saMmiYjayati
saṃmiñjayati (= Pali °jeti, also written samiñjeṭi; connected with un-minj-, ni-miñj- , and prec. and next; in mss. and edd. also written samiñj-, but incorrectly, see below), bends back, draws in, contracts , parts of the body, esp. the arms; always assoc. with its opposite prasārayati ( Skt. ), extends : saṃmiñjitaṃ (vā) bāhuṃ (in Mv oftener °tāṃ … bāhāṃ) prasāraye(t, once °yeya) prasāritaṃ (vā, or ca) bāhuṃ (the noun may be omitted; Mv oftener °tāṃ … bāhāṃ) saṃmiñjaye(t) Mv i.55.1, 14 ; 56.8 ; iii.425.15, 22 ; 450.16 ; Mmk 3.26 ; Divy 473.6 ; Waldschmidt, Kl. Skt. Texte 4 , 65.20 (Śakrapraśnasūtra, acc. to p. 5 , ms. saṃmiñcita, but text prints saṃmiñj°); 157.18 ( Mahāsamāj. ); (yato care yato tiṣṭhe yato āse yato śaye, so Senart em. ,) yato saṃmiñjaye kāyaṃ yato kāyaṃ prasāraye Mv iii.422.(16—)17 (so Senart , em. , but prob. rightly), in a description of a bhikṣu, whenever he draws in or extends (any member of) his body . Leumann, Album Kern 393 f. , adopts an earlier suggestion of Kern ʼs and derives from sam-vṛj-. He rightly distinguishes this verb from Pali sam-iñjati ( Dhp. 81 , na samiñjanti paṇḍitā), is moved, is perturbed ; cf. BHS iñjate . But when Leumann states that this sam-iñjati, in its Pali mg. , is also found in BHS , I fear that he was speaking carelessly. The only cases of sam-iñj- which I have noted are shown by association with forms of prasār- to be false readings for saṃmiñj-; such cases also occur in Pali ( PTSD ). The only ‘confusion’ shown by BHS in this sept consists in the erroneous writing of samiñj- for saṃmiñj- (which Leumann also recognizes). Leumann ʼs etym. seems to me at least more plausible than any other, including that of Lüders ( s.v. samarjana ). That double mm (or ṃm), not single m, is the only correct form is proved by un-miñj- and nimiñj-, neither of which occurs in Pali ; Leumann considers them (as he must according to his etymology) secondarily abstracted from saṃ-miñj-. I have found no trace of the sept elsewhere.