Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c5.s1.26

c5.s1.26

¹ It is true that the commentator Vijaya Rakshita (c. 1240 A. D.), in an explanatory statement on *Nidāna* (ed. Jīv., p. 147), xxii, 5, ll. 1, 2 = *Caraka Saṃhitā*, *Cikitsita Sthāna*, xxviii, ver. 24 (Jīv., p. 773), apparently implies the posteriority of Mādhava to Dṛḍhabala. But it should be observed that the object of Vijaya Rakshita is not to make a chronological, but an exegetical statement. The chronological implication may not have been intended by him, even assuming that in the thirteenth century the exact chronological relation of Mādhava to Dṛḍhabala was still within the knowledge of medical writers.