A History of Indian Medical Literature v1.c26.s17.46

v1.c26.s17.46

Some are of the opinion that Aruṇa not only commented on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya, but on the Aṣṭāṅgasaṃgraha too.⁷³ The solution of the problem whether or not Aruṇadatta wrote a commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha depends on the interpretation of a single reference in Dalhaṇa’s Nibandhasaṃgraha (ad Su.Ka.1.30). Dalhaṇa’s contrasts the interpretation of the term akṣivairāgya,74 given by Gayin (= Gayadāsa), with the views of the Saṃgraha and Aruṇa. This remark has been seen as pointing to a commentary on the Saṃgraha by Aruṇa,75 although it places the Saṃgraha and Aruṇa side by side, without establishing a relationship between them. The term akṣivairāgya occurs in the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdayasaṃhitā (Sū.7.16) in the same context as in the Suśrutasaṃhitā, and is explained by Aruṇa in a sense that is close to Dalhaṇa’s reference, albeit not literally the same. The Aṣṭāṅgasamgraha (Sū.8.12) does not employ the word akṣivairāgya, but an expression related to the wording of Aruṇa’s remark. This proves, in my view, that Dalhaṇa refers to the Saṃgraha and Aruṇadatta’s commentary on the Aṣṭāṅgahṛdaya.76 P.V. Sharma,77 however, considers Dalhaṇa’s remark to be a reference to the lexicographer Aruṇa.