A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s17.128

v1.c26.s17.128

There are, however, more compelling grounds for regarding the lexicographer as entirely different from the commentator. The quotations from a nighaṇṭu in the commentaries are, to be sure, not from a single, identifiable medical lexicon. Since these citations agree in a large number of cases with the Dhanvantarīyanighaṇṭu, it seems reasonable to assume that the commentator Indu did not compose a nighaṇṭu himself, which would otherwise certainly have been used in his interpretations of Vāgbhaṭa’s texts. Another argument for discarding the identity is furnished by the absence of agreements between the quotations from the *Indunighaṇṭu* and those found in Indu’s commentaries. The verses cited as coming from the *Indunighaṇṭu* do not form part of the *Dhanvantarīyanighaṇṭu* or *Aṣṭāṅganighaṇṭu*, which indicates that this *Indunighaṇṭu* is distinct from Indu’s source or sources in his commentaries. Consequently, the identity of the lexicographer and the commentator can be maintained only on the assumption that Indu wrote a nighaṇṭu after completing his commentaries, and, moreover, if the chronological position of the *Indunighaṇṭu* does not conflict with that of the *Śaśilekhā*.