A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c23.s5.3

v1.c23.s5.3

The Carakasaṃhitā does not only mention a medical authority called Dhanvantari, but also the dhānvantarīyāḥ, i.e., those belonging to the school of Dhanvantari. The two references to them are found in the chapter on the treatment of gulma, which derives from Caraka, not from Dṛḍhabala. The treatment of a ripe gulma is described as being part of the domain of the dhānvantarīyāḥ, who are experienced in puncturing (vyadha), cleansing (śodhana), and wound-healing (ropaṇa) (Ca.Ci.5.44); they are also said to be experts in cauterization (dāha; Ca.Ci.5.63cd). 320 These passages point to the abilities of surgical specialists in general, without implying an acquaintance with the Suśrutasaṃhitā, 321 which is proved by the fact that Suśruta disagrees with Caraka and rejects the occurrence of ripening (pāka) in cases of gulma. 322 Cakrapāṇidatta 323 appears to agree that Caraka had a particular school of surgeons, accepting a Dhanvantaritantra as their textbook, in mind, or surgeons in general. 324 Some Indian scholars are, in spite of the evidence to the contrary, convinced that the dhānvantarīyāḥ of the Carakasaṃhitā are surgeons adhering to the teachings of the Suśrutasaṃhitā. 325