A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c23.s2.28

v1.c23.s2.28

G. Hāldār 158 rejected Ḍalhaṇa’s claim and developed his own theory by distinguishing an early Suśruta, author of the Sauśrutatantra, and a Navīnasuśruta, who revised this tantra and made it into the Suśrutasaṃhitā. He regarded the quotations from a Vṛddhasuśruta as evidence proving that an earlier version of the saṃhitā once existed. He was also convinced that the early tantra dealt with all eight divisions of āyurveda and that the Uttaratantra has not been added later, but already formed part, in a shorter version, of the original work. The Navīnasuśruta, who revised the tantra and expanded it, was in his view Kāpilabala, the son of Kāpilabala, who lived during the reign of Kaniṣka in the second century A.D. 159 G. Hāldār repudiated Ḍalhaṇa’s identification of the reviser, arguing that Nāgārjuna, as a Buddhist, would have left traces of Buddhist thought in the Suśrutasaṃhitā; the absence of these vestiges made him see Ḍalhaṇa’s claim as untrustworthy.