A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c20.s3.69

v1.c20.s3.69

Hoernle developed his arguments from a comparison of the chapters on gulma in the Carakasamhitā, Astāngasamgraha (attributed by him to Vāgbhata I) and Astāngahrdayasamhitā (attributed to Vāgbhata II, and supposed to be later than his namesake). His assertion that Ca.Ni.3.16 must be regarded as Drdhabala’s version of A.S.Ci.16.2 stems from his thesis that the former passage is an interpolation and cannot have belonged to Caraka’s original text, a supposition resulting from Hoernle’s belief that Caraka’s text was devoid of inconsistencies. The same line of thought made Hoernle claim that Ca.Ci.5.172–182 consists of Drdhabala’s versification of a passage in prose found in A.s.Ci.16.605