Studies in the Medicine of Ancient India, Part I: Osteology, or the Bones of the Human Body c6.s3.t3.4.3

c6.s3.t3.4.3

for otherwise it is inconceivable how his recension should have obtained such paramount authority as to supersede every other recension, and to be the only one found in all existing manuscripts, and exclusively commented on in all known commentaries.¹ Chandraṭa certainly cannot be said to have held such a position. The only ancient medical author who by the uniform tradition of India holds a place equal to that of Charaka and Suśruta is Vāgbhaṭa I. He is the third in the traditional triad of great representatives of Indian medicine: Charaka, Suśruta, Vāgbhaṭa.² It has been shown (§§ 38, 39) that the principle on which the Traditional Recension of the statement of Suśruta is made is certainly one on which Vāgbhaṭa I worked in constructing his own statement. The conclusion therefore seems unavoidable that it was Vāgbhaṭa I who is the author of that Traditional Recension. The fact that the older recensions still existed in the fourth century A.D., at the date of the Law-book of Yājñavalkya, and the consideration that a sufficient interval must be conceded for the text to have fallen into such a state of corruption as to necessitate a thorough revision, or reconstruction, will accord with the early seventh century A.D. as the date of Vāgbhaṭa I, already suggested by other considerations (see § 2). It should, however, be distinctly understood that these conclusions regarding the date and authorship of Vāgbhaṭa I are not put forward as established facts.