Yes. In Eastern prakrits r and l both become l. The form sa.mkala(a)
'chain' occurs in Ardhamaagadhii, where 'Sa.mkara would be Sa.mkala. So it
is clear that the two words could be identical in form in some Middle
Indian dialects.

Pali has a.t.thi-kankala (cf. kankaala), a.t.thika-sa.mkhalikaa,
a.t.thi-sa.mkhalikaa. I suppose this suggests that some confusion of the
forms might have occurred. BHS has asthi-'sakalaa, asthi-'sankalaa,
asthi-'sa.mkalikaa, etc.

> By the way,
>what means "asthi-'s.rnkhalaa" in fact ?  The expression "chain of
>bones" (or "bones chained up each other") appears sometimes in the
>Chinese Buddhist texts; if my memory serves me, I remember to have
>read somewhere (I forgot the reference) that Naaraaya.na has "bones
>chained up each other" so that he is extremely strong...

skeleton.

Lance Cousins

MANCHESTER, UK
Telephone (UK): 0161 434 3646