A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s17.37

v1.c26.s17.37

This commentary is a valuable and interesting work. It is obviously based on Candranandana’s Padārthacandrikā, large parts of which are literally reproduced,³ but adds much new material and is richer in references and quotations. Candranandana’s views are not always blindly followed. Many passages show that Aruṇa had his own ideas, for example on the identity of medicinal plants.⁴ The text of the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya, accepted by Aruṇadatta, differs at places from the version preferred by Candranandana.⁵