Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 10 of 24 items for :
- Author or Editor: Gyula Wojtilla x
- Arts and Humanities x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Klaus Mylius: Das altindische Opfer. Ausgewählte Aufsätze und Rezensionen. Mit einem Nachtrag zum „Wörterbuch des altindischen Rituals“. Wichtrach (Schweiz), Institut für Indologie, 2000. 588 pp. Klaus Mylius: Langenscheidts Handwörterbuch Sanskrit-Deutsch. Berlin-München-Wien-Zürich-New York, Langenscheidt, 2001. 583 pp. Älteste indische Dichtung und Prosa. Vedische Hymnen, Legenden, Zauberlieder, philosophische und ritualistische Lehren. Hrsg. von Klaus Mylius. Leipzig, Edition Erata, 2002. 187 pp. Natural Symbolism in Indian Literatures. Ed. by J. Vacek. Prague, Signetta, 2000. 286 pp.
The paper presents an exhaustive list of plant names in the Kāśyapīyakrsisūkti, the most important Sanskrit treatise on agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry dated from the early medieval period. The Sanskrit names are given with full reference to the verses where they appear and together with the up-to-date botanical terms and occasionally with the current English names.
KA II, 11, 28–41 is the earliest extant Sanskrit text on ratnaśāstra ‘gemmology’. It is a branch of traditional science and it reflects a great deal of experimental knowledge of jewellers. The present paper analyses the structure of the established text, seeks for an answer why the passages concerning diamond follow the list of the precious stones proper and why emerald is missing. The readings offered by the manuscripts and commentaries have been rechecked and the Kangle’s text has been revised at places. The revised portions of the text have been retranslated and accompanied with the necessary notes. From our investigations it has become clear that the extant text is very loosely edited and highly problematic; the text presents a mixture of vārttāśāstra (textbook of economy) and ratnaśāstra ; there are terminological inconsistencies; it seems that gemmology had existed before the edition of the KA and the place of birth of this science was South India.
The study fills the gaps in the lingustical database bearing on agriculture in the age of the Ŗgveda. Several corrections of existing standpoints have been made concerning purely philological issues as well as the semantical field of certain agricultural terms. The unbiassed reassessment of etymology of some terms reveals that beside the terms of Indo-European origin there are terms from extinct languages while the number of items of Dravidian origin is meagre and the Austro-Asiatic influence can be excluded. Language contacts with the Bactria-Margiana Complex (BMAC) must be taken into consideration. The all-around analysis of lingustic data and archaeological evidence together with the observations of historical ethnography allows us to form a more balanced view of economic conditions: although pastoralism played a dominant part in the life of Indo-Aryan speakers in the Panjab in the second half of the second millennium B.C., agriculture including wheat production gained also an established position in the region. Both the negligence and the overestimation of agriculture in this system are erroneous viewpoints.
The description of the plough in the Kṛṣiparāśara has been a puzzle for generations of Sanskrit philologists. What especially pained me was the disfunctional character of this description: among the eight essential parts the ploughshare was missing. The turning up of an until now unknown manuscript from The Library of Congress has brought a basic change: it contains the expected reading phālikā “ploughshare” for pāśikā an otherwise meaningful term “rope” that could have been adjusted to the context only by rather strained explanations.The present paper throws light on the problems concerned in the textual tradition and offers a solution.
The present paper offers a complete inventory of authoritative passages in Sanskrit and Prakrit texts on gemmology and Sanskrit lexicons where emerald is dealt with. Fresh light is thrown on the hotly debated issue whether the description of beryl in the Arthaśāstra II, 11, 30 contains an indirect reference to emerald. The Sanskrit names of emerald are analysed and commented on. Texts revealing the history of emerald and its origin are put to the test, and the evident mistakes prevalent in the special literature are corrected. Finally, a peculiar belief on the magic power of emerald is analysed within a wider context.
