A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c23.s2.31

v1.c23.s2.31

Yādavaśarman¹⁶⁶ refused to acknowledge the Uttaratantra as a later addition to the Suśrutasaṃhitā. This scholar adduces as an argument in support of his thesis that the Harivaṃśa¹⁶⁷ describes Dhanvantari as having divided the āyurveda into eight branches and taught it to his pupils; this implies that he also gave instruction in the subjects dealt with in the Uttaratantra. The thesis that Dhanvantari’s teachings, embodied in the Suśrutasaṃhitā, comprise all the divisions of āyurveda and not only surgery (śalya), is thought to be supported by the verse (Sū.1.21) where Dhanvantari proclaims that he has re-appeared in the world in order to teach śalya, along with the other aṅgas.¹⁶⁸ Ḍalhaṇa’s reference to the commentators Sukīra and Sudhīra, who regarded particular verses of the Uttaratantra (U.58.58–65ab) as genuine (ārṣa), is considered to constitute additional evidence, as well as a verse of the Uttaratantra (U.40.7), where Kāśirāja defends his own view against that of other authorities. Yādavaśarman arrives at the conclusion that the original Uttaratantra got partially lost and was completed again by some later author (a Nāgārjuna or a member of Suśruta’s school); an alternative possibility is that it was a rather short work, expanded later.