A History of Sanskrit Literature c34.s2.13

c34.s2.13

The *Bhela Saṃhitā*³ is preserved in a single, very defective manuscript. It contains the same divisions as the *Caraka Saṃhitā*, and what is preserved is mainly in Çlokas, with a limited amount of prose. Where comparison with the *Caraka Saṃhitā* is possible, there seems no doubt that the *Bhela*, which knows Suçruta, presents an inferior tradition. As regards osteology Hoernle⁴ holds that a third version of the system of Ātreya, in addition to those of Caraka and Bhela, is to be found in the *Yājñavalkya* and *Viṣṇu Smṛtis* and the *Viṣṇudharmottara* and *Agni Purāṇas*, but the provenance of this list in *Yājñavalkya* must be regarded as uncertain in the extreme. Moreover, the conclusion drawn by Hoernle as to the original account of Ātreya and its relations to these later versions must be held to be vitiated by an excessive number of suggested corrections resting on modern knowledge of the true number and kinds of bones in the human body.⁵